Overclock.net › Forums › Graphics Cards › NVIDIA › Is PhysX a dying technology?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is PhysX a dying technology? - Page 7

post #61 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by B!0HaZard;13390999 
So you say that bad FPS when running Crysis maxed out, 1920x1080, 8x AA on an HD 5770 is a flaw in the game? You say that the bad FPS is a problem with the game? Hell no, you don't, or you'd be a fool. In just the same way, it's merely your GPU that's too slow, not PhysX being bad. It's your rig making your gaming experience worse and causing problems, not PhysX. Which is why it can be turned off, not all people can actually run it.

So you say it's the 560's problem that it can't run Physx.

Well i would say it's Physx's problem that it can't run properly on a single 560 (a fairly powerful card) - because it's so poorly optimized, or for whatever other reason it may be.

Consumers shouldn't suffer poor performance because Nvidia are trying to push something into the market that only enthusiasts can make work.

Trying to promote something as being better and more vital than it actually is, just because they have a monopoly on that particular section of the market. This is what i would accuse Nvidia of doing.

I would also say Nvidia have no intention of trying to make it work in the long term, just trying to sell as many Physx cards as possible and before they drop this old technology.

Feel free to disagree of course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by B!0HaZard;13390999 
Read my above comment again. PhysX does enhance gameplay experience, but only if you can run it. They're right, it does enhance the experience if you can run it.

Give me an example of how Physx enhances (i.e. improves) gameplay experience.

I don't see the addition of superficial debris and and background objects as improving the game. It's just a case of trying to put more stuff on the screen for the sake of it. It has no impact on the engine of the game or the way it plays as far as i know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by B!0HaZard;13390999 
I say "I believe", because I'm not sure. I'm going on what the other users in this thread have said. You should try writing "I think" or "I believe" or similar when you're not sure, helps clearing up misunderstandings.

Don't think at any point i was trying to promote myself as some sort of Physx expert - only as someone who doesn't like it. And giving my personal reasons as to why i don't like it.

I don't like Physx. Others might - good luck to them i guess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by B!0HaZard;13390999 
Where did I flame you? I discuss (and correct if necessary). You, OTOH, were spreading all sorts of misinformation.
And not once have I flamed your rig. I said it was the fault of your rig, just as it's my rig's fault that Crysis maxed out doesn't run smoothly as opposed to the game. See, there's no hate towards any of our computers, it's just a fact that both are too slow to do what we'd wish they'd do. I'm merely being realistic instead of flaming NVIDIA or the PhysX team for making a program that does no harm. Really, if you hate it so much, don't use it. That's why I avoid food that isn't cake, 'cause I don't like it.

I wasn't spreading mis-information. You flame me by suggesting otherwise!
You flame me by saying i have no idea what i'm talking about - who are you to say that, i seem to know as much as you about this at least.

Point out some of my 'mis-information' and maybe i'll clarify what i was trying to say.

Many people believe dedicated physx cards are pointless, just as many people believe physx itself is pointless, superficial, detrimental, cumbersome, unrefined and visually dissapointing. Are people who think this just plain wrong for coming to such a conclusion???

It's apples and oranges at the end of the day!
Edited by lyster - 5/5/11 at 9:51am
Silent Rig
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 2600k Asus P8p67-M Pro Palit 560ti 2gb (soon to be going Sli) Vengeance 8gb 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
Vertex 2 120gb, WD 500gb Windows 7 64-Bit BenQ 24" 1080p XFX Pro 850w 
Case
P180 Mini 
  hide details  
Reply
Silent Rig
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 2600k Asus P8p67-M Pro Palit 560ti 2gb (soon to be going Sli) Vengeance 8gb 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
Vertex 2 120gb, WD 500gb Windows 7 64-Bit BenQ 24" 1080p XFX Pro 850w 
Case
P180 Mini 
  hide details  
Reply
post #62 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by lyster;13390385 
Haha, i didn't mean going SLI with a 9800gt. I'm just about bright enough to have figured that one out:p

I meant wouldn't the game only be able to accelerate as quickly as the 9800gt is able to process the physx. If you have the CPU, GPU and dedicated Physx card all trying to process different sets of information and the dedicated physx card is by far the slowest of these componants then you have a bottleneck. The CPU and primary GPU essentially having to wait for the Physx card to process it's information before the next frame can be generated. It's a nightmare to try to optimize imo - just not worth the effort.

My question about SLI is when i get another 560, which i plan to do at the end of this month, will that improve my ability to process physx? Or will i still have trouble.

Dedicated physx card is out of the question as i'm using m-atx and all pci slots will be taken up when i get my second card. So if £400+ worth of GPU's can't run physx like a hot knife through butter, then i for one will be not be turning it on.

My fault, I meant a 9800GTX (128SP) instead of a 9800GT (112SP)

The most PhysX intenstive game is probably Mafia II.... and 128SP is the most you will need. However, most games are fine with around 96-112SP.

A 9800GTX will pretty much ensure no PhysX bottlenecking.


When you have only a single card or SLI, you are requesting your GPU(s) to process video while time-slicing in PhysX processing. This causes inefficiencies since GPUs are good a singular parallel workloads and not general serial work. I don't believe their pipes are long enough or thread manager are as good in handling different work simutaneously.
Once again...
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 [4.28GHz, HT] Asus P6T + Broadcom NetXtreme II VisionTek HD5850 [900/1200] + Galaxy GT240 2x4GB G.Skill Ripjaw X [1632 MHz] 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel X25-M 160GB + 3xRAID0 500GB 7200.12 Window 7 Pro 64 Acer H243H + Samsung 226BW XARMOR-U9BL  
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Antec Truepower New 750W Li Lian PC-V2100 [10x120mm fans] Logitech G9 X-Trac Pro 
  hide details  
Reply
Once again...
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 [4.28GHz, HT] Asus P6T + Broadcom NetXtreme II VisionTek HD5850 [900/1200] + Galaxy GT240 2x4GB G.Skill Ripjaw X [1632 MHz] 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel X25-M 160GB + 3xRAID0 500GB 7200.12 Window 7 Pro 64 Acer H243H + Samsung 226BW XARMOR-U9BL  
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Antec Truepower New 750W Li Lian PC-V2100 [10x120mm fans] Logitech G9 X-Trac Pro 
  hide details  
Reply
post #63 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by lyster;13391814 
Give me an example of how Physx enhances (i.e. improves) gameplay experience.

I don't see the addition of superficial debris and and background objects as improving the game. It's just a case of trying to put more stuff on the screen for the sake of it. It has no impact on the engine of the game or the way it plays as far as i know.
Some people aren't into gaming "just to play the game". They want a story, an immersive experience, feel the adrenaline, be the hero. Not having a believable world hurts immersiveness. But it's a minor thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lyster;13391814 
I wasn't spreading mis-information. You flame me by suggesting otherwise!
You flame me by saying i have no idea what i'm talking about - who are you to say that, i seem to know as much as you about this at least.

Point out some of my 'mis-information' and maybe i'll clarify what i was trying to say.
I think flame is a harsh word, more like insulting, although that could be flaming...
I'm talking mostly about these parts:
Quote:
Originally Posted by lyster;13389718 
Was playing Mafia 2 the other night and the game plays and looks sooooooooooooo much better without physx imo, textures look more crisp, smoother gameplay, better view distances etc and just generally more life-like physics within the game. It's the same with Metro 2033 - all you get are a few pathetic pixelated squares that appear every time you blast a hole in a wall - it's not even real debris - it's just some sort of lame semi-transparent after-effect that makes a mockery of the games excellent and powerful internal engine.
I can't say what Mafia 2 looks like, 'cause I haven't checked if there's much of a difference, but I can tell you that the physics in Metro are far more than just chunks of debris when you shoot a wall. There are lots of physics calculations going on, especially during explosions. Also, I just rtied using PhysX in the Mafia 2 demo and CPU PhysX nets me about 45-60 FPS (with Vsync) which isn't too shabby for a non-competitive third person shooter.

