hypothetical: nvidia in a console -> more physX titles?

[SirPauly]

So don't you think that the market has decided that it's an epic fail or is too niche or expensive or not worth it??

Or are most people 'sheeple' who don't know a great feature if it slaps them in the face?

GPU pHYSx has had negligible market penetration so far if you check out the ratio of titles with GPU phyX to those without this so called great,innovative feature.

I think PhysX adds some value to GeForce and nVidia. How much? That is subjective to each individual and may be zero or to a lot!

To me, it offers little value based on the lack of content but do appreciate the content and the added effects from force fields, turbulence, added particles, destruction, cloth and fluids. Don't think it is an absolute must have but enjoy the content that is offered. It's something I desire to improve and mature from the entire industry -- not just nVidia. Desire physics to bring strong value to gaming over-all and redefine it. Desire much more innovation in Physics!

Appreciate the risk, the pro-active, spending resources where one's mouth is, trying to innovate from nVidia.

 

[AnandThenMan]

Nvidia didn't innovate much of anything with PhysX, they bought a company and ported the code. Then they proceeded to pay devs to make sure it shows up in games, made sure you MUST only have Nvidia hardware otherwise no PhysX for you.

I don't consider that innovation, but marketing.

 

[Lonyo]

Agreed. Many people (including me) said this over and over.



And it's working to a arguably noticeable degree ( say that three times fast).

To what degree is it working?
How many games on average have come out with HARDWARE PhysX?

http://www.physxinfo.com/
This says 21 games total, since 2007 (?), which I make about 4 per year on average. (Updated to include Planetside 2 since that's now out).
Hardly "noticeable".

 

[SirPauly]

I don't consider that innovation, but marketing.

Ya made your point clear! I strongly disagree!

 

[SirPauly]

To what degree is it working?

It is in gaming engines and there is content.

 

[Zodiark1593]

In a single GPU config (in a console), I'm not quite sure how far optimizations would reduce the overhead. From what I've heard, GPU Physx exacts a pretty hefty penalty on even high end GPUs.

Speaking of physics stuff, Whaddya wanna bet that the APUs in the consoles (if the rumors are true) will be used for physics calculations, while a dGPU handles the graphical load, and the cpu is free for everything else. Seems like a much more likely solution as opposed to asymmetrical Crossfire.

 

[tviceman]

To what degree is it working?
How many games on average have come out with HARDWARE PhysX?

http://www.physxinfo.com/
This says 21 games total, since 2007 (?), which I make about 4 per year on average. (Updated to include Planetside 2 since that's now out).
Hardly "noticeable".

You misunderstood what I said. Look at what I replied to, specifically about customer retention.

 

[Lonbjerg]

PhysX is already in use in the following platforms:

• PS3
• Xbox 360
• Windows
• Linux
• Android
• OSX

https://developer.nvidia.com/physx-downloads

So the premise of this thread is what?

One could even go further and compare it too Havok...and see what games (and features are used)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havok_(software)#Platforms

Now I am being fair...and onluy comparing the PPU/GPU titles to Havok:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_with_hardware-accelerated_PhysX_support

Suddenly this whole thread seems less about PhysX and it's use/abilities...and more like a red-team "the grapes are sour" thread.

What is next?
The pipedream of hardware physics in DX? :whiste:

 

[Silverforce11]

Outside of Mirror's Edge, i have not seen a single other Physx title where i thought to myself: "Damn, should have gotten an NV gpu". I played Borderlands. Did i feel like i miss anything good? Heck no, laughable effects are not my cup of tea.

In fact, when i did have a 8800GT SLI awhile ago, i turned off physx in all the games i played because a) crap effects and b) huge performance drops. Its the anti-thesis of why i went with a high performance setup.

Consoles already lack power, to devote GPU shaders to over the top useless effects instead of rendering the scene in hi-fidelity, hi-res textures with AA is simply wasteful and wrong for gamers.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Outside of Mirror's Edge, i have not seen a single other Physx title where i thought to myself: "Damn, should have gotten an NV gpu". I played Borderlands. Did i feel like i miss anything good? Heck no, laughable effects are not my cup of tea.

In fact, when i did have a 8800GT SLI awhile ago, i turned off physx in all the games i played because a) crap effects and b) huge performance drops. Its the anti-thesis of why i went with a high performance setup.

Consoles already lack power, to devote GPU shaders to over the top useless effects instead of rendering the scene in hi-fidelity, hi-res textures with AA is simply wasteful and wrong for gamers.

PhysX on both consoles (Xbox 360 and PS3) are CPU based....not GPU physics.
Lets get the facts straight, mkay?

