@@chrispena8186 because when using an AMD card, the effects are actually calculated on the CPU not the GPU. This results in abysmal performance because of the lacking hardware acceleration. Luckily game devs have moved away from designing physics effects for proprietary hardware only.
I have issue while playing this game the pc restart automatically by playing this game for 10 or 15 min and mine is Integrated GPU of AMD ryzen 5 , is this a reason for the problem
I dont get it? I used to run this game with a 550ti at full settings with Physx at high at 60fps everywhere. I really don't get it, maybe you where using AMD at one moment and you got confused.
nashismox3 I don't get it, I used to run this game with a 980 Ti at full settings with Physx at high with frequent drops below 60 FPS everywhere. I really don't get it, maybe you were using a different game at one moment and you got confused.
@reaver34572 you are right its new tecnolagy for the future sockets of amd , but people were expecting it to eat the 2600k, maby people hiped it up to mutch
***** I get a solid 60fps in this game with mine with all the graphics turned all the way up. It's hard to beat that at the price of the 760 which I picked up for $200.
TilmiteinemL (TilSkywalker) Really? Because i get frame drops in some parts of the game with 770 medium physx, but everything else ultra, and even directx11
Just like Arkham Asylum on the PC, this is looking to be the best version of the game. Bravo to WB and Nvidia. already pre ordered on steam, cannot wait to get my hands on this game!
Say what you want about Physx but when it's when implemented it adds a lot to the game. I gladly bought a GTX570 back in May 2011 and I didn't regret it : I could max the game out and keep a steady 30fps. Physx is really awesome and Arkham City was a brillant sequel to Arkham Asylum (even though I prefer the latter).
For all you Ati users such as myself to enable physx do the following. Go into WBGames > Batman Arkham City > Bmgame > Config , then open up the userengine textfile with notepad, search for the commandline PhysxLevel and set it to 1, 2 or 3 (low,medium and high settings) this will force your CPU to handle the physx instead of GPU.
Once physx was demanding for gpu and now it works smoothly, but ray tracing is more demanding I wonder in how many years rt will run on each gpu perfectly
@@RiasatSalminSami That's not how it works at all, also they're cutscenes and have no toll on the port's status. City was made for consoles that ran at 30FPS so when they need a prerendered cutscene it was exported in 30FPS, they aren't stuttery either they just look worse than the game because they're not 60FPS like the rest of it and only some of the game uses FMVs, City is also a good port. Arkham Knight's port was so bad it was near unplayable until nearly a year later, when it did get fixed and the cutscenes ran at 60FPS that's not the port being better that's the cutscenes being rendered ingame instead of using videos because they had the graphical fidelity to no longer need FMVs. If you were to actually think Knight is a better port you're either misinformed or delusional
EliteInfinity What a load of BS. Cutscenes on Arkham city pc port does stutter like hell. Properly frame paced 30 fps looks lot smoother than that shit. Your argument about "it looks stuttery cause suddenly switching from 60 fps gameplay to 30 fps" shows that you don't know how proper 30 fps looks like.at all. And no. you were right that at first Arkham Knight was a garbage port. But now after the patch, this game runs much better than Arkham City especially while gliding throughout the city. There's no stutter at all in Arkham knight now..
i'd say that among the greatest gaming experiences of my life was the week in which every night after smoking a few bowlfuls, i'd play Arkham Asylum with max graphics (can't remember if i had AA on) + Physx and 3D vision, the only times my dual-SLI GTX 285s hiccuped were the Scarecrow levels, and on those i would disable 3D vision and just play regular 2D + physx (still looked amazing!). i hope my rig (still use Q9550) can max out Arkham City, hopefully they optimized the code more so more FPS
You can use PhysX on AMD cards, the process will be off-loaded to the CPU, but since Nvidia intentionally designed the technology to function on single thread units (GPU), and not on multi-threaded units, it works, but performance is pretty bad.
The game runs spectacular on an overclocked GTX 650 Ti from MSI (Power Edition OC 1GB). Physx is set to normal without Direct X 11. Everything else is set to "extreme". For the price of the card I can't complain one bit. Oh and it runs at 1080p. Impressive eye candy!!!
@thesaxmaniac I can understand that to a point, but we aren't talking about character models here. You can only do so much. For example, diffusible fog effects as seen when the crook walks through the steam and it wisps apart and fades, wasn't possible 2 years with real time rendering due to how many particles are required. It's all about immersion, and it's what makes the game breathe, without you even noticing it unless you're actually thinking about it.
