PhysX analyzed on CPU

[JohnJohn]

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...

[Carfax]

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.

[JohnJohn]

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!

[Final8ty]

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 .

[Carfax]

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.

[Manicdan]

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

[Ket]

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.

[Xoulz]

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.

[Chumbucket843]

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.

[Ket]

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.

[Final8ty]

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.

[Manicdan]

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

[Final8ty]

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.

[Chumbucket843]

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.

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.

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.

[Hell Hound]

SLI 460'S and 1 for physx will kill a 990X.$600 VS $1K + needs gpu.

[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.

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

[Carfax]

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.

[STEvil]

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.