John Carmack is not interested in Physx

[aka1nas]

Obviously..!


Because you never thought to look. It's probably the sole reason you cannot grasp what the rest of the world has been telling you.

You ever use Task Manager's Performance monitor...? Ever?

What game do you use that deadheads your CPU...? Yet, until Video cards are more powerful than the games they are trying to display, their innards are at a premium and must be used for graphics.

Modern game engines like UE3 will already peg 3 cores on a quad core CPU, and many of those games are already using GPU PhysX. There isn't enough CPU power to spare to handle the sort of effects that we would all like to see (i.e. fully destructable environments).

[Hell Hound]

Question...

I was looking more at my CPU utilization running FluidMark, the PhysX benchmark.
If I run with my GPU PhysX disabled in Nvidia Control Panel, I get:

Min=6 FPS, and AVE=27 FPS. I did note that I was running on 1 core only, at 100% utilization. (Q6600@3.81GHz)




With my 280 doing the PhysX, I still run on 1 core only, at about 70% utilization...

Min=113 FPS, and AVE=152 FPS.


Do you guys think If PhysX could use all 4 cores of my CPU, would it move my Minimum FPS exactly 4 X faster to about 24 FPS? Or doesn't PhysX probably scale that well?

(This is keeping in mind that my CPU would be doing pure PhysX work only. If we loaded up a demanding game, with other work to also calculate, I couldn't get the same max performance out if it.)
I guess a minimum of 24 FPS, would be my CPU's best case scenario for PhysX on this test, running with all 4 cores at 100%.

Glad I have the option to fly on my GPU...

That would be me. (Actually, i used my old GPU.)



I think we have an answer... PhysX likes the GPU allot!

HA HA lets see what the min is when opencl is used to handle the physx.

[Manicdan]

wait a sec, if we got physx to work on quad core cpus, you can get ~70% average framerate of what your gpu can do it at?

i still think the biggest flaw is having any program stuck on just one method of calculation. having a process go from cpu to gpu when one has more headroom will always be a smarter option. and if they can have it on the fly dynamic to switch at scenes where one is being the bottleneck, then we have a winner.

a perfectly developed game will use 100% of the cpu and gpu (given no vsync), we are no where near that with most engines, but its going to become more necessary as we have gpgpus and many-core cpus.

[Talonman]

HA HA lets see what the min is when opencl is used to handle the physx.

I'm with you there...

But Nvidia PhysX will never run via OpenCL I don't think. It will probably always be a CUDA app.

On havok physics...

As long as OpenCL is implemented by each company to run on thier GPU's too, extra performance will follow for sure. I believe with ATI, they are making sure it runs on the CPU first.

I don't know if that was a first step, or all they intend to do with OpenCL.

Lets hope they full well intend to have an OpenCL driver for their GPU's too. (Probably will...)

If physics still only ran on the CPU, OpenCL would not be the exciting tool that it was designed to be.

[Hell Hound]

+1

[Talonman]

wait a sec, if we got physx to work on quad core cpus, you can get ~70% average framerate of what your gpu can do it at?

i still think the biggest flaw is having any program stuck on just one method of calculation. having a process go from cpu to gpu when one has more headroom will always be a smarter option. and if they can have it on the fly dynamic to switch at scenes where one is being the bottleneck, then we have a winner.

a perfectly developed game will use 100% of the cpu and gpu (given no vsync), we are no where near that with most engines, but its going to become more necessary as we have gpgpus and many-core cpus.

No, 70% was my CPU utilization when PhysX was processing on my GPU. I believe that is just processing overhead, keeping the GPU happy...

Actually I was surprised the CPU even runs that high on 1 core, when the PhysX is being processed on the GPU.

As far a FPS, my CPU was getting a minimum of 6FPS, where the GPU was getting a minimum of 113FPS. Not 70% of the performance.

BTW...

Modern game engines like UE3 will already peg 3 cores on a quad core CPU, and many of those games are already using GPU PhysX. There isn't enough CPU power to spare to handle the sort of effects that we would all like to see (i.e. fully destructable environments).

Thanks for the post.

[BababooeyHTJ]

Easy man...

I stand corrected. Some get it for free, and you don't need a second dedicated PhysX GPU to enjoy it. One GPU can do Graphics and PhysX just fine. My other thread is about getting max performance.

Still, better for the some to get it free, than we all have to buy a special ageia PhysX card. Don't hold me responsible for if PhysX will ever run on ATI GPU's. If they wanted to, one call to Nvidia could make that happen.
(Along with driver development.)

As far as Havok goes, in my opinion, I would rather have it running on my GPU via OpenCL. I think with the extra speed the GPU brings to the table, Havok will be able to do even more impressive effects than if running on my Q6600.
Actually, my favorite choice would be Havok running both on my CPU and GPU.

Honestly, I just want to ask you your opinion about Nvidia dropping support for running dedicated Geforce Physix when running an ATI card for graphics in Windows 7?

