Eldaron Imotholin wrote on Mar 13, 2010, 12:35:
I have not yet seen anything PhysX can that Havok or whatever can't do. Seriously, I've even watched PhysX promo trailers with showing splitscreen the game with and without PhysX. It was like playing "Find It" on hardcore.
Fuck PhysX. No one would really miss it if it would simply stop existing.
Have never seen a Havok game.
Or if it used Havok, never noticed.
PhysX is noticeable, and it was really well implemented in Batman:AA.
Dunno where you're seeing PhysX-level Havok effects, but I'd be interested to find out.
finga wrote on Mar 13, 2010, 12:21:
Seems pretty simple right now. ATI is delivering better raw performance for the money at several price points, and nVidia knows they're not going to win on that this generation, so they've been pushing their proprietary, closed features as an alternative. Hence we see nVidia trying to dominate the conversation with talk of 3DVision and PhysX.
For me, Eyefinity is just as interesting of a feature as 3DVision in-game, but 1) 3DVision can cause headaches and offers no gameplay advantage, and 2) Eyefinity setups can be used outside of games. On the physics front, I see so many games out there only using 25-50% of a quad core CPU. Why would I use the component that's most often the bottleneck in games (the GPU) for that calculation when the CPU could be used? Unfortunately, developers still haven't figured that bit out yet and are adding in things like PhysX support only for nVidia cards when that could have easily gone on the CPU.
Show me a CPU with hundreds of cores, and we'll be in business.