Keys,
I'd be interested if you could find out if:
1) There's any plans to change existing titles using the cpu/software back-end solver for PhysX to use the gpu instead.
2) if doing so would improve performance any. This could be two-fold, by decreasing the load from the CPU in intensive/bottlenecked titles or actually accelerating existing effects.
3) if there's any plans to implement additional hardware PhysX features in existing titles that currently use software/CPU PhysX. I know its not likely as most Dev houses don't even have funds to publish a patch, much less a PhysX pack, but it doesn't seem like it would be too difficult if they're already using the PhysX SDK.
Thanks!
I'd be interested if you could find out if:
1) There's any plans to change existing titles using the cpu/software back-end solver for PhysX to use the gpu instead.
2) if doing so would improve performance any. This could be two-fold, by decreasing the load from the CPU in intensive/bottlenecked titles or actually accelerating existing effects.
3) if there's any plans to implement additional hardware PhysX features in existing titles that currently use software/CPU PhysX. I know its not likely as most Dev houses don't even have funds to publish a patch, much less a PhysX pack, but it doesn't seem like it would be too difficult if they're already using the PhysX SDK.
Thanks!
taltamir
Lifer
- Mar 21, 2004
- 13,576
- 6
- 76
A: Nvidia is currently helping Eran Badit of NGOHQ.com with a porting effort to allow PhysX to run on ATI cards. How successful they will be without AMD's blessing is unknown.
Here are some links.
I am pretty sure that I read that both nvidia and AMD are giving direct engineer and spec support to eran. So AFAIK AMD is also in that boat (physX was originally targetted at AMD, but now it seems larabee is the real threat to both).
Here are some links.
I am pretty sure that I read that both nvidia and AMD are giving direct engineer and spec support to eran. So AFAIK AMD is also in that boat (physX was originally targetted at AMD, but now it seems larabee is the real threat to both).
- Jan 16, 2003
- 21,219
- 55
- 91
If you read it a the inquirer........ 
. Otherwise, if you can find/remember where you read that, I can update the 1st post.
Everywhere I have seen on the web says AMD isn't cooperating with Eran. You can just google "Physx on ATI" or Physx on AMD".
But let us know if you find it.
. Otherwise, if you can find/remember where you read that, I can update the 1st post. Everywhere I have seen on the web says AMD isn't cooperating with Eran. You can just google "Physx on ATI" or Physx on AMD".
But let us know if you find it.
Blazer7
Golden Member
- Jun 26, 2007
- 1,136
- 12
- 81
No they are not cooperating and you don't need to search the net for info on this. Just visit NGOHQ.com.
http://www.ngohq.com/news/1421...-radeon-hd-3850-a.html
http://www.ngohq.com/news/1421...-radeon-hd-3850-a.html
I'm a bit overwhelmed by it all, but here's my question:
If ATI does get on board with PhysX, will it be possible for them to implement hardware support into their existing cards, or would it only be possible in future cards which has been originally designed with PhysX in mind?
For example is it POSSIBLE that the HD4850 could gain hardware support for PhysX?
If ATI does get on board with PhysX, will it be possible for them to implement hardware support into their existing cards, or would it only be possible in future cards which has been originally designed with PhysX in mind?
For example is it POSSIBLE that the HD4850 could gain hardware support for PhysX?
- Jan 16, 2003
- 21,219
- 55
- 91
Yes, well I wouldn't call it progress anyway. The IGP, when enabled, slowed performance down a bit even without using it for PhysX. There was some extra disk thrashing when the IGP was enabled due to it using 256 MB of my total of 2GB in a Vista rig. Vista is such a resource monster. So before I can have any conclusive benches, I need to add another 2GB to the system.
Update: Ok, I have another 2GB DDR2 I can borrow from another machine for a while. I'll keep you updated when I run the tests again.
Update: Ok, I have another 2GB DDR2 I can borrow from another machine for a while. I'll keep you updated when I run the tests again.
- Jan 16, 2003
- 21,219
- 55
- 91
Ok guys, some interesting developments (to some I guess).
System:
AMD Phenom X4 9550 2.2GHz
ASUS M3N-HT Deluxe 780a motherboard
2GB DDR2
9800GTX+
Windows Vista 32
Forceware 177.83
I've tested this system 2 ways. Once with 2GB DDR2, and again with 4GB DDR2.
Here is what I have encountered:
9800GTX+ Render + PhysX 4GB DDR2. IGP enabled (256MB DDR2 system memory used)
Min: 37, Max: 58, Avg: 46.284
9800GTX Render & 780a PhysX 4GB DDR2. IGP enabled (256MB DDR2 system memory used)
Min: 25, Max: 39, Avg: 31.737
--------------------------------------------
9800GTX+ Render + PhysX 2GB DDR2. IGP enabled (256MB DDR2 system memory used)
Min: 21, Max 46, Avg: 31.568
9800GTX+ Render & 780a PhysX 2GB DDR2. IGP enabled (256MB DDR2 system memory used)
Min: 0, Max: 32, Avg: 23.685
The benchmarks show two things.
1. The 780a IGP which GPUz shows as having 16 shaders and 4 ROP's slows down performance rather than just letting the 9800GTX+ handle everything on it's own.
This "could" be attributed to the IGP utilizing slower system memory, but would require a
discrete 16 shader card to prove/disprove. I havn't any at this time.
2. As anybody can tell you, Windows Vista is not 2GB friendly. Using Vista 32, I was only able to utilize about 3GB out of 4GB of installed system memory, with 256MB dedicated to the IGP. But far superior to the compared 1.7GB I was able to use with only 2GB DDR2 installed with the same 256MB dedicated to the IGP.
Just look at the difference in the benchmarks from 2 to 4 GB. Minimum fps on the 9800GTX+ Rendering & running PhysX almost doubled. 21 to 37. Amazed here. Disk thrashing obviously plays a huge role here. I noticed a quieter hard drive when benching with 4GB of course.
System:
AMD Phenom X4 9550 2.2GHz
ASUS M3N-HT Deluxe 780a motherboard
2GB DDR2
9800GTX+
Windows Vista 32
Forceware 177.83
I've tested this system 2 ways. Once with 2GB DDR2, and again with 4GB DDR2.
Here is what I have encountered:
9800GTX+ Render + PhysX 4GB DDR2. IGP enabled (256MB DDR2 system memory used)
Min: 37, Max: 58, Avg: 46.284
9800GTX Render & 780a PhysX 4GB DDR2. IGP enabled (256MB DDR2 system memory used)
Min: 25, Max: 39, Avg: 31.737
--------------------------------------------
9800GTX+ Render + PhysX 2GB DDR2. IGP enabled (256MB DDR2 system memory used)
Min: 21, Max 46, Avg: 31.568
9800GTX+ Render & 780a PhysX 2GB DDR2. IGP enabled (256MB DDR2 system memory used)
Min: 0, Max: 32, Avg: 23.685
The benchmarks show two things.
1. The 780a IGP which GPUz shows as having 16 shaders and 4 ROP's slows down performance rather than just letting the 9800GTX+ handle everything on it's own.
This "could" be attributed to the IGP utilizing slower system memory, but would require a
discrete 16 shader card to prove/disprove. I havn't any at this time.
2. As anybody can tell you, Windows Vista is not 2GB friendly. Using Vista 32, I was only able to utilize about 3GB out of 4GB of installed system memory, with 256MB dedicated to the IGP. But far superior to the compared 1.7GB I was able to use with only 2GB DDR2 installed with the same 256MB dedicated to the IGP.
Just look at the difference in the benchmarks from 2 to 4 GB. Minimum fps on the 9800GTX+ Rendering & running PhysX almost doubled. 21 to 37. Amazed here. Disk thrashing obviously plays a huge role here. I noticed a quieter hard drive when benching with 4GB of course.
ty Keys for the info..
I suppose that rules out free physx on IGP... How about a low end card such as 8600/8500/8400?
TYI
I suppose that rules out free physx on IGP... How about a low end card such as 8600/8500/8400?
TYI
- Jan 16, 2003
- 21,219
- 55
- 91
I did try an 8600GT for PhysX. All in all, minimum framerates were increased 25 to 30%.
I have benches on it in the Dedicated PhysX thread somewhere around here. I'll pull those numbers from that thread and place them here. We don't have to resurrect that thread now.
Nemesis 1
Lifer
- Dec 30, 2006
- 11,366
- 2
- 0
wow... that definately worth the ~$30-50 for a 8600GT...
very nice video of Physx at work. better than the ones i've seen b4.
2nd video is nice too... in another way ;D
Has anyone tried using an ATI card for the primary GPU and a Nvidia card for the PhysX? Does that work if you use the workaround or under XP?
There is no workaround for Vista, it's a WDDM driver limitation. XP shouldn't have an issue mixing GPU vendors.
Guys if ever Ati got PhysX will Ati give it to its existing 4800 series owners. i mean that is PhysX can be include as a software update or a driver update by ati later or it is a hardware thing.
Has anyone tested a decent ati card with a decent nv card for physx under XP yet? I was going to do some UT3 benches with an 3870/8800gt but surely someone has already done it? If not I'll do it..
Sylvanas
Diamond Member
- Jan 20, 2004
- 3,752
- 0
- 0
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: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter