52
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2025
52 points (96.4% liked)
PC Gaming
10682 readers
729 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Not in my experience. On the CPU it only uses one core for me.
I mean, does it work worse? UE4/Havok and Unigine all use CPU Physx. And every other engine I know of uses a custom particle physics implementation and seem far better at it than GPU Physx ever was.
On GPU I remember physx being super buggy since the GPU calculations were very low precision, and that was if you had an Nvidia card. It made AMD cards borderline unplayable in many games that were doing extensive particle physics for no other reason than to punish AMD in benchmarks.
For AMD it was executed on one core of the CPU. So the problems you're talking of, with AMD cards is exactly what I mean.
Not trying to be rude, but that's a question of how the engine uses the CPU vs GPU implementation, not a measure of apples to apples.
Comparing modern games with CPU particle physics to the heyday of GPU Physx there is no comparison. CPU physics (and Physx) are more accurate, less buggy, and generally not impactful in performance.