Havok, Intel, Microsoft, PhysX and Asynchronous Compute

[bystander36]

Just how accurate is PhysXInfo exactly ?

Most of that list looks like is tied to the engine supporting the middle-ware, not the actual game using it itself ...

Why is Far Cry 4 in that list when Havok is the one publicly promoting it using their technology ?

Matter of fact where are their sources for these games claiming to use CPU PhysX ?

Havok themselves claim over 600 titles are been powered by their middle-ware so it's still more than whatever PhysXInfo claims ...

If your going to use a source that's not officially affiliated with Nvidia and doesn't appear to be impartial then it's only fair to hear words straight up from the Havok team ...

In fact if that list were true, Nvidia would be screaming down from the bottom of their throats about how PhysX is dominating the industry but their not ...

That PhysX link is given to you from Nvidia's website. http://www.geforce.com/hardware/technology/physx

PhysX is more than just a GPU accelerated physics engine. Here is another link, geared towards developers on Nvidia's own site: https://developer.nvidia.com/physx-sdk

PhysX is a scalable multi-platform game physics solution supporting a wide range of devices, from smartphones to high-end multicore CPUs. While the PhysX SDK is designed primarily for game developers, it is also used by researchers, educators, and simulation application developers who need real time performance and robust behavior. Features include discrete and continuous collision detection, raycasting and shape sweeps, solvers for rigid body dynamics, fluids, and particles, as well as vehicle and character controllers.

 

[Snafuh]

Just how accurate is PhysXInfo exactly ?
Most of that list looks like is tied to the engine supporting the middle-ware, not the actual game using it itself ...

Unity uses PhysicX. I doubt many devs will replace the complete physics engine. You even need a extra license if you want to change the source code of Unity itself. So any Angry Birds clone made with Unity uses PhysiX.
Same for the Unreal Engine. Dropping a simple cube? This is PhysiX.

PhysX is for visuals only, zero game engine related physics. Havok is far more expansive and isn't just for visuals.

PhysiX is used for basic newtonain physics. It can (and it is) be used for puzzles, ragdolls, acceleration of a car...
PhysiX is not just the fancy GPU effects Nvidia shows.

 

[3DVagabond]

Unity uses PhysicX. I doubt many devs will replace the complete physics engine. You even need a extra license if you want to change the source code of Unity itself. So any Angry Birds clone made with Unity uses PhysiX.
Same for the Unreal Engine. Dropping a simple cube? This is PhysiX.



PhysiX is used for basic newtonain physics. It can (and it is) be used for puzzles, ragdolls, acceleration of a car...
PhysiX is not just the fancy GPU effects Nvidia shows.

People are talking about the possibility of GPU accelerated physics for everyone with Intel having it. It just confuses the discussion going back and forth with CPU PhysX thrown in.

 

[bystander36]

People are talking about the possibility of GPU accelerated physics for everyone with Intel having it. It just confuses the discussion going back and forth with CPU PhysX thrown in.

Some people may, some people aren't. The discussion wasn't specified towards GPU accelerated physics. The fact is, it affects both sides of the equation.

 

[ThatBuzzkiller]

That PhysX link is given to you from Nvidia's website. http://www.geforce.com/hardware/technology/physx

PhysX is more than just a GPU accelerated physics engine. Here is another link, geared towards developers on Nvidia's own site: https://developer.nvidia.com/physx-sdk

We all know that PhysX is more than GPU acceleration however it has become a lot less relevant in the CPU side too when the majority of the recent AAA games are using Havok aside from Unreal Engine games ...

 

[3DVagabond]

Some people may, some people aren't. The discussion wasn't specified towards GPU accelerated physics. The fact is, it affects both sides of the equation.

The people who aren't are missing the point.

 

[Snafuh]

The people who aren't are missing the point.

The people I quoted were talking about GPU physiX and I doubt they are aware of the use if CPU physiX. Everybody should start clarifying what he is talking about and not just use the name PhysiX

 

[bystander36]

The people who aren't are missing the point.

What point is that? Both CPU and GPU physics matters, both engines can do both. It has changed hands now, both aspects will be affected.

 

[readers]

Unity uses PhysicX. I doubt many devs will replace the complete physics engine. You even need a extra license if you want to change the source code of Unity itself. So any Angry Birds clone made with Unity uses PhysiX.
Same for the Unreal Engine. Dropping a simple cube? This is PhysiX.



PhysiX is used for basic newtonain physics. It can (and it is) be used for puzzles, ragdolls, acceleration of a car...
PhysiX is not just the fancy GPU effects Nvidia shows.

Errrr everything you listed is Newtonian physics...

 

[3DVagabond]

What point is that? Both CPU and GPU physics matters, both engines can do both. It has changed hands now, both aspects will be affected.

We're in the VC&G forum. The CPU forum is two rows up.

 

[psolord]

MS just signed a deal with nVidia for their Azure cloud. And MS want to use Azure for the Xbox, specially physics.
http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Microsoft-Demonstrates-Power-Cloud-Xbox-One-63207.html

Not sure what your issue with PhysX is. Care to explain?

I dont think Havok will change as such from a gamers standpoint. But rather stay as it is now with the usual implementations.

I wouldn't describe my state of mind towards PhysX as an issue, since I bypass it altogether. I would love to use it, if it had a modest performance hit with a bit better physics.

I would say that it's more of a disappointment, after all these wonderful Ageia demos back in the day. We have yet to see physics like that ingame.

Actually the best game impacting physics showcase in a game, was from
Red Faction : Armageddon. I am not sure if Geo-Mod 2.5 used Havok, software PhysX or a custom solution, but it was downright impressive. Ok not the most accurate, but still did a great job.

The problem is that even with hardware physx supporting games, the physics are nowhere near as good. Only debris, smoke and silly stuff like that, that bring a huge performance hit.

I am not saying anything new here. This discussion has been going on for years.

Also what is really interesting, is that the hardware gpu accelerated physx, is also severely cpu limited.

Again we have seen this in the past, but as a reminder I have my own cpu tests on my 970 in my signature. Look at Mafia II for example.

While the Q9550 can hold its ground against the 2500k, it gets completely destroyed when physx is used. So what good is physx when you need a stellar cpu to use it properly?

Even in the 2500k@4.8Ghz case, it was still cpu limited.



This has been going on in every hardware gpu accelerated physx implementation I have seen, from my GTX 260c216 to the 970.

That's why I was wondering, is it an API shortcoming or a hardware wall due to Nvidia's architecture?

Is the performance drop happening due to the insertion of compute commands in the graphics pipeline, that Nvidia gpus cannot process well or something else?

And if it is, would the new Havok help us get rid of all that?

ps To be fair, Red Faction Armageddon was cpu limited in all my tests, something understandable since it is a software based physics solution, which however, has the potential to blow up whole worlds and still maintain a playable experience.

 

[Dribble]

So now we have physx available across all platforms - windows, apple, linux, android, ps3+4, xbox 360+1 competing with havok available only on windows and xbox (ms aren't going to support the competition). I would say that suits Nvidia just fine. They now only have the true cross platform solution.

As for cpu vs gpu accelerated. Well havok is cpu only, ms haven't said they are going to change that. It's not as simple as just running on a gpu either - for example physx runs on the PS3's SPE's. It's fairer to say that phsyx is very flexible and can efficiently on all sorts of hardware configurations, while havok is less so.

 

[dogen1]

It's not as simple as just running on a gpu either - for example physx runs on the PS3's SPE's. It's fairer to say that phsyx is very flexible and can efficiently on all sorts of hardware configurations, while havok is less so.

Havok probably does as well..

 

[Stuka87]

So now we have physx available across all platforms - windows, apple, linux, android, ps3+4, xbox 360+1 competing with havok available only on windows and xbox (ms aren't going to support the competition). I would say that suits Nvidia just fine. They now only have the true cross platform solution.

As for cpu vs gpu accelerated. Well havok is cpu only, ms haven't said they are going to change that. It's not as simple as just running on a gpu either - for example physx runs on the PS3's SPE's. It's fairer to say that phsyx is very flexible and can efficiently on all sorts of hardware configurations, while havok is less so.