@thesaxmaniac in AA as well. "Arkham City," much like "Arkham Asylum," began the development process on PC prior to the console platforms. It was an inevitable delay as they are programming for DX9-11 in correct algorithms versus that seen in "Crysis 2" where later features (DX11) were incorrectly introduced. Building with tessellation from start to finish is much different than simply picking objects within an asset library to apply an overlapping effect. Cheers
Too bad there is no way to run decent physx on even the most powerful AMD gpus in 2024... I've got RX7900xtx and the game struggles more with those physx effects (and only some of them), than on my old gtx 1060...
@DirkDeadeye who says you need a second card? All you need is just one decent NVIDIA card with PhysX and you can enable it in the game to get all the effects. A second card only allows better performance because you have one card rendering graphics and the other physics.
I recently bought a hd 6950 xfx. I wasn't impressed with it for battlefield and I didn't really know what physx actually did. But I took it back anyways and bought a evga gtx570. Not only do I get this game free but physx is actually something thats super awsome? this just keeps getting better and better!
@GustavoMsTrashCan Actually a lot of the particle effects, fog, lighting and other things were enhanced by PhysX in AA. It's more then just paper fluttering.
@pelvist What you're not mentioning is that old cards like 8/9 series can't do PhysX and the rest of the graphics in the game on their own, it's too much of a strain on them. An 8/9 can only be used for PhysX only with another GFX card that's doing the rest.
@thesaxmaniac I actually put 275 GTXs into my custom built systems to keep the cost down, and they perform great on the benchmarks, so I can get a $100 return off the card alone. Still, PyhsX adds more then you think to the game play experience and several game companies nowadays are building games for PhysX, not just tacking it on. Also, volumetric fog (clouds in BF3), ambient effects, debris, and number of airborne objects are either inserted or get a huge boost from PhysX.
@pelvist Where was I whining? I have a GTX 580 so PhysX isn't a problem for me. The way you wrote your post was like "You only need a GeForce 8 to play PhysX" while not saying that you would need a second, more powerful card for the rest, I pointed that out.
All radeons can use PhysX - CPU calculate it. It just looks better on Nvidia graphic cards, because PhysX is designed for them and GPU can calculate it faster, what means more or better looking effects. About graphic card - According to AnandTech Bench, it would be better if you could add some money and buy Gigabyte 7870 (If not then go for 7850 with normal not reference cooling.).
@noop9k Its not a secret that PC gaming costs more, its worth it if you can afford it. Call it crappy all you want, it still looks much better than what a console could pump out.
Thanks for showing us the difference between the newest video card and a 4-year-old card. It's not that impressive, considering the video shows the game stuttering. Are you also going to show it to us on a 19" inch monitor and compare it to a 42" TV? Maybe run it in 16bit versus 32bit color?
@AlfreRock69 That's the minimum requirement. Try lowering AA a tad, and lower shadow quality, that should free up some headroom, IMHO, the minimum Gpu to realize this game nicely is a GTX 560 Ti. Keep in mind also, GTX 560's have enormous headroom for overclocking, you can try MSI Afterburner, very simple and elegent way to OC and squeze a good 10% performance. My 560 Ti was stock at 850mhz, I can run it at 1Ghz, but settle for 925Mhz, with only a small bump in voltage. Nearly 10%
not sure if anyone has said this, but: ATTENTION: there is some type of bug with the DX11 features! It will make your game lag even though you have good specs! Google it if you want, but go ahead and turn DX11 features off at the settings, and either switch to DX9 or wait for a patch!! Hope I helped someone :)
It's 2024 and I can't run Batman Arkham Asylum with a RX 6750 XT when PhysX is enabled. So I just have to turn it all off and get a pretty mid experience ffs, I think I might just hack it and fix it myself since physX just went open source again
Your fail to understand that CPU's are not designed to be a dedicated Physics calculator like CUDA cores are. Also the PhysX API can be forced to calculate on x86 based CPU now. No need to wait for an Open version. Just have to get devs to use the tools that are already there. BTW, I've seen this argument before, but it was DirectX vs OpenGL. Guess who lost?
So the only way to make a few fancy effects more noticeable is by completely overkilling them in the game? I was going to wait for the pc version myself but with it having GFWL and these fancy physics not even being that great for anything but to say, "oh, that looks cool I guess".. I think I'll pass. I can live without realistic looking smoke and realistically moving pieces of paper.. especially when they have no other reason of being in the game other than to look nice.
13 лет назад
@voyle U do not necessary need to use physx if u dont want. The game will still be there
bulldozer is a flop , how long have they been workin on it man, amd need to sort ther shit out if thats there best, and it has 8 cores , its like 4 cores are missing
Wrong, 7970 Ghz edition has since been released and took back the crown in single GPU. The 7990, dual GPU one just isn't out right now, only the sample (since reworked) has been benchmarked.
