PhysX F.A.Q. Compilation of questions I am finding throughout the forum.

[Keysplayr]

"Havok--the company Intel acquired--was the first to introduce physics into games and bring out a physics library. Havok's physics has been run on the CPU in a time-scheduled way, Peddie said. "Because of that, there weren't many CPU resources to really do a great job on the physics," he said. "Nothing would really happen. What happened, at most, is that you would hit this thing (a window or a wall, for example), and it would apply a decal to indicate that there was some change in it. It's not very realistic." - Jon Peddie

I didn't realize that this was how Havok handles "physics".

This would explain why it runs ok on CPU's. Not much to do.

There is only so much the CPU can do. GPU's IMHO are much more "equipped" to handle severe physics crunching. But this is sort of evident of just about every CUDA application that has been introduced by devs using the SDK's. PhysX is no exception as we have seen a CPU trying to run through PhysX content. Chugga chugga. Stealing most of the CPU cycles that could definitely be used in better places. Time will tell, yes. There's not a lot of time left to wait. Mirrors Edge due out about now, Cryostasis out in Feb. Good Times.

 

[Qbah]

Did you do any testing with the IGP running as the PhysX card? I looked in your first post but there's no mentioning of it there (or I'm blind ).

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Qbah
Did you do any testing with the IGP running as the PhysX card? I looked in your first post but there's no mentioning of it there (or I'm blind ).

Yes I did! OP updated.

 

[instantcoffee]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
I didn't realize that this was how Havok handles "physics".
This would explain why it runs ok on CPU's. Not much to do.

WOW, under which stone has that guy been hiding the last years? :laugh:

Or, is it just like the part where Nvidia claimed DX10.1 didn't offer any benifits and when Assassins Creed came with DX10.1, people discovered that they got a 30% increase in framerate with AA. It was like getting a next generation GFX card for free. Nvidia really hurt gamers with their choice then seeing the results of DX10.1 optimizations.

Given that your knowledge about Havok is that their physics only makes decals to walls, I suggest you listen instead of arguing.

Here's a video interview about Havok showing physics in games already then giving more then decals:
http://tv.hexus.net/show/2007/01/Havok_s_Jeff_Yates/

Havok was going to go GPU rendering already in 2006 (before Intel bought the company). Here's a video from 2006 showing the GPU physics already then:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x0S0b_eG_M

After Intel took over, the project was put on ice for a while.

In june 2008, ATI/AMD signed an agreement with Havok about supporting their physics engine. They also said in the press release from June that Havok physics will be on Radeon cards late 2008 or early 2009. Last press release shows thats still the dates.

Autumn 2008 Havok came out with a new engine which will be adopted among others on Microsoft:
http://www.accountancyage.com/...8/microsoft-goes-havok

What is interesting about Havok, is that the engine doesn't use the same wrapper as Aegia physX did, so its expected that GPU physics will be enabled in existing Havok games upon release. This including titles like Fallout 3 and Farcry 2 among many other big titles.

ETA is, as stated, early 2009 for Radeon cards.

As stated, PhysX would probably die then. Its not ATI vs. Nvidia on this one, but Nvidia vs. a whole lot of giants.

Edit: From what I have read, Havok physics will get some extra instructions as well in the CPU optimizing it for everyone. Something that is for everyone rather then Nvidia's PhysX usually gets adopted and more widespread. Another reason why PhysX will die.

 

[Keysplayr]

Hmmmm.

You have 7 posts as of this moment. Mind you, it's not the quantity of your posts that send up warning flags, but what all 7 posts are about.
Post Cliff Notes: Two out of the 3 threads you posted in were started by FG members.
-------------
Post 1: Uses FG member as a way to reduce credibility
------------
Post 2: Belittles the significance of Derek Wilsons findings.
-------------
Post 3: Introduces Havok into a PhysX F.A.Q. thread after putting a PR spin on why ATI refused to help NGOHQ.
-------------
Post 4: Introduces a DX10.1 argument into a PhysX F.A.Q. thread and continues with the superiority of Havok
-------------
Post 5: PhysX is nothing. Useless. Havok is everything good and superior.
--------------
Post 6&7: Seems you are now making your way to the Nvidia 185.20 Ambient Occlusion drivers thread.
--------------

"Hi all!
Long time reader, first time poster. " <------ Our first warning. Thank you. Think about it. There isn't any real reason to announce how long you've been reading/lurking unless you
are concerned about how your first post would be received, especially it's context or motivations.

