Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 76 to 93 of 93

Thread: PhysX analyzed on CPU

  1. #76
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    196
    Quadcore, let alone hexcores won't become fully mainstream until a year or two from now.
    Yeah because dual gpu configuration is sooo mainstream..

    oh wait...

  2. #77
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    U.S of freakin' A
    Posts
    1,931
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnJohn View Post
    Yeah because dual gpu configuration is sooo mainstream..

    oh wait...
    And you think you need dual GPU to run PhysX? Depending on what resolution and what detail settings you chose, you can run PhysX on a single card with good or decent frames.

    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.
    Intel Core i7 6900K
    Noctua NH-D15
    Asus X99A II
    32 GB G.Skill TridentZ @ 3400 CL15 CR1
    NVidia Titan Xp
    Creative Sound BlasterX AE-5
    Sennheiser HD-598
    Samsung 960 Pro 1TB
    Western Digital Raptor 600GB
    Asus 12x Blu-Ray Burner
    Sony Optiarc 24x DVD Burner with NEC chipset
    Antec HCP-1200w Power Supply
    Viewsonic XG2703-GS
    Thermaltake Level 10 GT Snow Edition
    Logitech G502 gaming mouse w/Razer Exact Mat
    Logitech G910 mechanical gaming keyboard
    Windows 8 x64 Pro

  3. #78
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    196
    Quote Originally Posted by Carfax View Post
    It all comes back to price/performance.

    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.
    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.

    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!

  4. #79
    Xtremely Kool
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,874
    Quote Originally Posted by Carfax View Post
    1)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.

    2)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..



    3) LOL, you think Ghostbusters is impressive? OK, I'll bite. Explain whats so impressive about Ghostbusters
    Don't try to blame ATI as if PhysX is independent non competitor standard that can be adopted like DX.

    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 .
    Last edited by Final8ty; 07-08-2010 at 02:38 PM.

  5. #80
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    U.S of freakin' A
    Posts
    1,931
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnJohn View Post
    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.
    Well of course you're always going to get the best results with a dedicated physX card....

    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.

    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+
    At the present rate, quadcores won't be the majority till late in the 1Q or early 2Q next year.

    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.
    Intel Core i7 6900K
    Noctua NH-D15
    Asus X99A II
    32 GB G.Skill TridentZ @ 3400 CL15 CR1
    NVidia Titan Xp
    Creative Sound BlasterX AE-5
    Sennheiser HD-598
    Samsung 960 Pro 1TB
    Western Digital Raptor 600GB
    Asus 12x Blu-Ray Burner
    Sony Optiarc 24x DVD Burner with NEC chipset
    Antec HCP-1200w Power Supply
    Viewsonic XG2703-GS
    Thermaltake Level 10 GT Snow Edition
    Logitech G502 gaming mouse w/Razer Exact Mat
    Logitech G910 mechanical gaming keyboard
    Windows 8 x64 Pro

  6. #81
    I am Xtreme
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    7,747
    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

  7. #82
    I am Xtreme Ket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,809
    Quote Originally Posted by Stukov View Post

    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.
    Its dynamic and not pre-programmed. In fact, its so dynamic you can change the properties of various velocities and impacts in LTX files.

    "Prowler"
    Asrock Z77 Extreme6 | i5 3570k @ 4.5GHz 1.18v | 2x4GB PC12800 Ripjaws @ 1866MHz 10-10-10-15 1T 1.55v | Gigabyte GTX980, custom cooler @ 1.5GHz / 7.6GHz | Xonar DX 7.1 | 2TB Barracuda | 2x Sony Optiarc | Corsair 850w HX

    Cooling:

    3x Coolermaster Sickleflow 120mm 70CFM fans | Modified CoolIT ECO sealed loop CPU cooler | Custom made "The Judge" VGA VRM heatsink

    Asrock Z77 thread! | Asrock Z77 Extreme6 Review | Asrock P67 Extreme4 Review | Asrock P67 Extreme4/6 Pro3 thread | Asrock Z68 Extreme4 thread | Asrock Z68 Extreme4 Review | Asrock Z68 Gen3 Thread | 8GB G-Skill review | TK 2.ZERO homepage | P5Q series mBIOS thread

    (\_/) This is Bunny.
    (+.+) Bunny is dead.
    (^ ^) Copy and paste Bunny into your sig to create an army of BUNNY ZOMBIE MINIONS!!!

  8. #83
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mi
    Posts
    1,064
    Quote Originally Posted by Carfax View Post
    And you think you need dual GPU to run PhysX? Depending on what resolution and what detail settings you chose, you can run PhysX on a single card with good or decent frames.

    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.


    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.

  9. #84
    Xtreme Cruncher
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Bloomfield
    Posts
    1,968
    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


    gpu is 15.7x faster than cpu.

  10. #85
    I am Xtreme Ket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,809
    This might sound a little cliche but I think its time all our PCs brains evolved 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.

    "Prowler"
    Asrock Z77 Extreme6 | i5 3570k @ 4.5GHz 1.18v | 2x4GB PC12800 Ripjaws @ 1866MHz 10-10-10-15 1T 1.55v | Gigabyte GTX980, custom cooler @ 1.5GHz / 7.6GHz | Xonar DX 7.1 | 2TB Barracuda | 2x Sony Optiarc | Corsair 850w HX

    Cooling:

    3x Coolermaster Sickleflow 120mm 70CFM fans | Modified CoolIT ECO sealed loop CPU cooler | Custom made "The Judge" VGA VRM heatsink

    Asrock Z77 thread! | Asrock Z77 Extreme6 Review | Asrock P67 Extreme4 Review | Asrock P67 Extreme4/6 Pro3 thread | Asrock Z68 Extreme4 thread | Asrock Z68 Extreme4 Review | Asrock Z68 Gen3 Thread | 8GB G-Skill review | TK 2.ZERO homepage | P5Q series mBIOS thread

    (\_/) This is Bunny.
    (+.+) Bunny is dead.
    (^ ^) Copy and paste Bunny into your sig to create an army of BUNNY ZOMBIE MINIONS!!!

  11. #86
    Xtremely Kool
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,874
    Quote Originally Posted by Chumbucket843 View Post
    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.

    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.
    Last edited by Final8ty; 07-08-2010 at 02:35 PM.

  12. #87
    I am Xtreme
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    7,747
    Quote Originally Posted by Final8ty View Post
    The claims are that even tho the GPU is faster it is simply not needed all the time to do every & all physics.
    +1

    show me a physx game that a quad core cant do, with proof please

  13. #88
    Xtremely Kool
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,874
    Quote Originally Posted by Carfax View Post
    Well of course you're always going to get the best results with a dedicated physX card....

    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.

    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.
    GhostBusters has already beaten what had been done in batmanAA.

  14. #89
    Xtreme Cruncher
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Bloomfield
    Posts
    1,968
    Quote Originally Posted by Final8ty View Post
    Where are those claims as the focus 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.
    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 Carfax View Post
    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.
    a middle end gpu beats a high end cpu.
    Quote Originally Posted by Xoulz View Post
    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.
    2 middle end gpu's are close to a high end cpu.

  15. #90
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Chicago,Illinois
    Posts
    1,179
    SLI 460'S and 1 for physx will kill a 990X.$600 VS $1K + needs gpu.
    Last edited by Hell Hound; 07-08-2010 at 02:58 PM.



  16. #91
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    U.S of freakin' A
    Posts
    1,931
    Quote Originally Posted by Xoulz View Post
    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.
    You must be smoking some powerful .. First off, your examples of Ghostbusters and BC2 are terrible.

    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
    Intel Core i7 6900K
    Noctua NH-D15
    Asus X99A II
    32 GB G.Skill TridentZ @ 3400 CL15 CR1
    NVidia Titan Xp
    Creative Sound BlasterX AE-5
    Sennheiser HD-598
    Samsung 960 Pro 1TB
    Western Digital Raptor 600GB
    Asus 12x Blu-Ray Burner
    Sony Optiarc 24x DVD Burner with NEC chipset
    Antec HCP-1200w Power Supply
    Viewsonic XG2703-GS
    Thermaltake Level 10 GT Snow Edition
    Logitech G502 gaming mouse w/Razer Exact Mat
    Logitech G910 mechanical gaming keyboard
    Windows 8 x64 Pro

  17. #92
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    U.S of freakin' A
    Posts
    1,931
    Quote Originally Posted by Final8ty View Post
    GhostBusters has already beaten what had been done in batmanAA.
    Ready my reply to Xoulz.

    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.
    Intel Core i7 6900K
    Noctua NH-D15
    Asus X99A II
    32 GB G.Skill TridentZ @ 3400 CL15 CR1
    NVidia Titan Xp
    Creative Sound BlasterX AE-5
    Sennheiser HD-598
    Samsung 960 Pro 1TB
    Western Digital Raptor 600GB
    Asus 12x Blu-Ray Burner
    Sony Optiarc 24x DVD Burner with NEC chipset
    Antec HCP-1200w Power Supply
    Viewsonic XG2703-GS
    Thermaltake Level 10 GT Snow Edition
    Logitech G502 gaming mouse w/Razer Exact Mat
    Logitech G910 mechanical gaming keyboard
    Windows 8 x64 Pro

  18. #93
    c[_]
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    20,447
    Quote Originally Posted by Carfax View Post
    No, the results are definitely not the same.

    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
    You mean that car bumper that doesnt interact with the ground that it clips right through?

    Consider the thread closed.
    Heatware || 01.01.08; AND 111.2%

    Dead Z7S-WS? Click!. || XS Z7S-WS Thread || Current Dead Asus Z7S-WS count: 26+ ($15,000 in dead motherboards).
    All along the watchtower the watchmen watch the eternal return.
    Want to use my Anti-asus logo? Go ahead, but use this link please!: http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/a...sus/noasus.gif
    Bring back the game. http://reclaimyourgame.com/. EA are mean.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •