Nvidias new PhysX drivers

[amenx]

Originally posted by: darkswordsman17

Originally posted by: amenx

Originally posted by: schneiderguy
Has anyone actually tested a real game yet? I'm curious to see how much performance hit there is (if any)

Only subjective impressions. GRAW2 seems faster and smoother, fps in the 60s and 70s (settings fully maxed out). Never benched it before, so dont have a reference to compare to.

And you're certain the PhysX part is being implemented?

I would assume the reason they didn't make a point for reviewers to test out the PhysX stuff (did AT's article even mention CUDA or physics as I didn't notice it anywhere in there but I skimmed through some parts) is that by applying physics processing to the card then the graphical performance would decrease, as its not like it'd be utilizing some extra part of the GPU that shouldn't already being used. That coupled with the fact that there's barely any games that utilize it, let alone in a worthwhile manner (that actually adds to the game), they would be worried about it being a big negative mark in reviews.

Well if Futuremark Vantage is anything to go by, it upped my score considerably, even the separate GPU score (posted earlier), so doesnt seem that the GPU performance has been hit. Whether these sort of results would reflect RL performance in Physx enabled games I have no idea.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Aberforth
PhysX is hardware limited where as Havok works regardless of what platform you are on (windows, linux, ps2, ps3, 360, Wii, GameCube) and it's free to use and also saves loads of time & money for the developers.

Havok is hardware limited as well, currently its tied to the CPU which both AT and NV will argue is much slower at crunching numbers than their GPGPUs.

Personally I don't like CUDA PhysX being used as a selling point right now because its simply not implemented in many games. There are definitely some nice possibilities though given some of the FLOPs and GPGPU results popping up along with GPU prowess in number crunching applications like Folding.

NV will undoubtedly push and help Devs implement PhysX support. I think there may be a pretty significant benefit from it too judging from some of the last tests AT did of hardware PhysX. It could end up being a pretty big deal as it looks to be better performance with better effects.

 

[aka1nas]

Originally posted by: Aberforth
PhysX is hardware limited where as Havok works regardless of what platform you are on (windows, linux, ps2, ps3, 360, Wii, GameCube) and it's free to use and also saves loads of time & money for the developers.

That is completely false. The PhysX API runs just fine in software mode(and is already multithreaded), is supported on consoles as well as PCs, and is also free to develop with. Havok was the API that developers had to pay to use, though this may have changed now that Intel has acquired them.

Mass Effect even uses PhysX, btw.

 

[Aberforth]

Even DirectX 10 can be software emulated, that doesn't mean it will be. PhysX requires it's API enabled processor where as havok doesn't. It can be twisted and modified the way the developer wants it. Havok is independent and doesn't force developers to use it. With NV the developers have limited choice.

 

[aka1nas]

Originally posted by: Aberforth
Even DirectX 10 can be software emulated, that doesn't mean it will be. PhysX requires it's API enabled processor where as havok doesn't.

That isn't accurate. PhysX has a software mode just like Havok does. There's no "emulation" taking place. How do you think consoles run PhysX?

Games like UT3 and GRAW2 that support PhysX are always using the API, regardless of whether you have a PPU or not.

 

[Aberforth]

Originally posted by: aka1nas

Originally posted by: Aberforth
Even DirectX 10 can be software emulated, that doesn't mean it will be. PhysX requires it's API enabled processor where as havok doesn't.

That isn't accurate. PhysX has a software mode just like Havok does. There's no "emulation" taking place. How do you think consoles run PhysX?

Games like UT3 and GRAW2 that support PhysX are always using the API, regardless of whether you have a PPU or not.

Software emulation of phyx is not acceptable, PhysX is primarily designed for a PPU not meant to run independently. Sony has license to use PhysX in it's PS3 console and with NV it requires Cuda enabled gpu.

 

[aka1nas]

Originally posted by: Aberforth

Software emulation of phyx is not acceptable, PhysX is primarily designed for a PPU not meant to run independently. Sony has license to use PhysX in it's PS3 console and with NV it requires Cuda enabled gpu.

Running PhysX in software is no more or less acceptable than doing the same with Havok.

Nv PhysX still supports PPU and CPU simulation. PhysX is also used on the Wii and Xbox 360.

PhysX is primarily designed for a PPU not meant to run independently.

Have any facts to actually back that up with?

 

[Aberforth]

Originally posted by: aka1nas

Originally posted by: Aberforth

Software emulation of phyx is not acceptable, PhysX is primarily designed for a PPU not meant to run independently. Sony has license to use PhysX in it's PS3 console and with NV it requires Cuda enabled gpu.

Running PhysX in software is no more or less acceptable than doing the same with Havok.

Nv PhysX still supports PPU and CPU simulation. PhysX is also used on the Wii and Xbox 360.

PhysX is primarily designed for a PPU not meant to run independently.

Have any facts to actually back that up with?

Facts? this is such a stupid question. If PhysX doesn't require a PPU you would have played all physX games (like splinter cell double agent etc) without a PhysX card. But Havok has been implemented in many games (oblivion) *without you* being aware of it.

 

[aka1nas]

PhysX has likewise been implemented in many games. You don't need a PPU to run any of these games. With a few exceptions, all of these games are using PhysX in software mode if you don't have a PPU installed.

 

[Aberforth]

:roll: are you going in circles or what? Didn't I say even DirectX 10 can be software emulated??? didn't I say software emulated PhysX is unacceptabe???

jeez, numbers is what people care about these days -whether it's post count or FPS :light:

 

[aka1nas]

Originally posted by: Aberforth
:roll: are you going in circles or what? Didn't I say even DirectX 10 can be software emulated??? didn't I say software emulated PhysX is unacceptabe???

jeez, numbers is what people care about these days -whether it's post count or FPS :light:

:roll:
Except that software PhysX isn't "unacceptable", otherwise you wouldn't be able to play Mass Effect or UT3 or a slew of other games that run just fine with PhysX w/o a PPU. You're pulling assertions out of your ass because you evidently don't like the API.

 

[ViRGE]

As the final word? (since this is my specialty):

PhysX started out its life as Novodex, a software-only physics API very much like Havok. PPU support was later added to it and the general physics abilities expanded, and this is what became PhysX. PhysX is an equally capable software and hardware physics system, there's no absolute penalty for running it in software besides the fact that CPU physics is slower than GPU/PPU physics due to the difference in FP computing power. There's nothing to emulate, there's a software path and a hardware path, developers can choose to take either one*.

The only real reason that you don't see PhysX used as much as Havok is largely because of developer support and the other tools Havok offers. Havok has great developer support and also has animation and AI behavioral tools that developers like to use at the same time. Havok has also done a better job of positioning themselves in the market, and has been a big player since very early in to this decade.

* I should probably note that not every last physics calculation is done in hardware. There are certain calculations regardless that are run on the CPU because it's faster than sending it to a PPU/GPU. All of the computationally intensive calculations however are sent to the GPU/PPU when such support is enabled