WelshBloke
Lifer
- Jan 12, 2005
- 33,324
- 11,476
- 136
Mirror's Edge is doubled in "Current and upcoming games list" - Mirrors Edge and DICE's "Mirror's Edge"
you can also add Crazy Machines 2+, since it has GPU PhysX SPH-water, and remove Cellfactor, since it cannot be accelerated on GPU
-----
Q: How many games are compatible with GPU PhysX? Which ones are they?
A: ..GRAW2 (Ageia Island level)..
Additional GPU/PPU PhysX effects are available in Singleplayer/Multiplayer too.. and they are looking way better and seamless than in Ageia Island map
you can also add Crazy Machines 2+, since it has GPU PhysX SPH-water, and remove Cellfactor, since it cannot be accelerated on GPU
-----
Q: How many games are compatible with GPU PhysX? Which ones are they?
A: ..GRAW2 (Ageia Island level)..
Additional GPU/PPU PhysX effects are available in Singleplayer/Multiplayer too.. and they are looking way better and seamless than in Ageia Island map
1. Cellfactor is PhysX SDK 2.6 (Revolution) or 2.4.8 (Combat Training) based, and GPU PhysX is available for SDK 2.7.2 and higher
2. Cellfactor contain many physical objects not accessible for GPU acceleraton currently (rigid bodies, joints, ragdolls)
nobodyknows
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2008
- 5,474
- 0
- 0
So here's a question, will a regular ageia physx card work in a crossfire mobo with an ATI card?
nobodyknows
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2008
- 5,474
- 0
- 0
zerocool84
Lifer
- Nov 11, 2004
- 36,041
- 472
- 126
- Jan 16, 2003
- 21,219
- 55
- 91
PhysX PPU isn't as powerful as running PhysX on a GPU. There were some GPU vs. PPU benchmarks a while back. I'll see if I can find them, then I'll post this Q and A in the OP.
Here it is. Firing Squad was one of the testers.
PhysX performance: GPU vs. PPU vs. CPU
zerocool84
Lifer
- Nov 11, 2004
- 36,041
- 472
- 126
You would think that offloading it to a whole different card would help even more. Maybe it's a driver issue. That just seems weird to me.
schneiderguy
Lifer
- Jun 26, 2006
- 10,801
- 91
- 91
zerocool84
Lifer
- Nov 11, 2004
- 36,041
- 472
- 126
- Jan 16, 2003
- 21,219
- 55
- 91
Ummm. ATI gave zero help when it was asked for. Nvidia sent SDK's to NGOHQ when help was asked for. ATI's decision not to help has been pretty consistent with their position on PhysX.
What is it here that you actually wish to dispute? If ATI had helped NGOHQ, I'm sure we would have seen results of said efforts, whether it was successful or not. I don't think this has anything to do with whether or not NGOHQ got hardware from ATI or not. I don't even know the context of the conversation you took that snippit from anyway. Anyhow, this is much more a software thing than a hardware thing. The hardware could have been picked up at any retail store. The software "Know How" is another story. So, it remains in the FAQ until valid data emerges to dispute it. Sorry Schneiderguy. If you find any, please provide it and if warranted, the FAQ will be updated.
Keys
schneiderguy
Lifer
- Jun 26, 2006
- 10,801
- 91
- 91
That's the story NGOHQ told. ATI nor Nvidia ever said anything about it. For all we know what NGOHQ was doing was completely made up and they never even contacted ATI or nvidia for help. NGOHQ isn't exactly on my list of "respectable" hardware sites.
All im saying is that without an official statement from either company regarding the issue you shouldn't have a big bold claim in your FAQ that may or may not be true. The rest of it is good though, just that one part shouldn't be there IMO.
- Jan 16, 2003
- 21,219
- 55
- 91
I can say that Nvidia did in fact send the SDK's, schneiderguy. So that much of it is indeed true. Why can't the rest of it? Why come out and say the story is made up? It's entirely unfounded. I have no idea "why" you think it would be a made up story. To what end?
At any rate, the general buzz across the entire internet at the time all this went down was, ATI refused to help NGOHQ. So, I'll go with that until it's proven otherwise. I know the NV side, but I can't speak for the ATI side. And as I said, ATI's current stance on PhysX would be very consistent with them not offering their assistance to get PhysX to run on their hardware. I'm inclined to agree that they offered no help when asked. It makes sense.
