PS3 is a rather unique case.
Both the Wii and the XBox use conventional CPUs.
The first XBox actually used an x86 CPU.
I wouldn't be surprised if the next-generation XBox also uses a standard CPU, rather than a Cell.
In which case it would make perfect sense to use the GPU for physics, because the CPU wouldn't be suitable for high physics loads.
Who knows, they may actually put two GPUs in there, one low-end and one high-end, where the low-end one is used as a physics co-processor and other things.
It's way too early to tell.
Fact remains that if you use a conventional CPU and a single GPU, like in common gaming PCs, it's better to use the GPU for physics. As everyone knows, CPU bogs down WAY MORE with physics than a GPU does. So if you want your physics to scale, you use the GPU.
Modelworks
Lifer
- Feb 22, 2007
- 16,240
- 7
- 76
SunnyD
Belgian Waffler
Fine. Call it whatever you want. CUDA is your mother on drugs. Happy? In my line of work, CUDA is an API, the GPU is a GPU/Compute Engine. Otherwise you may as well call x86 a programming language. I know I don't program in "GPU".
Again, it's marketing, and I'll let you believe whatever marketing bullshit you want to. This thread has gone so far off the point it has become worthless, and I literally feel sorry for anyone trying to gain any useful knowledgeable information at this point in here.
NEWSFLASH TO ANYONE THAT HAS GOTTEN THIS FAR!!!
3/4 of what you've read in defense of anything Nvidia (and potentially AMD, I'll be honest and say I haven't paid much attention to what was said there) is regurgitated marketing bullshit. Leave know while you still can, and get your information from actual technical resources.
(Note, this applies to 90% of the threads ever created in the video subforum)
What's your point?
My point is that PhysX can run on CPU just like Havok. Some people still don't seem to understand that, and post nonsense that PhysX only runs on nVidia GPUs.
The GPU/PPU acceleration are purely optional features, which Havok doesn't have. In no way is that an advantage for Havok.
Modelworks
Lifer
- Feb 22, 2007
- 16,240
- 7
- 76
It is looking more and more likely that future consoles as well as many other devices are going to be MIPS based. Things like System on a Chip are becoming huge and have great advantages over the traditional cpu + memory + gpu arrangements.
Modelworks
Lifer
- Feb 22, 2007
- 16,240
- 7
- 76
But what has Physx changed for game play? If you want to take the, "Physx is more eye candy like everything else gamers buy video cards for." approach, that's fine. But the thing of it is that if you watch videos of games that use Physx vs. games that use CPU physics, as of right now I don't see any real difference. You can look at it as an 'extra eye candy' point of view, but then Physx has to at least ofer more/better eye candy than what you get with the CPU, and I just don't see it. Watching Crysis physics demos or HL2 physics demos, then watching the Cryostasis demo I don't see Physx as much if any improvment.
So it's supposed to be the most important innovation in quite some time, but it has not yet innovated.
It adds extra eye candy, yet as of now I don't think it's gone above and beyond the physics capable on a modern CPU in current games.
And if you are interested in it you automatically have to shun all GPU's that are not the current crop of Nvidia cards. Depending on the games you play and the price you plan to buy at this could mean much worse value. Not to mention, AMD does offer some features on their cards that you cannot get on Nivdia cards, so if those features are important to you you'd have to sacrifice them.
Again, in my opinion, right now Physx is not exciting and I would put zero weight into it in a graphics card purchasing decision if I was buying today.
*edit - Made some of my statements clearer.
Keysplayr
Elite Member
- Jan 16, 2003
- 21,219
- 56
- 91
I'm not calling it whatever I want. That is what it IS. Factually, really, without dispute, what it IS!
Are you nuts? My mother on drugs? Newsflash? You lost this argument dude. You had nothing to argue with. In fact you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to CUDA or anything related to it. You actually thought it was an API!!! even after it has been explained SEVERAL times in this very thread, so you must have your hands over your ears and crying La La La La.... because apparently you're not reading any of the posts. If you are you are just skimming very quickly. These must be your death throws for this argument.
