[dagmx]

You miss the important bits:

> As we said before, installing the hardware automatically enables higher quality physics. We can't get a good idea of how much better the PhysX hardware would perform than the CPU, but we can see a couple facts very clearly.

So what you call a scam is down to implementation details. In a true like for like scenario the PPU would usually outperform the CPU implementation as long as your sync boundaries were clean to get stuff back from it, and pipe the transforms back to the GPU.

I wish people like yourself wouldn’t reach for incendiary language by default. It ruins any and all nuance in discussion.

[sillysaurusx]

A more nuanced description is that in most cases, it was slower, and it took immense developer effort to even try to make it faster. And the cases that were accelerated were generally things that consumers didn’t care much about, e.g. fluid dynamics.

The software is the clear winner of that. The team was fantastic, and one of them (John Ratcliff) helped kickstart my career. So it isn’t entirely off base to say that the PPU was… exaggerated.

[rasz]

Its a game, the important bit is playable framerate. There arent any nuances when you are hitting drops to 17 fps.

>down to implementation details

Game is running 2 times slower. Nvidia favorite kind of technology. Tessellation, Gameworks, Hairworks, RTX, all run at lest 2x slower when enabled unless you buy Nvidia flagship hardware.

Did you know Nvidia physx library shipped compiled for FPU? At the time SSE2 was available for 10 years and SSE3 for 5 https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2010/07/did-nvidia-cripple-it... https://www.realworldtech.com/physx87/3/ Nvidia PR person tried claiming Physx actual computation is not a bottleneck, so they didnt bother optimizing :D If its not a bottleneck then why run it on GPU?