Absolutely nobody from the ATI camp (I'm talking actual ATI employees) have denied, or even commented on this subject. If it wasn't true, I do believe there would be official statements to crush the FUD. BUT, if you come across an official denial somewhere, by all means post it here so I can remove the bolded text. And by the way, it's only in bold so readers would take NOTE: and know that the following information may have changed in some way according to said NOTE:
there just aren't any blockbusterin' titles that support this, and y isn't here any physx vctf ut maps?
I think you are right on this one.
If they have gotten the SDK from Nvidia, they have undoubtably asked ATI for assistance as well. ATI have made their POW clear regarding physx:
link
Why would they say yes to, from their point of view, artifically keep alive something that will die off? By giving their assistance, they would do just that.
In addition, their last statement about physics is that it will come on ATI Radeon cards possibly by early 2009 (in link above).
This is through Havok, which currently is more widespread then PhysX and is also supported by Intel, AMD and ATI. ATI wants an open standard, so why should they support the competitor PhysX/Nvidia's creating two standards, one open and one proprietary?
Currently, PhysX offers nothing I cannot run by software on my 4870X2. There are a tech demo of Cryostasis which looks good and PhysX really shines on. But, given the demands that game probably have when finished, I would probably have to sacrifice the whole PhysX if I had it in order to maintain decent framerate and the rest of the eyecandy. If the game wouldn't have high demands, I could run it software anyway (Like UT3 physX maps which runs great on the 4870X2 by software...).
I'm with ATI on this one. PhysX is probably going to die fighting mighty Intel with its Havok and major support.
And I'm with you in this discussion: I have no doubt that ATI said no to the request for help on PhysX given the above.
- Jan 16, 2003
- 21,219
- 55
- 91
EA and Take Two Adopt Nvidia PhysX
2K games and EA Sign up for PhysX
THQ signs on for PhysX
Capcom and GRIN
It seems that some big devs think that AMD might be wrong. Time will tell, eh?
2K games and EA Sign up for PhysX
THQ signs on for PhysX
Capcom and GRIN
It seems that some big devs think that AMD might be wrong. Time will tell, eh?
I agree. Time will tell. Meanwhile, I think you fail to reveal the whole picture. We can both agree that PhysX support as of this moment is pretty much worth nothing in current titles. What it will mean in upcoming titles, time will show. Those you list have already signed up for Havok as well and will use that in upcoming titles. Titles where most are ported from consoles without any PhysX GPU support to begin with. This means it won't be crucial to gameplay with hardware PhysX support as the titles then would fail on consoles.
PhysX is being hyped up in this thread and some other places to be larger then it is. I think you will agree with me on that one too, if to look objective upon it.
Lets look a bit at the competing Havok:
microsoft-unleashes-havok
Here's another one from 2K games:
2k-signs-havok-for-new-wii-titles
List can go on, but I have illustrated my point well enough I think. Signed licence agreements doesn't make it manditory to use a particular physx engine.
Havok is larger and more adopted, without any doubt. It also have MAJOR backup from giants like Intel, AMD, ATI, Microsoft etc.
Coupled with this:
I don't think PhysX stands a chance. Honestly. But, as we agree upon: time will tell!
Time will tell. Meanwhile, I think you fail to reveal the whole picture. We can both agree that PhysX support as of this moment is pretty much worth nothing in current titles. What it will mean in upcoming titles, time will show. Those you list have already signed up for Havok as well and will use that in upcoming titles. Titles where most are ported from consoles without any PhysX GPU support to begin with. This means it won't be crucial to gameplay with hardware PhysX support as the titles then would fail on consoles. PhysX is being hyped up in this thread and some other places to be larger then it is. I think you will agree with me on that one too, if to look objective upon it.
Lets look a bit at the competing Havok:
http://hothardware.com/cs/forums/p/38983/307507.aspx
microsoft-unleashes-havok
Here's another one from 2K games:
2k-signs-havok-for-new-wii-titles
List can go on, but I have illustrated my point well enough I think. Signed licence agreements doesn't make it manditory to use a particular physx engine.
Havok is larger and more adopted, without any doubt. It also have MAJOR backup from giants like Intel, AMD, ATI, Microsoft etc.
Coupled with this:
link
I don't think PhysX stands a chance. Honestly. But, as we agree upon: time will tell!
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