@tomroxelf nope, old $150 card won't be able to run modern games in 1080p, but some people, I heard, use old nVidia cards with main ATI card and hacked drivers just to unlock PhysX. Hacked drivers are necessary, because nVidia won't let you use PhysX hardware acceleration even on their card if ATI card is also detected.
@lorikano you can't combine an ati card with an nvidia card, you can't even combine two ati or two nvidia cards unless they are the same model (e.g you can combine two 580s, but not a 570 and a 580)
Just because you can do tons of effects, doesn't mean you should. The money floating around was cool, the sparks were just stupid. Either way, it's not enough for me to wait for the PC version. Gonna finish Batman waaaay before Nov 15th, then I'm moving onto BF3, then onto Uncharted 3, and finish the year off with some Skyrim and Saints Row 3.
@reaver34572 Glad to see another PhysX supporter. We seem to be rare and few between nowadays. People want better looking textures, but what's a room or a city without the life of moving objects in it? Anyways, moving on now...
@brucenatelee You can use an xbox controller if you are on windows, as the drivers are automatically included with the OS. If you want to use a ps3 controller you need do download a driver, such as "Motionjoy". But if you don't have controllers you would use a keyboard and mouse. Kinda like the Witcher 2
@AConcernedObserver 8800GT isn't DX11, and PhysX + DX11 makes a big difference, as far as extra detail goes. Probably why they chose to compare the cards they did.
I doubt it, if the new systems use anything more powerful I will be shocked. Consoles rely mostly on graphics power anyways, and since pc gaming is mostly ports of consoles with some exceptions, I doubt anything more would be needed.
@thesaxmaniac Quite mistaken here, and you've been reading up on all the pessimism from the forums. First of, delay. Two simple reasons. First, Warner Bros. is trying to rake in more cash from the PC/Console gamers by delaying the game and avoiding the pirate sites for as long as possible. Is it right? No. But not much we can do, except not buy the game if you don't like it. As far as PhysX being tacked on, people don't seem to understand fully how it works, and this applies for the delay
If you actually check out Nvidias website and related article...they compare the 8800 with PhysX off (left screen) to a GTX560 with PhysX on (right) Why not actually compare with a relevant ATI card to show what modern nvidia cards can do with the physics engine instead of compare it to 4/5 year old hardware?
It's a specialized circuit in the GPU. NVIDIA have every right to patent that, AMD could, believe it or not, make their own physics API. if that happens, this patent will actually have lived up to the reason patents exist; to improve variety and consumer choice. :P
Can someone tell me what GeForce card can i buy around 60-80€ (i won't go higher at all) and that would allow me to play some recent games ? I don't need to max it out but at least all settings on medium in full-HD res' would be good. I'm planning to buy an i5 3450 + 2x4gb DDR3 1600mhz but i have no idea what GC to pick up.
Get a GTX 1650 or you can go for used RTX 3060 with little increase in your budget and i recommend you to get a better CPU too like i5 3450 is so 11 yr old, get a 10th Gen atleast. Kudos :)
@DavidXG360 There is ALWAYS a way to force certain options in a game that restricts what you can see. Weather your computer can handle it or not, is a completely different problem.
@StellarRecreations Well think about how these games are made - for consoles. They are a complete experience for consoles, and the PC version gets delayed for 1 month to add...a few physx effects. Proving that this game was not made with these things in mind. If it was integral to the experience it would be on consoles as well, but it's not. And I tend to think these effects are way overdone, especially all the particles. Just because you can pack a scene with them doesn't mean you should.
On the link above you say that "the 8800 GT cannot maintain an adequate frame rate with PhysX enabled". But can it indeed BE enabled with that card? How may fps did you get?
@4131025 Havok Cpu physics are great, but they're not nearly as powerful as Gpu accellerated physics. Why else would Havok have their 'own' Gpu accellerated physics model they're working on, using OpenCL. :) But sure , the source engine uses a great set, Havok looks great and is good on a broad range of Cpu's.
When I played dishonored I loved the game, my gpu and cpu could just run the game, I'm saving for a gaming machine, with a 760GTX and will replay that game just for the graphic experience, if people like yourself who just wants to play game for gameplay and not graphics I suggest going back to the saga (y)
@Sm0kaCola He would also need a good gamepad or gyro mouse at least. And hi-res graphics on the PC usually requires a graphics card more expensive than PS3 or x360. And with there crappy "improvements" game will require an additional nVidia video card even if you have perfectly good one from ATI/AMD.
