AMD's Roy Taylor: PhysX/Cuda doomed?

[cmdrdredd]

Havok does not make the framerate crap the bed like Physx does. Boarderlands 2 just has some extra goo and the call that Physx LOL. Not to mention the framerates takes massive hit when the goo is around in BL2 LOL. FAIL.

It depends on your hardware. I don't drop much, a single 670/680 may. a 780 probably won't drop much.

So then we both undertsand that they are not the same which is the point I was trying to make. CPU Physx on the low power APU in the consoles will not be anything close to say Metro Physx etc.

No you don't understand. Physx is just software. It can be made to run on a GPU or a CPU. The GPU is faster, but perhaps in time a physx build running across 8 cores on a cpu may work.

 

[Lonbjerg]

cause a CPU is not a GPU so yeah, it won't run GPU physx. Brilliant

Try to get him to name ONE physX feature that cannot be compiled to run on the CPU
He can't...not without lying ^^

 

[bystander36]

It depends on your hardware. I don't drop much, a single 670/680 may. a 780 probably won't drop much.

Not to mention that when you turn off the "advanced PhysX" option, it still runs PhysX, just at a more comparable level as Havok without much of a performance penalty.

 

[Lonbjerg]

It depends on your hardware. I don't drop much, a single 670/680 may. a 780 probably won't drop much.

I should try this borderland 2 to see what those drops are all about...I have no doubt my rig will handle it just fine though.

Seems like he is mad that extra calculations takes more perfoamnce...so I guess he is mad at all features...think of teh "miniscule" added I.Q. AA gives...comaprd to the performance drop

 

[Lonbjerg]

Not to mention that when you turn off the "advanced PhysX" option, it still runs PhysX, just at a more comparable level as Havok without much of a performance penalty.

It reduces the calculations and fidelity yes...because the CPU does not have the same SIMD perfomance as a GPU.

 

[Mr Expert]

It depends on your hardware. I don't drop much, a single 670/680 may. a 780 probably won't drop much.



No you don't understand. Physx is just software. It can be made to run on a GPU or a CPU. The GPU is faster, but perhaps in time a physx build running across 8 cores on a cpu may work.

That's part of my issue with Physx as it demands ultra exspensive hardware to run properly without lags and it adds only small effects like extra smoke in Metro 2033 and a treach coat that flaps arounf in Mafia 2 at the cost of smooth gameplay. Havok does not make my rig slow down to a crawl and imo the Physics in BFBC2 which will run on anything mid range decent without slow downs are way better than anything that Physx has ever done.

 

[Lonbjerg]

That's part of my issue with Physx as it demands ultra exspensive hardware to run properly without lags and it adds only small effects like extra smoke in Metro 2033 and a treach coat that flaps arounf in Mafia 2 at the cost of smooth gameplay. Havok does not make my rig slow down to a crawl and imo the Physics in BFBC2 which will run on anything mid range decent without slow downs are way better than anything that Physx has ever done.

False..either you list the PhysX features in MAfia 2 or Metro LL...or I will.

You can stop PM'ing me about that your report his and that post to the mods...don't like being called out on your posts...posts less garbage...problem solved.

 

[cmdrdredd]

The real difference between Havok and Physx run on a GPU or CPU is that Physx is dynamic. Both can simulate say a piece of cloth blowing in the wind. However, Physx will alter how the cloth behaves depending on it's interaction with the player and environment. For example lets say a drop of water is running down the wall, with havok it will react based on how it is coded. So it will always drop on the table and run off a certain way no matter what you do it is scripted to react a certain way. With Physx you can make that drop of water alter it's path if you place an object in the way or move an object out of the way. The water will react dynamically. This does take quite a bit of processing power which is suited to GPUs with parallel computing.

You may see it as just smoke effects, but in reality those smoke effects react to wind direction, the player moving through them, explosions blasting the air around them, it can even be made to react to a character breathing (think of an old man smoking a pipe).

 

[3DVagabond]

I don't get it...
Why don't people clamor for GPU-accelerated physics via OpenCL? Wouldn't that be much more constructive instead of bashing the one solution that actually exists and is used in dozens of games? It's only big talk and bashing and discussing it to death...but nothing ever happens in regard to competing solutions. Nothing. Don't you people get sick of it?

This back and forth reminds me of nVidia card owners trashing TressFX. In the end nobody really cares about PhysX or TressFX. All they care about is their team. If anyone really cared they'd petition the game devs to include it. Complain to them if it wasn't present. Instead we fall in line with the marketing and turn it into nVidia vs. AMD. If we truly wanted the feature we'd complain to AMD, for example, for not having PhysX, complain to nVidia for keeping it locked down. Instead we say company X is better than company Y because they support these features. As long as we do that gamers will remain polarized and it won't go anywhere except into games that the card manufacturers write the code for them and pay the devs for the privilege of promoting their game. That alone is going to limit it's usage to a handful of games a year, at best.

This is what makes

 

[bystander36]

That's part of my issue with Physx as it demands ultra exspensive hardware to run properly without lags and it adds only small effects like extra smoke in Metro 2033 and a treach coat that flaps arounf in Mafia 2 at the cost of smooth gameplay. Havok does not make my rig slow down to a crawl and imo the Physics in BFBC2 which will run on anything mid range decent without slow downs are way better than anything that Physx has ever done.

The problem I have with your comparison, is you are not comparing equal physics levels yet expect equal performance. The normal PhysX, that all systems run well (advanced PhysX turned off), is of the same level as Havok.

The advanced PhysX setting are for extra features for those with Nvidia cards, and some add effects to the point you need a dedicated card, which is what those games usually recommend to use those features, or they only add a little bit of those features.

You can't compare Havok to the advance or GPU accelerated PhysX features. Havok is more like the standard, CPU run PhysX that is not usually advertised.

 

[Mr Expert]

The real difference between Havok and Physx run on a GPU or CPU is that Physx is dynamic. Both can simulate say a piece of cloth blowing in the wind. However, Physx will alter how the cloth behaves depending on it's interaction with the player and environment. For example lets say a drop of water is running down the wall, with havok it will react based on how it is coded. So it will always drop on the table and run off a certain way no matter what you do it is scripted to react a certain way. With Physx you can make that drop of water alter it's path if you place an object in the way or move an object out of the way. The water will react dynamically. This does take quite a bit of processing power which is suited to GPUs with parallel computing.

You may see it as just smoke effects, but in reality those smoke effects react to wind direction, the player moving through them, explosions blasting the air around them, it can even be made to react to a character breathing (think of an old man smoking a pipe).

I have read most of the mraketing propoganda behind Physx however all that aside I guess the root of the issue here is why has Physx not be well recived by more game devs if it is so great ?

 

[Mr Expert]

The problem I have with your comparison, is you are not comparing equal physics levels yet expect equal performance. The normal PhysX, that all systems run well (advanced PhysX turned off), is of the same level as Havok.

The advanced PhysX setting are for extra features for those with Nvidia cards, and some add effects to the point you need a dedicated card, which is what those games usually recommend to use those features, or they only add a little bit of those features.

You can't compare Havok to the advance or GPU accelerated PhysX features. Havok is more like the standard, CPU run PhysX that is not usually advertised.

The Physics in BFBC2 are much more realistic and emersive than anything I have seem from Physx.

 

[bystander36]

The Physics in BFBC2 are much more realistic and emersive than anything I have seem from Physx.

Then praise the Dev's. It isn't a Havok vs PhysX thing. It is how the dev's use it.

 

[Lonbjerg]

The real difference between Havok and Physx run on a GPU or CPU is that Physx is dynamic. Both can simulate say a piece of cloth blowing in the wind. However, Physx will alter how the cloth behaves depending on it's interaction with the player and environment. For example lets say a drop of water is running down the wall, with havok it will react based on how it is coded. So it will always drop on the table and run off a certain way no matter what you do it is scripted to react a certain way. With Physx you can make that drop of water alter it's path if you place an object in the way or move an object out of the way. The water will react dynamically. This does take quite a bit of processing power which is suited to GPUs with parallel computing.

You may see it as just smoke effects, but in reality those smoke effects react to wind direction, the player moving through them, explosions blasting the air around them, it can even be made to react to a character breathing (think of an old man smoking a pipe).

This benchmark:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65AA6CZIljY

Gave these results when I tried it back in 2008:
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1376657

Ageia PPU vs Q6600 vs 8800GT 2 years after I got my first PPU.
The performance spread is the same or slighty in favour to the GPU now...I really should try runnigng that demo again on my current rig ^^

 

[SirPauly]

In the end nobody really cares about PhysX or TressFX.

imho,

I like TressFX and PhysX because they're both trying to improve their customers gaming experiences and both tying to innovate dynamics. Neither are ideal for all or for everyone to like but they're trying!

 

[3DVagabond]

imho,

I like TressFX and PhysX because they're both trying to improve their customers gaming experiences and both tying to innovate dynamics. Neither are ideal for all or for everyone to like but they're trying!

When I say nobody, I wasn't being literal. I realize there are some people, just not ~99% of the people posting here.

FWIW, I realize you are one of the more objective posters here, even though you prefer nVidia. We all have our preferences. Some of us let it blind us to the facts. As a rule, you don't do that.

 

[Lonbjerg]

The Physics in BFBC2 are much more realistic and emersive than anything I have seem from Physx.

Care to show a video of said effects?

 

[VulgarDisplay]

I can't believe I just read all of that nonsense. Our new GPU overlord must be afk.

 

[Carfax83]

The Physics in BFBC2 are much more realistic and emersive than anything I have seem from Physx.

The big problem when having debates like this, is that a lot of people confused scripted animations with computed physics.

BFBC2 uses lots of scripted animations in concert with computed physics, which can look really good in many cases but it's obviously not the same thing as GPU accelerated physics which is 100% computed..

Fully computed physics has the potential to be much more realistic, but it depends greatly on the amount of processing power on hand.

 

[cmdrdredd]

imho,

I like TressFX and PhysX because they're both trying to improve their customers gaming experiences and both tying to innovate dynamics. Neither are ideal for all or for everyone to like but they're trying!

I thought what TressFX tried to do with Tomb Raider was great. It looks slightly glitchy in it's current form and the hair doesn't sit right on the shoulders of the character but rather sits artificially around it. Still looked a lot better than flat hair that looks painted on and boring.

Eventually I want to see this used more realistically. I didn't think the performance hit for TressFX was bad at all either.

 

[2is]

I think I am right. The market backs me up on that one.

Really? The market backs you up? What market is that? Dedicated PhysX cards are history. They failed almost as soon as they got started and got absorbed by NVidia. The market most certainly does not back you up, just the opposite in fact. Does your BS know no bounds? You're in desperate need of a user ID change.

 

[Mr Expert]

The big problem when having debates like this, is that a lot of people confused scripted animations with computed physics.

Ok

BFBC2 uses lots of scripted animations in concert with computed physics, which can look really good in many cases but it's obviously not the same thing as GPU accelerated physics which is 100% computed..

It's better than Physx is what the point is. I don't see the point in getting really technincal about it when all that really matters is the state the game is in when we are playing them.

Fully computed physics has the potential to be much more realistic, but it depends greatly on the amount of processing power on hand.

I hear allot about the potential of Physx but I have never seen it in pratice. I am not impressed with Batman games, BL2, Alice Madness Returns etc etc etc. As an aside I will be non biased and hate on AMD Radeon HD in that when they tried to claim that TressFX was the first time the we have seen realistic looking hair in game. Well actually it was nivida with Alice madness Returns that did the same thing with realistic hair movement and tress FX hair sucks in the same way as Physx because it takes some serious hardware to even keep the framerate above 30fps when it is turned on.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Ok

So "Ok" is you admitting you were wrong?

It's better than Physx is what the point is. I don't see the point in getting really technincal about it when all that really matters is the state the game is in when we are playing them.

You couldn't even if you wanted too...go technical.
All you posts in this trhead shows you have no clue about game physics.

You are clueless about what PhysX/Havok brings to the table.
You are clueless about the difference between scripted physics and dynamic physics.
You are clueless about the PhysX SDK..and I also think you are clueless about the Havok SDK.
You are clueless about the market.

Nice try..."not going technical, "Mr. Expert"...on a tech forum.
That is what we do here!
So put up or shut up.

Show me were havok is better than physics.
Video, code...bring it to the table!

I hear allot about the potential of Physx but I have never seen it in pratice. I am not impressed with Batman games, BL2, Alice Madness Returns etc etc etc. As an aside I will be non biased and hate on AMD Radeon HD in that when they tried to claim that TressFX was the first time the we have seen realistic looking hair in game. Well actually it was nivida with Alice madness Returns that did the same thing with realistic hair movement and tress FX hair sucks in the same way as Physx because it takes some serious hardware to even keep the framerate above 30fps when it is turned on.

Define serious hardware?
I have a Titan...that is serious hardware.
What hardware do you have, that you call "serious"?
And in what game and what settings does your system tank.

Data...the ONLY thing you never delivered.

And no PM'ing me links to the INQ and Char-LIE isn't data.

So come on "Mr.Expert"...present the data?

 

[Mr Expert]

Really? The market backs you up?

At around 1% adoption rate by game developers it's a clear indicator that "The market" did not embrace Physx. The numbers don't lie Physx is in far to few games to be considerd a mainstay or powerhouse in the PC gaming realm.

 

[f1sherman]

At around 1% adoption rate by game developers it's a clear indicator that "The market" did not embrace Physx. The numbers don't lie Physx is in far to few games to be considerd a mainstay or powerhouse in the PC gaming realm.

So you recon in next 12 months there will be ~300 games in class/quality of Witcher 3 / Batman: Arkham Origins / XCOM Declassified?
I mean those are your numbers, and numbers don't lie?

My prediction is we'd be extremely lucky if we get 10 such games.