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.
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?
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
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.
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.
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
E7200 @ 3.4 ; 7870 GHz 2 GB
Intel's atom is a terrible chip.
Worse, because SSE can be used to manipulate up to 4 32 Bits numbers per Instruction.
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.
--Intel i5 3570k 4.4ghz (stock volts) - Corsair H100 - 6970 UL XFX 2GB - - Asrock Z77 Professional - 16GB Gskill 1866mhz - 2x90GB Agility 3 - WD640GB - 2xWD320GB - 2TB Samsung Spinpoint F4 - Audigy-- --NZXT Phantom - Samsung SATA DVD--(old systems Intel E8400 Wolfdale/Asus P45, AMD965BEC3 790X, Antec 180, Sapphire 4870 X2 (dead twice))
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
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.
AMD Ryzen 9 5900X
ASRock Radeon RX 7900 XTX Phantom Gaming OC
Asus ROG Strix B550-F Gaming Motherboard
Corsair RM1000x SHIFT PSU
32 GB DDR4 @3800 MHz CL16 (4 x 8 GB)
1x WD Black SN850 1 TB
1 x Samsung 960 250 GB
2 x Samsung 860 1 TB
1x Segate 16 TB HDD
Dell G3223Q 4K UHD Monitor
Running Windows 11 Pro x64 Version 23H2 build 22631.2506
Smartphone : Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra
I would like to see Serious Sam 3 engine with hardware physx support.Nvidia needs to release a driver for the ageia ppu also.
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Spot on. Kinda... ok, not really.
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.
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...
very nice article!
this finally proves what we all suspected, physix is very poorly executed on cpus, most likely on purpose...
lol what?
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...
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.
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 GhostbustersGhost 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.
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
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
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
Have you seen the Mafia 2 PhysX trailer?
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.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.
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
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.
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
Bookmarks