• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

NVIDIA Frees PhysX Source Code

Joined
Feb 12, 2015
Messages
1,104 (0.31/day)
http://www.netmarketshare.com/
http://gs.statcounter.com/

Really? So nvidia is phasing out physx by introducing newer versions?! Didn't know people phased out software by continuing its development. Countless tests done, showing physx is just as fast, and I posted links too, and yet you repeat the same thing without bothering to read any of them.

I don't have to mention a specific one. You said if a game, any game, uses physx, then nvidia forced them to. here:

http://www.physxinfo.com/index.php?p=gam&f=all

The list of all 581 physx games. Show everyone that ALL of them were forced by nvidia. MAANN.
No, Nvidia is grasping at straws to keep a costly asset from becoming completely irrelevant (Though I would argue it already is).

No, not ALL PhysX titles were forced, but we can all agree that a big reason PhysX has noteworthy market-share is due to Nvidia's money-hatting.
 
Joined
Feb 12, 2015
Messages
1,104 (0.31/day)
Hardly, as long as physx is bundled with engines like ue4 and unity 5, it will have bright future.

If you mean gpu accelerated then that would be the case(nvidia should really open that up, getting universal gpu path for physics would make games more realistic. Now physics are used merely for eye candy, not really physics), but this cpu path has it's future.

And I am referring to the GPU version of course. After all I think the CPU versions are useless since they are only used for eye-candy. GPU-accelerated physics is the future, and for PhysX to succeed it would have to be usable on ALL GPU's and also be more efficient than its competition. It has yet to prove it is efficient considering how much of a hit it causes to framerates.
 
Joined
Mar 9, 2012
Messages
98 (0.02/day)
Processor Core 2 Quad Q9550 @ 3.7 GHz
Motherboard Gigabyte GA-P35-S3L
Memory 8 GB DDR2-870
Video Card(s) Geforce GTX 1060 6GB
No, Nvidia is grasping at straws to keep a costly asset from becoming completely irrelevant (Though I would argue it already is).

No, not ALL PhysX titles were forced, but we can all agree that a big reason PhysX has noteworthy market-share is due to Nvidia's money-hatting.
Are we even talking about the same thing? I'm talking about physx as a whole, not just its GPU part. How is physx irrelevant if it's included in unreal and unity engines and is used in hundreds of games and more upcoming games?
Not all? Yet you said otherwise before. No, we cannot agree because it only exists in your mind. You claimed it, you have to bring evidence of it. Yeah, let's ignore that physx being FREE to use in windows games had nothing to do with it.

And I am referring to the GPU version of course. After all I think the CPU versions are useless since they are only used for eye-candy. GPU-accelerated physics is the future, and for PhysX to succeed it would have to be usable on ALL GPU's and also be more efficient than its competition. It has yet to prove it is efficient considering how much of a hit it causes to framerates.

Eye candy?! There are many games, like mass effects, that use CPU physx (no GPU, none) for their ENTIRE physics simulations. Rip it off, and the game won't have ANY physics in it, not just eye candy.

Actually, it's GPU physx that is used for eye candy. CPU physx is used for actual gameplay physics calculations, just like havok, bullet, etc.

Yes, you're right. For physx's GPU module to succeed, nvidia has to open it up, or else it'd remain just as niche as it is now, but then you say, that it causes a framerate hit. Do you know why that happens in GPU physx games? Because when you enable it in games, the amount of physical effects grow exponentially, meaning the amount of calculations rise too. Of course the framerate will dip. If the amount of effects didn't change between the off and on settings, then you'd actually see a framerate INCREASE after turning GPU physx on.

Why don't you download and run fluidmark and see for yourself. Choose a set amount of particles, say 10000, and try with both GPU physx on and off. You'd see that GPU physx, with the same amount of particles, is much faster.
 
Joined
Mar 9, 2012
Messages
213 (0.05/day)
System Name "Da Krawnik Six Hunnit"
Processor Intel i5 2500K @ 4.6GHz
Motherboard ASUS P8P67 EVO (B3)
Cooling H100i w/2x Bitfenix Spectre Pros + Bitfenix Spectre Pro Blue LED 1x 200mm + 1x 120mm
Memory Patriot Intel Extreme Masters Limited Edition 8GB (2x4GB) 1600MHz
Video Card(s) MSI GTX 970 @ 1491MHz (Actual Boost) / 7.6GHz
Storage Samsung 840 EVO 250GB + 2x WD Green 2TB + 1x WD Green 1TB
Display(s) BenQ XL2430T 144Hz
Case Corsair 600T w/full custom 1/2" acrylic side panel
Audio Device(s) Creative X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty Pro
Power Supply Coolermaster Silent Pro 850w
Mouse Roccat Kone XTD (laser)
Keyboard Corsair K65 RGB
Software Windows 10 Pro 64-bit
Benchmark Scores Couldn't care less about benchmark scores.
Honest to god, give me an example of a PhysX game that does things others don't do.

I got better things to do than feeding a troll. You have an account with the same name over at TechSpot don't you?
 
Joined
Feb 12, 2015
Messages
1,104 (0.31/day)
I got better things to do than feeding a troll. You have an account with the same name over at TechSpot don't you?
Honestly how am I trolling? I expressed my honest to got opinion. I own products from all vendors so I am sorry you have a chip on your shoulder for a certain company.
 

de.das.dude

Pro Indian Modder
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
9,130 (1.72/day)
Location
Internet is borked, please help.
System Name Monke | Work Thinkpad| J1nnx took Old Monke
Processor Ryzen 5600X | Ryzen 5500U | FX8320
Motherboard ASRock B550 Extreme4 | ? | Asrock 990FX Extreme 4
Cooling 240mm Rad | Not needed | hyper 212 EVO
Memory 2x16GB DDR4 3600 Corsair RGB | 16 GB DDR4 3600 | 16GB DDR3 1600
Video Card(s) Sapphire Pulse RX6700XT 12GB | Vega 8 | Sapphire Pulse RX580 8GB
Storage Samsung 980 nvme (Primary) | some samsung SSD
Display(s) Dell 2723DS | Some 14" 1080p 98%sRGB IPS | Dell 2240L
Case Ant Esports Tempered case | Thinkpad | Antec
Audio Device(s) Logitech Z333 | Jabra corpo stuff
Power Supply Corsair RM750e | not needed | Corsair GS 600
Mouse Logitech G400 | nipple
Keyboard Logitech G213 | stock kb is awesome | Logitech K230
VR HMD ;_;
Software Windows 10 Professional x3
Benchmark Scores There are no marks on my bench
meanwhile... tress fx is opensource.... works well on teh nvidia cards
 

rtwjunkie

PC Gaming Enthusiast
Supporter
Joined
Jul 25, 2008
Messages
14,019 (2.34/day)
Location
Louisiana
Processor Core i9-9900k
Motherboard ASRock Z390 Phantom Gaming 6
Cooling All air: 2x140mm Fractal exhaust; 3x 140mm Cougar Intake; Enermax ETS-T50 Black CPU cooler
Memory 32GB (2x16) Mushkin Redline DDR-4 3200
Video Card(s) ASUS RTX 4070 Ti Super OC 16GB
Storage 1x 1TB MX500 (OS); 2x 6TB WD Black; 1x 2TB MX500; 1x 1TB BX500 SSD; 1x 6TB WD Blue storage (eSATA)
Display(s) Infievo 27" 165Hz @ 2560 x 1440
Case Fractal Design Define R4 Black -windowed
Audio Device(s) Soundblaster Z
Power Supply Seasonic Focus GX-1000 Gold
Mouse Coolermaster Sentinel III (large palm grip!)
Keyboard Logitech G610 Orion mechanical (Cherry Brown switches)
Software Windows 10 Pro 64-bit (Start10 & Fences 3.0 installed)
Personally, I hate the GPU Phys-X. In my experience, it always seems to overdo the physics to what I consider unrealistic levels. It's like giving a pyromaniac a can of gasoline and telling him to jsut use it to fuel his car. You know the extreme is going to happen. For that reason, I always set Phys-X (for those few games that have it) to run off the CPU. So, this move by Nvidia will likely boost a wider adoption of what I consider the understated, but more realistic physics.
 
Top