Mafia 2 will utilize PhysX and 3D Vision

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carfax

I should have been more specific. Mafia 2 has up to 10K objects on the screen at any given time, many of them unique with different properties.

So not only do you get more objects, but your CPU isn't pegged at 100% :rofl:

No, my point isn't moot, because even the fastest hexcore processor (which costs over 1K) cannot match my 130 USD GTS 250 when it comes to physics processing.

No, my arguements are logical, while yours is the voice of fanaticism and lunacy.
Case in point, only a fanatic would tell me what games I should, and should not play :rolleyes:

You keep saying PhysX is irrelevent, yet big titles keep using it. First Metro 2033, then Mafia 2..

What game will be next I wonder? :ROTF:

---

Hey dude,

Before you go laughing all over the place, understand wtf u r talking about.

If objects are not in motion, then where is your rebuttal to the Velocity Engine demo... which has nearly 4k object in motion, with no additional video card...?


Not only that, but I play your childish game and raise you an lol... with:
So not only do you get more objects in motion and more usable, but you don't need to buy another video card to do it :rofl:


But I am not done:
A 6 core CPU only cost $290, about $50 more than a quad core. For that extra $50 everyone will get better gameplay and less wattage consumption, than if they grabbed a GTS 250... :ROTF:



Can you define "physics processing" ..?

Because your nvidia GPU cannot do more middle ware calculations, than 4~5 unused cores on a modern CPU (already proven).

If it could, then why would you need an extra card? Ironically, if 2 nvidia video cards aren't enough to allow thousands of independent physical objects to interact with one another (see the Velocity Demo, or within Battlefield: Bad Company 2)...

Then^ where is the logic in your rebuttals.?



Lastly.. name a big title using physx please. Batman/mafia are not big titles, they are not classics. They have no following, are not enduring and within 2 years won't even be a blip on the radar.

Yet, BF has been using physics in their games for 7 years...


Matter of fact, I'll go so far as to say there isn't one nvidia game with real physics in use. The fluff and eye candy nvidia claims as physics is nothing other than simulations of fluff. btw... particles are not objects..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hu1kamania

I'm with ya Carfax. One of the best CPU based physics engines that I have seen was Infernal's Velocity engine, used for the Ghostbusters game. While it is nice, it still doesn't compare to what can be done with GPU based physics.

A room full of boxes is nice, but only 2500? Impressive by CPU standards but not GPU. Also, factor in volumetric fog and fluid calculations and the CPU is done for.

---

Indeed not impressive to what can be done on the GPU but the point is the GPU ain't doing anything impressive for a GPU where as Ghostbusters is doing things that are impressive for a CPU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Final8ty

Indeed not impressive to what can be done on the GPU but the point is the GPU ain't doing anything impressive for a GPU where as Ghostbusters is doing things that are impressive for a CPU.

---

I can't argue that. Impression is in the eye of the beholder. I will admit that the effects that that utilize physX are often subtle, but I generally enjoy them.

The overall scene complexity is measurable however, and from everything I have seen so far the GPU wins.

In a perfect world the scene being rendered would be balanced across CPU's and GPUs so that every bit of hardware is in use. To that end, I think it would be a much smaller leap for PhysX to utilize multiple CPU cores on top of GPU utilization vs. a software based physics setup that now needs to balance CPU load with a GPU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hu1kamania

I can't argue that. Impression is in the eye of the beholder. I will admit that the effects that that utilize physX are often subtle, but I generally enjoy them.

The overall scene complexity is measurable however, and from everything I have seen so far the GPU wins.

In a perfect world the scene being rendered would be balanced across CPU's and GPUs so that every bit of hardware is in use. To that end, I think it would be a much smaller leap for PhysX to utilize multiple CPU cores on top of GPU utilization vs. a software based physics setup that now needs to balance CPU load with a GPU.

---

Give me an example of the GPU wining ? an example of never done before by other methods & is worthy of the resources needed in games.

And take into account i mean real gameplay physics because that's what Ghostbusters was using.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Final8ty

Give me an example of the GPU wining ? an example of never done before by other methods & is worthy of the resources needed in games.