And here we are, talking about CUDA and PhysX, yet you say this thread has gone so far off the point. Excuse me Sunny, what IS the title of this thread?
And your last ditch effort is to cry marketing. You my friend, You and you alone started any hint of animosity in this thread toward Scali, who seems to be a knowledgeable programmer. You then would not let up. Please stop embarrassing yourself and stop this nonsense. Throw in the towel dude. And don't smash your keyboard in frustration.
Modelworks
Lifer
- Feb 22, 2007
- 16,240
- 7
- 76
It really isn't exciting and it will not be till the hardware for it is everywhere.
I posted something in another thread that I do think will be great to have in more games. It was slow to start off, the company had lots of startup problems getting the product working easily for developers, but check out this:
http://www.naturalmotion.com/euphoria.htm
And it can be accelerated using the GPU, but really right now it runs so well a GPU is not needed.
Modelworks
Lifer
- Feb 22, 2007
- 16,240
- 7
- 76
That is your opinion, and when you become a developer or have worked on published titles, I'll value it.
Modelworks
Lifer
- Feb 22, 2007
- 16,240
- 7
- 76
It all depends on how complex the scene is and what hardware you are working with. For most titles with 1 or 2 characters on screen, even slow cpu can do that fine. I posted in another thread that I can do 8 characters on screen with their system and it only uses 12% on a single core of a 2.4Ghz cpu.
The only reason we don't see it in current games is because the developer friendly version has only been out about a year and it takes 2-3 years for a game to ship.
The biggest issue I have with something like Physx is that right now it is not a standard. So you have to ask yourself where is my time better spent ? On gameplay mechanics, scripting, animation, sound , that benefit anyone playing . Or on something hardware specific like PhysX that only some players can use ?
I compare PhysX with EAX for sound. EAX thought they would be THE thing, everyone would buy games just because they used it. But that failed because they made it a hardware requirement . PC gaming is different from every other form in that you can't make hardware requirements unless what you require is cheap and everyone is willing to buy it.
This is why there is no point in trying to discuss things with you. Not sure why I'm even bothering.
When I got my 4870 I was looking for the best value in the price range it happened to fall in. I was buying my next card with the idea of playing AoC on a 22" monitor. The benches I saw at the time put the 4870 ahead of the GTX280 in AoC. I believe Nvidia's driver improvements have made things more competitive in that game, but the current AMD architecture seems to still be best for this game.
As I pointed out (and you ignored) Physx does not currently impress me beyond what current CPU physics can do. I like graphics and physics as much as the next gamer. They don't make a game, but they certainly help. You could make the arguement that Physx is currently like AA, HDR, high res textures in that it's more eye candy, even if it's not revolutionary right now... except that it is not more impressive than current CPU physics from what I've seen of it. So if it's not more impressive in it's current state than the CPU physics I have now, then why would I hold it in the same light as any other feature that adds eye candy when I don't feel it adds eye candy over existing tech?
Wreckage, you are an Nvidia fan boy, you don't argue that and everyone knows it. If I was the AMD fan boy you claim me to be, than why am I not telling everyone how incredible DX10.1 and how you can't get that with Nvidia the way you tell everyone how great Physx is? Both are currently exclusive to their respective companies. Both are utilized by a handful of games. Neither changes the way we play games. I've always preferred AMD CPU's, but I've used both ATI/AMD and Nvidia GPU's and overall been very happy with them both and satisified with what I got for my money from both camps (of course I didn't spend $450 on a GTX260 192core, or I would certainly be less happy with the value of that Nvidia card).
Again, I've seen Physx first hand and it does not impress me. I would not factor it into my purchasing decision as I do not feel it even adds eye candy beyond what I can already get with CPU physics. Physx may be a different story in a year, but as of today it's marginal at best to me.
Euphoria is very exciting and offers more realistic AI to goi with enhanced Physic engines.
Starwar's Unleashed uses Havok, Euphoria. and DMM, only there's no PC version yet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uI3o-6peJ64
SirPauly
Diamond Member
- Apr 28, 2009
- 5,187
- 1
- 0
SlowSpyder,
Your point is fair and the poll offered from Anand clearly offers that many end-users find the feature marginal and many also feel that content isn't compelling yet but seem to be open-minded enough to change their views depending on content at least.
Personally don't see anything wrong with your view and it's yours and noone is going to take it away from you -- which is great actually!
Your point is fair and the poll offered from Anand clearly offers that many end-users find the feature marginal and many also feel that content isn't compelling yet but seem to be open-minded enough to change their views depending on content at least.
Personally don't see anything wrong with your view and it's yours and noone is going to take it away from you -- which is great actually!
SunnyD
Belgian Waffler
I value my MS Natural keyboards, they keep my wrists from hurting thanks.
The only embarrassing thing here is the misinformation being spread. But then again, I suppose that the assumption is the bulk of the people that visit the forum are like your typical Best Buy consumer and wouldn't know a video card from a blender, let alone what an API is.
I'm not going to try to argue what this thread is about any longer, there isn't any point. All hail CUDA, because it's the best thing since sliced bread. Baaaa.
Nothing, that was my point.
Well, then I think you're missing what physics are, really.
Crysis has only rigidbody and ragdoll physics.
PhysX adds fluid physics, softbodies and cloth, to name but a few things. They may not make the gameplay different, but they make the world appear more realistic and interact more like you'd expect real objects to interact.
I don't think an effect like cloth will EVER do anything for gameplay. I mean, what kind of gameplay could you possibly think up that would involve realistic movement of a piece of cloth? But on the other hand, cloth would make clothes appear much more realistic, rather than the current graphics where clothes are always 'skin-tight', because they don't interact with the movements of the character, let alone the rest of the world. If you ever wondered why female characters never wear dresses... the fact that a dress looks incredibly unrealistic without physics has a lot to do with that. Same thing for hair by the way. Characters rarely have long hair, because it just doesn't move realistically without physics.
Same thing with water... There may be some water in games, but apart from some superficial splashes and waves, the water is just not realistic. In Cryostasis, the water flows through a room in a realistic manner, forming drops and puddles and all that. Again, I can't think of many uses for such effects in actual gameplay... but it does add a great deal of realism.
Or then softbodies. Did it ever occur to you that everything in current games appears to be rock-hard? Even if something is destructible, it generally only means that you can break a rock-hard object up in a few pre-determined smaller rock-hard pieces.
In the real world we also have soft objects. This again probably won't ever do much for gameplay, but it does make the world more realistic.
Rigid-body physics and ragdolls are pretty much the only things that a CPU can do at reasonable speed. Detailed cloth, water or softbodies require a large number of points to be evaluated, which takes a lot of processing power, and you NEED some kind of accelerator to use such effects in realtime. PhysX allows you to add these effects to games for the first time, because there finally is enough processing power available. This is quite a big step in realism, although ofcourse the actual use in games hasn't quite matured yet. Game designers have only just begun exploring the new ways to add realism, and granted, they look a bit 'forced' in some cases. But eventually it will all come together, and we'll have more realistic, immersive and interactive games. To say that it is just 'eye-candy' isn't really doing it justice.
Well it clearly has, I hope you now have a slightly better idea of the different kinds of physics effects.
Wreckage
Banned
- Jul 1, 2005
- 5,529
- 0
- 0
Wow that did not sound arrogant at all.
Was I wrong in that it's mainly for ragdoll effects or does it render all forms of game physics like PhysX does? I'm just trying to see what's more exciting about it.
Huh, sounds just like PhysX. It can run on the CPU if less effects are needed as well.
Wreckage
Banned
- Jul 1, 2005
- 5,529
- 0
- 0
I have had and do have ATI GPUs and AMD CPUs. I'm very much impartial. At least as much as you claim to be. I just like high end gaming and next gen tech. Which PhysX clearly is. I like using things like AA/AF/HDR, some people don't and that's fine for them.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter