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

Printable View

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

09-30-2010, 01:38 PM
Hornet331

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carfax

How do you know Havok isn't already "ultra optimized?"

A lot of people are claiming Nvidia should do this and that to optimize PhysX for modern CPUs, but forget that PhysX (on the PC) is marketed primarily towards hardware accelerated physics and not software physics.

Havok is software driven however, and knowing Intel, it would contain the latest optimizations for SSEn.

In fact, only recently has Havok caught up to PhysX by implementing cloth physics. PhysX has had it for years.

So basically, if you want to see the vast difference in capabilities between software and hardware driven physics, one only needs to look at what Havok and hardware accelerated PhysX are capable of.

Havok is supplying cloth simulation since 2008 and if you compare the presentation form that time gpu cloth doesnt look much better then cpu cloth.
09-30-2010, 09:11 PM
STEvil

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vardant

It says 1500 right under the video... I've seen it a year ago and wasn't impressed.

Then I suggest you re-watch the video, because it is not 1500.
10-01-2010, 01:12 AM
Vardant

Quote:

Originally Posted by STEvil

Then I suggest you re-watch the video, because it is not 1500.

The video obviously doesn't show everything then, because it would be weird to say, that it's maxing out at 1500, when it could handle double the amount.

For example, we can't see the fps. Also, if they really had something that great, we would see it used more.
10-01-2010, 03:47 AM
Iconyu

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vardant

The video obviously doesn't show everything then, because it would be weird to say, that it's maxing out at 1500, when it could handle double the amount.

For example, we can't see the fps. Also, if they really had something that great, we would see it used more.

At the point where it says 1500 "maxing out" that's the starting point before they turn off the rag dolls and add another 2000 boxes, with very little difference to the frame rate. You say you've "watched" the video (note the use of inverted commas there, it might be useful to you in the future) but it's rather obvious you didn't.
10-01-2010, 04:13 AM
Vardant

Wait, you're accusing me of lying, but then you say I was actually right the whole time? I guess, thanks? :shrug:
10-01-2010, 04:18 AM
Iconyu

English isn't your first language I take it? If so I'm sorry, we'll just leave it at that.
10-01-2010, 04:21 AM
Vardant

Do I need to pull my sarcasm sign?

http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/840/sarcasm.jpg
10-01-2010, 04:54 AM
Iconyu

I was apologising for misunderstanding what you meant, I was actually sincere.
10-01-2010, 06:19 PM
Carfax

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hornet331

Havok is supplying cloth simulation since 2008 and if you compare the presentation form that time gpu cloth doesnt look much better then cpu cloth.

I looked it up and you're correct about Havok having cloth simulation since 2008.

But, do you know any games that actually use Havok cloth simulation?
10-01-2010, 06:48 PM
Hornet331

I know UFC 2009 uses it but its a :banana::banana::banana::banana:y corss platform game even intented for the Wii (got cancled, but you still see it)

Anyway pretty much every game that uses Havok 6.0 or higher can use cloth, if the game is using it or nor is up to the game developer and if they want to pay for the licence. Afair MS singed a deal with Havok back in 2008 that all there studios can use the full havok suite was they want.
10-01-2010, 09:26 PM
Xoulz

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vardant

Do I need to pull my sarcasm sign?

Just proves you didn't bother remembering, or watching the video. You seem to go a long way, just to keep from admitting what the video represents... and it's a year old!

U can't disprove, so you ignore.
10-01-2010, 11:56 PM
Vardant

There are 1500 boxes and 200 ragdolls and he is saying, that it's starting to max out the CPU, then he turns the ragdolls off and drops another 2000 boxes.

So how am I not right exactly?
10-02-2010, 02:52 AM
Iconyu

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vardant

There are 1500 boxes and 200 ragdolls and he is saying, that it's starting to max out the CPU, then he turns the ragdolls off and drops another 2000 boxes.

So how am I not right exactly?

The simple elementary school level maths that indicates that 1500 is less than 3500. This is why I wonder about your English, you only mention the ragdolls once how else are we to argue except with what you type.

You say only 1500 boxes and 200 ragdolls (Note you only mention it here) for a high end i7 that's useless it's taking all the CPU time.

Then someone says there are more than 1500 boxes, and there should be enough CPU time to run AI and other things.

Then you say I saw the video last year and under the video it says 1500 boxes.

Then when I state exactly what happened in the video you say you were right. If you'd just watched the video, you'd have been able to make your point in a coherent manner.

My point was simple, you either hadn't watched the video or if you did, you did not pay any attention to it. You didn't notice they added boxes nor did you notice the removal of the ragdolls. This stupid line argument has come about because your inability to watch and process just over two minutes of video.

In an ideal world, wanting Physx would not block owning a AMD/ATI GPU, I could just buy a high end rendering card a solid midrange nvidia card for physx and have done.

But as a company they've gone out of their way to make my life difficult, so I've gone from wanting to have a nvidia GPU in every gaming machine I own to just wanting the best card when I'm ready to buy. Which is a shame, because when I look at Mafia II I think if a 460gtx could handle the physx as a dedicated card it's pretty tempting. But a 480gtx and a 460gtx isn't so tempting. Not even because I don't like nvidia, but because it's forced on me.
10-02-2010, 03:19 AM
Vardant

This is my first post, that started all this box number discussion - http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=150
10-02-2010, 03:28 AM
RejZoR

Seriously, 1500 or 3500 boxes. Does it matter? Developers seem to have "problems" including even just 100 boxes, so why bother arguing between 1500 and 3500 when it makes absolutely no difference to us, the end users and the games we get (buy)...
10-02-2010, 10:14 AM
JumpingJack

Quote:

Originally Posted by kl0012

As I know MS compiler does not supports for auto-vectorization. It just able to use scalar SSE instead of x87 so the perf diff would not be that large (may be 10-15% because of better register availability and lower latency of DP ops over EP ops in Intel's cpus). But it worth to see if it possible to earn some performance from an auto-vectorization ability of ICC or GCC.

Yeah, ICC is much better that MSVC. I guess people could try a trial version of ICC if they were really curious. We have a ICC license at work, that would be a good experiment to try.
10-02-2010, 10:35 AM
Xoulz

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vardant

There are 1500 boxes and 200 ragdolls and he is saying, that it's starting to max out the CPU, then he turns the ragdolls off and drops another 2000 boxes.

So how am I not right exactly?

You're in denial... that's all.

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