And take into account i mean real gameplay physics because that's what Ghostbusters was using.

---

A GPU can render more physics in a given scene vs. it's CPU counterpart. The debate usually lies in whether the taxation on the GPU is worth it vs. taxation on the CPU.

The worthiness of the physics being rendered in a single scene is subjective. What I might deem worthy, you would probably call unworthy.

Use of PhysX as a game play mechanism are rare. If a developer were to rely solely on hardware accelerated PhysX for game play then their title would be useless for console and they would alienate a large percentage of potential customers. While I might appreciate the gesture, I am sure the non-PhysX compatible crowd would be in an uproar. Like they always are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xoulz

Hey dude,

Before you go laughing all over the place, understand wtf u r talking about.

If objects are not in motion, then where is your rebuttal to the Velocity Engine demo... which has nearly 4k object in motion, with no additional video card...?


Not only that, but I play your childish game and raise you an lol... with:
So not only do you get more objects in motion and more usable, but you don't need to buy another video card to do it :rofl:


But I am not done:
A 6 core CPU only cost $290, about $50 more than a quad core. For that extra $50 everyone will get better gameplay and less wattage consumption, than if they grabbed a GTS 250... :ROTF:



Can you define "physics processing" ..?

Because your nvidia GPU cannot do more middle ware calculations, than 4~5 unused cores on a modern CPU (already proven).

If it could, then why would you need an extra card? Ironically, if 2 nvidia video cards aren't enough to allow thousands of independent physical objects to interact with one another (see the Velocity Demo, or within Battlefield: Bad Company 2)...

Then^ where is the logic in your rebuttals.?



Lastly.. name a big title using physx please. Batman/mafia are not big titles, they are not classics. They have no following, are not enduring and within 2 years won't even be a blip on the radar.

Yet, BF has been using physics in their games for 7 years...


Matter of fact, I'll go so far as to say there isn't one nvidia game with real physics in use. The fluff and eye candy nvidia claims as physics is nothing other than simulations of fluff. btw... particles are not objects..

---

how about this, show me a demo of an AMD 6-core keeping pace with a gts250 in fluidmark. then i will believe you when i comes to cpu physics. also, stop using BFBC2 as an example of cpu physics, it's not hard to see that the destruction in that game is pre-animated.

here is the bottom line, if you don't like physx, don't buy it. those of us who use it, don't care about why you don't like it.

for how power hungry physics are, the effects sure look like crap, break away particles, ragdoll, and explosions are obvious and commonly used for the engine itself. but things like smoke and dust, honestly i think it looks way to crappy for how taxing it is on hardware.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 570091D

how about this, show me a demo of an AMD 6-core keeping pace with a gts250 in fluidmark. then i will believe you when i comes to cpu physics. also, stop using BFBC2 as an example of cpu physics, it's not hard to see that the destruction in that game is pre-animated.

here is the bottom line, if you don't like physx, don't buy it. those of us who use it, don't care about why you don't like it.

---

Why would you use fluidmark? The CPU based code is bastardized X87 which runs at about 20% efficiency. Move it to SSE2 and you'll see 4-5x performance alone, not even counting adding more cores.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carfax

Single or multithreaded, it won't make much of a difference as the performance you'll get for running it on the CPU will be vastly inferior to running it on a GPU.

On Apex high, the game can have up to 10,000 dynamic particles on the screen...far more than modern CPUs can handle.

---

Do you have benchmarks to prove this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manicdan

for how power hungry physics are, the effects sure look like crap, break away particles, ragdoll, and explosions are obvious and commonly used for the engine itself. but things like smoke and dust, honestly i think it looks way to crappy for how taxing it is on hardware.

---

I agree, visually those effects are often jarring or not that attractive. But you can either complain or temper that opinion with an appreciation of the type of calculations required to produce decent physics simulations. Some people expect nirvana from day1 but hardware accelerated physics is still in the very early stages of development. And of course, there's always the option to turn them off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xoulz

If objects are not in motion, then where is your rebuttal to the Velocity Engine demo... which has nearly 4k object in motion, with no additional video card...?

---

And what makes you think they aren't in motion? What dark hole did you pull this absurd thought from? :ROTF:

Quote:

---

So not only do you get more objects in motion and more usable, but you don't need to buy another video card to do it :rofl:

---

This assumption of yours is just that, an assumption. You probably haven't even played the demo, and seen first hand the amount of objects that can be on the screen at the same time.

A simple car explosion in Mafia 2 generates thousands of objects, as well as affecting other objects in the vicinity. Add to that the cloth physics, and there's tons of physics simulation occurring at the same time.

Quote:

---

A 6 core CPU only cost $290, about $50 more than a quad core. For that extra $50 everyone will get better gameplay and less wattage consumption, than if they grabbed a GTS 250... :ROTF:

---

A hex core AMD processor from what I've seen, is slower than a Core i7, so what makes you think it would give you "better gameplay" than a GTS 250?

Quote:

---

Because your nvidia GPU cannot do more middle ware calculations, than 4~5 unused cores on a modern CPU (already proven).

---

Um, yes it can! A GTS 250 has a LOT more raw Gflops than your AMD hexcore processor. Mine has around 500 Gflops, far more than any CPU.

And when you start talking bandwidth, then GPUs look even better..

Quote:

---

If it could, then why would you need an extra card? Ironically, if 2 nvidia video cards aren't enough to allow thousands of independent physical objects to interact with one another (see the Velocity Demo, or within Battlefield: Bad Company 2)...

---

Who said I need an extra card? I have 480 SLi, so I don't "need" an extra card.

I use an extra card because I want MAXIMUM PERFORMANCE as well as maximum IQ.

Playing at 2560x1600 places higher demands on a system, especially if you dial up the settings and the AA..

Quote:

---

Lastly.. name a big title using physx please. Batman/mafia are not big titles, they are not classics. They have no following, are not enduring and within 2 years won't even be a blip on the radar.

Yet, BF has been using physics in their games for 7 years...

---

So you're the grand arbiter of whats considered "big tiles" now eh? :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Matter of fact, I'll go so far as to say there isn't one nvidia game with real physics in use. The fluff and eye candy nvidia claims as physics is nothing other than simulations of fluff. btw... particles are not objects.

---

Not even worth replying to..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trinibwoy

Some people expect nirvana from day1 but hardware accelerated physics is still in the very early stages of development. And of course, there's always the option to turn them off.

---

the only thing i expect is something visually impressive after like a decade of "not much new"

i still love the ragdoll of CS:S, every body falls just a little differently and some are a funny to watch.

efficiency is needed for universal usage. throw 10k particles into a mulitplayer game, and the 1 object moving 700fps that matters get bogged down cause the other 9,999 have to match perfectly by the server aswell, or theres serious imbalances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STEvil

Do you have benchmarks to prove this?

---

No I don't.

It's a good assumption though, because GPUs have a lot more raw Gflops and bandwidth than CPUs, so it stands to say that you'll always get faster performance on a GPU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carfax

No I don't.

It's a good assumption though, because GPUs have a lot more raw Gflops and bandwidth than CPUs, so it stands to say that you'll always get faster performance on a GPU.

---

HD2900XT.

Fermi

Examples of huge raw power that just doesnt pan out. GPU's tend to be quite "inefficient"..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hu1kamania

A GPU can render more physics in a given scene vs. it's CPU counterpart. The debate usually lies in whether the taxation on the GPU is worth it vs. taxation on the CPU.

The worthiness of the physics being rendered in a single scene is subjective. What I might deem worthy, you would probably call unworthy.

Use of PhysX as a game play mechanism are rare. If a developer were to rely solely on hardware accelerated PhysX for game play then their title would be useless for console and they would alienate a large percentage of potential customers. While I might appreciate the gesture, I am sure the non-PhysX compatible crowd would be in an uproar. Like they always are.

---

And there were the problem is the CPU is doing what it can do where as all we hear with PhysX is what it could do but is not doing time & time again in defence of GPU physics at the present time.

An Employer is not interested in constantly hearing you going on about what you could do but never seem to deliver, he wants to see what you can do.

