PhysX on a CPU likely to see very little benefit from SSE recompile

i HATE that a game is killing the same guy 1000 times. there is NO variety in enemies, of their shape or how they act.

as far as HP levels go. some games have reasons for why you dont die as easily (we get the better equipment)
also health dosnt matter when you can just shoot them in the head, which is easy when they all walk right into your line of fire

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iconyu

When you look closely Crysis, that suit in real life would be incredible, but instead they balanced it out to keep the game challenging which in turn makes the suit almost purely for show. Stealth that fails if you move and strength that gets you killed before you reach the target. You spend like 90% of the time just playing it like Halo because armour mode is the only useful mode. Every time you try to get clever, later on in the game, it shoots you in the arse.

---

What???? The exact fun of the suit is that its not totally overpowered, as you can't just be invisible and do everything you wanted to. But guess what, you can be cloaked...uncloak, kill and re-cloak again. The same with jump and whatever you want to do.

To be honest, I only liked Crysis because the suit let you complete the missions in many different ways. It didn't matter if you wanted to be a silent assassin or if you wanted to enter by the principal door with a car, the suit allowed you to do it.


BTW: good luck when playing on max. difficulty without using the suit modes...

Look he was fighting aliens and an entire army, the suit could have been better. On hard the difference between the Korean suit and your suit is just a total joke. Another thing, FPS makers are lazy. When I played Goldeneye hard didn't just mean enemies had more energy, it also meant you had new harder objectives.

Don't get me wrong I did like the game, but when they say hard mode they aren't really trying. If I play any beat em up on hard, the AI is harder not a longer HP bar for them and a shorter one for me. Hard on a good racing game means a AI improvement too.

RPG's and FPS's are probably the only games this lazy when it comes to defining 'Hard'.

so, back to PhysX...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 570091D

nice troll.

i fail to see how we don't have cpu physx, i mean if physx can't run on a cpu how can wii, xbox, and ps3 games feature the physx engine? physx on the gpu is a feature that nvidia has implemeted to reward thier customers. if you don't like it, turn it off. end of debate.

---

Don't be stupid. Feel free to look me up and every post I've ever written. I am no troll.

I was not saying Physx doesn't work on a CPU. I was meaning it is a shame Physx was not primarily developed for CPU. This is said in the context of knowing it was only brough to the GPU by nVidia. Essentially crushing what may very well have been a successful development path for Physx on CPU.

We have spare CPU cores now for running Physx. Available cores is significantly outpacing usage (in game context). We don't really have spare GPU capacity for Physx. You need every bit of GPU power to render the latest games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carfax

Nvidia didn't "choose" to use x87. People often seem to forget that PhysX was created by Ageia, and was designed primarily to run on dedicated hardware.. Software driven PhysX was merely an afterthought on the PC, hence why it wasn't optimized thoroughly unlike other software Physics APIs.

On consoles however, PhysX runs on the CPU and is optimized for it very well from what I've heard.

So intent needs to be taken into account here..

---

Come on, developpers from Nvidia are stupid and can't change this ?...

As they was not capable to recompil it using Multithreading and x86 SSE4.x instructions ... oohh please what a BS.. they just don't want it..

Ageia have use x87 instructions like this PhysX bench was looking brilliant vs CPU, and Nvidia have keep the same marketing BS.....

SSE4 will bring PhysX on CPU barely to 4x faster on what it is now, add to this PhysX can use the non used % of CPU resource for work .... Look how multithreaded game work, you understand quickly our 4-6 cores are just too much for thoses games. you will get 100% of the gpu power for the render, and use the maximum of the CPU ... this will surely be better in efficiency of use PhysX on a single gpu..


Then you have the multithreading part, the real problem is actualy PhysX driver force the use of the 1st core, it's not only a question of don't be multithreaded and let windows choose what resource is needed and on what core, it's completely force the resource use on the 1st core , giving a major drop in performance, as it overload the 1st core of the cpu, and normal operations can't act normally

It will take 4 days to 3 developpers to recompil it using SSE instructions .. they have buy Ageia in 2008?.... 2 years for do it.. Specially they have dit it for the console version so why not for the PC one ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trinibwoy

No, but they wouldn't go dismantle the Chevy and rebuild it either so that it has improved performance. They would take it as is, just like Nvidia did with the Novodex API. In this case there is no Chevy though. That would imply that there is a competing API that runs advanced physics routines on the CPU, which of course doesn't exist.

