I hope they accelerate everything with PhysX.
It will all still work just fine on AMD video card with their physics being calculated on CPU. And just think of how powerful CPUs will be in a year. The only difference would be Nvidia owners will get a boost. Looking at the scant list of PhysX titles available today, ArmA3 implementing PhysX is quite a welcome addition for Nvidia card owners.
And even if the hardware acceleration is limited to vehicles, isn't everything pretty much a vehicle anyway? Or at least, anything can be built as a "vehicle". Imagine entire buildings built of individual "vehicle" bricks, and then being blown to smithereens, all using the latest in hardware acceleration!
Smart move, BIS:
selling out to Nvidia and thus cuttin your fanbase in half
bang one, bang ´em all
When I was a young rebellious, idealistic F*ck da world, F* Authority lad -I supported and bought only AMD/ATI. Now as an older fat cat capitalistic performance whore - I prefer Intel/Nvidia
~The bearly literate pugilist~
Force AI to use their proper weapon! http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=8829
Stop discrimination! Fight for bot rights for them to thrive indoors! http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=8671 -Please revote this! Previous one was mistakenly directed to DevHeaven only!
Add Distance to Target/Gear Menus: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=8666
Look at it from their perspective, very few physics engines offer hardware acceleration, and none do it as well as Physx. So basically you can go with no one gets HA or at least most do (since Nvidia has the bigger market share). AMD cards will just have to let the CPU do the work for physics calculation.
Don't call it selling out, its far from that.
How about we all just be happy that Arma is finally getting a real physics engine!
Last edited by TheRev709; May 19 2011 at 18:35.
Whn you write a program you can use programming languages like C, C++ etc... bla bla... Your CPU won't understand that language unless you compile it to machine code. While you compile it you can use SIMD's (CPU instruction sets) to run that code faster and more efficiently!!! EIther Integer or floating point more advanced instruction sets allow for better performance if you optimize for it. Better to use a 1GHZ cpu with support for AVX or FMA4 than a 5GHZ cpu with only x87.
But let's say you have 2 processors. Intel I7 vs Phenom II. Best that Intel does is SSE 4.2 vs SSE 3 on Phenom II. Intel compiler will use SSE 4.2 for I7 but if it detects a Phenom instead of using SSE 3 that AMD fully supports it will make him only use SSE 2 or SSE or on some cases even worse 386 code!!!
Ok we know that Nehalem (first generation I7's and I5's) is in majority a better architecture than AMD's K10.5 (Phenom II), but the difference is not that great as people actually think. On some cases K10.5 architecture has more throughput potential than Nehalem.
Optimizing is the keyword.
For the record Intel must not cripple AMD's performance on ICC as settled by court, with the penalty of losing 64 bit technology on their CPU's.
The problem is Intel is gonna surely circumvent this.
Arma 3 and xAItment.
1 Sentence. 1 Erection. 1 Jizz.
Please vote for this:
I'm glad ArmA III will have vehicle PhysX. That'll be great.
I have a nvidia gts 250 I can use for physx along w/ my AMD 6950. If that's not enough, maybe I'll snag a used 460.
Intel i7 920 + Dark Knight| ASRock X58 Extreme | OCZ Gold 6GB1600ram | Gigabyte GTX 670 OC Windforce |
640gig+1tb WD 7200rpm sata | COOLER Antec Twelve Hundred Case | 780watt psu |Samsung T2494LW monitor | CreAtive X-Fi XtremeMusic |
Thanks Carlos, I understand now I think!
Well, GRAW had Physx.
I could play it with NO PROBLEMs at all using a non-CUDA (or Physx not ready NVIDIA) and with my ATi, while seeing ragdools and some fancy physics (most important stuff).
When I played it with Physx ON the effects were somehow better (more dust, particles around) but not so much better and didn´t change the gameplay at all.
So I will wait and see...