It's synonymous for severe and random frame-rate dips too. Leading to much in-game instability and unpredictibility. Why would anybody want to purposely optimize their game so poorly????
Again, I must say that CPU PhysX runs quite well on the CPU. There's a drop, yes, but it's not THAT bad.

I would encourage everybody to turn it off if your serious about gaming. Why would you want to take a fairly considerable hit in performance just to run a very old looking gaming engine over your brand new DX11 titles.
Depends on what you mean by serious. If you play competitively, turn it off, 'cause you probably won't get good enough framerates. If you just mean that you're "serious" about single player then I'll be inclined to say that it doesn't matter.

All these people on this site buying these weak dedicated physx cards that seemingly have a negative impact on performance (anything less than a single gtx 460 is pretty much pointless btw), i just don't understand it. It's crazy, Nvidia must be laughing all the way to the bank.
As has been said, a GTX 460 certainly isn't required.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lyster;13391814 
Many people believe dedicated physx cards are pointless, just as many people believe physx itself is pointless, superficial, detrimental, cumbersome, unrefined and visually dissapointing. Are people who think this just plain wrong for coming to such a conclusion???

It's apples and oranges at the end of the day!

No, I, too, think a dedicated PhysX card is a waste, but that's just because I have different interests (noise, performance (I'll get CF or SLI some day) money). However, I think PhysX would be awesome to have if I wasn't affected by the other factors. If I had the money to use a GTX 570 for PhysX to support my 2x GTX 580 then I'd go for it.
M1XN
(18 items)
 
Study Zenbook
(5 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4770K @ 4.2 GHz ASUS Maximus VI Impact MSI GTX 970 Gaming 4G 2x8 GB Kingston HyperX DDR3 @ 2400 MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Crucial M4 64 GB Crucial M4 128 GB SAMSUNG Spinpoint M9T 2 TB LiteOn DL-8ATSH 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Noctua NH-C14 Windows 10 64-bit ViewSonic VP2770 Vortex Pok3r 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Corsair SF600 NCASE M1 V2.5 Logitech G502 SteelSeries QcK+ 
AudioOther
HiFiMan HE-400 Logitech C920 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
i5-3317 GT 620M 2 GB soldered + 8 GB Corsair OCZ Vertex 3 120 
OS
Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit 
  hide details  
Reply
M1XN
(18 items)
 
Study Zenbook
(5 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4770K @ 4.2 GHz ASUS Maximus VI Impact MSI GTX 970 Gaming 4G 2x8 GB Kingston HyperX DDR3 @ 2400 MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Crucial M4 64 GB Crucial M4 128 GB SAMSUNG Spinpoint M9T 2 TB LiteOn DL-8ATSH 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Noctua NH-C14 Windows 10 64-bit ViewSonic VP2770 Vortex Pok3r 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Corsair SF600 NCASE M1 V2.5 Logitech G502 SteelSeries QcK+ 
AudioOther
HiFiMan HE-400 Logitech C920 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
i5-3317 GT 620M 2 GB soldered + 8 GB Corsair OCZ Vertex 3 120 
OS
Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit 
  hide details  
Reply
post #64 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by sp4wners;13391751 
PhysX is nice, but personally I'd preffer physics system that was included in GTA IV. I think it was much better than any other Nvidia PhysX game smile.gif

LOL, it's probably the worst physics ever implemented. Mafia 2 stomps GTA 4 in every way on the physics front and it runs 4 times better.
post #65 of 82
don't console games make use of physx?
castlevania during startup says physx
The X58
(23 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 960 @ 3.2GHz D0 Bloomfield 45nm Asus P6T6 WS Revolution X58 LGA 1366 eVGA Nvidia GeForce GTX 780 Ti SC ACX 3.0GB DDR5 Corsair Dominator GT DDR3 1600 6GB (7-7-7-20) 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
WDC VelociRaptor 300GB SATAII WDC Caviar Black 2TB SATAII WDC Caviar Black 1TB SATAII WDC Caviar Black 1TB SATAII 
Optical DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Asus BW-12B1ST CD-RW/DVD-RW/BD-R Asus BW-12B1ST CD-RW/DVD-RW/BD-R Scythe 140mm & Corsair 120/140mm Blue LED Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
LG 27MP68VQ-P 27" 1920 x 1080 60Hz IPS LED LG 27MP68VQ-P 27" 1920 x 1080 60Hz IPS LED Logitech G810 Orion Spectrum Corsair HX850W PSU Professional Series 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Corsair Obsidian 800D with SilverStone AEROSLOTS Logitech G502 Proteus Spectrum SteelSeries 4HD Onboard SoundMax HD 8 Channel ADI AD2000B 
AudioAudioOther
Logitech X-540 5.1 Speaker System Razer Megalodon 7.1 Headset Razer Onza Tournament Edition Xbox 360/PC Contr... 
  hide details  
Reply
The X58
(23 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 960 @ 3.2GHz D0 Bloomfield 45nm Asus P6T6 WS Revolution X58 LGA 1366 eVGA Nvidia GeForce GTX 780 Ti SC ACX 3.0GB DDR5 Corsair Dominator GT DDR3 1600 6GB (7-7-7-20) 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
WDC VelociRaptor 300GB SATAII WDC Caviar Black 2TB SATAII WDC Caviar Black 1TB SATAII WDC Caviar Black 1TB SATAII 
Optical DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Asus BW-12B1ST CD-RW/DVD-RW/BD-R Asus BW-12B1ST CD-RW/DVD-RW/BD-R Scythe 140mm & Corsair 120/140mm Blue LED Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
LG 27MP68VQ-P 27" 1920 x 1080 60Hz IPS LED LG 27MP68VQ-P 27" 1920 x 1080 60Hz IPS LED Logitech G810 Orion Spectrum Corsair HX850W PSU Professional Series 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Corsair Obsidian 800D with SilverStone AEROSLOTS Logitech G502 Proteus Spectrum SteelSeries 4HD Onboard SoundMax HD 8 Channel ADI AD2000B 
AudioAudioOther
Logitech X-540 5.1 Speaker System Razer Megalodon 7.1 Headset Razer Onza Tournament Edition Xbox 360/PC Contr... 
  hide details  
Reply
post #66 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by lyster;13391814 
So you say it's the 560's problem that it can't run Physx.

Well i would say it's Physx's problem that it can't run properly on a single 560 (a fairly powerful card) - because it's so poorly optimized, or for whatever other reason it may be.
560 isnt a high end card and i dont believe crysis uses physX
My System
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
I5 2500K AsRock extreme4 p67 GTX 470 SLI 8gb Gskill 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Crucial 128gb,WD black 1tb, Seagate 500gb windows 7 64 bit Enterprise U2311H Razor 
PowerCaseAudioAudio
Antec HCP 1200 Corsair 800D xonar DX M-Audio BX5a 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
I5 2500K AsRock extreme4 p67 GTX 470 SLI 8gb Gskill 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Crucial 128gb,WD black 1tb, Seagate 500gb windows 7 64 bit Enterprise U2311H Razor 
PowerCaseAudioAudio
Antec HCP 1200 Corsair 800D xonar DX M-Audio BX5a 
  hide details  
Reply
post #67 of 82
Physx 3.0 SDK, has been released for developers,

Quote:
Now, while your download is undergoing, let’s take a look on PhysX SDK 3.0 features:

PhysX SDK 2.x was originally developed as a PC only physics engine, which was subsequently ported to support gaming consoles being developed by Sony (PS3) and Microsoft (Xbox 360). The PS3 port was developed independently and has been maintained in a separate code base since its development, as have later ports to Linux and Mac OSX. The unwieldy growth during the SDK lifetime and separate code bases have added to the considerable complexity of maintaining and updating succeeding versions of the PhysX SDK at a time when faster and more compact engines are required to effectively support phones and tablets.