---

Dude, physx is offered... nobody like physx, because what it offers is very limited.

To offer more, the company should make that product as efficient and fast & usable as possible... they are not (purposely), because they want to sell children gimmicks for more money.

Most adults see through this ruse and will simple choose the real thing, instead of the gimmick.



If Nvidia doesn't want to come clean, then more people will care less about their gimmick physics library and deal with a companies that don't deal in pseudo gimmicktry...



That is what he was trying to say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SexyMF

I was meaning it is a shame Physx was not primarily developed for CPU. This is said in the context of knowing it was only brough to the GPU by nVidia. Essentially crushing what may very well have been a successful development path for Physx on CPU.

---

Thats a bit silly if you ask me.. How many software physics APIs are there out there?

And now how many hardware accelerated physics APIs are there out there?

PhysX is the ONLY one which uses hardware acceleration. All the others use the CPU only..

So saying it's a "shame" that PhysX was not primarily developed for the CPU seems asinine in that regard.

Quote:

---

We have spare CPU cores now for running Physx. Available cores is significantly outpacing usage (in game context). We don't really have spare GPU capacity for Physx. You need every bit of GPU power to render the latest games.

---

Another fallacy. GPUs are so powerful these days that they often have idle resources doing jack. There are few games out there that are so GPU bound as to require all of a GPUs resources, since most games are multiplatform or console ports.

It's quite possible to run Batman AA on a single GTX 285 with PhysX maxed out @ 1200p if you're willing to sacrifice AA for instance, or if you play at a lower resolution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lanek

Come on, developpers from Nvidia are stupid and can't change this ?...

As they was not capable to recompil it using Multithreading and x86 SSE4.x instructions ... oohh please what a BS.. they just don't want it..

---

PhysX was originally intended to be used with hardware acceleration, and after it was purchased by Nvidia and ported over to CUDA, it REMAINED that way.

Havok utilizes multithreading and SSEn, yet it still doesn't hold a candle to GPU accelerated PhysX in terms of capability.

Quote:

---

SSE4 will bring PhysX on CPU barely to 4x faster on what it is now, add to this PhysX can use the non used % of CPU resource for work .... Look how multithreaded game work, you understand quickly our 4-6 cores are just too much for thoses games. you will get 100% of the gpu power for the render, and use the maximum of the CPU ... this will surely be better in efficiency of use PhysX on a single gpu..

---

Sheesh, have you not read anything in this thread at all? The whole premise of the thread was to state that the enormous gains supposedly touted by SSEn optimizated PhysX is extremely difficult to realize..

Quote:

---

Then you have the multithreading part, the real problem is actualy PhysX driver force the use of the 1st core, it's not only a question of don't be multithreaded and let windows choose what resource is needed and on what core, it's completely force the resource use on the 1st core , giving a major drop in performance, as it overload the 1st core of the cpu, and normal operations can't act normally

---

PhysX already uses multithreading but it's up to the developer to implement it.

Quote:

---

It will take 4 days to 3 developpers to recompil it using SSE instructions .. they have buy Ageia in 2008?.... 2 years for do it.. Specially they have dit it for the console version so why not for the PC one ?

---

Are you a programmer that has experience with vectorization?

There's several people that have tested the effects of SSEn optimization on Bullet, a physics API which uses SSEn by default.....and the performance increase from using SSEn was nowhere near 4x.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xoulz

nobody like physx

---

Heh. No, you don't like PhysX. Lots of developers use it and lots of users like the additional effects. No amount of ranting on your part will change that, sorry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SexyMF

Don't be stupid. Feel free to look me up and every post I've ever written. I am no troll.

I was not saying Physx doesn't work on a CPU. I was meaning it is a shame Physx was not primarily developed for CPU. This is said in the context of knowing it was only brough to the GPU by nVidia. Essentially crushing what may very well have been a successful development path for Physx on CPU.

We have spare CPU cores now for running Physx. Available cores is significantly outpacing usage (in game context). We don't really have spare GPU capacity for Physx. You need every bit of GPU power to render the latest games.

---

i think you need to re-read my post and do a little reading on the physx engine. as it is primarily coded for the cpu. AGAIN, physx on the gpu is something nvidia have developed to reward their customers. if you don't see it as a reward, turn it off. the physx engine is still doing all the mechanical physics for the game on your cpu... as to whether or not it's using all the cores, that's up to the game devs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trinibwoy

Heh. No, you don't like PhysX. Lots of developers use it and lots of users like the additional effects. No amount of ranting on your part will change that, sorry.

---

You are carfax are shills...

Physx is nothing. It doesn't provide one thing to the end-user except ancillary eye-candy.


More developer use everything but Physx, Ironically... if it's a single player walk through theme park, that has a franchise name attached to it, then Nvidia will pay the developer to remove eye candy from the game, and only provide a slightly better replacement and call it TWIMTBP..

You know it, we know it!


Batman can easily have paper shuffling on the ground, or banner waiving in the air, but... (again) they didn't because Nvidia payed them not to.

http://www.photoshoppix.com/modules/...l_paranoia.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xoulz

You are carfax are shills...

---

you are no grammar none;

Quote:

---

Physx is nothing. It doesn't provide one thing to the end-user except ancillary eye-candy.

---

that first sentence is an outrageous statement. why do you care to post about physx if it is nothing? also it bothers me how you state your opinion as fact. if you want good gameplay go play a real game like chess. shooting and blowing stuff up is for testosterone overloaded teenage boys and 40 year old losers who live in their parents' basement. this is how i feel and you cant say i am wrong.

the truth is arguing for gameplay isnt really going with the theme of this forum. maybe the xtreme gameplay forum or xtreme anti-physx forum would be better.

Quote:

---

More developer use everything but Physx, Ironically... if it's a single player walk through theme park, that has a franchise name attached to it, then Nvidia will pay the developer to remove eye candy from the game, and only provide a slightly better replacement and call it TWIMTBP..

You know it, we know it!

---

you have no proof of this. show me the money!

Quote:

---

Batman can easily have paper shuffling on the ground, or banner waiving in the air, but... (again) they didn't because Nvidia payed them not to.

---

that's a crazy double negative. you really need to stop posting the SAME EXACT STUFF over and over. we have already established this. the paper fluttering is art in my opinion. it creates movement and leads your eyes around the scene. it also creates a mood, kind of like the music in dead space but not quite as powerful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chumbucket843

you are no grammar none;
that first sentence is an outrageous statement. why do you care to post about physx if it is nothing? also it bothers me how you state your opinion as fact. if you want good gameplay go play a real game like chess. shooting and blowing stuff up is for testosterone overloaded teenage boys and 40 year old losers who live in their parents' basement. this is how i feel and you cant say i am wrong.

the truth is arguing for gameplay isnt really going with the theme of this forum. maybe the xtreme gameplay forum or xtreme anti-physx forum would be better.
you have no proof of this. show me the money!
that's a crazy double negative. you really need to stop posting the SAME EXACT STUFF over and over. we have already established this. the paper fluttering is art in my opinion. it creates movement and leads your eyes around the scene. it also creates a mood, kind of like the music in dead space but not quite as powerful.

---

A physics library is just that... who cares! Right?

The only reason we hear about it (PhysX) so often, is because it is nothing other than a marketing tool. To date, there is not one physx game, that meets, or exceeds the industry norm. (ie BC2)

Matter-of-fact.. every PhysX game that I know of, under performs and uses piece meal tactics, just to get their gimmick into the game. The only people making noise about this is Nvidia and a few lemmings...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 570091D

i think you need to re-read my post and do a little reading on the physx engine. as it is primarily coded for the cpu. AGAIN, physx on the gpu is something nvidia have developed to reward their customers. if you don't see it as a reward, turn it off. the physx engine is still doing all the mechanical physics for the game on your cpu... as to whether or not it's using all the cores, that's up to the game devs.

