Batman Arkham City, no physics at all if you don't use physx ?

[ocre]

LOL. This should not be a surprise, another nvidia bought and paid for title with DX11 that cripples your hardware, where have we seen this before.

Wait, wait, i know this one!!!!!

Dragon Age 2!

.................but that was a gaming evolved game from AMD. And unlike this case, the DX11 implementation actually killed nvidia cards while working perfectly on AMD hardware.

next.

 

[boxleitnerb]

The game runs like crap. Stuttering, bad SLI scaling (physx off), bad GPU usage (physx on/off) even without being CPU bottlenecked. SGSSAA gives severe graphic glitches. Resolution scaling is not working properly, no matter if I let the game or the driver to the scaling.

Yeah, Nvidia bribed them real nice...

 

[toyota]

The game runs like crap. Stuttering, bad SLI scaling (physx off), bad GPU usage (physx on/off) even without being CPU bottlenecked. SGSSAA gives severe graphic glitches. Resolution scaling is not working properly, no matter if I let the game or the driver to the scaling.

Yeah, Nvidia bribed them real nice...

we know, we know. just turn off DX11 features and its fine.

 

[boxleitnerb]

Yes, I just tried that. Btw is it normal that with SLI and PhysX the GPU usage is completely asymmetric?

 

[taltamir]

Batman Arkham City, no physics at all if you don't use physx ?

I looked at the video, and I see no Second Order PhysX at all if you don't use PhysX... physics is there. First order Physics is there provided by physX.. only thing you are missing is the huge amount of particles and smoke... and not all are completely absent.
For example, in the boiler level you clearly see sparks falling from the ceiling. Just significantly fewer sparks, and non interactive ones.

Those smoke and particle effects in the physX enabled version? thats the kind of stuff that I don't think I ever saw in a non-physX game. So, not physics at all is a false claim... its just no physX

Now, could physX run on AMD hardware? certainly. And it is something both nvidia and AMD oppose.
NGOHQ managed to port physX to AMD hardware and contacted AMD and nVidia and both vehemently refused to help and were hostile to the idea...

why? nVidia has been a big puddle of fail here, trying to mil their physX monopoly without realizing that to milk a monopoly you need to have the technology that everyone is using, not a technology that has no competitors but no market penetration. If they did it right we could have all had an nvidia physX card today.

AMD on the other hand doesn't want physX to succeed even if nVidia allows it to run on their cards, since it is a closed source proprietary nvidia thing nvidia can easily cripple their performance, or just fail to optimize it to their cards.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Well its the only choice ati/amd users have. I think Nvidia is trying to monopolize the graphics card industry. :O

I'm running a 6950 and a 9600GT for physx. There are patches you can find around that will allow you to do this in Windows 7. Works quite well actually.

Nvidia has created and invested extensive and comprehensive tools and trying to bring GPU Physics as a choice.

AMD's view is really makes sense to use and promote multi-core and wait for someone to create and invest into extensive and comprehensive tools for GPU.

That's the difference -- one is doing -- the other is waiting, and forcing waiting on their customer base.

My question is...why couldn't it be written into some version of Directx as a standard so every GPU could do it if it adhered to that standard?

 

[ocre]

I looked at the video, and I see no Second Order PhysX at all if you don't use PhysX... physics is there. First order Physics is there provided by physX.. only thing you are missing is the huge amount of particles and smoke... and not all are completely absent.
For example, in the boiler level you clearly see sparks falling from the ceiling. Just significantly fewer sparks, and non interactive ones.

Those smoke and particle effects in the physX enabled version? thats the kind of stuff that I don't think I ever saw in a non-physX game. So, not physics at all is a false claim... its just no physX

Now, could physX run on AMD hardware? certainly. And it is something both nvidia and AMD oppose.
NGOHQ managed to port physX to AMD hardware and contacted AMD and nVidia and both vehemently refused to help and were hostile to the idea...

why? nVidia has been a big puddle of fail here, trying to mil their physX monopoly without realizing that to milk a monopoly you need to have the technology that everyone is using, not a technology that has no competitors but no market penetration. If they did it right we could have all had an nvidia physX card today.

AMD on the other hand doesn't want physX to succeed even if nVidia allows it to run on their cards, since it is a closed source proprietary nvidia thing nvidia can easily cripple their performance, or just fail to optimize it to their cards.

Physx is very successful. Many games use it. It is very capable and runs fine across several platforms. The majority of physics titles are basic cpu driven physics. Not so many games are coded with the fancy GPU accelerated physx, this extra care is entirely on Nvidia's tab.

Physx isnt complete. Nvidia is heavily invested in physx and they still have a ways to go with it. With each new title it grows. The investment in every new title takes them tiny steps forward in advancing physx and what is neat is their are ppl who can actually get to enjoy the progress as it happens. Its a free perk for their users but its still in its infancy. Nvidia is at least pushing in new directions and physx is one of these. Its interesting and may actually lead us to a better gaming future. Even if physx is replaced by another GPU technology, it still would be an influence. This would also be very good. Who knows where we will end up.

 

[taltamir]

My question is...why couldn't it be written into some version of Directx as a standard so every GPU could do it if it adhered to that standard?

It was written in C, because C is awesome. It runs on nVidia cause they worked hard to make their hardware run arbitrary C code via CUDA with minimal modifications. Then they bought Aegia and spent a grand total of 3 months fully porting it to CUDA.

It can't be written for directX, that is just silly. DirectX is a runtime, like PhysX. Running PhysX on directX is like running linux on windows. Its technically doable but its a huge pain, takes a huge performance penalty, and has limited functionality (no 3D rendering for the VM).

It could not have been written for open CL since openCL did not exist when physX was first created by Aegia.

Physx is very successful. Many games use it. It is very capable and runs fine across several platforms. The majority of physics titles are basic cpu driven physics. Not so many games are coded with the fancy GPU accelerated physx, this extra care is entirely on Nvidia's tab.

I am not sure what your argument is, or why you are thinking this is somehow a reply to what I said.

There is a CPU only physX that is free, used by a massive amount of titles, unrelated to GPU accelerated physX, doesn't require that a game be able to use GPU accelerated physX, and works regardless on whether you have nvidia, AMD, or intel...

so what? what does that have to do with anything?

We are discussing the computationally intensive GPU accelerated physX not CPU handled physX.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Also yes, DX11 in Batman AC is unplayable. Both on my system and my friend's system with a GTX 580 at 1920x1200. Terrible...no matter what you do it will drop to below 10fps. Running with DX11 features off looks alright, not quite as nice you can obviously tell but at least it never drops below 40.

 

[toyota]

Also yes, DX11 in Batman AC is unplayable. Both on my system and my friend's system with a GTX 580 at 1920x1200. Terrible...no matter what you do it will drop to below 10fps. Running with DX11 features off looks alright, not quite as nice you can obviously tell but at least it never drops below 40.

if I posted a few random shots of the game in DX9 and DX11, you probably could not even figure out which is which. the shadow and occlusion difference is minuscule and unnoticeable when playing and tessellation only get applied to a few things.

they should have never even fooled with DX11 if they were too sorry to even test it first. oh but the game was delayed 5 weeks to improve the pc version they claimed. that was a lie of course because the pc version was done at the same time as the console version.

 

[cmdrdredd]

if I posted a few random shots of the game in DX9 and DX11, you probably could not even figure out which is which. the shadow and occlusion difference is minuscule and unnoticeable when playing and tessellation only get applied to a few things.

they should have never even fooled with DX11 if they were too sorry to even test it first. oh but the game was delayed 5 weeks to improve the pc version they claimed. that was a lie of course because the pc version was done at the same time as the console version.

It was likely delayed because Microsoft padded their pockets to gain some sales for the Xbox 360 or something lol.

Either way, DX9 looks pretty decent and plays great. One question, is there a way to enable physx or is it always on? I remember Batman AA had an option for on/off.

 

[toyota]

It was likely delayed because Microsoft padded their pockets to gain some sales for the Xbox 360 or something lol.

Either way, DX9 looks pretty decent and plays great. One question, is there a way to enable physx or is it always on? I remember Batman AA had an option for on/off.

it has the same hardware physx options as the first game. you can leave it off or set it to normal or high.

 

[cmdrdredd]

it has the same hardware physx options as the first game. you can leave it off or set it to normal or high.

Where do you find that? The only option I see for Normal or high is tessellation when you turn on DX11.

 

[toyota]

Where do you find that? The only option I see for Normal or high is tessellation when you turn on DX11.

same place as last time which is at the very bottom. you have to scroll down do it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dlb_FPTccTU&feature=youtu.be

 

[cmdrdredd]

same place as last time which is at the very bottom. you have to scroll down do it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dlb_FPTccTU&feature=youtu.be

Ahhhh...well thanks lol. How did I miss the scroll bar.

 

[AdamK47]

They couldn't make that window 30 pixels taller? Good grief.

 

[ocre]

I am not sure what your argument is, or why you are thinking this is somehow a reply to what I said.

There is a CPU only physX that is free, used by a massive amount of titles, unrelated to GPU accelerated physX, doesn't require that a game be able to use GPU accelerated physX, and works regardless on whether you have nvidia, AMD, or intel...

so what? what does that have to do with anything?

We are discussing the computationally intensive GPU accelerated physX not CPU handled physX.

Well it has to do with this

why? nVidia has been a big puddle of fail here, trying to mil their physX monopoly without realizing that to milk a monopoly you need to have the technology that everyone is using, not a technology that has no competitors but no market penetration. If they did it right we could have all had an nvidia physX card today.

.

how can you say this? Physx has tons of competition. read from sirpauly's post from a few pages back and you will find Jen-Hsun Huang saying:

"physics processing has a long ways to go and there are so many companies out there. [There are] quite a few middleware companies out there that are creating technology in this area, and many games, many game developers incorporate their own physics engine. So my sense is that there’s a lot of invention still left to do in this area"

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2199653&page=10

What this says to me is that they (nvidia) believe that physx still has a way to go as well. That they are not in a puddle of fail, not by a long shot. That they are steady (if even slowly) taking this technology further and further.

Also i dont see how you can talk about physx and not talk about physx. The GPU accelerated physX is every bit a part of physx. They are one in the same. Nvidia is steady developing the advanced GPU physx as an extension of physx. How could you call physX a big puddle of fail? I dont get that and thats why i said what i did. They are pushing physx on the GPU but they are no where near done. They arent at a poi nt where they are even pushing it hard at all. Every title that uses advanced physx is a chance for them to take their concept a little further. It is not complete, this gives them away to use an investment for dual purposes. Their gpu physx gets better and we have games that showcase it. Its not a failure by any means. Its actually more experimental and progress all in the same package.

 

[SirPauly]

I'm running a 6950 and a 9600GT for physx. There are patches you can find around that will allow you to do this in Windows 7. Works quite well actually.



My question is...why couldn't it be written into some version of Directx as a standard so every GPU could do it if it adhered to that standard?

Because OpenCL wasn't offered yet and Cuda may be much more mature and efficient for nVidia GPU's. I would like to see PhysX be ported to OpenCL some day.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Because OpenCL wasn't offered yet and Cuda may be much more mature and efficient for nVidia GPU's. I would like to see PhysX be ported to OpenCL some day.

Carmack rejected OpenCL over CUDA due to performance differences, I suspect the same is true here.
OpenCL and CUDA are far from equal.

 

[tviceman]

For those interested, Rocksteady confirmed the DX11 performance issue and said they are working on a fix.

 

[taltamir]

how can you say this? Physx has tons of competition

PhysX the CPU only portion has tons of competitors, but it has the highest market penetration due to being free.
PhysX the GPU acceleration portion has no competitions, none of the other methods comes even close to being able to mimic what it does. It also has no market penetration. You can count the games on your fingers.

Because OpenCL wasn't offered yet and Cuda may be much more mature and efficient for nVidia GPU's. I would like to see PhysX be ported to OpenCL some day.

No, CUDA is much better. This is because CUDA runs C code and Fortran natively, which are simply the best.

 

[Lonbjerg]

PhysX the CPU only portion has tons of competitors, but it has the highest market penetration due to being free.
PhysX the GPU acceleration portion has no competitions, none of the other methods comes even close to being able to mimic what it does. It also has no market penetration. You can count the games on your fingers.


No, CUDA is much better. This is because CUDA runs C code and Fortran natively, which are simply the best.

1) paradox detected.
2) That is false information.

 

[ocre]

PhysX the CPU only portion has tons of competitors, but it has the highest market penetration due to being free.
PhysX the GPU acceleration portion has no competitions, none of the other methods comes even close to being able to mimic what it does. It also has no market penetration. You can count the games on your fingers.


No, CUDA is much better. This is because CUDA runs C code and Fortran natively, which are simply the best.

But dont you see, one (gpu accelerated) would not exist without the other. You can try to pry them apart but they do not exist that way. Its part of a package that is being used to move the industry forward, closer to realism. Nvidia is still perfecting physx, there is lots to be done in this area. You really think that all this work would be done if nvidia just handed it over? Do you think it would be done properly? Console ports are not gonna be programed with great GPU accelerated physx for the PC.

Physx is not going anywhere cause AMD chips cant run it? thats the simple consensus but its not so simple, not at all. Even if Nvidia gave out GPU accelerated physx the but load of development (cash) would be all on nvidias tab. They would have to port it to openCL. They would have to debug it, even on AMD hardware. Most importantly, developers mainly focus on consoles. Do you think they will put boat loads of cash in GPU physX for the PC versions of games? They currently dont. Your lucky to get AA. Do you really think developers would program great physx (and properly) if it would run on AMD hardware? Look at what we have today.

The real truth is if nvidia didnt develop GPU physX in these games there wouldnt be any. These console ports would not put resources in it. Greed, laziness, and Politics (M$ & xbox) all would prevent this. Its not gonna happen. There was a time when both AMD and Nvidia users could have Ageia physx and why didnt it take off?

Consider this and you will start to see, nvidia is making physx happen. Its not something that is easy to do like you may think. Even so they are doing some important things. Letting developers use it for free, this is very important. The developers are getting familiar with it and Nvidia's focus is to simplify it as much as possible. They are still evolving physx. The GPU physX is their showcase of possibilities. Since it wouldnt be here if nvidia didnt pay for it, making it an exclusive makes way more sense.

Nvidia is pushing in a direction which is pushing the industry. Things could go many different ways. You can bet the next consoles will take physics very seriously. They may very well have a dedicated solution. However unlikely, it may even be nvidia's. You can bet your butt nvidia wants to attract them. But even if they dont use physx, we will most likely see some sort of advanced physics processing. Once this occurs, the PC will need to have a way to reproduce it. PhysX could be worth a lot more. If not, physx is haere to step PC gaming up a notch. Its an attempt that should be appreciated.

Regardless, nvidia has not failed with physX not by any means. Its just not that simple.

 

[SirPauly]

PhysX the CPU only portion has tons of competitors, but it has the highest market penetration due to being free.
PhysX the GPU acceleration portion has no competitions, none of the other methods comes even close to being able to mimic what it does. It also has no market penetration. You can count the games on your fingers.

I tend to look at PhysX as a middle ware that is trying to innovate for multi-platform and device -- from mobile, multi-core CPU to the GPU. I think PhysX as a whole can penetrate many markets and build awareness and innovation for nVidia's brands.

 

[Grooveriding]

There was a time when both AMD and Nvidia users could have Ageia physx and why didnt it take off?

Exactly why could be debated, hard to know precisely. Whatever the reasons are, they're still present, as gpu physx still hasn't taken off with only 16 titles that support it over its four years of market presence.

Subjectively 70% of the games that do support it are utter trash as well. Which really reflects even worse upon it.

I loaded it up last night and the performance was so poor in DX11 I stopped playing. I tried DX9 and it ran fine and pretty much looked the same. Still going to wait to see if they can fix it for DX11 before going any further.

BF3 is much better anyways, so I can wait.