@DarkershadeEnt But you've got to be honest here, it's not worth the 2/3 weeks long delay for pc :/. It's cool if they would just release the game and added physx support later on. I was playing AA last night with physx, it's not at all that interesting, you will run past those things very easily.
Well, PhysX is one of Nvidia's feature that sets itself aside from the competition. On the other hand, Radeon owners can still run PhysX, just not on the Radeon card. It just use the CPU which tend to be slower, but still doable depending on the rig. Nvidia is not that greedy really, since they only make millions in profit when their operating cost is much more than that. AMD recently are in the red, if you call that "not greedy", I would call it bad business or just temporary desperation.
Dont know much about PhysX, but I am guessing it would hurt performance turning it on. And testing out what Mikzzzan said I was running it with my ATI 7950, so really interested to see some ATI 7950 vs Nvidia 660 GTX PhysX fps charts.
@EliteBushido I'm fine with my nice AMD card, thanks. Several years old CPU should be capable of running this fullspeed, if nvidia didn't disable optimizations in CPU-only PhysX code. Anyway, cheap particle effects won't hide lack of high resolution textures and probably also 16-bit colordepth.
@GabrielOnuris Well actually in the times of the NES consoles were superior in power, that's why it took awhile for PCs to be able to have platformers they weren't powerful enough to process everything on the screen. Although that is no longer the case of course but still they haven't always owned consoles
whooho, got to know. just bought a new system with an i72600k and a nvidia gtx580 for BF3. gaming will look much better with my new nvidia^^(ATI 4870 before)
hardware is really expensive in my country..like 3 times the real price. Apart from that, we get all the software we want for just 3 $. The other downside is the power consumption..recent graphic cards requires a new power supply to work.
@StellarRecreations I haven't been "reading up", not sure what you mean by that. And delaying the PC release causes you to lose PC sales to all but the most patient, and that's a fact. Most will just play on consoles before all the hype is gone a month later. And plenty of games have slapped on these basic effects. No point in arguing anymore because you seem to be entranced by silly fog and particles and such. I'll stick to my old gfx card and live without lame physx effects.
Shame they delayed this until a whole month after console release, sure lost alot of sales because of that. I wanted to get it for the PC, but a whole month is too long to wait...especially with BF3 & Uncharted 3 coming out before hand.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
Now in 2019, our GPUs can run these things perfectly
Not AMD ones sadly. Horrible FPS drop around smoke and certain areas
@@chrispena8186 because when using an AMD card, the effects are actually calculated on the CPU not the GPU. This results in abysmal performance because of the lacking hardware acceleration. Luckily game devs have moved away from designing physics effects for proprietary hardware only.
I have issue while playing this game the pc restart automatically by playing this game for 10 or 15 min and mine is Integrated GPU of AMD ryzen 5 , is this a reason for the problem
And GPU accelerated PhsyX effects in games have been dead for years.
now we have gpus that can finally run physx in this game five years later.
I dont get it? I used to run this game with a 550ti at full settings with Physx at high at 60fps everywhere. I really don't get it, maybe you where using AMD at one moment and you got confused.
nashismox3
I don't get it, I used to run this game with a 980 Ti at full settings with Physx at high with frequent drops below 60 FPS everywhere. I really don't get it, maybe you were using a different game at one moment and you got confused.
IN 5 OR MORE YEARS FINALLY RUN RAYTRACING
I could run it maximum in 1440p with a 980 Ti. (Physx)
@@nashismox3 I use AMD and get so many FPS drops
Thanks for including a 240p render, as I am a console user and couldn't quite
comprehend the clear vividness of the video.
That's really cool, I love your physx
@reaver34572 you are right its new tecnolagy for the future sockets of amd , but people were expecting it to eat the 2600k, maby people hiped it up to mutch
Next week my GTX 760 arrives and I think I must play this game with all these features a second time!
***** I get a solid 60fps in this game with mine with all the graphics turned all the way up. It's hard to beat that at the price of the 760 which I picked up for $200.
***** It is pretty good :) I can play all games with high-ultra setting ^^
it's good to hear that you're getting a pretty good performance on that card. i have the same card. and i'll be having this game sooner. :)
TilmiteinemL (TilSkywalker) Really? Because i get frame drops in some parts of the game with 770 medium physx, but everything else ultra, and even directx11
TilmitderBrill' (TilSkywalker) Not the new games
the 90's called and said they wanted their dvd trailer music back.
It's now to see someone from 2024 here!
Just like Arkham Asylum on the PC, this is looking to be the best version of the game. Bravo to WB and Nvidia. already pre ordered on steam, cannot wait to get my hands on this game!
Say what you want about Physx but when it's when implemented it adds a lot to the game. I gladly bought a GTX570 back in May 2011 and I didn't regret it : I could max the game out and keep a steady 30fps.
Physx is really awesome and Arkham City was a brillant sequel to Arkham Asylum (even though I prefer the latter).
For all you Ati users such as myself to enable physx do the following.
Go into WBGames > Batman Arkham City > Bmgame > Config , then open up the userengine textfile with notepad, search for the commandline PhysxLevel and set it to 1, 2 or 3 (low,medium and high settings) this will force your CPU to handle the physx instead of GPU.
Once physx was demanding for gpu and now it works smoothly, but ray tracing is more demanding I wonder in how many years rt will run on each gpu perfectly
Yeah who knows. GPUs get better at handling RT but the RT tech itself is still improving. Ugh
This was a good port on PC. Why Arkham Knight why?? :(
Arkham knight cutscenes are 60 fps. Arkham city cutscenes are pre rendered 30 fps stutter video. Arkham knight better port.
FINALLY IS PLAYABLE XD!
@@RiasatSalminSami That's not how it works at all, also they're cutscenes and have no toll on the port's status. City was made for consoles that ran at 30FPS so when they need a prerendered cutscene it was exported in 30FPS, they aren't stuttery either they just look worse than the game because they're not 60FPS like the rest of it and only some of the game uses FMVs, City is also a good port. Arkham Knight's port was so bad it was near unplayable until nearly a year later, when it did get fixed and the cutscenes ran at 60FPS that's not the port being better that's the cutscenes being rendered ingame instead of using videos because they had the graphical fidelity to no longer need FMVs. If you were to actually think Knight is a better port you're either misinformed or delusional
EliteInfinity
What a load of BS. Cutscenes on Arkham city pc port does stutter like hell.
Properly frame paced 30 fps looks lot smoother than that shit.
Your argument about "it looks stuttery cause suddenly switching from 60 fps gameplay to 30 fps" shows that you don't know how proper 30 fps looks like.at all.
And no. you were right that at first Arkham Knight was a garbage port. But now after the patch, this game runs much better than Arkham City especially while gliding throughout the city. There's no stutter at all in Arkham knight now..
Looks awesome. Cant wait till I see it on my PC with Physx :)
i'd say that among the greatest gaming experiences of my life was the week in which every night after smoking a few bowlfuls, i'd play Arkham Asylum with max graphics (can't remember if i had AA on) + Physx and 3D vision, the only times my dual-SLI GTX 285s hiccuped were the Scarecrow levels, and on those i would disable 3D vision and just play regular 2D + physx (still looked amazing!). i hope my rig (still use Q9550) can max out Arkham City, hopefully they optimized the code more so more FPS
I get my second Gtx 970 and cant wait for Direct x 12 and 4k :)
You can use PhysX on AMD cards, the process will be off-loaded to the CPU, but since Nvidia intentionally designed the technology to function on single thread units (GPU), and not on multi-threaded units, it works, but performance is pretty bad.
The game runs spectacular on an overclocked GTX 650 Ti from MSI (Power Edition OC 1GB). Physx is set to normal without Direct X 11. Everything else is set to "extreme". For the price of the card I can't complain one bit. Oh and it runs at 1080p. Impressive eye candy!!!
@LegoAndStarWarsFan good to hear. I'm convinced - pc it is! i can wait.
Unfortunately You need a pretty high end GTX to take full advantage of this tech without it effecting your performance.
so with PhysX you get a bunch of things twirling around unnaturally like its constantly very windy, even indoors. amazing.
@thesaxmaniac I can understand that to a point, but we aren't talking about character models here. You can only do so much. For example, diffusible fog effects as seen when the crook walks through the steam and it wisps apart and fades, wasn't possible 2 years with real time rendering due to how many particles are required. It's all about immersion, and it's what makes the game breathe, without you even noticing it unless you're actually thinking about it.
@thesaxmaniac in AA as well. "Arkham City," much like "Arkham Asylum," began the development process on PC prior to the console platforms. It was an inevitable delay as they are programming for DX9-11 in correct algorithms versus that seen in "Crysis 2" where later features (DX11) were incorrectly introduced. Building with tessellation from start to finish is much different than simply picking objects within an asset library to apply an overlapping effect.
Cheers
Too bad there is no way to run decent physx on even the most powerful AMD gpus in 2024... I've got RX7900xtx and the game struggles more with those physx effects (and only some of them), than on my old gtx 1060...
@DirkDeadeye who says you need a second card? All you need is just one decent NVIDIA card with PhysX and you can enable it in the game to get all the effects. A second card only allows better performance because you have one card rendering graphics and the other physics.
I recently bought a hd 6950 xfx. I wasn't impressed with it for battlefield and I didn't really know what physx actually did. But I took it back anyways and bought a evga gtx570. Not only do I get this game free but physx is actually something thats super awsome? this just keeps getting better and better!
@Suren0 nvidia is not the only GPU on PCs though.
The right way to say it would be "extra details for Nvidia is selling out"
@GustavoMsTrashCan Actually a lot of the particle effects, fog, lighting and other things were enhanced by PhysX in AA. It's more then just paper fluttering.
@pelvist What you're not mentioning is that old cards like 8/9 series can't do PhysX and the rest of the graphics in the game on their own, it's too much of a strain on them. An 8/9 can only be used for PhysX only with another GFX card that's doing the rest.
@thesaxmaniac I actually put 275 GTXs into my custom built systems to keep the cost down, and they perform great on the benchmarks, so I can get a $100 return off the card alone. Still, PyhsX adds more then you think to the game play experience and several game companies nowadays are building games for PhysX, not just tacking it on. Also, volumetric fog (clouds in BF3), ambient effects, debris, and number of airborne objects are either inserted or get a huge boost from PhysX.
the best phsyx effect i have seen in a game
I like it how it still looks amazing without PhysX
@pelvist Where was I whining? I have a GTX 580 so PhysX isn't a problem for me. The way you wrote your post was like "You only need a GeForce 8 to play PhysX" while not saying that you would need a second, more powerful card for the rest, I pointed that out.
All radeons can use PhysX - CPU calculate it. It just looks better on Nvidia graphic cards, because PhysX is designed for them and GPU can calculate it faster, what means more or better looking effects.
About graphic card - According to AnandTech Bench, it would be better if you could add some money and buy Gigabyte 7870 (If not then go for 7850 with normal not reference cooling.).
@noop9k Its not a secret that PC gaming costs more, its worth it if you can afford it. Call it crappy all you want, it still looks much better than what a console could pump out.
Gee this music suits Batman PERFECTLY.
Thanks for showing us the difference between the newest video card and a 4-year-old card. It's not that impressive, considering the video shows the game stuttering. Are you also going to show it to us on a 19" inch monitor and compare it to a 42" TV? Maybe run it in 16bit versus 32bit color?
So, it looks the same? Good to know.
@AlfreRock69 That's the minimum requirement. Try lowering AA a tad, and lower shadow quality, that should free up some headroom, IMHO, the minimum Gpu to realize this game nicely is a GTX 560 Ti.
Keep in mind also, GTX 560's have enormous headroom for overclocking, you can try MSI Afterburner, very simple and elegent way to OC and squeze a good 10% performance. My 560 Ti was stock at 850mhz, I can run it at 1Ghz, but settle for 925Mhz, with only a small bump in voltage. Nearly 10%
not sure if anyone has said this, but: ATTENTION: there is some type of bug with the DX11 features! It will make your game lag even though you have good specs! Google it if you want, but go ahead and turn DX11 features off at the settings, and either switch to DX9 or wait for a patch!! Hope I helped someone :)
DAMNIT! I wish I never saw this... Now I want the PC version too....
I wish the first time i played this (8 years ago)
I could have run these settings but i did not have a pc then :(
It's 2024 and I can't run Batman Arkham Asylum with a RX 6750 XT when PhysX is enabled.
So I just have to turn it all off and get a pretty mid experience
ffs, I think I might just hack it and fix it myself since physX just went open source again
very late but I looked it up and I saw "Some games require PhysX, those games will run it on the CPU instead of the GPU in a system with an AMD GPU."
cant wait for this to come out on pc
And the most intriguing thing here was the fog.
Oh. Wow. Physics. I have never seen that before.
Your fail to understand that CPU's are not designed to be a dedicated Physics calculator like CUDA cores are. Also the PhysX API can be forced to calculate on x86 based CPU now. No need to wait for an Open version. Just have to get devs to use the tools that are already there. BTW, I've seen this argument before, but it was DirectX vs OpenGL. Guess who lost?
damn....can't get out from 0:46...that smoke is awesome!!!!
Even though this video can go up to 1080p it still gives the pc version barely any justice!
So the only way to make a few fancy effects more noticeable is by completely overkilling them in the game? I was going to wait for the pc version myself but with it having GFWL and these fancy physics not even being that great for anything but to say, "oh, that looks cool I guess".. I think I'll pass. I can live without realistic looking smoke and realistically moving pieces of paper.. especially when they have no other reason of being in the game other than to look nice.
@voyle U do not necessary need to use physx if u dont want.
The game will still be there
bulldozer is a flop , how long have they been workin on it man, amd need to sort ther shit out if thats there best, and it has 8 cores , its like 4 cores are missing
Wrong, 7970 Ghz edition has since been released and took back the crown in single GPU. The 7990, dual GPU one just isn't out right now, only the sample (since reworked) has been benchmarked.
0:35 without PhysX: no whip allowed
with PhysX: whip for free
I finished the game in 25 fps on my crappy igpu laptop back in 2014, turns out physx was enabled this entire time. Without physx i get 60+ fps 🤡
I have more than 100 fps with physx on
@@julek4248 My current setup gets 200+ fps with physx at 4k 👍
@tomroxelf nope, old $150 card won't be able to run modern games in 1080p, but some people, I heard, use old nVidia cards with main ATI card and hacked drivers just to unlock PhysX. Hacked drivers are necessary, because nVidia won't let you use PhysX hardware acceleration even on their card if ATI card is also detected.
Looks great with the GTX 560! I will probably max it out with my N580GTX lightning Xtreme :D
@GIMPMan1972 yes, like the glass in Mirror's Edge, when PhysX is turned on, they stay, but without PhysX, they will fade very fast
@lorikano you can't combine an ati card with an nvidia card, you can't even combine two ati or two nvidia cards unless they are the same model (e.g you can combine two 580s, but not a 570 and a 580)
Just because you can do tons of effects, doesn't mean you should. The money floating around was cool, the sparks were just stupid.
Either way, it's not enough for me to wait for the PC version. Gonna finish Batman waaaay before Nov 15th, then I'm moving onto BF3, then onto Uncharted 3, and finish the year off with some Skyrim and Saints Row 3.
@samweisner no... it means more smokes in everything you do... even punching enemies...
@reaver34572 Glad to see another PhysX supporter. We seem to be rare and few between nowadays. People want better looking textures, but what's a room or a city without the life of moving objects in it? Anyways, moving on now...
@brucenatelee You can use an xbox controller if you are on windows, as the drivers are automatically included with the OS. If you want to use a ps3 controller you need do download a driver, such as "Motionjoy". But if you don't have controllers you would use a keyboard and mouse. Kinda like the Witcher 2
The music doesn't fit. They couldn't have used music from in-game?
@kingspagge It's a Games for Windows title, but will not be using GFWL. It'll use Steamworks.
@AConcernedObserver 8800GT isn't DX11, and PhysX + DX11 makes a big difference, as far as extra detail goes. Probably why they chose to compare the cards they did.
I doubt it, if the new systems use anything more powerful I will be shocked. Consoles rely mostly on graphics power anyways, and since pc gaming is mostly ports of consoles with some exceptions, I doubt anything more would be needed.
@thesaxmaniac Quite mistaken here, and you've been reading up on all the pessimism from the forums. First of, delay. Two simple reasons. First, Warner Bros. is trying to rake in more cash from the PC/Console gamers by delaying the game and avoiding the pirate sites for as long as possible. Is it right? No. But not much we can do, except not buy the game if you don't like it. As far as PhysX being tacked on, people don't seem to understand fully how it works, and this applies for the delay
A single 8800GT running the game smoothly and maxed out at 1080p? I'm glad Arkham City is as optimized as Arkham Asylum. :)
If you actually check out Nvidias website and related article...they compare the 8800 with PhysX off (left screen) to a GTX560 with PhysX on (right)
Why not actually compare with a relevant ATI card to show what modern nvidia cards can do with the physics engine instead of compare it to 4/5 year old hardware?
woah the PhysX engine is so good i can still see great on 144P :O
2019.... When I was reading these comments. Everyone looks outdated
It's a specialized circuit in the GPU. NVIDIA have every right to patent that, AMD could, believe it or not, make their own physics API. if that happens, this patent will actually have lived up to the reason patents exist; to improve variety and consumer choice. :P
Can someone tell me what GeForce card can i buy around 60-80€ (i won't go higher at all) and that would allow me to play some recent games ? I don't need to max it out but at least all settings on medium in full-HD res' would be good. I'm planning to buy an i5 3450 + 2x4gb DDR3 1600mhz but i have no idea what GC to pick up.
Get a GTX 1650 or you can go for used RTX 3060 with little increase in your budget and i recommend you to get a better CPU too like i5 3450 is so 11 yr old, get a 10th Gen atleast.
Kudos :)
My man you are late a little @@ABHISHEK-dh1ww
All games should allow you to create your own textures, now I wouldn't mind waiting for that.
@AwayToSlay Lol, ok, now I see your point!!!!
