Borderlands 2 PhysX Showcase

[Werewolph]

I guarantee the GTX5** wont run the game well with everything maxed out.

Based on what? And where do you set the bar for "maxed out"? Some would say it's at everything on highest at 1920x1080, but if the game allows higher resolutions...

Maxed out would be the maximum on the machine, if your resolution is 1080p you won't be setting the resolution higher than that. I have a GTX560, I can run BL1 on the highest settings (@ 1080p) I am pretty sure I get full 60 FPS but I can't really be bothered opening the game just to test this theory.

True, BL1 isn't very taxing at max settings @ 60hz 1080 for anything higher than a 460. 120hz is more demanding, and going 3d is even more demanding still. I tend to play in either 3d or @ 120hz, so i'm of the belief my two 670's will be well used, especially with PhysX enabled on top.

To each their own really, some people will be content playing it with PhysX off. Others (myself included) will enjoy max eye candy the best way we know how.

[Mekon]

All that fancy stuff can be done without PhysX, PhysX just provides developers a convenient toolbox to pull effects from and a way to render it without needing to chew CPU resources.

Running physics on a CPU? Really not the smart place to do it... general purpose processors don't do massively parallel processing tasks with any degree of efficiency.

[Mythor]

All that fancy stuff can be done without PhysX, PhysX just provides developers a convenient toolbox to pull effects from and a way to render it without needing to chew CPU resources.

Running physics on a CPU? Really not the smart place to do it... general purpose processors don't do massively parallel processing tasks with any degree of efficiency.

Where else do you suppose it gets done? Plenty of games have done it with the CPU. But I was pointing out that PhysX gives them an easy way to NOT do that. Much as DirectX/OpenGL give devs an easy way to display stuff on our screens, rather than writing all that stuff themselves, etc.

[Mekon]

Running physics on a CPU? Really not the smart place to do it

Where else do you suppose it gets done?

On a specialised parallel processing processor... aka a GPU. Which, oddly enough, is where it works best!

CPUs don't do physics very well. Just look at Havok.

PhysX works brilliantly not because it is an easy set of libraries to include (it's not particularly), but because it leverages the strengths of a GPU, which is designed for that kind of work. In much the same way as PCs that use the CPU for rendering graphics do a pretty crappy job, ie. every video game before the 3dfx hit the market.

Don't get me wrong - if you don't want the shiny effects, by all means go without. But arguing that PhysX doesn't do anything worthwhile is a pretty silly stance to take, IMO. And claiming that a CPU can do the job just as well is plain wrong.

[Yurtles]

Gamespot & IGN have both put up hour long gameplay/interview videos (2 different classes on each) running on PCs with PhysX enabled. Mechromancer wip demo'd at 55:30 on the Gamespot one.

Gamespot




& IGN



I don't believe that Gearbox's implementation of PhysX is nearly as intensive as some people seem to think it is/will be and I still believe a single decent video card will handle it fine.
I find it hard to accept that Gearbox would include an option limited to only a few enthusiasts after everything else in their design philosophy has been about accessibility.

Edit: Apparently a dev's made a comment on the Gearbox forums (I couldn't find it, only people referring to it) that a GTX 660 ti will comfortably run the game with everything on high at 1080p, including PhysX.
So maybe a GTX5** won't quite be enough, but it won't be all that far off it either.