[Talonman]

I think it was a bad move for Nvidia. They should be working on bringing more people into the PhysX fold, not less...

I also think when you buy an official Nvidia card, it should be fully functional, no matter what card you opt to run next to it...

See, I'm not a Nvidia gunman, or Jen-Hsun Huang!

I'm just one more opinionated member of this fine site.

[Xoulz]

I guess it depends on the level of physics we are talking about...

Ask yourself this...

Why does Havok not have a fluid or smoke simulation...

http://www.havok.com/content/view/72/57/

Havok has Behavior, Animation, Cloth, and Destruction. Note that it currently runs off the CPU only.

PhysX can do the more demanding effects like smoke, and fluid. Note that it runs on the GPU.

What do you want to bet, that when Havok is able to run on GPU power, it will also begin to be able to do the more demanding effects?

Why is it when we run Fluidmark, and tell it no GPU acceleration, your FPS drop so bad with it processing only on your CPU?

You can say what you want about your CPU Utilization, but i think the fact still remains that GPU's process real time in game physics effects, much faster than CPU's can. I also think that only running physics off of your CPU, will limit what effects you can pull off.

Seriously, stop the trolling!

We really don't care to hear your song & dance about what you think...!!

And you obviously know it's not true, but continue to stir up the community with your "I also think..." type post. You've leaned on this technique just so you don't get banned.

There is just no excuss for your lies and feigned ignorance.





Honestly, people have repeatedly told you the facts.


PhysX itself is a stand-alone software physics engine. You can run it on the software (ie: CPU) or Hardware, that is/was built to specifically accelerate it.




Nvidia owns the middleware SDK, (Agea PhysX), so Nvidia makes hardware to specifically accelerate it. (That is... if a game is designed with Agea brand of physics middleware.)


That it..! Nothing more.

[Talonman]

Seriously, stop the trolling!

We really don't care to hear your song & dance about what you think...!!

And you obviously know it's not true, but continue to stir up the community with your "I also think..." type post. You've leaned on this technique just so you don't get banned.

There is just no excuss for your lies and feigned ignorance.


Honestly, people have repeatedly told you the facts.


PhysX itself is a stand-alone software physics engine. You can run it on the software (ie: CPU) or Hardware, that is/was built to specifically accelerate it.


Nvidia owns the middleware SDK, (Agea PhysX), so Nvidia makes hardware to specifically accelerate it. (That is... if a game is designed with Agea brand of physics middleware.)


That it..! Nothing more.

I think your are done here after that post.

[Drwho?]

John is a good man, I wish people would show more respect to the inventor of 3D PC gaming.
It is not because you dissagree with somebody that you have to use "bad words" about him.

Let's all be nice, and agree to share and dissagree with respect. that could make XS a better place.

Francois

[Rommsey]

Seriously, stop the trolling!

We really don't care to hear your song & dance about what you think...!!

And you obviously know it's not true, but continue to stir up the community with your "I also think..." type post. You've leaned on this technique just so you don't get banned.

There is just no excuss for your lies and feigned ignorance.





Honestly, people have repeatedly told you the facts.


PhysX itself is a stand-alone software physics engine. You can run it on the software (ie: CPU) or Hardware, that is/was built to specifically accelerate it.




Nvidia owns the middleware SDK, (Agea PhysX), so Nvidia makes hardware to specifically accelerate it. (That is... if a game is designed with Agea brand of physics middleware.)


That it..! Nothing more.

While true there is little excuse for lies and ignorance it is a part of life.

Hopefully he will post in a manner that agitates you less and we can move on.

[Talonman]

John is a good man, I wish people would show more respect to the inventor of 3D PC gaming.
It is not because you dissagree with somebody that you have to use "bad words" about him.

Let's all be nice, and agree to share and dissagree with respect. that could make XS a better place.

Francois

Agreed...

Good manners are always in fashion.

[Rommsey]

Agreed...

Good manners are always in fashion.

[Talonman]

While true there is little excuse for lies and ignorance it is a part of life.

Hopefully he will post in a manner that agitates you less and we can move on.

I don't intend to change anything about the way I post.

It's not ignorant or lies...

If he doesn't like me, or my opinions, it's his issue, not mine.

We will all never agree, but must keep things civil.

[Xoulz]

While true there is little excuse for lies and ignorance it is a part of life.

Hopefully he will post in a manner that agitates you less and we can move on.

I'm not agitated, but in reading this thread, nothing he suggest or says is truthful, or even on par with reality.

I just not going to take his "game" any longer. So, I'm calling him out! He's purposely trolling threads and it's just getting real old.



He admits to it often, then laughs = cancer on a community





Now, back to Carmack. It's somewhat funny he covered the industry on loarge and walked off stage when Nvidia and PhysX were brought up. PhysX is great, but so is Havoc or any other middelware Physic's engine. You don't need licensing or even an buyable engine. In-house proprietary physics engine are easily as powerful as the next engine. Yet, they work on 100% of the computer and not 5%.

Of the games we most buy and want, PhysX doesn't help most of the populace, but in-game physics does. Whether that game uses CPU based PhysX or Havok doesn't matter.

[Rommsey]

I don't intend to change anything about the way I post.

It's not ignorant or lies...

If he doesn't like me, or my opinions, it's his issue, not mine.

We will all never agree, but must keep things civil.

It is his issue to a certain point. If your posts are constantly misleading that point is exceeded.

The point is to remain civil and let us hope we can remain so

[Talonman]

I can discuss things, if talked to with respect. (In fact I love to.)

What exactly did I mislead anybody on?

ATI and X86 first with OpenCL only running on the CPU?

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=231755

Or that PhysX runs faster on GPU's than CPU's?

Or that the CPU dosen't have so much speed that it can do real time in game smoke and fluid withought taking a serous performance hit?

I don't claim to have all the answers, I am learning just like the rest of us.

[Rommsey]

I can discuss things, if talked to with respect. (In fact I love to.)

What exactly did I mislead anybody on?

ATI and X86 first with OpenCL only running on the CPU?

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=231755

Or that PhysX runs faster on GPU's than CPU's?

Or that the CPU dosen't have so much speed that it can do real time in game smoke and fluid withought taking a serous performance hit?

I don't claim to have all the answers, I am learning just like the rest of us.

I am not claiming your post is misleading, I am merely trying to demonstrate a cause and effect relationship here. So if X determines Y and Z is the result of interaction with X with respect to Y, can we agree there's cause and effect? haha

The one guy has to provide substance to him calling you out and while XS isn't really the place for it make no mistake, I'm for civil interaction but with acceptable levels of ignorance. There is too much of it here and that is the number one cause for problems on boards.

We can continue this in Private Messages though, I don't want to have this go any further off-topic than it has.

[Talonman]

I think a PhysX discussion in the ' John Carmack is not interested in Physx' thread isn't too far off topic.

I'm just sorry some feel the need to attack me personally.

Thanks for letting me know you don't think I have lied or mislead anybody.

[BababooeyHTJ]

I think it was a bad move for Nvidia. They should be working on bringing more people into the PhysX fold, not less...

I also think when you buy an official Nvidia card, it should be fully functional, no matter what card you opt to run next to it...

See, I'm not a Nvidia gunman, or Jen-Hsun Huang!

I'm just one more opinionated member of this fine site.

I really think that it's stuff like that that scares people at the thought of Nvidia ever owning a de facto standard. Yes hardware Physix is a good idea but with Nvidia's track record it's not so appealing.

[B.E.E.F.]

I'm not agitated, but in reading this thread, nothing he suggest or says is truthful, or even on par with reality.

I just not going to take his "game" any longer. So, I'm calling him out! He's purposely trolling threads and it's just getting real old.



He admits to it often, then laughs = cancer on a community

The guy is smarter than he looks. He feigns ignorance. I got banned for a week for calling him out. Watch it. PM Fugger if you really want to solve this problem.


You can start with the following:

- He posts mostly in nVidia threads, heavily focused on PhysX promotion.

[Talonman]

The guy is smarter than he looks. He feigns ignorance. I got banned for a week for calling him out. Watch it. PM Fugger if you really want to solve this problem.

You can start with the following:

- He posts mostly in nVidia threads, heavily focused on PhysX promotion.

Not for calling me out, for your selection of words.

And still didn't get the message...

Too bad, I thought we could start fresh, and insult free. So much for living the dream!

FYI - Guy's don't get banned for posting mostly in nVidia threads, heavily focused on PhysX.

As far as promotion goes, I have never told anybody to buy anything...
In fact I don't care 1 bit what GPU people select. I just enjoy conversations with like minded people who enjoy all types of GPU acceleration, and the exciting features that it brings to the table.

[B.E.E.F.]

I really think that it's stuff like that that scares people at the thought of Nvidia ever owning a de facto standard. Yes hardware Physix is a good idea but with Nvidia's track record it's not so appealing.

How can you even do hardware physics anyways? What if a game has no need for certain physics calculations, does a part of the chip idle? And what happens if you need to do certain calculations, and the hardware is not available on the chip.

Better just leave it to a spare, programmable GPU to do work. We have plenty of those lying around.

[eleeter]

I personally think Talonman is a hard core Nvidia troll that has absolutely no interest in learning anything. He knows exactly what he's doing, pushing an agenda while attempting to appear somewhat neutral and unbiased.

I don't buy it, and I learn absolutely nothing from his posts, because they are often nothing more than reworded marketing nonsense. That's my opinion, feel free to disagree.

As for PhysX, Nvidia is not nearly as smart as they think they are. They have a an opportunity to take PhysX and bring to a critical mass. But they are doing it completely backwards. You don't proliferate new tech by limiting the hardware it runs on. Nvidia likes to pretend that the Geforce is the only piece of hardware that is capable of running PhysX, which is pure nonsense. Instead of trying to force people to buy only Nvidia cards if they want PhysX, they need to pursue a different business model.