And your comment is an example as to why PhysX is pretty much useless because of they way it is controlled its never going to be used in a real way so its better to use an API that can be used in a real way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Final8ty

And your comment is an example as to why PhysX is pretty much useless because of they way it is controlled its never going to be used in a real way so its better to use an API that can be used in a real way.

---

PhysX is not useless and it is used in a real way. PhysX is really being used in Mafia 2. I can use my Nvidia card to see the effects being rendered by PhysX. Ergo, PhysX is not useless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hu1kamania

PhysX is not useless and it is used in a real way. PhysX is really being used in Mafia 2. I can use my Nvidia card to see the effects being rendered by PhysX. Ergo, PhysX is not useless.

---

That is a matter of opinion as my definition of real is interactive physics & not visual effects physics.

Prime example of the scarecrow part of BAA none of it is interactive.
The visual PhysX in Maifa 2 is a joke in my opinion & not realistic at all.

PhysX is marketed as adding realism but has done nothing of the sort outside of demos.
I don't want you to come into work everyday & give me demos of you doing the jobs i want you to do the jobs.

The only PhysX title that i have any respect for its PhysX content is CellFactor & that was before NV got there hands on PhysX.
And if Physx today was a continuation of what CellFactor started then i would of bought in long before now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STEvil

HD2900XT.

Fermi

Examples of huge raw power that just doesnt pan out. GPU's tend to be quite "inefficient"..

---

On the contrary, the HD 5870 and HD 5970 have MUCH higher theoretical throughput than Fermi, yet Fermi outperforms them regardless in most games; particularly in multi GPU config and xtreme resolutions.....and it's performance is increasing with every new driver.

Anyway, I don't think GPUs are as inefficient as you're saying. After all, there's been times when a new generation of cards practically doubled the performance of the previous generation..

You rarely ever see that kind of performance improvement with new generations of CPUs, and only then in specific situations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 570091D

how about this, show me a demo of an AMD 6-core keeping pace with a gts250 in fluidmark. then i will believe you when i comes to cpu physics. also, stop using BFBC2 as an example of cpu physics, it's not hard to see that the destruction in that game is pre-animated.

here is the bottom line, if you don't like physx, don't buy it. those of us who use it, don't care about why you don't like it.

---

:fact:


Fluid mark is fabric physics... it is not the same as individual objects, with each object separately being influences by outside forces. Fliudmark is particle physics, which is mini-loop.. mass scale. (IE: simulating the SAME THING... over and over)

That does NOTHING for people in games... though it great for scientific computing. When limited input, mean limited output (contrived & confined to known rules)

So dude, how about this... why don't you dig up the already published work done, to show how Nvidia purposely used older means of an API to stunt physx performance when coupled with CPU.. there proof is there.


Secondly, do you want nice looking & flowing cape & clothing (that saps up your GPU performance), so much so... that you need a second video card.., or would you rather have physical objects in the game that everyone playing can use, for free..? Such as seeing a metal trashcan and knowing you can do many things with it, but instead chose to kick a trashcan (object) in the face of your opponent while you pull your gun?

One scenario deals with actual in-game object and playability, the other is pageantry and marketing to show what your card are capable in a closed environment (with limited interaction, limited input, limited calaculation)...???

Nobody is denying the scientific abilities of stand alone physic simulation... but when you buy a game,, you don't want that, you want and open environment and real objects... not particles. Particles will be great a few years from now when there is power to use particle physics (in real time) in a useful way, without saping your performance.. When it becomes real and is no longer a simulated "effect". (which I, nor millions of other could care less about "effects" when there are games that has actual OBJECT being tossed all over the place.) Thus physx = moot



Lastly, (for the ignorant)

Battlefield: Bad Company 2's use of physics is not limited to the explosions you see. If you haven't played the game, or only briefly looked at a video, then you have done yourself a grave injustice. There are OBJECT that can be kicked, shot, run over, & dragged from one end of the map, to the other.

Not only that, but there are objects and physics on a grand scale with debris and environment in motion all over the place... fly over a battlefield and see the non-people in motion...