Havok works on every platform out there. Why would you think it only works on Windows or XBO when it is already on every other platform out there? MS makes money when people use it, you would have to be stupid to buy a company, and then remove all sources of income so that you could have it all for yourself.

 

[Mr Evil]

What I really want to see is one of the physics engines being written to work on an iGPU. That would change APUs from only making sense at the low-end into something desirable for high-end gaming too. I don't know why this hasn't happened already (along with AI and various other tasks that could be run on a second GPU), since GPGPU has been ubiquitous for some time now.

Unity uses PhysicX. I doubt many devs will replace the complete physics engine. You even need a extra license if you want to change the source code of Unity itself. So any Angry Birds clone made with Unity uses PhysiX.
Same for the Unreal Engine. Dropping a simple cube? This is PhysiX...

Physics engines can be changed - e.g. Unreal Engine 2 used Karma physics, then UE3 switched to PhysX.

 

[Dribble]

Havok works on every platform out there. Why would you think it only works on Windows or XBO when it is already on every other platform out there? MS makes money when people use it, you would have to be stupid to buy a company, and then remove all sources of income so that you could have it all for yourself.

If MS wants to make money they need to sell their platforms (windows pc's, phones, tablets, xbox, etc). They want people to use MS not Sony/Google/Apple. That's much more important then licensing havok to 3rd parties for a few extra peanuts. Hence over time it will end up being for MS platforms only.

Which brings the question why buy havok at all? Was it really for PC and console gaming - why bother as there's plenty of physics middle-ware and the profits are small. It's not a source of great income or worth investing lots of money in, particularly as physx means they can't corner the market. I suspect it's more likely they have some grand plan to do with hololens or some other new idea that required a custom physics engine. MS being MS decided they might as well buy one.

 

[Piroko]

... havok available only on windows and xbox (ms aren't going to support the competition) ...

Why would they lock Havok out of everything but platform exclusives? Any indication that they'd do something like this?

 

[biostud]

With dx12 offloading CPU cycles, why not use the CPU for physics, ie. Havok?

 

[Stuka87]

If MS wants to make money they need to sell their platforms (windows pc's, phones, tablets, xbox, etc). They want people to use MS not Sony/Google/Apple. That's much more important then licensing havok to 3rd parties for a few extra peanuts. Hence over time it will end up being for MS platforms only.

Which brings the question why buy havok at all? Was it really for PC and console gaming - why bother as there's plenty of physics middle-ware and the profits are small. It's not a source of great income or worth investing lots of money in, particularly as physx means they can't corner the market. I suspect it's more likely they have some grand plan to do with hololens or some other new idea that required a custom physics engine. MS being MS decided they might as well buy one.

Here is the problem with your idea. Most games are cross platform, if they say "You can only use this on our platform" then it means the developer is simply not going to use it.

Havok HAS to stay cross platform in order for it to be a viable option.

 

[MisterLilBig]

Most games are cross platform

...really? No. Most games are not.

 

[bystander36]

We're in the VC&G forum. The CPU forum is two rows up.

Does that mean we can't talk about any other platform but MS then, because it only runs on the GPU in Windows? While related to GPU's, there is lots outside GPU's being talked about.

Besides, CPU physics is still related to the "graphics" portion of the forum.

 

[tential]

Here is the problem with your idea. Most games are cross platform, if they say "You can only use this on our platform" then it means the developer is simply not going to use it.

Havok HAS to stay cross platform in order for it to be a viable option.

Yes exactly. Just like Gameworks!

 

[Lonyo]

...really? No. Most games are not.

Most high end games.

 

[tweakboy]

Phsyx is dead. Their hitting a dead horse continuously. nVidia bought them so they are in the drivers seat.. gl

 

[3DVagabond]

Does that mean we can't talk about any other platform but MS then, because it only runs on the GPU in Windows? While related to GPU's, there is lots outside GPU's being talked about.

Besides, CPU physics is still related to the "graphics" portion of the forum.

I'm just saying that this is about GPU Physics and throwing CPU physics into the mix does nothing but confuse the subject. Although maybe that's what is being attempted?