AMD's GPU Q3 2012 marketshare - 14% declines across the board to NVIDIA

[ICDP]

Because it's proprietary? More appropriately, if it was so easy for the CPU to do it, why hasn't the same exact effects been done on the CPU to the same degree (or more) as physx in an actual game? Even more appropriately, if the CPU was so capable of doing it why has AMD said several times in the past they were investing in opencl and bullet physics to do what physx is doing (cloth simulation, debris, smoke, etc.) with their GPUs? Why not just let their CPU's do it, since they are (were) primarily a CPU company.

CPU's have been doing the effects you mention for years. I have seen smoke effects, blowing leaves and debris in many games without PhysX. PhysX simply takes effects that already exist and exagerates them to comical proportions. GPU physics for these effects can take the load from the CPU but the workload then goes to the GPU. Ask yourself why if these effects are so efficient on GPU, why do they slow a Nvidia GPU by > 50% FPS in many cases?

For me this 50% FPS hit on some extra smoke and fake debris is not worth it. I much prefer to use my GTX 680 to add extra Super Samlping or higher amounts of FSAA.

 

[ICDP]

You say you understand technology but unfortunately your post is so devoid of it.

Where did I say I understood any of this? All I did was point out facts such as the following.

• PhysX adds excessive effect that have zero physical interaction with the environment.
• PhysX effects cause a massive FPS hit, therefore it clearly is not as efficient as people think.
• I was told by a couple of simulation programmers that it was very low fidelity and couldn't be used to calculate FM or DM physics. I tend to believe them as PhysX has never been used in any sim software that I am aware off.

Being a CUDA programmer for a long time now there are things CPU just can't plain do efficiently compared to GPU.There is a reason HPC is moving towards GPU compute, its called parallelism.It is not NV's fault that AMD lacks something competitive, they have long relied on others to do the bidding for them.Time has changed, they should try to be a leader for change.

I don't doubt that GPUs have applications ways that a CPU can't handle. Unfortunately nothing PhysX has shown so far has demonstrated this in any meaningful fashion. Don't try to blame ATI/AMD for this, Nvidia hgave had PhysX for years and after all this time it still only adds blowing paper, excessive comic effect fake debris and a massive FPS hit. Hardly a "must have" IMHO.

 

[Silverforce11]

Mirror's Edge was and still is the only game where Physx made a significant difference. Everything else i've seen, is gimmick and fluff that i would hate to have on all the time, annoying as heck.

But, it's a "must have" for many consumers, you always see new comers asking for GPU purchasing advice, and they often say stuff like "I want physx".

 

[Jaydip]

Where did I say I understood any of this? All I did was point out facts such as the following.

• PhysX adds excessive effect that have zero physical interaction with the environment.
• PhysX effects cause a massive FPS hit, therefore it clearly is not as efficient as people think.
• I was told by a couple of simulation programmers that it was very low fidelity and couldn't be used to calculate FM or DM physics. I tend to believe them as PhysX has never been used in any sim software that I am aware off.

I don't doubt that GPUs have applications ways that a CPU can't handle. Unfortunately nothing PhysX has shown so far has demonstrated this in any meaningful fashion. Don't try to blame ATI/AMD for this, Nvidia hgave had PhysX for years and after all this time it still only adds blowing paper, excessive comic effect fake debris and a massive FPS hit. Hardly a "must have" IMHO.

First of all NV needs to spend money to add Physx in any title and they can't definitely chose all the games.Second adding Physx to a game which is not going to be popular is suicidal. IIRC it was NV who coded the Physx effects in BL2 and now a days you can't hope developers to be well versed with Physx API(meaning console priorities).if NV wants they can easily show the prowess of gpu physics but is it worth it?pc gaming is not such a lucrative market after all. Physx is fast and foremost for eye candy as making it a game feature will adversely affect the other consumers who don't have it.Regarding FPS hit nothing is free in this world.Why AMD is not coming with something superior if they think Physx is not worth it? just talking won't help you.

 

[Silverforce11]

NV needs to push Physx more, its their main recognition and brand premium, whether you agree on the implementation or not, consumers see Physx as a key purchasing factor. The less its used, the less it becomes a factor.

 

[ICDP]

First of all NV needs to spend money to add Physx in any title and they can't definitely chose all the games.Second adding Physx to a game which is not going to be popular is suicidal. IIRC it was NV who coded the Physx effects in BL2 and now a days you can't hope developers to be well versed with Physx API(meaning console priorities).if NV wants they can easily show the prowess of gpu physics but is it worth it?pc gaming is not such a lucrative market after all. Physx is fast and foremost for eye candy as making it a game feature will adversely affect the other consumers who don't have it.Regarding FPS hit nothing is free in this world.Why AMD is not coming with something superior if they think Physx is not worth it? just talking won't help you.

Therein lies the problem. It is a proprietry system that would automatically lock out 40% of potential buyers if anything other than eye candy was implemented. It may be possible to have PhysX do more than it does currently, but no developer is going to commit financial suicide in a very limited market. It doesn't mater what PhysX can or can't do, the only salient point is what it IS doing. The fact that Nvidia elected to make it proprietry for Nvidia GPUs is the main reason it isn't a success. It is most certainly a selling point, it just isn't the selling point many Nvidia fans make it out to be.

 

[ShintaiDK]

NV needs to push Physx more, its their main recognition and brand premium, whether you agree on the implementation or not, consumers see Physx as a key purchasing factor. The less its used, the less it becomes a factor.

Its on purpose. There was an interview about this with nVidia. They will push it hard again with the release of PhysX 3.0.

 

[NIGELG]

Wow you just tipped the scales way past 13 year old pre-puberty basement dwelling troll. Telling me to "kindly STFU" is oxy moronic, indicative of your maturity, and makes pretty much anything you say before and after worthless. Carry on there "cool soldier" and see how many more personal insults you can throw around in a minimal number of words and sentences.

Whatever man...just stay away from me.

Back on topic.....If AMD closes up shop I hope someone else can be a competitor.Because a monopoly more often than not is not a good thing in the industry.

I can imagine the glee some of the slobbering fanboys will get if AMD crashes out.

 

[boxleitnerb]

All this whining about PhysX being so inefficient...locking out people with AMD cards...looking bad...only being eye candy - it really gets old and embarassing, don't you think?

It's better having PhysX around for at least 50% of the market than having nothing for 100% of the market. Without PhysX there is no interactive fog, fluid or particles that are affected by gravity. AMDs Bullet initiative from what, 5 years ago, where is it? Where are the OpenCL-based GPU physics? Without PhysX, there is nothing comparable out there, period.

Only with next gen consoles and new engines like UE4 will there be advanced physics effects that everyone can enjoy. Until then, at least some people could enjoy a preview, so to speak. Better than nothing if you ask me. If AMD had PhysX, all the people whining would be promoting this tech, I'm 100% sure of it.

 

[Jaydip]

Indeed Box

 

[GaiaHunter]

It is a lie that you cannot have physic effects without GPU acceleration.

The fact is GPU physX effects are exaggerated to show the difference. Likewise the games that use GPU physX effects strip down all other effects that in most games are done by the CPU to show the difference.

GW2 with Havok engine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2iwUUL3eFs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=ECY-DNabrIY&feature=endscreen

 

[SirPauly]

OF course one can receive fidelity with the CPU but one may receive more with a GPU!

Personally enjoy the CPU fidelity physics in Diablo 3; as it improves the experience as well.

This video of Borderlands 2 offers examples of features in conjunction -- force fields with particles, cloth and fluids interacting with each other:

Borderlands 2 PhysX showcase

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yByMKb5VxMc

 

[boxleitnerb]

It is a lie that you cannot have physic effects without GPU acceleration.

The fact is GPU physX effects are exaggerated to show the difference. Likewise the games that use GPU physX effects strip down all other effects that in most games are done by the CPU to show the difference.

GW2 with Havok engine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2iwUUL3eFs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=ECY-DNabrIY&feature=endscreen

A lie? No. You don't understand the processing requirements for advanced effects. Fluid and gas simulations require tens of thousands of particles to be calculated. What is shown in your videos is a far cry from that.

 

[GaiaHunter]

OF course one can receive fidelity with the CPU but one may receive more with a GPU!

Personally enjoy the CPU fidelity physics in Diablo 3; as it improves the experience as well.

This video of Borderlands 2 offers examples of features in conjunction -- force fields with particles, cloth and fluids interacting with each other:

Borderlands 2 PhysX showcase

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yByMKb5VxMc

There is no reason those effects can't be done by the CPU as well.

Most games aren't even touching the 3rd and 4rd core many of us have.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNwgRch5PMY

Anyway physics have a lot of ground to explore.

 

[ICDP]

OF course one can receive fidelity with the CPU but one may receive more with a GPU!

Personally enjoy the CPU fidelity physics in Diablo 3; as it improves the experience as well.

This video of Borderlands 2 offers examples of features in conjunction -- force fields with particles, cloth and fluids interacting with each other:

Borderlands 2 PhysX showcase

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yByMKb5VxMc

Once again we are back at the point that none of those effects are impossible on a CPU. This very game allows those effects on non Nvidia hardware.

If PhysX gave tangible effects and physics that could not be easily and efficiently done on CPU it would be great. Unfortunately in the years since it was introduced it has not reached any where near that potential.

 

[GaiaHunter]

A lie? No. You don't understand the processing requirements for advanced effects. Fluid and gas simulations require tens of thousands of particles to be calculated. What is shown in your videos is a far cry from that.

We aren't doing a scientific experiment - there are tons of approximations that can be used without compromising the final result, which is to give us the "illusion" of reality.

The video is also from a MMORPG that will possibly have a few dozens to hundreds of players in the same map shooting projectiles, + NPC AI + other scripting.

Lets not be like those that don't understand why a game like GW2 isn't seamless when old games like WoW, that barely have any physics.

 

[tviceman]

Mirror's Edge was and still is the only game where Physx made a significant difference. Everything else i've seen, is gimmick and fluff that i would hate to have on all the time, annoying as heck.

But, it's a "must have" for many consumers, you always see new comers asking for GPU purchasing advice, and they often say stuff like "I want physx".

Agreed, it's fluff just like AA and ambient occlusion. Not at all needed, but certainly makes things look better!

 

[boxleitnerb]

We aren't doing a scientific experiment - there are tons of approximations that can be used without compromising the final result, which is to give us the "illusion" of reality.

The video is also from a MMORPG that will possibly have a few dozens to hundreds of players in the same map shooting projectiles, + NPC AI + other scripting.

Lets not be like those that don't understand why a game like GW2 isn't seamless when old games like WoW, that barely have any physics.

If such effects like in BL2 etc. could be done on the CPU, why aren't they used? With fog you always have clipping errors, I have never seen interactive fog/gas in games before PhysX. Or water. And a bit of collision detection is nothing compared to stuff like the Nvidia Supersonic Sled Demo. I think approximations are of only little use since using less particles just looks worse. Look at Nvidias water demos from GDC this year - that looks great. Apply that to a larger scale, to an open world game like Skyrim and let that run on the CPU...

 

[SirPauly]

Most games aren't even touching the 3rd and 4rd core many of us have.

Fluid Mark does.

http://www.geeks3d.com/softwares/

 

[tviceman]

The problem with gpu-physx is that since it's limited specifically to Nvidia hardware only, a game can never be built around it and have game-altering events. It will remain as a graphical enhancement feature only. Which is fine, I guess, but I think if physx 3.0 doesn't improve the proliferation of gpu-accelerated highly threaded rendering, then it will either remain as it is (a scant 3 games per year) or it will go away entirely.

I think there have been some good instances of it's use. The water gun in Cryostasis looked pretty fantastic, the interactive fog in the Batman games is well done(and of course the Scare Crow & Penguin fights) the placement of breaking glass & banners in Mirror's Edge adds quite a bit to the tension when being chased, and clothing in Mafia II is very nice.

It needs smarter use like in the situations I mentioned above. Stuff that can enhance situations as much (or more) than it can enhance graphics.

 

[thilanliyan]

I think there have been some good instances of it's use. The water gun in Cryostasis looked pretty fantastic,

I'm not sure if it was like this throughout the game, but the water in Cryostasis looked a bit like jelly...like it was just a bit too viscous. Hopefully it gets better implementations as time goes on.

 

[MrK6]

I'm not sure if it was like this throughout the game, but the water in Cryostasis looked a bit like jelly...like it was just a bit too viscous. Hopefully it gets better implementations as time goes on.

Nope. Five years later and it looks the same in Borderlands 2.

 

[ICDP]

The problem with gpu-physx is that since it's limited specifically to Nvidia hardware only, a game can never be built around it and have game-altering events. It will remain as a graphical enhancement feature only. Which is fine, I guess, but I think if physx 3.0 doesn't improve the proliferation of gpu-accelerated highly threaded rendering, then it will either remain as it is (a scant 3 games per year) or it will go away entirely.

I think there have been some good instances of it's use. The water gun in Cryostasis looked pretty fantastic, the interactive fog in the Batman games is well done(and of course the Scare Crow & Penguin fights) the placement of breaking glass & banners in Mirror's Edge adds quite a bit to the tension when being chased, and clothing in Mafia II is very nice.

It needs smarter use like in the situations I mentioned above. Stuff that can enhance situations as much (or more) than it can enhance graphics.

Exactly the point I was trying to convey. It has not succeeded because it is proprietary and since the vast majority of gamers don't have PhysX as an option it will never be a standard. The AAA games are cross platform and building the physics effects around GPU PhysX would exclude all console owners and 40% of the PC gaming consumers. So the developers have no choice but to ignore PhysX entirely, or when they do use it make the effects eye candy only.

IMHO PhysX will soon be one of those "could have been special" moments consigned to history. None of the next gen consoles will feature Nvidia GPUs. So the chances of next gen consoles using PhysX as their physics core are non-existant. Newer games written for next gen consoles may have superior physics, it just won't be PhysX.

The days when PC GPUs drove the games market are long gone. There really is no place for proprietary code from either camp, splitting an already small niche.

 

[SirPauly]

Doom and Gloom! While one waits for this tremendous day of advanced physics for all -- one may enjoy some levels of this now!

 

[Lonbjerg]

Doom and Gloom! While one waits for this tremendous day of advanced physics for all -- one may enjoy some levels of this now!

I have been enjoying hardware accelrated physics since 2006.

Back then people (ATi and nVIDIA fans) screamed that it would die....much more than now.

6 years later and PhysX is the most used physics API in gaming, ATi failed and AMD go tripped up by Intel getting Havok...yeah...it's dying :whiste: