• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

AMD's take on GPU physics

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

nosfe

Senior member
Aug 8, 2007
424
0
0
physics won't die, PhysX on the other hand probably will because ati doesn't support it; it's the same thing with dx10.1, only ati has it so most of the developers are ignoring it. Also, for PhysX you need a recent nv video card, not that many people have that(enthusiasts make up only a small part of the gamer community)
 

chizow

Diamond Member
Jun 26, 2001
9,537
1
0
Originally posted by: nosfe
physics won't die, PhysX on the other hand probably will because ati doesn't support it; it's the same thing with dx10.1, only ati has it so most of the developers are ignoring it. Also, for PhysX you need a recent nv video card, not that many people have that(enthusiasts make up only a small part of the gamer community)
By acknowledging physics won't die, you're acknowledging PhysX won't die. There's always going to be the front-end SDK that ends up being compatible with whatever "standard" API, so what you're going to have is a DX11 compatible PhysX and Havok and most likely a native generic DX11 SDK. Just look at the way sound works now and you'll understand.

As for DX10.1 lol.....the biggest knock on PhysX is that it only offers additional eye-candy. DX10.1 doesnt' even offer that! Not to mention the only worthwhile feature of DX10.1 has already been shown to work with Nvidia parts. Perhaps the saddest part of ATI's DX10.1 saga is that Nvidia parts currently run DX10.1 better than ATI does. ;)


 

nosfe

Senior member
Aug 8, 2007
424
0
0
Originally posted by: Wreckage

That user base all of a sudden has 70 million potential little PhysX GPUs ready and waiting to be used.
Seems plenty to me.
i said gamers, not graphics cards(i wouldn't call someone with a 8200 a gamer, would you?), also, compared to how big the market is i doubt its a high percentage otherwise there would be plenty of games with physx. New tech that needs new video cards to function will take a lot of time before the developers will care about it, just look at how long it took for SM3 to catch on, and that was an accepted standard where both nvidia and ati went along with. The problem with PhysX is that there's DX11 on the horizon and both nv and ati will support it so if you ask the developers, with what do you want to implement physics in your game? PhysX that only works on nv cards or dx11 that works on both? of course it'll be loooong before there will be enough dx11 cards on the market to warrant such a thing but still, in the long term dx11>physx(unless of course ati adopts physx, but that imho won't happen)
 

Wreckage

Banned
Jul 1, 2005
5,529
0
0
Originally posted by: nosfe
Originally posted by: Wreckage

That user base all of a sudden has 70 million potential little PhysX GPUs ready and waiting to be used.
Seems plenty to me.
i said gamers, not graphics cards(i wouldn't call someone with a 8200 a gamer, would you?), also, compared to how big the market is i doubt its a high percentage otherwise there would be plenty of games with physx. New tech that needs new video cards to function will take a lot of time before the developers will care about it, just look at how long it took for SM3 to catch on, and that was an accepted standard where both nvidia and ati went along with. The problem with PhysX is that there's DX11 on the horizon and both nv and ati will support it so if you ask the developers, with what do you want to implement physics in your game? PhysX that only works on nv cards or dx11 that works on both? of course it'll be loooong before there will be enough dx11 cards on the market to warrant such a thing but still, in the long term dx11>physx(unless of course ati adopts physx, but that imho won't happen)
DirectX 11 won't replace PhysX. As I have said there are already more Physx games than DirectX 10 games. By the time DirectX 11 comes out that number will be even greater.

The thing is it does not matter what all PhysX bashers are saying, because game studios are using it and are making games with it.

AMD has been left behind and it's their own fault. I think game studios should read that announcement and jump on board with PhysX because it's clear AMD is not going to advance the field any.

I bet it won't be long until we see games that require PhysX and people will have to upgrade their video cards. Just like DirectX 9 and eventually 10/11.

All NVIDIA needs to do is put it into one hugely popular game like Half Life 3 or Quake 9 or whatever and boom, instant adoption.
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
28,253
3,685
126
Originally posted by: Wreckage
Originally posted by: nosfe
Originally posted by: Wreckage

That user base all of a sudden has 70 million potential little PhysX GPUs ready and waiting to be used.
Seems plenty to me.
i said gamers, not graphics cards(i wouldn't call someone with a 8200 a gamer, would you?), also, compared to how big the market is i doubt its a high percentage otherwise there would be plenty of games with physx. New tech that needs new video cards to function will take a lot of time before the developers will care about it, just look at how long it took for SM3 to catch on, and that was an accepted standard where both nvidia and ati went along with. The problem with PhysX is that there's DX11 on the horizon and both nv and ati will support it so if you ask the developers, with what do you want to implement physics in your game? PhysX that only works on nv cards or dx11 that works on both? of course it'll be loooong before there will be enough dx11 cards on the market to warrant such a thing but still, in the long term dx11>physx(unless of course ati adopts physx, but that imho won't happen)
DirectX 11 won't replace PhysX. As I have said there are already more Physx games than DirectX 10 games. By the time DirectX 11 comes out that number will be even greater.

The thing is it does not matter what all PhysX bashers are saying, because game studios are using it and are making games with it.

AMD has been left behind and it's their own fault. I think game studios should read that announcement and jump on board with PhysX because it's clear AMD is not going to advance the field any.

I bet it won't be long until we see games that require PhysX and people will have to upgrade their video cards. Just like DirectX 9 and eventually 10/11.

All NVIDIA needs to do is put it into one hugely popular game like Half Life 3 or Quake 9 or whatever and boom, instant adoption.
until physics becomes a gameplay implementation, it's just framerate-killing eyecandy.

do i care that glass shatters more realistically, or that the banner you shot with a pistol billows in the wind slightly more correctly than before? not at all, especially when it's causing me valuable fps that i'd rather have. i just think of GRAW + physx versus GRAW without physx...*shudder*

whatever implementation of physics comes, it needs to be BIG to gain real momentum with both consumers and industry.
 

CP5670

Diamond Member
Jun 24, 2004
4,860
233
106
Originally posted by: dguy6789
The UT3 community doesn't embrace the physX features when making maps at all. It is completely and totally ignored.
Nobody who actually plays the game cares about it. The stock PhysX maps are never played online either. n7's post in here described it well.

Hardware PhysX could still be interesting in other games, but UT3 is a very poor example of it.
 

SunnyD

Belgian Waffler
Jan 2, 2001
32,664
120
106
www.neftastic.com
Originally posted by: nRollo
Originally posted by: thilan29
Originally posted by: nRollo
There's already a fair amount of content out there you can play with PhysX on, and there's no denying it adds a new level of realism and immersion to the games.
From the bit-tech article the author said all it adds for example in Mirror's Edge are effects and doesn't add anything to gameplay other than eye-candy. I myself like eye-candy but that alone doesn't sell games (except maybe Crysis :) ).
In UT3 and Warmonger you can destroy cover enemies are using to expose them, or shoot the stairs or catwalks they are on out from under them.

While it's true eye candy alone doesn't sell games, a good game with eye candy beats a good game without any day.
So I have to ask - you can't play these titles without a NVIDIA GPU/PhysX? Because what you're implying is that without PhysX the gameplay for these titles would change. That's exactly what AMD is getting at.
 

nosfe

Senior member
Aug 8, 2007
424
0
0
Originally posted by: Wreckage

DirectX 11 won't replace PhysX. As I have said there are already more Physx games than DirectX 10 games. By the time DirectX 11 comes out that number will be even greater.

The thing is it does not matter what all PhysX bashers are saying, because game studios are using it and are making games with it.
you know where i've heard comments like this before? in the whole HD debate. Look! more HD movies are coming out every day! and stuff like that. Problem is that its still minuscule compared to the sea of games that don't care about PhysX.

I bet it won't be long until we see games that require PhysX and people will have to upgrade their video cards. Just like DirectX 9 and eventually 10/11.

All NVIDIA needs to do is put it into one hugely popular game like Half Life 3 or Quake 9 or whatever and boom, instant adoption.
it doesn't work like that, games that require new video cards to play tend to not sell that well(crysis anyone?). You're forgetting that most gamers don't upgrade their video cards as often as the average AT reader. Would you as a developer(or worse, publisher) make a game that will only run on 30% of the computers out there? at least with Crysis/Oblivion/etc you could select a lower resolution/graphics details, but you can't do that with a game that requires PhysX to play

At the end of the day would a gamer care about whether the physics in a game are made with PhysX, Havok or something else? no, they don't, so the developers will go with the one that has the greatest reach.
Sure, right know its PhysX but the battle for physics is only starting
 

JACKDRUID

Senior member
Nov 28, 2007
729
0
0
AMD has to downplay everybody now a days... thats sad....

what hapened to the Athlon days? when they actually focus on giving out better product, support more standards (3dNow)...? now a days they only speak without doing anything...

why turn down offer from Nvidia to support PhysX ? thats pure stupidity...they are pulling themselves from an even playing field...
 

nosfe

Senior member
Aug 8, 2007
424
0
0
from what i've understood, they didn't want physx because even though its an open standard, it's still controlled by nvidia. Even if they supported it, chances are big that it would work better on cards from nvidia, that's why an open standard developed by a 3rd party is imho the way to go(that, or for nvidia to relinquish control over physx/cuda which won't happen)
 

nRollo

Banned
Jan 11, 2002
10,460
0
0
Originally posted by: nosfe
Originally posted by: Wreckage

DirectX 11 won't replace PhysX. As I have said there are already more Physx games than DirectX 10 games. By the time DirectX 11 comes out that number will be even greater.

The thing is it does not matter what all PhysX bashers are saying, because game studios are using it and are making games with it.
you know where i've heard comments like this before? in the whole HD debate. Look! more HD movies are coming out every day! and stuff like that. Problem is that its still minuscule compared to the sea of games that don't care about PhysX.

I bet it won't be long until we see games that require PhysX and people will have to upgrade their video cards. Just like DirectX 9 and eventually 10/11.

All NVIDIA needs to do is put it into one hugely popular game like Half Life 3 or Quake 9 or whatever and boom, instant adoption.
it doesn't work like that, games that require new video cards to play tend to not sell that well(crysis anyone?). You're forgetting that most gamers don't upgrade their video cards as often as the average AT reader. Would you as a developer(or worse, publisher) make a game that will only run on 30% of the computers out there? at least with Crysis/Oblivion/etc you could select a lower resolution/graphics details, but you can't do that with a game that requires PhysX to play

At the end of the day would a gamer care about whether the physics in a game are made with PhysX, Havok or something else? no, they don't, so the developers will go with the one that has the greatest reach.
Sure, right know its PhysX but the battle for physics is only starting
1. Crysis sells over 1 million copies, this is considered "selling well"

2. You and AMD can put forth the argument about vendor specific software not going to be coded for, but I respond:
a. Remember GLIDE? (a modified form of OpenGL) It had widespread support, even though only 3dfx GPUs ran it. it was also the only thing that mattered in gaming to have for a long time.
b. NVIDIA isn't S3- they're the market leader and have been for the last two years. There customers are not a market people will ignore because there aren't enough poitential returns on investment.
c. Many games are already being coded with PhysX, and more companies are signing up to use it as time passes.

AMD can't create a market (or lack of one) simply by stating their opinion. It's fairly pointless on their part to try, as most of us realize time travel isn't possible yet, and crystal balls only work in the movies.

The only thing we know for sure is that several games will launch this year with PhysX, what happens next we don't know.


 

JACKDRUID

Senior member
Nov 28, 2007
729
0
0
Originally posted by: nosfe
from what i've understood, they didn't want physx because even though its an open standard, it's still controlled by nvidia. Even if they supported it, chances are big that it would work better on cards from nvidia, that's why an open standard developed by a 3rd party is imho the way to go(that, or for nvidia to relinquish control over physx/cuda which won't happen)
true. .. but they did the same for MMX and it worked out well enough for them along with their own 3dnow. they used to believe in multi-standard support, for the sake of their customers (and their own)... what happened now? are they getting greedy as they grew?...
 

nosfe

Senior member
Aug 8, 2007
424
0
0
PhysX isn't as earth shattering as glide was and its also not the only physics engine. And we go back to the sd/hd problem, what would the developer prefer? PhysX which leaves out 30-40% of your market or something that works on both nv and ati cards? Nvidia doesn't have that much of a marketshare dominance, ati is big enough for developers to care about it. Also don't forget that i'm talking about PhysX vs other physics engines and not vs no physics at all, so does PhysX look that good compared to Havok or to what valve did?

like i said, you can lower the details on crysis to make them playable on lower end hardware, you can't do that with physx, you either have the card or you look at slides when the walls start crumbling and the glass shattering

"Many games" compared to what? to how many there are now or compared to how many games there will be in the next year that won't support it?

Also, i don't remember talking about ati/nvidia, all i'm talking about is PhysX and other physics engines so why bring it up? I don't care about either company, i just prefer the implementation of physics that other companies have made because it works on both cards.
 

SunnyD

Belgian Waffler
Jan 2, 2001
32,664
120
106
www.neftastic.com
Originally posted by: nRollo
2. You and AMD can put forth the argument about vendor specific software not going to be coded for, but I respond:
a. Remember GLIDE? (a modified form of OpenGL) It had widespread support, even though only 3dfx GPUs ran it. it was also the only thing that mattered in gaming to have for a long time.
At the time of inception, GLIDE was the only consumer grade API with consumer grade (proprietary) hardware available. OpenGL had little to no hardware support from even NVIDIA at the time. Any titles put out back then had two choices - GLIDE or software rendering.

Even after consumer hardware started supporting OpenGL and eventually Direct3D, titles would normally ship with a software renderer as the baseline renderer to ensure compatibility with the masses, and then customized renderers for those that had newer hardware with accelerated feature sets.
 

SSChevy2001

Senior member
Jul 9, 2008
774
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: SSChevy2001
Originally posted by: Genx87
PhysX runs on the CPU as well. With i7's going mainstream by the end of 09 with 8 hyperthreads it is possible to get some decent performance on the CPU.

Steam doesnt lie. Nvidia currently holds about a 2:1 advantage GPU's.
CPU PhysX is still very slow even with the i7, so I highly doubt that.

That's still a lot of users that can't use GPU PhysX. Not to mention that most games are now also on the console, which can't use GPU PhysX.

Developers are going to be limited on what they really can do with it.
I havent seen any benchmarks with an i7 have you?
Either way it is coming out and doesnt require a GPU to work.
Here's a review with the i7.
http://www.elitebastards.com/c...9&limit=1&limitstart=1

Originally posted by: Wreckage
One could just as easily say without physics support ATI is going to slowly die.

They clearly missed the boat and fell off the dock here.

There are more PhysX titles than DirectX 10 titles.
ATi getting gpu physics next year no matter what, so why should they support Nvidia's GPU PhysX?

Please tell me about all these triple A titles next year I'm missing out on.
 

JACKDRUID

Senior member
Nov 28, 2007
729
0
0
Originally posted by: nosfe
PhysX isn't as earth shattering as glide was and its also not the only physics engine. And we go back to the sd/hd problem, what would the developer prefer? PhysX which leaves out 30-40% of your market or something that works on both nv and ati cards? Nvidia doesn't have that much of a marketshare dominance, ati is big enough for developers to care about it. Also don't forget that i'm talking about PhysX vs other physics engines and not vs no physics at all, so does PhysX look that good compared to Havok or to what valve did?
PhysX is more earth shatteriing than MMX, and it doesn't cost AMD any silicon..only driver support is required..

it would be a great service to AMD customers to have physX support since ITS FREE for their customers. I don't see any draw back at all, other than AMD being greedy and stupid...

so even if AMD refuse to do the implementation themselves (abit license), they could at least support those who were willing to implement it themselves, as a service to the public..... but instead, AMDturned them down and twicked the drives to prevent it to be supported..

the bottom line is, it is FREE and a great service for AMD customers...its plain bad customer service to not support it...
 

nosfe

Senior member
Aug 8, 2007
424
0
0
@JACKDRUID
obviously i don't know why they didn't want PhysX, i can only speculate; my take on it is that they already discussed about physics and came to the conclusion that at this time it's not worth it(right now games are GPU limited so why give the GPU even more to do?). Another problem with PhysX is that it's based on CUDA, to support PhysX they would need to support CUDA which is optimized for nvidia gpu's so it's highly likely that it would be slower on ati cards. Why would ati do that considering that they have their own CUDA like programing language(BROOK+) and they are also planning on going with Open CL for GPGPU(which could be used for physics while supporting by both nvidia and ati cards)
 

BFG10K

Lifer
Aug 14, 2000
21,862
949
126
Originally posted by: nRollo

In UT3 and Warmonger you can destroy cover enemies are using to expose them, or shoot the stairs or catwalks they are on out from under them.
You mean the five UT3 maps that no-one even plays online?

I have a GTX260+ and I currently don't even have PhysX installed in my system. For now I'd rather crank the rez and AA in modern games rather than erode my GPU performance with PhysX.

And I'll be damned if I buy a second video card just for physics, regardless of the vendor. I didn?t buy a PPU for the same reason.
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
26,835
278
126
Originally posted by: BFG10K
Originally posted by: nRollo

In UT3 and Warmonger you can destroy cover enemies are using to expose them, or shoot the stairs or catwalks they are on out from under them.
You mean the five UT3 maps that no-one even plays online?

I have a GTX260+ and I currently don't even have PhysX installed in my system. For now I'd rather crank the rez and AA in modern games rather than erode my GPU performance with PhysX.

And I'll be damned if I buy a second video card just for physics, regardless of the vendor. I didn?t buy a PPU for the same reason.
I can agree. However, if a game has physx support and it's not a huge hit on the performance, i'll turn it on in the game. Not going to accept FPS going to the floor though.
 

Wreckage

Banned
Jul 1, 2005
5,529
0
0
Originally posted by: BFG10K
For now I'd rather crank the rez and AA in modern games rather than erode my GPU performance with PhysX.
High end gaming and new technology is not for everyone.

Some people prefer the same ole, same ole.
 

akugami

Diamond Member
Feb 14, 2005
4,621
36
91
If AMD can get a license to provide PhysX acceleration for free then they are stupid for not implementing it. With that said, anyone who thinks that just because physics acceleration won't die and thus PhysX won't die is delusional. That's the type of thinking that got many companies who were once the darling of their respective industries or had products that were considered the best to fail.

I have long been of the opinion that a common API that can tap the extra power of future GPU's or of multi-GPU systems (Crossfire, SLI) will be the one that rules the roost. IMHO even if PhysX API's for only nVidia cards that can provide a 90% boost in physics acceleration over software only solutions it will still fail if someone like say Microsoft comes out with an API that will work on both ATI and nVidia (and Intel) that will only provide a roughly 75-80% boost. Less work for more gain. It is the reason why games have to scale well so that not only does it provide great graphics (and hopefully gameplay) to the guys with the uber systems but also work well enough on lower ends systems so that Joe Gamer with the low end system can still play it. Lowest common denominator wins.
 

thilanliyan

Lifer
Jun 21, 2005
11,289
1,149
126
Originally posted by: akugami
If AMD can get a license to provide PhysX acceleration for free then they are stupid for not implementing it.
Was it free? I thought it was that nV was willing to allow it but it wasn't free (doesn't make much sense for nV to make it free).

 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
26,835
278
126
Originally posted by: SSChevy2001

ATi getting gpu physics next year no matter what, so why should they support Nvidia's GPU PhysX?

Please tell me about all these triple A titles next year I'm missing out on.
No ATI is not, and there's no such thing as AAA titles until released, reviewed, and given the gamer's stamp of approval.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY