Printable View
David Kanter from Realworldtech analyzed how the PhysX engine from Nvidia runs on CPUs. As you may know, GPU accelerated physics are touted as the next holy grail for improving gaming experience if we were to believe the GPU makers.
Accordingly NVIDIA claims significant improvements of 2-4x compared to running PhyisX on CPUs. But are those improvements for real ?
You can check here to find out :
http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cf...0510142143&p=1
cliffs notes: PhysX not multithreaded, again... and PhysX on CPU uses X87 rather than SSE for some reason.
Quote:
x87 uses a stack of 8 registers with an extended precision 80-bit floating point format. However x87 data is primarily stored in memory with a 64-bit format that truncates the extra 16 bits. Because of this truncation, x87 code can return noticeably different results if the data is spilled to cache and then reloaded. x87 instructions are scalar by nature, and even the highest performance CPUs can only execute two x87 operations per cycle.
so the author tests with a tool that can not measure instructions on the gpu and wonders why he sees only cpu usage?
maybe it works better using sse or maybe it doesnt, without proper profiling only the developers know.
sse is not just a check box you click on and your code magically runs that instead of floating ops you actually have to change your code
Hmm...no. You can pick either the CPU or GPU to handle physics. Same as with games engines which also have a SW renderer.Quote:
Originally Posted by W1zzard
Quote:
In each case, the NV control panel was set to disable hardware PhysX acceleration, and then run with VTune. For comparison, the two tests were also run with GPU accelerated PhysX. As expected, the GPU accelerated versions ran at a reasonable speed with very nice effects. However, the CPU chugged along rather sluggishly. There was a very clear difference in performance that shows the benefits of accelerating PhysX on a GPU.
If PhysX is running optimal as a single-thread scalar floating point program, it probably wouldn't be running on a GPU.Quote:
Originally Posted by W1zzard
Also
http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cf...0510142143&p=4Quote:
Nvidia already has PhysX running on consoles using the AltiVec extensions for PPC, which are very similar to SSE. It would probably take about a day or two to get PhysX to emit modern SSE2 code, and several weeks for compatibility testing. In fact for backwards compatibility, PhysX could select at install time whether to use an SSE2 version or an x87 version – just in case the elusive gamer with a Pentium Overdrive decides to try it.
ah.. didnt see that part.Quote:
the NV control panel was set to disable hardware PhysX acceleration
if they ran physx with gpu disabled, so the point of the whole article is "why doesn't physx on the cpu use sse?"
Shocking.
gee I wonder why Nvidia's stock dropped so much this year........
I would not mind running some extra threads on CPU for something like PhysX, as no game can utilize 6 cores so far.
Why has it dropped? Because NVIDIA didn't optimize PhysX for SSE? So you could troll this thread with pointless off-topic drivel?
Amorphous
Quote:
Originally Posted by buff
Metro2033 utilizes 6 cores nearly perfectly, because it's running PhysX multithreaded, it's just depending on the developer. And also Bad Company 2 and Resident Evil uses them a bit.
Nice Review:http://www.pcgameshardware.de/aid,74...rnen/CPU/Test/
Physx is over, more and more developers are moving to Havok for their game's physics.
I just don't buy any game that I know will not run ok just because I don't have the right brand for one of the many componentes in my rig.
I don't know about Resident Evil, but Bad Company 2 does not use Physx. It actually uses Havok.Quote:
Originally Posted by AffenJack
The point of the article, as I see it, is that the best things since sliced bread ( physics on GPUs ) compared to running them on CPUs is way overrated wrts to the PhysX libraries. Basically, you cannot claim that the GPUs deliver real life physics compared to CPUs based on the PhysX engine.Quote:
Originally Posted by W1zzard
I remember quite a few powerpoints from GPU makers where they showed gains sometimes an order of magnitude more over CPUs. Are those gains for real considering the lack of optimization for CPUs?
It can be also said that why should Nvidia bother to optimize the libraries for CPUs. True, they don't. But, everybody has a CPU of some sort and only a few have an NVIDIA GPU. If game developers want to target the mainstream, is that an incetive to use the PhysX libraries ? I don't see that happening.
If you are enforcing yourself to do worse than what you can actually do, the competence may look much stronger that what they really are. If using SSE Instructions may improve performance twice using the Processor, then what nVidia could advertise as a 40x increase in performance using GPU vs CPU is reduced to just 20x. They are indeed doing this on purpose to make the GPU looks stronger, as their job is to sell GPUs, not achieving decent enough performance running PhysX code on CPUs.
Is this technique anticompetitive? Indeed. Is as much anticompetitive as when code compiled using Intel compilesr didn't enabled some optimizations if the Processor didn't returned a GenuineIntel string using the CPUID Instruction. For nVidia, recompiling the PhysX libraries to use SSE means nothing and would greatly improved CPU performance, and that is obviously what they don't want for obvious reasons.
Way to go, PhysX hypeware.
I just meaned that, RE and BC2 are using 6cores because of sniper_sung's post, they aren't physX games. And where do you see more developers moving to havoc? Physx and havoc have together most of the marketshare, but i don't see a movement. Physx is still used in many new games.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Maño
Quote:
Originally Posted by AffenJack
Sorry I misunderstood :)
And you are right to say Physx is still used. Batman, Metro 2033...
But I think that developers will eventually move to other ways to implement physics.
ATi's success with the 5800 series is going to be a turning point for gaming physics.
Physx may not be everyones cup of tea but I fail to see how anyone cannot see the massive parallel processing power of a GPU vs any CPU. I only use phyx to encode movies for my iPhone or ps3 And a typical 30 min episode now takes me aprox 90 secs vs 20 mins with a CPU. Yes my CPU sucks but I've seen even i7's not get close to a gpu.
But yeah physx for games I'm not sold. I have yet to see anything that wows me other than benchmarks.
i think a few points need to be learned
physx has the ability to run much better on CPUs than nvidia will allow, both with multicore scaling, and better instructions
and second, nvidia owns physx and has the right to drive it right into the ground if they damn well please.
so my take is this. nvidia needs to stop with the marketing bull-#$&% and built a superior form of physic calculation for both cpu and gpu so that no one will even want havoc or bullet. how hard is it for them to push the cpu a little harder, need i point out the other thread that most games are leaving us with oodles of ghz to play with. and then even on top of that nvidia wants to sell more powerful and more expensive gps as add in cards for physx, so make us need them. show us a game where we cant stop playing cause of how immensely real it feels.
I've been playing Mirror's Edge again and had to turn off PhysX, every time there was physics stuff my fps dropped to single digits on my pc..
wtb Physx cpu emulator :p:
How hard is it for NV to vectorize the PhysX code instead of using x87 legacy instructions? Does it have anything to do with precision required?I reckon it has.
MultiThreading support ,on the other hand should be easier to implement and any modern Quad Core,or even better Six core chip,could run the PhysX optimized titles much better than today.
turning on sse is easy. vectorizing and optimizing can be hard especially with organizing memory in 16B alignments. there are a bunch of techniques like SOA, AOS and AVX will support scatter/gather.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
btw, you should read the page of the article "why x87?". double precision isn't needed.
Yeah ,I got to the "profiling results" page,haven't seen the why page that explains the precision.Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chumbucket843
Well physx has to be as accurate as possible so More precision is better,I wouldn't trade accurate results for faster results ever,I repeat EVER.;)
then you shouldn't use a computer. it only works because it trades accurate results for faster resultsQuote:
Originally Posted by Hell Hound
That doesn't make any sense. x87 supports max 80bit but because physx runs on g80 and agia ppu, which are both single precision 32bit, means its already running with inferior precision.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hell Hound
I don't even know the point of this argument. the article linked is highly technical in nature and raises more questions than it answers old ones.
Nvidia made a decision to adopt PhysX, good for them. Now they realize this won't get them very far, so in an effort to protect their investment they do silly things only a bozo would do, ie recompile api with x87 instructions. They will resist, but even they know it is a matter of time before it fades away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loque
Mirror's Edge was a great Physx fiasco.
The game is simply unplayable when you break glass, and you are actually lucky to get frames per second instead of seconds per frame.
But then, DICE was involved in this game...
If you die and you restart from a load point, all the glass you broke from then is still in the floor, asking for CPU time.
Wizzard Scientific supercomp's are built for accuracy @ a nice speed.Accuracy as is really all that they need,but since ipc keeps getting faster they upgrade to get ACCURATE RESULTS FASTER.:)
Dahma Wrong physx has 64 & 128 bit instruction
http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/8519/64bit.jpg Uploaded with ImageShack.us
http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/6403/128bit.jpg Uploaded with ImageShack.us
:up::up::up:
God I love your posts. :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by W1zzard
Tell that to the PENTAGON!!!!
Am I allowed to report posts for lowering the average IQ of the forum? Once upon a time I believed in the right of everyone to share their opinion, but seriously the more idiots I meet the less I want to hear.
Yeah like accurate results are not needed for positional data when launching projectile's(missile's).To chose faster w/errors over Accurate results,That's dumb people faster is good but accuracy should not be sacrificed for it.We are talking scientific calculation's here which physics is,I'll take the slower more accurate path,while you all take the faster path yet you miss your target.;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amorphous
Nvidia's constant game with "Physx won't work properly with Ati cards running graphics so we purposely disabled it"
Has turned people off from buying Nvidia. I've owned cards from both sides over the years, and yes I loved my G92, but this isn't the only area where Nvidia marketing has cheated consumers. I remember the FX series driver cheats with futuremark. Nvidia disabling Physx on the ppu since its "old". Making it run slower on cpu's so we want to buy more Nvidia cards to run physx. It gets old after awhile.
Obviously Nvidia is doing something wrong as their stock has plummeted. I used to own their stock and am really glad I ditched it.
Thats about 64/128 bit SIMD writes/reads and not about the instruction precision.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hell Hound
Any way 32 bit precision is enough for a game physics. BTW, using SSE1/2 SP instructions CPU may be up to 4x faster per thread then when x87 is used.
1. even simulations on supercomputers are relatively innaccurate. computational physics has advantages because you can observe/measure with out disturbing the simulation. even with the computing power we have today it is just an aid to real world testing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hell Hound
2. you are forgetting that this is real time. that means 17 milliseconds to compute everything. if you were to choose accuracy over speed then games would look terrible.
actually speed ups of up to 20x are possible. the flat register model, cacheability instructions, and the ability to stream data make SSE very fast. it requires a lot of expertise to get code that fast but so does gpgpu.Quote:
Originally Posted by kl0012
Article confirms that on a modern 6-core proccesor, there is no need for GPU physics... that includes Nvidia now defunct physx.
With all the pci-e slots we have we can afford to use more dedicated ppu's.Graphics is not really moving forward graw 2 looks like bc2.
??Quote:
Originally Posted by Hell Hound
You mised the point. There is no need. Physics can be rendered on their own cores. 6-core cpu's cost less than an entire video card.
Do you understand?
A 32 core gpu only cost $40 usd and we have not nearly used physx/physics like we could.
LOL, which is why two big 2010 releases like Mafia 2 and Metro 2033 utilize hardware PhysX :rolleyes: And those are just the hardware PhysX titles, and not software.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Maño
You don't have a clue..
Also, even though the article makes the case that better optimization would undoubtedly lead to better physX performance on the CPU, it still doesn't mean that the CPU could ever equal the GPU when it comes to processing physics algorithims.
Case in point, there is no software physics game that equals what you can find in hardware physics titles. A title like Mafia 2 features realistic cloth simulation (without the use of scripted animation), as well as advanced particle effects that use tens of thousands of particles for explosions and environmental destruction; far more than a CPU could handle in real time..
The fact is that the GPU will always be superior to the CPU in this regard, regardless of the amount of optimization on behalf of the CPU.
GPUs are naturally suited to that kind of computation, and when you look at it from a cost/performance perspective, the GPU easily takes the number one spot.
He said more & more developers are moving to Havoc, he did not say all of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carfax
Stop seeing everything in absolute back & white.
And 2 games big deal & Metro 2033 was not all that at all so that's 1 too tick off.
And every big game that has GPU Phyxs in it is because NV have paid them to use it & not because the developer thought lets use it.
All the rest what you have posted is true but at the same time you have totally missed the points that people are making.
No one is saying that the CPU will ever equal the GPU possibility's for physics & none ever did, but the GPU is not need for every physics implementation as the CPU is up to doing the job.
Bring up the GPU can do it better is wearing thin because we all know that already & is a different argument, the problem is falsely making out that the CPU cant do any physics is what the discussion is about.
hopefully with opencl, you wont have to choose gpu or cpu, and whichever is not maxed out will be able to run the physics
Then games will be limited because cpu will be bottleneck for anything more,depends on what is being simulated.Military fps is no go zone for cpu physx if you want realistic simulation,unless you have a qp board with HT enabled cpus.:shocked:
And how many Military simulations use GPU physx..exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hell Hound
GPU physics will come when the developers feel a need for it.
And is no different from developers making the best use of QuadCore CPUs even tho they have been around for more than long enough & making the best use of the latest DX.
The best looking games that i have seen are still Dx9 even tho more powerful DX versions are available for them to use..
Saw this thread, was hoping this guy would be in here. I didn't read the actual details or anything, but I'm content now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hell Hound
The article implies in a none too subtle manner that a CPU (when properly optimized for) can match or come close to a GPU, which is incorrect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Final8ty
If adherence to reality is the ultimate barometer and target for game physics (much like graphics), then the CPU presently just doesn't have enough power to run the advanced physics effects required for modern day gaming.
Which is why I don't see why so many people attack Nvidia for emphasizing physics on the GPU, and not the CPU.
It's just the natural evolution that makes the most sense..
What kind of level of physics are you talking about? You can just arbitrarily set the bar high enough that you'd want dust storms of individually simulated particles, which would mean a GPU.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carfax
But the level of physics offered by Havok is more than enough. Trying to calculate everything dynamically just because you can does not make it the best solution.
In my eye's it does.:rofl:
1) The article does not imply that, what it implies is that in some situations the CPU would be up to the job of doing what phyxs is doing in particular games if it were not for the CPU crippling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carfax
2) Is your opinion because there is not an attempt at this present time to do anything what you have said so the CPU is up to the task of what's needed today.
And the fact is you wont see anything in the near future until the Consoles can do GPU physics as well & NV GPUs will most likely not be in the next ones.
3) The reason why is because of 1 & 2 & the fact is they are exaggerating things with crippling & they are not emphasizing physics on the GPU as a whole they are emphasizing Phyxs only for there GPU only which is a contradiction of trying to move the PC gaming platform forwards when it can only be run with one vendor.
4) If it was natural then NV would not need to keep paying for it to be used in games.
i find it funny that people complain about multicore scaling being horrible for games.
then want 8 core cpus for 100$.
then dont want physics on their cpu cause somehow its better to buy a 100$ gpu that only works on 1/3 of the games out there and can be done most of the time with the CPU
There is no specific level of physics, but game physics is similar to 3D graphics in how it perceived by gamers. The closer it is to reality, then the more impressive it becomes.Quote:
Originally Posted by cegras
Just as developers strive to make their graphics more realistic, so should they strive to make their physics more realistic as well.
Unfortunately, adherence to reality requires LOADS more computation, and presently, the CPU is very inferior to the GPU in that regard.
You say Havok is sufficient for most physics, but the most commonly touted Havok game (BFBC2) doesn't even use Havok completely for it's most impressive physics effects.
Instead, it uses a combination of scripted animation (which has been around for years) combined with Havok to render the impressive explosions that you see in the game.
Thats all fine and good if you want to be stuck in the past, but technology like Time, doesn't stop for anyone.
With hardware PhysX, not only do we get a greater level of realism, but because developers no longer need to spend time animating effects that can now be run in engine and in real time, development time and cost are reduced.
With that said, the case for hardware accelerated physics is quite strong imo.
all this talk about GPU physics are a must, and yet all physics ive seen ingame suck (unless its a demo for something that we will never get anyway)
http://www.geeks3d.com/20100521/gpu-...e-cpu-support/
gpu physx isnt that much faster than cpu physx, only by a factor of ~2 (i7920 and gtx260). if anyone wants to bench a gtx480 or 980x and post results go for it.
Anyone remember the Fluidmark 1.2 article?
So far PhysX has not demonstrated anything real at all, Ghost busters in my view has done better physics wise than any GPU phyxs game & your understanding of what the average joe gamer is impressed by is way off & that's why we see more & more complaints about the quality of today's games from the PC gamers because the average gamer is a console gamer & there standards are far from high & in fact it seems to be dropping.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carfax
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle
Does not seem to be a accurate benchmark prog.Quote:
Therefore, bechmarking seems to be a little tricky in new FluidMark. We are curious if someone will come with solid method after app release.
The case you're making for PhysX versus 'shortcut' methods involving a mashup of Havok and prerendered scenes is very similar to (I think) the case for rasterization versus ray tracing. It simply ends up giving equivalent results for less effort and overhead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carfax
For example, Valve has an excellent presentation on how it randomly generates gore on the zombies in L4D2. The 'physx' way (the 'ideal' way) is to generate unique wounds for every zombie everytime you shoot it. However, clearly this is not possible, so a lot of compromises were made. I know nothing about computer graphics but I found the presentation somewhat understandable:
http://www.valvesoftware.com/publica...l4d2wounds.pdf
Worse, because SSE can be used to manipulate up to 4 32 Bits numbers per Instruction.Quote:
Originally Posted by damha
The truth is that I don't care about physics adoption in games or whatever, all this eyecandy trash doesn't make a game better or worse, or more fun to play. Actually, all the time and resources that developers waste on focusing on graphics alone made games much less original and fun to play.
Two decades ago, developers had to hand optimize code in Assembler to make it run as fast as possible. These days, they rush to release buggy and unstable releases, then simply patch it, and throw more Hardware at the games to compensate for their coding deficciences. You are feeding them.
I don't know about you guys, but I don't want physics in games for accurate cloth movement, I want physics in games to produce accurate representation of bullets/projectiles used firearms (grain weight, velocity, flight, wind affect, barrel length, etc) and proper penetration of material by bullets/projectiles. Not just walls of wood, stone, or sheet rock, but also body hits.
That way you don't just have damage to body parts based on area (arms, chest, legs, head), but actual accurate body parts like central nervous system, circulatory system, skeletal structure and damage to them actually affecting the person accurately. Bullet hits arm, breaks bone, arm no longer able to be used. Bullet enters body in mid section, bounces off spine, travels upward and nicks aorta leading to quickly bleeding death.
Then you also have projectiles going through material and accurately deflecting, slowing down, or just completely breaking apart and if the projectile can go through, hitting the object behind that material at the properly reduced speed.
I'm just mostly underwhelmed by what physics in games do today, the only one that seems to have a semi use of what I'm talking about is Stalker series, but I don't know if it is even accurate physics or pre-programed.
ill make it easy for you then, how about getting shot in the chest with any gun will just kill you? o and health packs dont work, they just slow down the inevitable. lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carfax
LOL you don't really believe that, do you?
Right now Havok is as realistic as Physx. I don't feel that BC2's physics are anyway worst than say Metro 2033.
FarCry2 is as realistic as any other Physx game. And so on.
Besides, if the difference between hardware Physx and CPU physx is going to be just some cloths... then I don't really care at all.
Just tell us a Havok game that's so unrealistic compared to other Physx tittle just because it's physics are ran in the CPU rather than in the GPU.
Actually I would like to see a game like Split Second being done using PhysX. Not because I like PhysX (because I don't) but to see how it would run compared to Havok.
It's simply amazing what they do with Havok in that game.
I would like to see Serious Sam 3 engine with hardware physx support.Nvidia needs to release a driver for the ageia ppu also.
http://img811.imageshack.us/img811/4184/realism.jpg
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/2...sengine33c.jpg
Oh god no. A Tom Clancy game taken to the extreme would be the most boring thing ... ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stukov
Spot on. Kinda... ok, not really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carfax
Of course the GPU will beat the CPU in terms of a massive amount of simple, inheritley multithreaded single precision floating point math. No one is going to argue otherwise. If you were to benchmark pure physics performance on both, it makes sense that the GPU is going to come out ahead.
Are GPUs a better choice for physics in the context of a game though? Hell no. The GPU is already doing a massive amount of work rendering the game. To make matters worse, no matter how powerful GPUs become game developers and manufacturers will always find a way to use that power, whether it be super complex shaders, massive tessellation, giant textures, huge resolutions, enormous amounts of anti-aliasing, or more action on screen, it is very easy to find a use for increased graphics power. CPUs on the other hand, are generally not used to their full potential in most games. It is hard to adjust a single value like resolution or anti-aliasing to make use of added CPU power. Worse yet, the gap is doing nothing but increasing and the more cores a CPU has the harder it is to utilize all of it's resources (except through physics). In this context, it makes a lot more sense to let the CPU do the Physics work since it will generally have more performance that isn't being utilized by other aspects of the game.
:ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hell Hound
gpu core is not a cpu core. They are saying that a GPU isn't capable of doing what a 2 cores of a modern CPU can do. It is roughly 2x more.
read the article again.. it what every sane person has been saying for the last year. It is what Bad Company 2 proves and why physx is just a marketing tool..!
Need I bring up the Ghostbuster demo again... :rolleyes:
Yer true, 980x would come in handy, still overkill thoughQuote:
Originally Posted by sniper_sung
very nice article! :toast:
this finally proves what we all suspected, physix is very poorly executed on cpus, most likely on purpose...
I'd rather not, the one they are building is more powerful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hell Hound
yup, split second is the most impressive demonstration of cpu physics so far. awesome gameplay physicsQuote:
Originally Posted by Toysoldier
fyi, those shots look way fishy... those are fake if you ask me...Quote:
Originally Posted by Hell Hound
lol what?Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
Those screens don't look particularly good. Crysis can do better. ;) (if you don't belive me, play SS:FE HD it uses the Serious engine 3)
Anyway, ever since Aeagia descided to rename novodex (which was a good physic sdk ack then) intp physx to sell there useless hardware i hoped it would be doomed... to bad nv picked it up.
But well if you look closer, aegias and nv philosophy are a perfect match in this regard... :rolleyes:
Well PhysX has been limited to eye candy physics due to the fact that ATI isn't on board.. It has far more potential, but it won't be realized until hardware driven physics becomes mainstream.Quote:
Originally Posted by Final8ty
Also, PhysX was the first to feature fully interactive cloth and smoke effects in a game, so it's not as though it hasn't been revolutionary in certain ways..
LOL, you think Ghostbusters is impressive? OK, I'll bite. Explain whats so impressive about Ghostbusters :DQuote:
Ghost busters in my view has done better physics wise than any GPU phyxs game & your understanding of what the average joe gamer is impressed by is way off & that's why we see more & more complaints about the quality of today's games from the PC gamers because the average gamer is a console gamer & there standards are far from high & in fact it seems to be dropping.
No, the results are definitely not the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by cegras
Look at the latest PhysX trailer for Mafia 2.
You see fully interactive cloth effects, and destruction effects that utilize tens of thousands of particles, and even the explosive pressure wave, that are all being driven by a physics engine.
Show me a game that uses software physics and scripted animations that has explosions anywhere near as realistic as what you see in Mafia 2.
Check out 1:09 in the trailer. Look at the car bumper. Thats a lot of attention to detail :up:
Have you seen the Mafia 2 PhysX trailer?Quote:
Originally Posted by El Maño
Show me a game that uses CPU driven physics that comes even close as to what you see in that footage.
Thats easy. BC2 (and tons of other games) uses Havok for physics, but for the big explosions, they also rely on scripted animations as well.Quote:
Just tell us a Havok game that's so unrealistic compared to other Physx tittle just because it's physics are ran in the CPU rather than in the GPU
In other words, if you blow up a building in BC2, it will blow up the same way every single time; with the exception of a few hundred objects or so that are calculated with Havok.
This is done because the CPU doesn't have the horsepower necessary to calculate all of the debris and objects that are generated from a massive explosion.
In Mafia 2 however, we see that because the GPU is much more powerful, the destruction effects can be calculated completely and we end up with dynamic explosions that not only generate a lot more debris and objects, but look different every single time.
maybe its a weird dof implementation but the background looks like its one single blurry texture manipulated in photoshop, and the only thing special about the tank and wall behind it are high res textures, the lighting and shadows are nothing particularly special...Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
It all comes back to price/performance.Quote:
Originally Posted by hurleybird
All of what you say is true, but you neglected to mention that using a dedicated physX card mitigates all of those problems. In fact, you always get the best results when you use a dedicated physX card.
My GTS 250 which I use for PhysX only, will b!tch slap my Core i7 @ 4.2ghz when it comes to anything involving physics, while costing a lot less as well.
Also, dual cores still comprise the majority of gaming PCs.
The latest Steam hardware survey.
Quadcore, let alone hexcores won't become fully mainstream until a year or two from now.
Yeah because dual gpu configuration is sooo mainstream..Quote:
Quadcore, let alone hexcores won't become fully mainstream until a year or two from now.
oh wait...
And you think you need dual GPU to run PhysX? :ROTF: Depending on what resolution and what detail settings you chose, you can run PhysX on a single card with good or decent frames.Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnJohn
Driverheaven showed that you can run Batman AA with maxed out physics on a single GTS 250 at 1680x1050. While they had playable average frames, their low minimums would have made the game lag a bit though (especially in the Scarecrow levels), but keep in mind they were running the game using maxed out graphical settings, with 2xAA as well.
If they disabled the AA, the performance would have increased significantly.
I am going to quote your complete post were you were recommending a dual gpu configuration, were one of the gpus will be dedicated for physx to "mitigate" the fact that physx trashes down performance in a game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carfax
Also, maybe dual cores compromise the majority of pc, but with 100 bucks quad cores, what do you think new builds will be based upon? in 2010+
Physx on gpu must die! :slapass:
Don't try to blame ATI as if PhysX is independent non competitor standard that can be adopted like DX.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carfax
2) it doing the first at anything was not the point at all & nowhere do i imply that at all because it all means nothing if its limited to just one vendor & i made that point clear all ready.
3) Your laughing at other PhysX users because they were so impressed with Ghostbusters that some of them thought that it was using PhysX as Ghostbusters is doing things in game that walks all over the scarecrow scene from Batman .
Well of course you're always going to get the best results with a dedicated physX card....Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnJohn
Does that really surprise you? Ageia, the company that first came up with hardware accelerated PhysX, intended for PhysX to run on dedicated hardware.
Nvidia expanded the options by allowing you to run PhysX on your graphics card, without having to buy additional hardware, but this comes at a performance cost.
At the present rate, quadcores won't be the majority till late in the 1Q or early 2Q next year.Quote:
Also, maybe dual cores compromise the majority of pc, but with 100 bucks quad cores, what do you think new builds will be based upon? in 2010+
Regardless, the kind of PhysX that we see in Mafia 2 and Batman AA won't be feasible on the CPU until CPUs get a lot more powerful, and that won't happen for another generation or two.
Even an overclocked 980x has about 1/5 of the heavy number crunching capability of a low end GPU like a GTS 250.
Also, it's not just the GPUs floating point math abilities that make them superior the CPU in physics. GPUs also have a lot more bandwidth available to them.
i think people should be interesting in what fusion can do, a duel or quad for the game, the 480 shaders for physics, and a dedicated GPU for the rest.
4 cores make up 25% of the population on steam hardware surveys
reading the gpus is kinda tough, but it looks like less than 25% are decent cards, although 25% are classified as other
Its dynamic and not pre-programmed. In fact, its so dynamic you can change the properties of various velocities and impacts in LTX files.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stukov
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carfax
Please read the whole thread...
Yes, a single GPU is not enough to handle physics found in battlefield, or the ghostbusters physic demo.
Therefore, you'd need to purchase another modern gpu ($250) to get close to what is already capable on a modern $300 cpu. How can you not understand this simple fact. You need extra, to handle what CPU delivers as inherent.
2 fermi's ain't going to handle thousands of hard & soft bodies swirling around a broken castle. Let alone one card.. you are so clueless, it's ridiculous.
there are a lot of claims of what gpu's can/cant do for game physics in this thread with nothing to back them up. fluidmark 1.2 is currently the only physics bench for gpu's and cpu's afaik.
here is some of the underlying math used for physics.
http://developer.amd.com/documentati...ase-Study.aspx
http://developer.amd.com/documentati...tudy/fig11.jpg
http://developer.amd.com/documentati...tudy/fig13.jpg
gpu is 15.7x faster than cpu.
This might sound a little cliche but I think its time all our PCs brains evolved :p: Nature evolved us humans, now humans have to evolve the brain of the PC to something much faster. It can be done, but the change would be revolutionary and almost every standard would change. This is also why nobody has taken this step.. yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chumbucket843
Where are those claims as the focus is not about which is faster at physics because no one is saying the the GPU is not faster.
The claims are that even tho the GPU is faster it is simply not needed all the time to do every & all physics.
So it seems you have this thread back to front.
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by Final8ty
show me a physx game that a quad core cant do, with proof please
GhostBusters has already beaten what had been done in batmanAA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carfax
it's hard to interpret what exactly people are saying when they refer to physx/physics. they could be talking about the game as a whole or just the physics engine. i apologize if i took someones post the wrong way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Final8ty
a middle end gpu beats a high end cpu.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carfax
2 middle end gpu's are close to a high end cpu.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xoulz
SLI 460'S and 1 for physx will kill a 990X.$600 VS $1K + needs gpu.
You must be smoking some powerful :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana:.. First off, your examples of Ghostbusters and BC2 are terrible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xoulz
Both games do not allow for GPU physics, so how could you possibly know whether or not a GPU could not perform the physics in both games?
Also, rigid body physics is the least demanding of all game physics.
I've seen the Ghostbuster demo, where they use 3,500 rigid bodies and 200 soft bodies, which "maxed out" a Core i7.
Batman Arkham Asylum during the Scarecrow levels uses thousands of objects, both rigid bodies and pieces of paper that use cloth physics.
Not to mention, the fog and vapor effects that utilize tens of thousands of particles.
I'd like to see a CPU handle that. It's one thing to do rigid bodies, but when it comes to more complex physics effects like cloth, smoke, fluid, the CPU cannot handle them!
As for BC2, I've already been over that a dozen times. BC2 uses scripted animations in combination with real time physics, so stop acting as if it's the ultimate game physics, because it clearly isn't :rolleyes:
Ready my reply to Xoulz.Quote:
Originally Posted by Final8ty
This is simply not true. Rigid body physics is the least demanding of all game physics.
Batman has much more rigorous physics effects such as cloth and fog/vapor, in addition to rigid bodies.
You mean that car bumper that doesnt interact with the ground that it clips right through? :clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by Carfax
Consider the thread closed.