Irrelevant until that power is being used in a meaningful way, which it has not & will not until its available across the board which GPU PhysX is not.Originally Posted by Amorphous
Irrelevant until that power is being used in a meaningful way, which it has not & will not until its available across the board which GPU PhysX is not.
honestly I think PhysX is going to be less and less popular than it already is since BC2 comes out,
Frostbite pretty much does more than what PhysX does but uses way less CPU resources
i7 920 @ 4GHz 1.25v
GTX 470 @ 859MHz 1062mv
PhysX demos look way more realistic than Havok.
ASUS Sabertooth P67B3· nVidia GTX580 1536MB PhysX · Intel Core i7 2600K 4.5GHz · Corsair TX850W · Creative X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty
8GB GSKill Sniper PC3-16000 7-8-7 · OCZ Agility3 SSD 240GB + Intel 320 SSD 160GB + Samsung F3 2TB + WD 640AAKS 640GB · Corsair 650D · DELL U2711 27"
I didn't think much of BC2. It looks no better than this demo IMO. I think Red Faction: Guerrilla did a lot better destruction with Havok than BC2.I do believe Battlefield: Bad Company 2 uses the Havok physics engine, which if you've played it, is quite spectacular in terms of physics destructionAlso, I am happy it uses Havok and not PhysX because I run three 4870s
Of course not. PhysX can be single- or multi-threaded depending on whether you enable multi-threading in the SDK or not.
Nope, shocking isn't it. Havok is just as proprietary and runs on fewer platforms than PhysX but don't let the secret out.....
So don't mix up the context of GPU physics as people keep banging on about as that runs on even less.
im ohavok is better for PC gaming.. physx while "showing" better physics... I haven't seen it in any game... and tbh it's LOCKED to nvidia pretty much and it's stuck behind 1 core and crap like that.... thats just pathetic personally...
just make it fully open nvidia and stop pissing about.. they will just loose the physics race if they just have it for theirselves.
"Cast off your fear. Look forward. Never stand still, retreat and you will age. Hesitate and you will die. SHOUT! My name is…"
//James
Thats all bright and good for everyone but NV payed 150 million dollars for Agiea. How are they going to make that money back.
The only way is to use it as a marketing point with their cards. PhysX is also helping developers(either financially or with tools).
One thing NV should do however is not disable PhysX when an AMD card is present(a second NV is their to do physX) or reintroduce a low priced PhysX card. The problem with this however is people don't care about spending money on secondary cards hence the reason PhysX when own buy agiea was failing.
Core i7 920@ 4.66ghz(H2O)
6gb OCZ platinum
4870x2 + 4890 in Trifire
2*640 WD Blacks
750GB Seagate.
yeah, damn those lazy and incompetent game devs... poor nvidia
what do you think is more important? how good a tech demo CAN look and perform or how the actual games people play and BUY perform and look?
about the havok demo... thats new stuff? really?
that looks like its 5-10 years old... the destruction doesnt look realistic at all...
it all looks like toys and miniature models, not realistic...
why do i keep getting the impression that there is a single dev working on havok
lol, the cloth demo is funny... the cloth animation looks good..
but whats wrong with that fat grunt? sounds and looks like he ate something wrong?
why does he keep hitting his own belly?
Last edited by saaya; 03-13-2010 at 06:43 AM.
so havok will only run on intel cpu's?
havok runs on any x86 CPU on Windows, Linux and Mac OS X; Xbox and Xbox 360; GameCube and Wii; PlayStation 2, PlayStation 3 and PlayStation Portable...
lol Frostbite? You mean like destruction 2.0? I don't think I've ever seen destruction being so scripted before.
weve been seeing these kinds of demos way to often, but never being used.
where are the games where the character models actually wear clothes that move and act like clothes.
where the after effects from physics, like the dust sand.
how about blood that actually gets sprayed onto a wall and can drip down.
demos are nice, but every game up to today has been sub par with physics.
No its not.
But its cross platform. It can work on AMD, Intel, PS3, X360 and all other x86 chips. So basically all PCs, laptops and consoles as well.
Physx is still locked to one GPU manufacturer on the on the PC.
We are yet to see a game that is making good use of physx using CPU. Now I really do not know why game devs are not using multiple CPU cores. But there must be some reason for it. What it is I dont know.
But you really have to wonder if its only laziness of the devs thats the case here. Because you look at game like Just Cause 2.
Its branded and marketed heavily using NV TWIMTBP, CUDA, but it still uses Havok as its physics engine. Why? the whole game is based on physics (not realistic physics, but its fun just like JC1 ).
And I am yet to see single game which runs heavy / extensive physics calculation based on CPU PhysX.
Until that changes, Havok is not going anywhere. It has been around for ages, and I dont see that changing.
Its not how many % of games that make use of certain physics engine that matters. Its how many devs end up making good use of physics in the game.
take and example of Cryostasis. The Physx effects there look little sad and excessive to be honest. It does not matter to a gamer like me if every little bubble or drop of water is interacting accurately with environment or not. But its the experience that matters. Thats why I would pick something like Bioshock and its water and environment effects which are made using havok over Cryostasis.
Until this changes and Nvidia really puts in an effort to make physx cross platform or at least create discrete cheap GPU based physx cards or let its gpus officially exist alongside competitor to do just physics, i dont see likes of Havok going anywhere.
but honestly looking from Nvidia's pov and their attitude towards these things, I dont see that happening either. And thats why PhysX wont really succeed in long term in its current incarnation.
And success != % market share here unlike hardware numbers.
Primary Rig
Intel Xeon W3520 @4200Mhz 24x7, 1.200v load (3845A935)
Gigabyte X58A-UD7
Patriot Viper II DDR3 2000 CL8
Tagan BZ1300
DeepCool Gamer Storm with 2x120mm DeepCool fans.
MSI GTX 470 Twin Frozr II
Zotac GTX 470 AMP edition.
GPU collection : http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...5&postcount=64
Rig2
Phenom II x4 965
MSI 790GX-GD65
2GBx2 Corsair DDR3 1333
Tagan tg500-u37
Arctic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro Rev.2
XFX 9600GT
destruction 2.0 is what they're calling the physics in frostbite 1.5 iirc
i7 920 @ 4GHz 1.25v
GTX 470 @ 859MHz 1062mv
Tell that to the people trying to compare GPU PhysX to Havok. Havok has no GPU solution at all so it's a useless comparison.
Guess we don't know the definition of open source. In terms of platform support PhysX runs on everything that Havok does and then some.
Physx intentionally doesn't though.
It's a marketing vehicle to castrate performance to sell GPU's.
Calculated on the CPU = an actually useful physics api which is open and able to influence gameplay dynamics.
Oh, except for physx. They NUKE cpu performance by thread restrictions. Physx is not useful.
How does it?In terms of platform support PhysX runs on everything that Havok does and then some.
The option is greyed out for any system with an ATI card present.
That's not platform support.
Let me correct your statement:
In terms of platform support PhysX runs on nvidia systems only because it's an intentionally win/lose based platform when it comes to real world implimentation.
Buy nvidia, use no ATI or gtfo of our fooooooozEEEXxxx.
Last edited by Jowy Atreides; 03-13-2010 at 07:23 AM.
You included when it comes to the PC platform as the PhysX on the CPU in PC game implementations are a joke in comparison to what run on the CPU from competing solutions on the PC.
Yes, and of course that is due to some inherent inferiority of one middleware package over another and has nothing to do with the skill of the developers. After all, all Havok games are AAA titles right? Now if you can point to some inherent capability of Havok to produce good physics I'm all ears. All of the impressive implementations of Havok out there are due to significant modification by the game developers - BC2, RedFaction etc.
PhysX is used on 360, PS3, and wii
http://developer.nvidia.com/object/physx_downloads.html
----------------------------------------------------
I don't care about what PhysX is theoretically capable of if its not going to be used.
Havok is good enough for the job needed & does it on the CPU & not just some theoretical job from a demo.
Last edited by Final8ty; 03-13-2010 at 08:01 AM.
While Havok is used on (I quote Havok here): "Microsoft® Xbox 360,® Sony® PLAYSTATION®3, Nintendo® Wii,™ Microsoft® Xbox®, Sony PlayStation®2, PSP™, and the PC." (linky: http://www.havok.com/index.php?page=havok-physics)
"When in doubt, C-4!" -- Jamie Hyneman
Silverstone TJ-09 Case | Seasonic X-750 PSU | Intel Core i5 750 CPU | ASUS P7P55D PRO Mobo | OCZ 4GB DDR3 RAM | ATI Radeon 5850 GPU | Intel X-25M 80GB SSD | WD 2TB HDD | Windows 7 x64 | NEC EA23WMi 23" Monitor |Auzentech X-Fi Forte Soundcard | Creative T3 2.1 Speakers | AudioTechnica AD900 Headphone |
Yup, I am well aware of that.
Users on consoles are better off with Physx titles than PC users.
Its PC gaming that is suffering because of this obsession to control the physx market on PC by promoting it as NV GPU only thing that is the main issue.
Can PhysX run on CPU? Technically yes.
Is NV interested in promoting it that way? Absolutely not.
With all the problems PC gaming industry is facing, this is the last thing we need to make it even more messy.
I can very well understand why Nvidia is doing this. On consoles, they have no other option. Consoles are hardware locked for their entire life of 7-10 years. Thats the main reason they are allowing it to run on all consoles as it equals to business. Some business is always better than no business.
Primary Rig
Intel Xeon W3520 @4200Mhz 24x7, 1.200v load (3845A935
Gigabyte X58A-UD7
Patriot Viper II DDR3 2000 CL8
Tagan BZ1300
DeepCool Gamer Storm with 2x120mm DeepCool fans.
MSI GTX 470 Twin Frozr II
Zotac GTX 470 AMP edition.
GPU collection : http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...5&postcount=64
Rig2
Phenom II x4 965
MSI 790GX-GD65
2GBx2 Corsair DDR3 1333
Tagan tg500-u37
Arctic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro Rev.2
XFX 9600GT
Spot on.Yup, I am well aware of that.
Users on consoles are better off with Physx titles than PC users.
Its PC gaming that is suffering because of this obsession to control the physx market on PC by promoting it as NV GPU only thing that is the main issue.
Can PhysX run on CPU? Technically yes.
Is NV interested in promoting it that way? Absolutely not.
With all the problems PC gaming industry is facing, this is the last thing we need to make it even more messy.
I can very well understand why Nvidia is doing this. On consoles, they have no other option. Consoles are hardware locked for their entire life of 7-10 years. Thats the main reason they are allowing it to run on all consoles as it equals to business. Some business is always better than no business.
i guess i misunderstood your post then, but to say that pc gaming is suffering because of a physics engine being used in a way that isn't exactly optimal for all users is a little over dramatic. Some of the best selling games have the worst if any physics effects. Making a quality game that has more than 8 hours of game play is going to help the pc gaming industry more than making physX run on ati gpu's and use multi core cpus. In 2009 the pc gaming industry grew by 3% despite Nvidia's proprietary physics engine.Yup, I am well aware of that.
Users on consoles are better off with Physx titles than PC users.
Its PC gaming that is suffering because of this obsession to control the physx market on PC by promoting it as NV GPU only thing that is the main issue.
Can PhysX run on CPU? Technically yes.
Is NV interested in promoting it that way? Absolutely not.
With all the problems PC gaming industry is facing, this is the last thing we need to make it even more messy.
I can very well understand why Nvidia is doing this. On consoles, they have no other option. Consoles are hardware locked for their entire life of 7-10 years. Thats the main reason they are allowing it to run on all consoles as it equals to business. Some business is always better than no business.
----------------------------------------------------
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks