Borderlands 2 benchmarks (& Physx)

[3DVagabond]

Reading is good!

So is posting your info yourself. I really didn't feel like reading three different links to find that.

PhysX has CPU multithreding since v2.

SEE2 has been supported since 2.8.4.

BL2 uses 2.8.4.something

That's nice about SSE2. I can't find that. Multithreading was added in 3.0 (according to what I was able to read.). Does that mean BL2 doesn't support it? That might be why it seems so CPU bound but without the CPU being pegged.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

So is posting your info yourself. I really didn't feel like reading three different links to find that.



That's nice about SSE2. I can't find that. Multithreading was added in 3.0 (according to what I was able to read.). Does that mean BL2 doesn't support it? That might be why it seems so CPU bound but without the CPU being pegged.

He said it's been MT since v2, which measn BL2 would be MT PhysX.

Though that's on CPU's, I thought you had a dedicated card?

 

[3DVagabond]

He said it's been MT since v2, which measn BL2 would be MT PhysX.

Though that's on CPU's, I thought you had a dedicated card?

Not according to the link provided. Multithreading was added to the Xbox and PC in SDK 3.0.

There's also THIS, which has some stuff in it that might shine some light on the conflicting stories. Seems that while PhysX does support a lot of features, it's not automatic. The dev needs to code it in and they are often satisfied with a direct port that doesn't implement PC specific optimizations like SSE(2). CPU threading, which only the Xbox and PC support could also be left out if the dev thought it was good enough without it.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Not according to the link provided. Multithreading was added to the Xbox and PC in SDK 3.0.

There's also THIS, which has some stuff in it that might shine some light on the conflicting stories. Seems that while PhysX does support a lot of features, it's not automatic. The dev needs to code it in and they are often satisfied with a direct port that doesn't implement PC specific optimizations like SSE(2). CPU threading, which only the Xbox and PC support could also be left out if the dev thought it was good enough without it.

Before PhysX SDK 3.0 you could do CPU multicore also...you just had to do it manually....so it was up the the devs.
Now it can be done "auto"...

 

[SirPauly]

On older PhysX:

Here is the reply of Nadeem Mohammad, NVIDIA’s PhysX director of product management, to AMD’s accusations:

I have been a member of the PhysX team, first with AEGIA, and then with Nvidia, and I can honestly say that since the merger with Nvidia there have been no changes to the SDK code which purposely reduces the software performance of PhysX or its use of CPU multi-cores.

Our PhysX SDK API is designed such that thread control is done explicitly by the application developer, not by the SDK functions themselves. One of the best examples is 3DMarkVantage which can use 12 threads while running in software-only PhysX. This can easily be tested by anyone with a multi-core CPU system and a PhysX-capable GeForce GPU. This level of multi-core support and programming methodology has not changed since day one. And to anticipate another ridiculous claim, it would be nonsense to say we “tuned” PhysX multi-core support for this case.

PhysX is a cross platform solution. Our SDKs and tools are available for the Wii, PS3, Xbox 360, the PC and even the iPhone through one of our partners. We continue to invest substantial resources into improving PhysX support on ALL platforms–not just for those supporting GPU acceleration.

As is par for the course, this is yet another completely unsubstantiated accusation made by an employee of one of our competitors. I am writing here to address it directly and call it for what it is, completely false. Nvidia PhysX fully supports multi-core CPUs and multithreaded applications, period. Our developer tools allow developers to design their use of PhysX in PC games to take full advantage of multi-core CPUs and to fully use the multithreaded capabilities.

http://www.geeks3d.com/20100121/nvidia-multi-core-cpu-support-is-not-disabled-in-physx/

All one had to do is investigate PhysX Fluid mark for obvious proof:


http://www.geeks3d.com/20100526/physx-fluidmark-how-to-get-you-multi-core-cpu-busy-at-100/

 

[SirPauly]

I really didn't feel like reading three different links to find that.

It was on the link I offered:

Improved Threading.

PhysX SDK 3.0 features new Task Manager feature that supports two Dispatchers (for PC both CPU and GPU Dispatchers are available) that are responsible for managing task dependencies and distributing tasks across as many worker threads as the developer defines. This feature allows the developer to balance the proper mix of resources to achieve the desired performance level.

And even had a screen shot with many CPU cores:

http://physxinfo.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/SDK_3-multithread.jpg

 

[SirPauly]

That's nice about SSE2. I can't find that.

Other interesting consequence of PhysX SDK 2.8.4.4 is that the engine core is compiled with SSE2

http://www.geeks3d.com/20100921/gpu-tool-fluidmark-1-2-2-updated-with-physx-sdk-2-8-4-4/

 

[Lonbjerg]

*snip* As is par for the course, this is yet another completely unsubstantiated accusation made by an employee of one of our competitors. *snip*

Same thing is still going on.
False claims has been made since 2006.

Even 3D-veggie did...in this thread...in this year, this month.
Repeated FUD made by competitor (MT, x87)...though unfounded in reality.

Just look in any PhysX thread.

When it was AGEIA ATi/NVIDIA fans did the FUD.

Then it became NVIDIA IP.

Now it's AMD fans that pust this type of FUD.

Funny to observe, how embrace of technology is linked to the ownership of IP ^^

 

[SirPauly]

No biggie! It's all good to me. Personally glad to see companies embrace physics and try to innovate -- place resources where their mouth is.

 

[Lonbjerg]

No biggie! It's all good to me. Personally glad to see companies embrace physics and try to innovate -- place resources where their mouth is.

You mean like this?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLgb9AdnaBI

:whiste:

 

[SirPauly]

HavokFX. What can ya do? Sadly was axed by Intel, quickly after their purchase of Havok.


ATI demo Havok FX physics acceleration on Radeon GPUs


http://hexus.net/tech/news/graphics/5838-ati-demo-havok-fx-physics-acceleration-radeon-gpus/


NVIDIA and Havok Bring SLI Physics to Life

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-and-Havok-Bring-SLI-Physics-Life

 

[AdamK47]

Threads about a new game with PhysX are so predictable.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Threads about a new game with PhysX are so predictable.

Yup, someone makes a unfounded claim, more jump in with false/outdated statements and then they get mad when their "revalation" turns out to be a mindburp and they get debunked.

Same thing in this thread.

 

[wand3r3r]

I ran a few more 20 min benchmarks mostly in single player just for the heck of it.

These 2 were the sawtooth cauldron, mostly cruising around a couple helicopter shootdowns.

I believe these two wer the caustic caverns. I was mostly cruising around looking for those hidden switches. No major battles but shot some stuff along the way.

As is clearly represented, the GTX 670 PE @ higher then 680 stock does fine for the most part. However, you only need to add more players with elemental weapons and the fps dip further. In heavy battles they don't peak like this. I was doing some little side missions and hardly getting close to anything.