All this aside, I appreciate your arguments. But would you mind starting another thread with your stance on Havok vs. PhysX, Nvidia Drivers, and so on and so forth? This is basically a PhysX F.A.Q.
I'm not really thrilled about it becoming a PhysX vs. Havok war zone. A dedicated thread for this would be great.

Much appreciated.

Oh, and welcome to AT forums (belated I know)

Keys

 

[BFG10K]

Instantcoffee, this thread is a PhysX FAQ and as such should only contain content about PhysX.

If you want to discuss the merits of PhysX vs Havok feel to use existing threads like this one:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2261000&enterthread=y

Or alternatively, feel free to start up a PhysX vs Havok thread if you please.

Thank you.

Video Mod BFG10K.

 

[Martimus]

Keys,

Since I didn't see it in the FAQ, and the thread is so long that I didn't read through the whole thing to see if this question was answered, I have a question:

Can you use a nVidia card to do the PhysX, and an ATI card to render the graphics on a game? If not is there a plan to allow this in the future? (Similar to how you can use an ATI card as yout video card, and an AGIEA card to calculate PhysX.)

-Marty

 

[Keysplayr]

Your using XP, so you have a chance. No guarantees as to how nice ATI and Nvidia drivers play with each other. Vista users are out of luck as of right now. I don't know if Microsoft has any plans to change this limitation in Vista, but I do doubt it.

 

[Martimus]

It may be possible that nVidia could make drivers that would make the video card appear to be a PhysX card, and then both would be allowed. Whether this is in their best interest or not is up for debate.

They may want better penetration for PhysX, and also a way to sell additional product by writing drivers for this purpose. Or they may want to try to force purchases of nVidia cards and at the same time harm AMD market share by not making this possible. Both seem to be solid business plans, so I was asking to see if you had any idea which they are planning to do.

 

[Keysplayr]

GPU's are very different from PPU's. I don't think any other driver could be installed without utilizing the full display adapter to get full functionality. Anything is possible, but I do not know Nvidia's business plans. Nor do they comment, even to me, about unannounced products, or products far ahead in progress.. Hardware or software.

 

[yusux]

The latest nVidia physx drivers with 180.43 gives me instant crash to desktop after 3 mins of play in UT3 maps and Graw2 ageia island, now I'm forced to use the older physx drivers from 177.39, and 180.70 drivers are giving me weird sudden chokes and stuttering..

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: yusux
The latest nVidia physx drivers with 180.43 gives me instant crash to desktop after 3 mins of play in UT3 maps and Graw2 ageia island, now I'm forced to use the older physx drivers from 177.39, and 180.70 drivers are giving me weird sudden chokes and stuttering..

Put your system back to stock clocks to check for stability.

 

[SunnyD]

Any word on when PhysX will be enabled in Win7?

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: SunnyD
Any word on when PhysX will be enabled in Win7?

Why just PhysX? How about the GPU itself? Drivers? I have no idea nor did I have any clue that Windows 7 was released. Now if you're talking about the beta, I'd ask you why you were talking about the beta. Are you?

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: SunnyD
Any word on when PhysX will be enabled in Win7?

Why just PhysX? How about the GPU itself? Drivers? I have no idea nor did I have any clue that Windows 7 was released. Now if you're talking about the beta, I'd ask you why you were talking about the beta. Are you?

Seriously? You know just as well as I do that it's beta - why wouldn't I be talking about the beta? Nvidia already has drivers available for Win7, WDDM 1.1 drivers (assumedly beta drivers) which are distributed by Microsoft Update - complete with the nvidia control panel. Just no PhysX support.

 

[AKA]

Um, first FAQ should be "What is PhysX?"

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: SunnyD
Any word on when PhysX will be enabled in Win7?

Why just PhysX? How about the GPU itself? Drivers? I have no idea nor did I have any clue that Windows 7 was released. Now if you're talking about the beta, I'd ask you why you were talking about the beta. Are you?

Seriously? You know just as well as I do that it's beta - why wouldn't I be talking about the beta? Nvidia already has drivers available for Win7, WDDM 1.1 drivers (assumedly beta drivers) which are distributed by Microsoft Update - complete with the nvidia control panel. Just no PhysX support.

No, not seriously.

It may take a while for completed drivers. I don't know how much different Windows 7 is from Vista. I am typing this from a Windows 7 beta machine. From what I can see, it isn't much different from Vista (so far). And it is a bit quirky, so give both MS and NV some time to get it right. I would imagine that NV will have completed drivers for Windows 7 by launch time though. This is not like the jump from XP to Vista. more like W2K to XP.

 

[Qbah]

There's a Win7 thread (quite a few actually ) in the OS section. where a person managed to install the newest betas without any issues and PhysX ran fine. Said there weren't any issues installing it, just download and run. Maybe give that a go?

And I'm pretty sure nVidia won't come up with any standalone drivers for Win7, seeing how bad their history was with Vista drivers (all those crashes). They probably don't want to risk it now, both for marketing reasons and to just be on the safe side.

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: SunnyD
Any word on when PhysX will be enabled in Win7?

Why just PhysX? How about the GPU itself? Drivers? I have no idea nor did I have any clue that Windows 7 was released. Now if you're talking about the beta, I'd ask you why you were talking about the beta. Are you?

Seriously? You know just as well as I do that it's beta - why wouldn't I be talking about the beta? Nvidia already has drivers available for Win7, WDDM 1.1 drivers (assumedly beta drivers) which are distributed by Microsoft Update - complete with the nvidia control panel. Just no PhysX support.

No, not seriously.

It may take a while for completed drivers. I don't know how much different Windows 7 is from Vista. I am typing this from a Windows 7 beta machine. From what I can see, it isn't much different from Vista (so far). And it is a bit quirky, so give both MS and NV some time to get it right. I would imagine that NV will have completed drivers for Windows 7 by launch time though. This is not like the jump from XP to Vista. more like W2K to XP.

I know this, and while WDDM 1.1 has changed slightly, it is still 100% compatible with WDDM 1.0, so I am surprised that PhysX isn't included.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: SunnyD
Any word on when PhysX will be enabled in Win7?

Why just PhysX? How about the GPU itself? Drivers? I have no idea nor did I have any clue that Windows 7 was released. Now if you're talking about the beta, I'd ask you why you were talking about the beta. Are you?

Seriously? You know just as well as I do that it's beta - why wouldn't I be talking about the beta? Nvidia already has drivers available for Win7, WDDM 1.1 drivers (assumedly beta drivers) which are distributed by Microsoft Update - complete with the nvidia control panel. Just no PhysX support.

No, not seriously.

It may take a while for completed drivers. I don't know how much different Windows 7 is from Vista. I am typing this from a Windows 7 beta machine. From what I can see, it isn't much different from Vista (so far). And it is a bit quirky, so give both MS and NV some time to get it right. I would imagine that NV will have completed drivers for Windows 7 by launch time though. This is not like the jump from XP to Vista. more like W2K to XP.

I know this, and while WDDM 1.1 has changed slightly, it is still 100% compatible with WDDM 1.0, so I am surprised that PhysX isn't included.

If it's 100% compatable, then you should be able to use the latest Vista Drivers for Windows 7. If you can't, then it's not 100% compatable.

 

[instantcoffee]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Instantcoffee, this thread is a PhysX FAQ and as such should only contain content about PhysX.

If you want to discuss the merits of PhysX vs Havok feel to use existing threads like this one:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2261000&enterthread=y

Or alternatively, feel free to start up a PhysX vs Havok thread if you please.

Thank you.

Video Mod BFG10K.

I made a thread answering instead.
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2268144&enterthread=y

If I make a good Havok physics FAQ, any chance of it being stickied then?

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
If it's 100% compatable, then you should be able to use the latest Vista Drivers for Windows 7. If you can't, then it's not 100% compatable.

From what I've been informed, WDDM 1.1 is an extension of WDDM 1.0 which is supposed to support some sort of stability enhancements, but is supposed to be 100% backward compatible. Microsoft has said they weren't changing the driver architecture for Win7.

With that said, I know I *should* be able to install the Vista drivers, but I don't *want* to as of yet. (It'd be nice to see what exactly WDDM 1.1 does for the OS first)

 

[zagood]

Finally found some good benchmarks with different GPUs as dedicated physx cards - note difference between 8600GT and 8400GS...so no uber-cheap dedicated card

http://www.pcgameshardware.com...nchmark_review/?page=2

-z

 

[Qbah]

Holy... The GTX260 tanks horribly with a 8400GS as the PhysX card (I'm quessing every other component is waiting for the 8400GS to finish the PhysX calculations). Seems at least for this game you'd need a 9600GT to see any difference.

I guess that answered my previous IGP question pretty good

 

[zagood]

Another interesting benchmark article by the same guys - this time comparing an actual PhysX card. In an nV system, PhysX card scores better than 9600GT, worse than 9800GTX+. Decent score paired with a 4870.

http://www.pcgameshardware.com...ative_to_Nvidia_Physx/