PhysX SDK 3.0 represents a significant rewrite of the PhysX engine.

This rewrite involved extensive changes to the API that effectively results in a new PhysX engine rather than a chart of changes based on its predecessor version. The various platforms versions are generated from a unified code base, further differentiating it from version 2.x. In addition to a new modular design, considerable legacy clutter has been removed. Collectively these changes have resulted in a physics SDK designed to facilitate easier ongoing maintenance, enable simpler ports to emerging gaming platforms, and the addition of new features and capabilities.

Focus on consoles and emerging gaming platforms.

PhysX SDK 3.0 was designed to be competitive on current-gen consoles and anticipates devices with even less system resources. These architectural changes include but are not limited to better overall memory management, improvements to cache efficiency, cross-platform SIMD implementations, intelligent SPU usage on PS3, multi-threading across multiple cores, and AltiVec/VMX optimizations on Xbox 360.

Improved Threading.


PhysX SDK 3.0 features new Task Manager feature that supports two Dispatchers (for PC both CPU and GPU Dispatchers are available) that are responsible for managing task dependencies and distributing tasks across as many worker threads as the developer defines. This feature allows the developer to balance the proper mix of resources to achieve the desired performance level.
The particles and particle fluids pipeline currently provides tasks to run the following in parallel (PC/Xbox 360):

Multiple particle system instances (for collision and SPH phases)
Multiple work units for collision per particle system instance
Multiple work units for SPH per particle fluid instance

For PS3 there is additional parallelization available for shape generation, which isn’t implemented yet for PC/Xbox 360. However, it doesn’t provide the parallelization across multiple particle system instances.

PC plus GPU provides more but overall differently structured parallelization.

Vehicles.

A reworked vehicle model now includes components such as engine, clutch, gears, autobox, differential, wheels, tyres, suspensions and chassis, in comparison to simplified suspension/wheel/tire NXWheelShape class in PhysX SDK 2.x. One of the interesting aspects of the new model is the ability to create tire types, drivable surface types, and specify the friction used in the vehicle simulator to combine different tire and drivable surface types.

PhysX SDK 3.0 - new vehicle model

Like PhysX SDK 2.x, the vehicle model exists outside of the PhysX Core and so it does not have to be compiled into a game, to reduce executable size, if not needed. Source code is provided to facilitate developer customization.

New Serialization API.

Serialization (the process by which SDK objects are saved from memory to disk) in SDK 3.0 is much more powerful and much more efficient than in previous SDK versions. It supports all SDK objects, and desterilizes them “in place” – without any data copy or extra memory allocation, allowing them to be loaded as fast as possible. Serialization and cooking are not mutually exclusive though. The cooking library is still available – and mandatory – in the PhysX SDK 3.0. In fact, one cannot serialize a convex or triangle mesh without cooking it first.

Aggregates & Broadphase Clustering.

In PhysX SDK 2.x each NxShape was represented by a separate AABB in the broadphase. This caused a significant performance issue in large scenes, particularly when adding and removing shapes from the scene.

In PhysX SDK 3.0, developers can combine a collection of actors into an aggregate that can be managed as single entity in a broadphase data structure, purely as an optimization feature. For example, assigning the various body parts of a ragdoll to a single aggregate will result in decreased number of overlap tests (while joint limits are already preventing most body parts from penetrating each-other). Thus, in PhysX SDK 3.0, aggregates can be collectively represented by a single AABB in the broadphase, which improves overall efficiency.

Double Buffering.

This allows the client application to read and write to actors and the scene while the simulation is running on another thread.

Articulations.


An articulation is a single actor representing an acyclic system of jointed actors. Only an anatomical joint (similar to the spherical joint with swing and twist limits) is currently available for articulations. Articulations use solver techniques similar to Featherstone; although, they are more robust than sets of jointed actors and have drive models, which are easier to combine with procedurally generated motion. They’re also much more expensive in terms of CPU processing time.

Deformables and Force Fields.


Cloth and soft bodies were re-organized under one experimental Deformables actor.

Force fields are no longer needed. They were provided in PhysX SDK 2.x primarily because the architecture prevented efficient implementation of user-defined callbacks for force fields. In the PhysX SDK 3.0 implementation, because of the extra freedom allowed by double buffering and other architecture changes, users can efficiently apply forces directly to the rigid bodies and there is no longer a need for the force field mechanism. This approach provides greater flexibility and freedom for developers.

Distance based collision detection.

In PhysX SDK 3.0, collision routines can generate contacts when the shapes are a small distance apart but not quite yet touching. The benefit is that bodies can now come to rest without concern for a tiny overlap between them.

...
more info
http://physxinfo.com/news/5671/physx-sdk-3-0-has-been-released/#more-5671


Looks like they finally moved in the right direction (got rid of x87 doomed code and made it multi threaded), but as far as unifying goes its still fails, i say make it OpenCL because it will be much better this way and everybody is happy lol wheee.gif
post #68 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wulfgar;13394341 
LOL, it's probably the worst physics ever implemented. Mafia 2 stomps GTA 4 in every way on the physics front and it runs 4 times better.
Not at all.

Mafia's 2 PhysX implementation is what it is, just eye candy, nothing game changing.

GTA IV, (although I hate the game, GFWL suckage, compatibility issues with Windows 7, etc..) uses the Bullet Physics Engine, which is the future of game physics.
post #69 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHunter;13396033 
Physx 3.0 SDK, has been released for developers,



more info
http://physxinfo.com/news/5671/physx-sdk-3-0-has-been-released/#more-5671


Looks like they finally moved in the right direction (got rid of x87 doomed code and made it multi threaded), but as far as unifying goes its still fails, i say make it OpenCL because it will be much better this way and everybody is happy lol wheee.gif
Developing through SDK's = teh suck.

That's why we never see anything new with PhysX.

Just the same old same old. Glass staying on the floor, cloth, etc...
post #70 of 82
i tested physx (crapsx)

mafia2, batman, mirrors edge,

nothing impressive, and beautiful framedrops

now half life 2 and portal 2, that is what i call real physx, using only cpu, beautiful how the bridge collapses

marketting and gimmick for noobs is for me, a waste of money, watts, and

also i tested nvidia cuda to encode vids, and it sucks too, the quality is lame compared to cpu, fast yeah, but crap, (mediacoder and freemake video encoder)
pote reload
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
intel 3570k@4.4@1.25 gigabyte z77z-ud3h gigabyte gtx460 768mb oc 850/2100 8gb ddr3 1600 corair vengeance blue 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
samsung 500gb hd502hj, 2x crucial m4 64gb raid 0 sony optiarc 24x hyper 212+ win8 x64 
MonitorPowerCaseMouse
envision lcd wide 19 + lg tv lcds 32" 32ld330 1... corsair vx 550w cheapo steelseries ikari laser 
  hide details  
Reply
pote reload
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
intel 3570k@4.4@1.25 gigabyte z77z-ud3h gigabyte gtx460 768mb oc 850/2100 8gb ddr3 1600 corair vengeance blue 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
samsung 500gb hd502hj, 2x crucial m4 64gb raid 0 sony optiarc 24x hyper 212+ win8 x64 
MonitorPowerCaseMouse
envision lcd wide 19 + lg tv lcds 32" 32ld330 1... corsair vx 550w cheapo steelseries ikari laser 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: NVIDIA
Overclock.net › Forums › Graphics Cards › NVIDIA › Is PhysX a dying technology?