@DavidXG360 There is ALWAYS a way to force certain options in a game that restricts what you can see. Weather your computer can handle it or not, is a completely different problem.
i have a 9800 GTX..works fine with pretty much every new game. Of course i have to turn ff all the extra effects.
@StellarRecreations Well think about how these games are made - for consoles. They are a complete experience for consoles, and the PC version gets delayed for 1 month to add...a few physx effects. Proving that this game was not made with these things in mind. If it was integral to the experience it would be on consoles as well, but it's not. And I tend to think these effects are way overdone, especially all the particles. Just because you can pack a scene with them doesn't mean you should.
On the link above you say that "the 8800 GT cannot maintain an adequate frame rate with PhysX enabled". But can it indeed BE enabled with that card? How may fps did you get?
Looks like 45 Avg and 28-30 in demanding areas :)
Physics made games more life like. Hell, even Cyberpunk 2077 feels dead lol.
@4131025 Havok Cpu physics are great, but they're not nearly as powerful as Gpu accellerated physics. Why else would Havok have their 'own' Gpu accellerated physics model they're working on, using OpenCL. :) But sure , the source engine uses a great set, Havok looks great and is good on a broad range of Cpu's.
@beetlenoi
Of course you can. I'm doing it now. Just use an HDMI cable and wireless kb&m.
is there an alternate for physx for ati cards? because im upgrading to the ati 6950 soon and would like to run this game in all its glory.
When I played dishonored I loved the game, my gpu and cpu could just run the game, I'm saving for a gaming machine, with a 760GTX and will replay that game just for the graphic experience, if people like yourself who just wants to play game for gameplay and not graphics I suggest going back to the saga (y)
@Sm0kaCola He would also need a good gamepad or gyro mouse at least. And hi-res graphics on the PC usually requires a graphics card more expensive than PS3 or x360. And with there crappy "improvements" game will require an additional nVidia video card even if you have perfectly good one from ATI/AMD.
@DarkershadeEnt But you've got to be honest here, it's not worth the 2/3 weeks long delay for pc :/. It's cool if they would just release the game and added physx support later on. I was playing AA last night with physx, it's not at all that interesting, you will run past those things very easily.
@Fro7enDesigns Yea if you are buying the game on console. Doesn't come out anywhere on pc until November.
@ctmngr
There's actually a 8800gt (that level of vcards) in it. Beside that i'm complete agree with you.
Well, PhysX is one of Nvidia's feature that sets itself aside from the competition.
On the other hand, Radeon owners can still run PhysX, just not on the Radeon card. It just use the CPU which tend to be slower, but still doable depending on the rig.
Nvidia is not that greedy really, since they only make millions in profit when their operating cost is much more than that.
AMD recently are in the red, if you call that "not greedy", I would call it bad business or just temporary desperation.
the game lags in this video... I hope the framerate issues aren't actually present when playing this game in-person
@thesaxmaniac So you're saying that fog, smoke and stuff flying around doesn't add to the feel of the game? The atmosphere?
Dont know much about PhysX, but I am guessing it would hurt performance turning it on.
And testing out what Mikzzzan said I was running it with my ATI 7950, so really interested to see some ATI 7950 vs Nvidia 660 GTX PhysX fps charts.
@EliteBushido I'm fine with my nice AMD card, thanks. Several years old CPU should be capable of running this fullspeed, if nvidia didn't disable optimizations in CPU-only PhysX code. Anyway, cheap particle effects won't hide lack of high resolution textures and probably also 16-bit colordepth.
@GabrielOnuris Well actually in the times of the NES consoles were superior in power, that's why it took awhile for PCs to be able to have platformers they weren't powerful enough to process everything on the screen. Although that is no longer the case of course but still they haven't always owned consoles
may the GeForce be with you!
whooho, got to know. just bought a new system with an i72600k and a nvidia gtx580 for BF3. gaming will look much better with my new nvidia^^(ATI 4870 before)
hardware is really expensive in my country..like 3 times the real price. Apart from that, we get all the software we want for just 3 $.
The other downside is the power consumption..recent graphic cards requires a new power supply to work.
@StellarRecreations I haven't been "reading up", not sure what you mean by that. And delaying the PC release causes you to lose PC sales to all but the most patient, and that's a fact. Most will just play on consoles before all the hype is gone a month later. And plenty of games have slapped on these basic effects. No point in arguing anymore because you seem to be entranced by silly fog and particles and such. I'll stick to my old gfx card and live without lame physx effects.
Shame they delayed this until a whole month after console release, sure lost alot of sales because of that. I wanted to get it for the PC, but a whole month is too long to wait...especially with BF3 & Uncharted 3 coming out before hand.
@BankaiHalo I sure hope the DX11 option gives me a high-fidelity view!