 

[3DVagabond]

What do you think would happen if nvidia had a physX capable GPU in one of the next generation consoles. Would it increase the number of physX PC titles and thus the request for nvidia cards?

PhysX is already in use in the following platforms:

• PS3
• Xbox 360
• Windows
• Linux
• Android
• OSX

https://developer.nvidia.com/physx-downloads

So the premise of this thread is what?

One could even go further and compare it too Havok...and see what games (and features are used)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havok_(software)#Platforms

Now I am being fair...and onluy comparing the PPU/GPU titles to Havok:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_with_hardware-accelerated_PhysX_support

Suddenly this whole thread seems less about PhysX and it's use/abilities...and more like a red-team "the grapes are sour" thread.

What is next?
The pipedream of hardware physics in DX? :whiste:

He's asking what if consoles offered GPU PhysX

PhysX on both consoles (Xbox 360 and PS3) are CPU based....not GPU physics.
Lets get the facts straight, mkay?

He's talking about the performance hit with GPU PhysX. The threads about GPU PhysX in consoles. What if?

 

[Silverforce11]

PhysX on both consoles (Xbox 360 and PS3) are CPU based....not GPU physics.
Lets get the facts straight, mkay?

Does it change the outcome? Wasting console resources which they already severely lack on useless fluff, whilst rendering the scene at <720p and upscaling to make it a blurry mess doesn't help anybody.

I'm also responding to the hypothetical OP, if next gen consoles were all Physx capable GPUs.

 

[Lonbjerg]

He's asking what if consoles offered GPU PhysX



He's talking about the performance hit with GPU PhysX. The threads about GPU PhysX in consoles. What if?

Anyone seriously thinks a console (low budget) will have the performance for all the fun that a PC is capable off?

Console needs to die, consoles don't promote game development...they stagnate it.

Again, the premise for this thread isn't founded in reality....quite the opposite.

 

[boxleitnerb]

Nvidia didn't innovate much of anything with PhysX, they bought a company and ported the code. Then they proceeded to pay devs to make sure it shows up in games, made sure you MUST only have Nvidia hardware otherwise no PhysX for you.

I don't consider that innovation, but marketing.

Yes and no. Isn't it better to have something than to have nothing? It certainly is progress. Where is AMD's initiative? All they do is talk and complain and point fingers, but they do absolutely nothing for GPU based physics. Nothing.

 

[NIGELG]

Isn't it better to have something than to have nothing? .

No...it is better to have nothing than to have crap.GPU PhysX in its present form and looks and performance is crap.

Which is why it has not taken off.

 

[Silverforce11]

Yes and no. Isn't it better to have something than to have nothing? It certainly is progress. Where is AMD's initiative? All they do is talk and complain and point fingers, but they do absolutely nothing for GPU based physics. Nothing.

There's PHYSICS then there's PHYSX. It's completely different. In the vast instance, PHYSX is used to generate fluff effects, and this is partly due to its propriety nature, devs would not risk anything major to marginalize the users.

Why we would need GPU based physics when CPUs are getting more and more threads/cores? Most game released don't even use these extra threads. Put Physics on the CPU. Want fancy fluff effects on the GPU? Directcompute, OpenCL and Tessellation (fluids). Done.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Yes and no. Isn't it better to have something than to have nothing? It certainly is progress. Where is AMD's initiative? All they do is talk and complain and point fingers, but they do absolutely nothing for GPU based physics. Nothing.

Logic...

No...it is better to have nothing than to have crap.GPU PhysX in its present form and looks and performance is crap.

Which is why it has not taken off.

...meets fanboy.

The sad part for NigelG is that PhysX HAS taken off.

Unless he want to ignore facts (a current trend in this thread) about he usage of PhysX.

But it must be sad, that this is still a pipedream for AMD-fans:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCaGb40Bz58

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x0S0b_eG_M

 

[Lonbjerg]

There's PHYSICS then there's PHYSX. It's completely different. In the vast instance, PHYSX is used to generate fluff effects, and this is partly due to its propriety nature, devs would not risk anything major to marginalize the users.

Why we would need GPU based physics when CPUs are getting more and more threads/cores? Most game released don't even use these extra threads. Put Physics on the CPU. Want fancy fluff effects on the GPU? Directcompute, OpenCL and Tessellation (fluids). Done.

Do you have a performance comparsion...or is it just in theory your "idea" works?

You should BTW read up...PhysX with APEX = tier 1 physics.

The tier 2 "argument" died with CellFactor...in 2006...2007.

Please do read up...I don't wan't to debate with someone stuck in the past, using false arguments.

(PS: HINT- HINT: the only difference between CPU PhysX and GPU PhysX is: TA-DAAAA:
The performance...the GPU is much better at physics calculations.)

This is getting so sad it's funny...:awe:

 

[Silverforce11]

Logic...

The sad part for NigelG is that PhysX HAS taken off.

I don't want to debate with someone that delusional... but,

To think PhysX has taken off with what, 2 games this year? (http://physxinfo.com/data/vreview.html) It's a joke, and the sooner it dies out the better it will be for gamers, as devs won't waste their precious development time implementing crap and focus on actually making the game better.

Also, you can't be faster for gaming when using GPU shaders to do Physics that it could be used on graphics rendering.. instead of using UNUSED CPU THREADS to do physics. How do you feel that your quad core CPU or even ones with 8 threads are being used at 25% load in games? When GPUs are being pegged at 100% and limiting the performance, you want to dump physics on the GPU in this scenario? Don't be daff.

 

[boxleitnerb]

No...it is better to have nothing than to have crap.GPU PhysX in its present form and looks and performance is crap.

Which is why it has not taken off.

How it is perceived, is subjective, not "crap". I like it in the games I have.
Performance is often not very good, true. But as there is no competing solution out there to compare performance with, you can also not say "crap". An OpenCL-based solution could perform equally.

There's PHYSICS then there's PHYSX. It's completely different. In the vast instance, PHYSX is used to generate fluff effects, and this is partly due to its propriety nature, devs would not risk anything major to marginalize the users.

Why we would need GPU based physics when CPUs are getting more and more threads/cores? Most game released don't even use these extra threads. Put Physics on the CPU. Want fancy fluff effects on the GPU? Directcompute, OpenCL and Tessellation (fluids). Done.

In which games can I find these effects based on OpenCL? Surely you can name some
Of course PhysX effects are just visual. That is self-evident and was never contested. PhysX is about visual fidelity, nothing more, nothing less.

Why do we need GPU based physics? Because hundreds/thousands of threads vs. 6-8 threads. If you have many particles (we're talking 100k+ here for fluids and gases), the CPU most likely will not cut it.

 

[NIGELG]

Logic...



...meets fanboy.

The sad part for NigelG is that PhysX HAS taken off.

Unless he want to ignore facts (a current trend in this thread) about he usage of PhysX.

But it must be sad, that this is still a pipedream for AMD-fans:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCaGb40Bz58

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x0S0b_eG_M

I expected this kind of nonsense response from you...I specifically said GPU pHYSx in it's less than 5 games a year 'popularity' is crap.

The CPU PhysX is fine in my view and very useful.

 

[Lonbjerg]

I don't want to debate with someone that delusional... but,

To think PhysX has taken off with what, 2 games this year? It's a joke, and the sooner it dies out the better it will be for gamers, as devs won't waste their precious development time implementing crap and focus on actually making the game better.

How do you define a game as an "physX" game?
I think you are a bit confused...perhaps delusional?

You don't think these qualify as PhysX games?
http://physxinfo.com/index.php?p=gam&f=cpu

You only think these are PhysX games?
http://physxinfo.com/index.php?p=gam&f=gpu

That would explain you^r error...the other "explanation" isn't so...well...flattering ^^

 

[NIGELG]

How it is perceived, is subjective, not "crap". I like it in the games I have.
Performance is often not very good, true. But as there is no competing solution out there, to compare performance with, you can also not say "crap". An OpenCL-based solution could perform equally.

For the love of all that's pretty...It LOOKS like crap whether there is a competing solution or not it just looks awful and tacked on.

Better to have nothing than something that distracts and ruins the immersion.

 

[blastingcap]

I think he means GPU accelerated PHYSX

 

[Lonbjerg]

How it is perceived, is subjective, not "crap". I like it in the games I have.
Performance is often not very good, true. But as there is no competing solution out there, to compare performance with, you can also not say "crap". An OpenCL-based solution could perform equally.



In which games can I find these effects based on OpenCL? Surely you can name some
Of course PhysX effects are just visual. That is self-evident and was never contested. PhysX is about visual fidelity, nothing more, nothing less.

Why do we need GPU based physics? Because hundreds/thousands of threads vs. 6-8 threads. If you have many particles (we're talking 100k+ here for fluids and gases), the CPU most likely will not cut it.

Funny how everything from OpenCL to Direct Compute to DirectX it self is mentioned as a valid "replacement"...when no games are around that uses named solutions for physics...wishfull thinkning makes for bad arguemtns