FYI - Batman demo to download with PhysX...

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

08-15-2009, 08:04 PM
zanzabar

Quote:

Originally Posted by Final8ty

Some other people have been trying out PhysX on the CPU through the in-game menu & are getting as low as 12 fps.

Are you sure your fps did not dip into the 12's ?

yes it dropped to 22 minimum with frps i had the fraps fps going for lvl1, lvl2 was low i didnt bother with fraps since it lagged

XS users are not the same as other forums and i do have the fastest single gpu card and a good oc on the cpu
08-15-2009, 08:26 PM
Final8ty

Thanks.
08-16-2009, 01:37 AM
Talonman

In the 12's.... Gasp!

The CPU can fool some of the people but not all of the people. :)

What CPU at what speed do you run Zanzabar?

Nice sig too... "physX and securom (dieing) need to die just say no" :rolleyes:

I am a YES man to GPU PhysX. :up:
08-16-2009, 01:48 AM
Clairvoyant129

I agree with you Zanzabar, just say no to "PhysX"
08-16-2009, 01:50 AM
Talonman

Too bad more aren't into raw performance, with max eye candy.

Now I know why we didn't see any CPU PhysX screen shots, with Fraps active.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Talonman

I still am of the mindset that while some level PhysX may be able to process on a CPU, we should be careful not to imply that it can match it's performance when running on a GPU. If you run with PhysX on High, and 4X AA, at 1920x1200, I still believe the CPU will lose real bad. If we are willing to throw performance out the window, yes a CPU can run PhysX too, but this is XtremesyStems right? We never throw raw performance out the window do we?

It's OK if you have more CPU than me... I won't hold it against you. :)

With the tech we have available to us today, this is still a truth in the universe.
08-16-2009, 02:25 AM
Clairvoyant129

Quote:

Originally Posted by Talonman

Too bad more aren't into raw performance, with max eye candy.

Now I know why we didn't see any CPU PhysX screen shots, with Fraps active.

With the tech we have available to us today, this is still a truth in the universe.

And why are you quoting yourself?
08-16-2009, 02:33 AM
Talonman

Due to on the page where I originally typed it, we were still saying things like:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle

Wow, simple enough :p:
It makes absolutely no sense why CPU physics wasn't optimized with this game so that all you have to do is select how you want physics done from within the game. This is a nice find no doubt but I have to question what would have been if they properly coded this game were we don't have to tweak a .ini file via physx instead of the engine itself.

:up:

and

Quote:

Originally Posted by Final8ty

NV can fool some of the people but not all of the people.

I believe at that time, we were proceeding on lack of info, and my statement didn't seem to hold much weight with the boys.

Now in light of some actual CPU PhysX FPS numbers surfacing, it's looking to be more correct.

With the apparent huge performance difference we are seeing, I am now thinking it is more than just an CPU optimization issue. I think it's more of a hardware limitation issue.

GPU's are just way better at PhysX. (Sorry if the 3 lines in my quote took up too much screen space.) ;)
I will try not to let it happin again. :cord:
08-16-2009, 02:55 AM
Final8ty

Quote:

Originally Posted by Talonman

In the 12's.... Gasp!

The CPU can fool some of the people but not all of the people. :)

What CPU at what speed do you run Zanzabar?

Nice sig too... "physX and securom (dieing) need to die just say no" :rolleyes:

I am a YES man to GPU PhysX. :up:

Maybe its because zanzabar is using older physX drivers that don't lag on the CPU & the other users are using the latest physX drivers are not.

You did not stop to think why zanzabar's minimum FPS are twice as high as others.

You will never be a good problem solver on the PC without talking a methodical approach with choosing to not take both results into account.

This does not prove that the Physics in that game could not de done on CPU, but the Physics in that game using the very unoptimised physX CPU path is crap.
It would not surprise me that NV is slowing down the already rubbish physX CPU path as time goes on to widen the gap.
08-16-2009, 03:01 AM
Talonman

Yes, I did stop to think why zanzabar's minimum FPS are twice as high as others.

That is why I spacifically asked what CPU, at what speed.

You may be right, it could be just a driver thing, but I would have to see the numbers.

I may not be the best problem solver on the PC, but I did find how to remove the 60 FPS limitation in the game engine we were discussing. :)
That was a positive thing I thought.
08-16-2009, 03:10 AM
zanzabar

ill post up the raw fraps from the 1st 2 fights (they are diffrent i tried to stay as similar i could but its random. i also have the frame record exchange files and can reproduce them all day (i can even do the demo in under 5mins now. and im on the latest drivers it performs worse than the older ones i was originaly on the ones from overlord2

no physX
Frames Time (ms) Min Max Avg
4863 65008 61 77 74.806

physX lvl1 cpu
Frames Time (ms) Min Max Avg
1808 77248 13 34 23.405

physX lvl2 cpu
Frames Time (ms) Min Max Avg
1613 115934 8 25 13.913

as u can see it is taxing but it is not lagging on the lvl1

i missed the request for specs, its an unlocked 720
http://i28.tinypic.com/10i5nis.png
08-16-2009, 03:16 AM
Final8ty

Quote:

Originally Posted by Talonman

Yes, I did stop to think why zanzabar's minimum FPS are twice as high as others.

That is why I spacifically asked what CPU, at what speed.

You may be right, it could be just a driver thing, but I would have to see the numbers.

I may not be the best problem solver on the PC, but I did find how to remove the 60 FPS limitation in the game engine we were discussing. :)
That was a positive thing I thought.

You say that you did stop to think but your reply with In the 12's.... Gasp! is not a considerate reply but a conclusion without any merit to why.
08-16-2009, 03:21 AM
JohnZS

I can't believe the can of worms I opened with my .ini tweak for this game.
For those who are interested, and have QuadCores AND Bioshock you can also get the game to use it's havoc based physics engine to use all 4 of your cores, by default it is set to use 2 cores (or 2 threads as it says in the ini), but you can change this to 4, I believe the maximum value is 8, although I have never been able to test 8 threads for physics.

The Bioshock.ini for Bioshock on Vista and 7 is located in the following location C:\Users\[Username]\AppData\Roaming\Bioshock\
Find the Havoc code and input the following to take advantage of your QuadCore

Code:

[Havok] HavokNumThreads=4

Also don't forget to set UseMultithreading=True otherwise the setting will not take effect.
As for batman.... you can change the levels of texture filtering (anisotropy) however I am not convinced the FSAA this game uses is "proper" FSAA, just take a look at the prison bars in the first scene... are those jagglies?
John
08-16-2009, 03:23 AM
zanzabar

the game says clearly "multi sample anti aliasing" so thats some MSAA not FSAA
08-16-2009, 03:29 AM
Talonman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Final8ty

You say that you did stop to think but your reply with In the 12's.... Gasp! is not a considerate reply but a conclusion without any merit to why.

Sorry man... Sheesh. 12 FPS was shocking to me. I bet most aren't running at my 1920x1200 either?

Thanks for the CPU info zanzabar.

I still need to find the file in Batman to let it use 4 cores on my CPU. I believe I need to find UseMultithreading=True, from what John posted.
08-16-2009, 03:33 AM
JohnZS

Same difference, different day.
Multisample is a type of FSAA as is Super Sampling. You then have different flavours such as Rotating Grids, Ordered Grids these are different techniques used for FSAA. AFAIK Deferred rendering (which this game uses) only supports shader FSAA (win all) or MultiSample FSAA under D3D10 conditions I belive the technical term is a floating point sample "hack", but I am not sure and don't feel like looking it up. The Unreal Engine elected to use Multisample FSAA using this "hack", the requirement of which is a Direct3D 10 Environment (Vista/7 + D3D10 GPU) however the game itself uses DirectX9 shaders (SM3)
John
08-16-2009, 03:40 AM
zanzabar

adding this to the userengine.ini makes it seam smoother, i wish that i had a real bench or time demo

[DevOptions.Shaders]
AutoReloadChangedShaders=True
bAllowMultiThreadedShaderCompile=True
NumUnusedShaderCompilingThreads=4
ThreadedShaderCompileThreshold=4
bDumpShaderPDBs=False
08-16-2009, 03:41 AM
RPGWiZaRD

With UT3 physx maps were also slow until I copied over PhysXCore.dll file (don't remember which version but wrong version and it could crash the game) from ageia physx folder to UT3 folder. Wonder if things are the same with this game, using exactly same config file scenario as UT3 and same engine settings etc.

It was a matter of like 25-30 fps vs 90 FPS+ on a 8800GT.
08-16-2009, 03:43 AM
Final8ty

Quote:

Originally Posted by Talonman

Sorry man... Sheesh. 12 FPS was shocking to me. I bet most aren't running at my 1920x1200 either?

Thanks for the CPU info zanzabar.

I still need to find the file in Batman to let it use 4 cores on my CPU. I believe I need to find UseMultithreading=True, from what John posted.

12FPS would be shocking to most people but would not make a song & dance about it & in the full context of your reply you weren't mealy pointing that out as you would not of said the other things in that reply.
08-16-2009, 03:47 AM
Talonman

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnZS

AFAIK Deferred rendering (which this game uses) only supports shader FSAA (win all) or MultiSample FSAA under D3D10 conditions I belive the technical term is a floating point sample "hack", but I am not sure and don't feel like looking it up. The Unreal Engine elected to use Multisample FSAA using this "hack", the requirement of which is a Direct3D 10 Environment (Vista/7 + D3D10 GPU) however the game itself uses DirectX9 shaders (SM3)
John

This is in my BmEngine file...

AllowD3D10=False

Setting that to True wouldn't help correct?
08-16-2009, 03:49 AM
JohnZS

I did not notice any difference Talonman with it set to true or false.
IMHO this game is not quite yet finished, perhaps the full release would not be quite so restrictive to non-nVidia owners and also might have a few more features built in?
John
08-16-2009, 03:50 AM
RPGWiZaRD

Quote:

Originally Posted by Talonman

This is in my BmEngine file...

AllowD3D10=False

Setting that to True wouldn't help correct?

Don't know what it does for this game but for UT3 it basicly adds nothing visible improvement to the game, only slightly lower performance why tweakers site recommends it to be turned off if running on Vista/Win7.
08-16-2009, 03:57 AM
trinibwoy

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnZS

I did not notice any difference Talonman with it set to true or false.
IMHO this game is not quite yet finished, perhaps the full release would not be quite so restrictive to non-nVidia owners and also might have a few more features built in?
John

The best thing Nvidia can do for PhysX is let the advanced effects run on the CPU. It would reduce the amount of whining and it would let people directly see the performance improvements they claim to achieve with GPU acceleration. A lot of non-Nvidia users hate PhysX simply because they are completely blocked from accessing those effects. It would be wiser to let them run it slowly and maybe hook a few more people like that instead of generating all this bitterness.
08-16-2009, 04:01 AM
Talonman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Final8ty

12FPS would be shocking to most people but would not make a song & dance about it & in the full context of your reply you weren't mealy pointing that out as you would not of said the other things in that reply.

Only because I thought we were trying to sell that there is no reason why PhysX couldn't run on the CPU in this game, every inch as good as it could on a GPU.

I might have tried to drive my point home a bit too much. Sorry.

When you posted that "NV can fool some of the people but not all of the people", I thought you were inferring that I somehow missed the boat on the animal speed of the CPU and PhysX.

I will try an be more congenial in my responses.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnZS

I did not notice any difference Talonman with it set to true or false.
IMHO this game is not quite yet finished, perhaps the full release would not be quite so restrictive to non-nVidia owners and also might have a few more features built in?
John

Thanks buddy. :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD

Don't know what it does for this game but for UT3 it basicly adds nothing visible improvement to the game, only slightly lower performance why tweakers site recommends it to be turned off if running on Vista/Win7.

I will just keep it False then... Thanks
08-16-2009, 04:02 AM
JohnZS

Quote:

Originally Posted by trinibwoy

The best thing Nvidia can do for PhysX is let the advanced effects run on the CPU. It would reduce the amount of whining and it would let people directly see the performance improvements they claim to achieve with GPU acceleration. A lot of non-Nvidia users hate PhysX simply because they are completely blocked from accessing those effects. It would be wiser to let them run it slowly and maybe hook a few more people like that instead of generating all this bitterness.

I agree with you.
People then would turn it off if the frame rates were horrid, but then as soon as they get the nVidia hardware would turn it back on to not only enjoy the eye candy, but also the improved frame rates.
That is a great suggestion, the fact that these features are being "blocked" does suggest some sort of snake oil trick on behalf of nVidia?
John
08-16-2009, 04:08 AM
Final8ty

Quote:

Originally Posted by Talonman

Only because I thought we were trying to sell that there is no reason why PhysX couldn't run on the CPU in this game, every inch as good as it could on a GPU.

I might have tried to drive my point home a bit too much. Sorry.

When you posted that "NV can fool some of the people but not all of the people", I thought you were inferring that I somehow missed the boat on the animal speed of the CPU and PhysX.

I will try an be more congenial in my responses.

Your putting words into my mouth.
You assume far to much on this subject that everyone is saying something that they have not said.

People should not have to keep spelling it out to you every time they speak of physics on the CPU that the GPU is faster at it.

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:43 AM.

XtremeSystems