---

If it's a reward for nVidia customers you are inferring it runs better than the CPU it was primarily coded for (as you say). Why is it such a stretch to then wonder what a would have happened if the development path stayed as CPU optimised.

Last time I checked, my CPU is also a piece of hardware. With a lot more headroom than my GPU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xoulz

Batman can easily have paper shuffling on the ground, or banner waiving in the air, but... (again) they didn't because Nvidia payed them not to.

---

Explain this then.

The console versions are capped at 30fps. There are slowdowns in some places, so they had to really optimize the game to reach the 30fps cap.

How exactly could have been there more stuff in the game?

This proves, what we've been saying to you in all the PhysX threads. NV doesn't pay developers to take stuff out, but to put more stuff in. Without them, the game would look exactly like on consoles, except the usual stuff like resolution, AA etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xoulz

You are carfax are shills...

---

No I think you're confused. A shill tries to force their personal opinion down other people's throats as if they speak for everyone else in the world. Kinda like you bud.

Quote:

---

Batman can easily have paper shuffling on the ground, or banner waiving in the air, but... (again) they didn't because Nvidia payed them not to.

---

Your paranoid delusions continue to amuse. So the console version of Batman excluded those features just so Nvidia could add them via PhysX on the PC. What a joke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trinibwoy

No I think you're confused. A shill tries to force their personal opinion down other people's throats as if they speak for everyone else in the world. Kinda like you bud.



Your paranoid delusions continue to amuse. So the console version of Batman excluded those features just so Nvidia could add them via PhysX on the PC. What a joke.

---

Yeah, "adding" (disabling) standard features like other games have trough proprietary physx.

Why are you so ignorant to this fact?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vardant

Explain this then.

This proves, what we've been saying to you in all the PhysX threads. NV doesn't pay developers to take stuff out, but to put more stuff in. Without them, the game would look exactly like on consoles, except the usual stuff like resolution, AA etc.

---

Oh my, is making standard features run on Nvidia hardware adding or disabling? I tend to view it as disabling.

If a developer chooses Havok or Bullet we can have great physics on every machine, add to that a bit of Nvidia green pixie dust (money) and suddenly you require Nvidia hardware to have banners waving in the air. :shrug:

I must remind you this is a feature seen in many OLD games. Batman is just an example and if Nvidia wishes to help developers how about making the games run better (more optimized) and not implementing standard features trough their proprietary standard?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trinibwoy

No I think you're confused. A shill tries to force their personal opinion down other people's throats as if they speak for everyone else in the world. Kinda like you bud.
.

---

This^ pretty much proves my point.

A shill is someone who is pretending to be a real Xtreme member, but is actually affiliated with Nvidia and tries to seemingly pass of your ideas and quips as an unsolicited member..

But, in reality, you are in NV's back pocket.


Why do u constantly get so hard over PhysX, but not physics...?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xoulz

This^ pretty much proves my point.

A shill is someone who is pretending to be a real Xtreme member, but is actually affiliated with Nvidia and tries to seemingly pass of your ideas and quips as an unsolicited member..

But, in reality, you are in NV's back pocket.


Why do u constantly get so hard over PhysX, but not physics...?

---

I second your thoughts - no deeper analysis of facts, just repeating marketing slogans that in the end are supposed to sell and not help gamers.

Of course Nvidia is a business, but at least they could be honest about their proprietary standards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadov

Oh my, is making standard features run on Nvidia hardware adding or disabling? I tend to view it as disabling.

---

Are you serious? How can you even ask a silly question like that?
Those effects weren't there in the first place and they wouldn't have been without NV.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xoulz

Why do u constantly get so hard over PhysX, but not physics...?

---

Umm, I dunno, maybe because it's the only GPU enabled physics engine used in games?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadov

Yeah, "adding" (disabling) standard features like other games have trough proprietary physx.

Why are you so ignorant to this fact?

---

What fact is that exactly? Fog and cloth, far less interactive versions of them, are not standard in any sense of the word. They require effort from a developer and there are numerous titles that have no fog and no cloth that have nothing to do with Nvidia or PhysX. You need to check your facts my friend.

Quote:

---

Oh my, is making standard features run on Nvidia hardware adding or disabling? I tend to view it as disabling.

---

So anything Nvidia cajoles a developer into adding to their game is the same as disabling it on other hardware? To claim something was disabled on non-Nvidia hardware you would first have to prove it was enabled in the first place....something you and your fellow anti-PhysX comrades have yet to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xoulz

A shill is someone who is pretending to be a real Xtreme member, but is actually affiliated with Nvidia and tries to seemingly pass of your ideas and quips as an unsolicited member..

---

Hahaha, so anyone who doesn't agree with your rants is affiliated with Nvidia. Oh you are one entertaining dude....

Quote:

---

Why do u constantly get so hard over PhysX, but not physics...?

---

Why do you spend so much effort talking about a technology you don't like (and obviously don't understand)? Is it because AMD pays you to enter all PhysX threads and crap all over it with your unintelligible nonsense?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trinibwoy

What fact is that exactly? Fog and cloth, far less interactive versions of them, are not standard in any sense of the word. They require effort from a developer and there are numerous titles that have no fog and no cloth that have nothing to do with Nvidia or PhysX. You need to check your facts my friend.

So anything Nvidia cajoles a developer into adding to their game is the same as disabling it on other hardware? To claim something was disabled on non-Nvidia hardware you would first have to prove it was enabled in the first place....something you and your fellow anti-PhysX comrades have yet to do.

Hahaha, so anyone who doesn't agree with your rants is affiliated with Nvidia. Oh you are one entertaining dude....

Why do you spend so much effort talking about a technology you don't like (and obviously don't understand)? Is it because AMD pays you to enter all PhysX threads and crap all over it with your unintelligible nonsense?

---

Not sure what all that^ nonsense is about, sounds to me like you adding more to the conversation, to confuse people (shill tactic). Why do you keep talking about developers? Ever single use of Physx in game are the same uses. They finish the game, then go back and plug in PhysX eye candy to make fanbois happy.. that is what physx is. A marketing tool.

It's non-standard technology, that in most cases requires an extra video card, for eye candy... it's laughable!


GPU physics (for gaming) is outdated... specially when we have 6-core CPU's for $195 bucks bro..

Nvidia and their outdated PhysX, can't do what the Inferno engine can do (ghost busters).. even if you don't have a quad-core, then you'll still be able to have THOUSANDS of objects... what can physx do?


Please show us a PhysX game using objects and not particles...

(GPU in-game physics is dead, what does any of this have to do with AMD?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xoulz

GPU in-game physics is dead

---

You really should put that on a cardboard sign and stand by a street corner somewhere proclaiming it to the masses :)

Quote:

---

what does any of this have to do with AMD?

---

PhysX is a differentiator between Nvidia and AMD products. Why do you think that it's mostly ATI fans such as yourself who are the most fervent PhysX haters?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trinibwoy

You really should put that on a cardboard sign and stand by a street corner somewhere proclaiming it to the masses :)


PhysX is a differentiator between Nvidia and AMD products. Why do you think that it's mostly ATI fans such as yourself who are the most fervent PhysX haters?

---

:lastweek:


Nope, YOU should put that as a sig, so you can understand the reality of the situation as it stands now and for the future... (again), we don't need GPU physics anymore in games, this is a fact!

Secondly, when I discuss physics, I am talking about all API & libs. Physics (with-in games), is not about Nvidia -vs- someone... ...but you ALWAYS make your arguments out like that.


The libraries have nothing to do with GPU's.. yet, you still ignorantly believe this. Even when Ageia was developing and using physics, at the time physics was already in games and had a tough fight against the CPU. That war was short lived.

Now, today (4 years later) with powerful CPU's there is no reason for physical environments to be processed off chip. That is clearly seen in the Ghost Buster/Inferno engine demo & in Battlefield: Bad Company 2.

Ironically, the fact that there isn't one PhysX game able to remotely accomplish what we already have with the CPU, is the ultimate tell-tale. In which you can't even admit, or.. are paid not to admit.


Show us bro... why do you keep hiding with words?