• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Nvidia PhysX

veri745

veri745

Golden Member
Has there been any news or anything interesting happening with Nvidia Physx?

I just took a look at the "Supported Games" page on the geforce website, and it looks like there are only 27 games on the list. Unreal Tournament III is the first one listed, and that came out in 2007.

http://www.geforce.com/hardware/technology/physx/games

Is that really the entirety of the list?

Also:
Is anything interesting happening with competing physics solutions, from AMD or anybody else?
 
Last edited:
Proprietary standards tend to fail in the PC world, minus Macbooks, of course.

Physics is advancing without PhysX, BF4 shows off some of it.
 
Since AMD won the console war, I am sure PhysX will go the way of the Dodo bird, but it does look good in Metro: LL
 
mode101wpb said:
Since AMD won the console war, I am sure PhysX will go the way of the Dodo bird, but it does look good in Metro: LL
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how consoles change PhysX. It'll just continue like it always has. Consoles and PC's will have a basic PhysX engine that runs on the CPU. A few games a year will get some special GPU accelerated PhysX tacked on to it.
 
Wow, ok.

Yeah, I remember being super exciting about the potential that PhysX, Cuda, OpenCL, and DirectCompute could have with improving physics in games.

There are still very few games I've seen that have impressive physics, though.

Kerbal Space Program is pretty neat, although I think it's almost entirely single-body simulations.

Osmos is also really cool, but I'm not sure what physics engine it uses or if there is GPU acceleration.
 
FalseChristian said:
It'll never catch on until AMD gets on board which they won't so it's a mute point.
Click to expand...

PhysX is used in tons of games. It is just you don't realize it most the time. The only times we really are aware is when they add on GPU accelerated PhysX. The GPU accelerated part is what doesn't get used much.
 
bystander36 said:
PhysX is used in tons of games. It is just you don't realize it most the time. The only times we really are aware is when they add on GPU accelerated PhysX. The GPU accelerated part is what doesn't get used much.
Click to expand...

Which games? Havok is better than PhysX. Propietary stuff always dies sooner or later. Maybe Nvidia ports it to OpenCL some day to not let it die... :sneaky:
 
bystander36 said:
PhysX is used in tons of games. It is just you don't realize it most the time. The only times we really are aware is when they add on GPU accelerated PhysX. The GPU accelerated part is what doesn't get used much.
Click to expand...

Exactly. PhysX probably has the widest adoption of any physics engine. Also the GPU accelerated version is being used more, not less; especially in AAA games.

There's really no competition for PhysX right now, as it's the most feature packed and flexible physics engine out there.
 
parvadomus said:
Which games? Havok is better than PhysX. Propietary stuff always dies sooner or later. Maybe Nvidia ports it to OpenCL some day to not let it die... :sneaky:
Click to expand...

http://physxinfo.com/index.php?p=gam&f=all

You obviously are not aware, but PhysX runs on the CPU the vast majority of the time. You seem to only be aware of GPU accelerated PhysX.

That shows 445 released games with PhysX, and 30 in production. 26 have GPU accelerated PhysX, with 10 more in production.
 
Last edited:
The new Batman looks fantastic with all the PhysX fluff, perhaps the best implementation I've seen. Possibly because those effects really suit the theme of a Batman game.

It's also very demanding of my lowly 760 in some areas, but i'm calling unoptimised.
 
Phynaz said:
The key number being the 26 that have GPU PhysX.

Pretty much makes it a flop.
Click to expand...

That makes GPU-PhysX a flop...or at least modestly used. The part that was interesting to me, at least, was there are 10 currently in development.

It does not make PhysX a flop, as it has been in over 400 games.
 
I could be wrong, but I think OP was referring to GPU-accelerated PhysX, not to games that merely use PhysX. Else we'd be talking about stuff like Havok too. If OP comes back, maybe he could shed some light.
 
To be fair, Havok's physics is more like CPU PhysX, at least in most cases. And CPU PhysX has been well multithreaded in more recent titles. In its early versions, it was suspected that dev's, by Nvidia request, did not turn on its multithreading abilities.
 
Pseudoics said:
The new Batman looks fantastic with all the PhysX fluff, perhaps the best implementation I've seen. Possibly because those effects really suit the theme of a Batman game.

It's also very demanding of my lowly 760 in some areas, but i'm calling unoptimised.
Click to expand...

Call it what you like, but plenty of people have stated the physx is a resource hog every time is used. Yeah it looks pretty, but at a price.
 
parvadomus said:
Its well multithreaded, and I have personally tested both, and also Bulletphysics.
Click to expand...

You couldn't have tested PhysX 3.x.. That had extensive SSEn and multithreading optimizations added to the SDK.

Only the older versions lack inherent multithreading, but the option is still available for devs that want to implement it.
 
bystander36 said:
http://physxinfo.com/index.php?p=gam&f=all

You obviously are not aware, but PhysX runs on the CPU the vast majority of the time. You seem to only be aware of GPU accelerated PhysX.

That shows 445 released games with PhysX, and 30 in production. 26 have GPU accelerated PhysX, with 10 more in production.
Click to expand...

I was not fully aware; thanks for the link. However, I am mostly interested in hardware acceleration (GPU/PPU). Does the software-only PhysX API provide mutli-threading capability? How much parallelism can you achieve without GPU acceleration using PhysX?

blastingcap said:
I could be wrong, but I think OP was referring to GPU-accelerated PhysX, not to games that merely use PhysX. Else we'd be talking about stuff like Havok too. If OP comes back, maybe he could shed some light.
Click to expand...

I am not too familar with Havok as an API. I would pose the same questions basically about it. How much parallelism can be achieved?

Overall, I am not too concerned about one API vs another. I just recall all the huge promises of physics acceleration using either the GPU or a highly-multithreaded CPU, and this was like 6-7 years ago.

Multi-body physics simulation, fluid dynamics, destructible / dynamic environments. There are still so few games that showcase any of these.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top