KazumiZorah Wrote:Doesn't AMD have a physx alternative?
No.
There are however "open" physics engines that support using both AMD and nvidia GPUs for hardware acceleration. And they tend to be more popular than physx. Although even with these engines that have the option of doing so devs rarely make use of hardware accelerated physics. Physics engines are still mostly done on the CPU these days due to the greater flexibility. There are few games that use physx and most of them don't do anything special with it. So it shouldn't really factor into your purchase decision imo. I consider myself a bit biased towards nvidia and even I hope physx dies soon.
KazumiZorah Wrote:Which EVGA model do you have? 2gb or 4gb? I'm [a little] worried that 2gb of vram is "just enough" to play modern games at 1080p but will have me fucked if I go bigger or multi-monitor; not likely but not impossible. The 4gb one is 40eu more and overkill >_<. I'm ok with paying more to get a very good air cooler, i'll look into that.
As always "it depends on the game". Right now there are only a few games on the market that can use close to 2GB (not gb) of vram at 1080p. For the most part 4GB is only needed for running the most demanding games at absurd resolutions (4K UHD or triple monitor 1080p). 2GB is still enough for almost any situation in almost any game. But that may change in the near future with the xbone/ps4 having just been released which will push game devs to make higher quality art assets and game engines that use more vram.
"Normally if given a choice between doing something and nothing, I’d choose to do nothing. But I would do something if it helps someone else do nothing. I’d work all night if it meant nothing got done."
-Ron Swanson
"I shall be a good politician, even if it kills me. Or if it kills anyone else for that matter. "
-Mark Antony
-Ron Swanson
"I shall be a good politician, even if it kills me. Or if it kills anyone else for that matter. "
-Mark Antony