The physics "claims" thread...

[Genx87]

People talk about how AMD GPU PhysX has been all talk and no action.
Well PhysX on the GPU has been about the same.

"Oh well this is just a starting point"
"Well making it look prettier is good too because it's like AA/AF/tessellation"
"Give it time"
"It runs on everything"

PhysX hasn't done yet what the original PPU creators hoped it would, and it hasn't done anything deeply meaningful, and despite being present in a LOT of games, it's hardly been used in its GPU accelerated form for ANYTHING, let alone anything meaningful.

Just like AMD with the whole idea of GPU accelerated physics being all talk, PhysX is pretty much all talk.

You can say "these are the 'facts'" and make a thread about it, but at the end of the day the result is still the same, non-CPU PhysX has been around for 4 years and got nowhere, still.

Uh what Nvidia and AMD are doing with GPU Physics are not the same. Because there are only a handful of games that will utilize PhysX on an Nvidia GPU doesnt mean they have done nothing. AMD has literally done nothing. Bullet wouldnt even work on their 5000 series using OpenCL last year, while it ran fine on Nvidia hardware.

 

[SirPauly]

Give it more time!

Imho,

Sure, wouldn't you like to see PhysX evolve and mature?

Personally desire to see Havok offer a GPU component like they did with HavokFX, and see this evolve and mature.

Like to see content from Bullet as it matures and evolves

Like to see more content take advantage of multi-core CPU's as well.

Together, all of them, will help create more Physic awareness, so hopefully open standards may be forged, so tools will be improved and for developers to add content much easier -- so one can eventually have deeply meaningful improvements in game-play.

Every time, it seems, when there is something that can improve gaming, there is dissension, excuse mongering, but for me -- Physics from a realism, fidelity and game-play stand-point are so very welcomed. No picking and choosing and consistent.

Some desire meaningful or deeply meaningful, well, it's getting closer, but damn, it takes steps before we get to idealistic Physics, so let's ignore the good.

Idealism is the enemy of good. This fits with so much its unbelievable to me.

 

[Lonyo]

I know I worked at getting decent fps, in both configurations. But I disabled AA, put some things on med, and did a hack to stop cloth physX, and just experience the rest. And I got 40's. I'm not able to run the benchmark right now.


I found this review: They used the cpu for physX with a 5870 and got 13 fps@ high physX 24fps@med physX and 80 when physX off

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2010/09/03/mafia-2-physx-performance/4

Now image how it would perform if PhysX was using more than 1 of the 6 cores and 12 threads of that CPU.

 

[notty22]

Now image how it would perform if PhysX was using more than 1 of the 6 cores and 12 threads of that CPU.

Thats the WHOLE POINT behind using the GPU for the calculations. Do you expect them to make a game engine , ASSUMING everyone has a o/c 6 core- 12 thread cpu to do extra physic work ?
NO, they have to make a game engine that 2.0ghz c2d or Athlon dual cores can manage to run at some kind of settings.

If you have the gpu, you have the option to enable the added game enhancements. If you don't, you can't.
edited

 

[Skurge]

Thats the WHOLE POINT behind using the GPU for the calculations. Do you expect them to make a game engine , ASSUMING everyone has a o/c 6 core- 12 thread cpu to do extra physic work ?
NO, they have to make a game engine that 2.0ghz c2d or Athlon dual cores can manage to run at some kind of settings.

If you have the gpu, you have the option to enable the added game enhancements. If you don't, you can't.
edited

Doest the same thing apply to gpu physics? It has to run on entry level GPUs at some setting. Thats what Low, medium and high physx settings are for, is it not? The same thing could be applied to GPUs.

Also, they don't have to make a game engine that runs on a 2.0ghz dual core. Try running GTA4 or F1 2010 or BC2 on a CPU like that.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Thats the WHOLE POINT behind using the GPU for the calculations. Do you expect them to make a game engine , ASSUMING everyone has a o/c 6 core- 12 thread cpu to do extra physic work ?
NO, they have to make a game engine that 2.0ghz c2d or Athlon dual cores can manage to run at some kind of settings.

If you have the gpu, you have the option to enable the added game enhancements. If you don't, you can't.
edited

But yet you think everyone has SP's in their GPU to spare? I wonder how many people are still gaming on 8800GT's...

 

[Phynaz]

Isn't the whole point of hardware accelerated physics to avoid "scripted pseudo physics?" For example instead of spending time on complex animations for a character wearing a cloak or dress, just let the physics engine take care of everything. Much faster and more realistic!

That's the point he is making. It lowers fps (slower), it doesn't increase fps (faster).

 

[SirPauly]

imho,

Simple for me, GPU computing and CPU computing both have their strengths and Physics is an area where both can take advantage of these strengths. It's downright silly not to try to take advantage of GPU strengths; as it is silly not to take advantage of CPU strengths.

Why force things only on the CPU, if an area can excel with parallelism?

Rasters are slowly hitting walls -- why not try to place more work loads on the GPU considering how fast they evolve?

It's too bad HavokFX was side-lined, and maybe right now there would be less chaos, because in 2006 ATI and nVidia were both working with HavokFX to try to bring together GPU Physics to the gamer.

I appreciate nVidia and AMD trying to bring GPU Physics for their customers, wish there wasn't division, but there still steps forward in my mind.

 

[notty22]

That's the point he is making. It lowers fps (slower), it doesn't increase fps (faster).

It does increase fps VS having the added details and letting the cpu attempt to do the work.
If you don't have the extra details, then you have faster fps. But that going backwards.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2010/09/03/mafia-2-physx-performance/4

Mafia II is a game where it lets you select the cpu if you option on PhysX, some games do not allow this, because its always inefficient.

 

[Carfax83]

That's the point he is making. It lowers fps (slower), it doesn't increase fps (faster).

When I said that comment, I was referring to speeding up development time. Anyway, thats the cost of higher quality. It's the same with using AA, higher levels of detail etc.. If your PC can't handle it, then don't bother.

But the thing is, modern GPUs are so powerful, that most of their resources goes unused for most games.

And if not, buy a cheap GTS 250 like me and plug it in. It cost me 90 bucks, but can outperform any hexcore processor when it comes to heavy number crunching.

The fact is, GPUs are a much better bargain when it comes to bang for the buck....at least in this respect.

 

[Lonyo]

When I said that comment, I was referring to speeding up development time. Anyway, thats the cost of higher quality. It's the same with using AA, higher levels of detail etc.. If your PC can't handle it, then don't bother.

But the thing is, modern GPUs are so powerful, that most of their resources goes unused for most games.

And if not, buy a cheap GTS 250 like me and plug it in. It cost me 90 bucks, but can outperform any hexcore processor when it comes to heavy number crunching.

The fact is, GPUs are a much better bargain when it comes to bang for the buck....at least in this respect.

Most of their resources go unused, but most games are also GPU limited, especially at higher resolutions.

Mafia II is a game where it lets you select the cpu if you option on PhysX, some games do not allow this, because its always inefficient.

Really? Running physics code on a single CPU core is inefficient when you have multiple cores available?

 

[Lonbjerg]

Most of their resources go unused, but most games are also GPU limited, especially at higher resolutions.



Really? Running physics code on a single CPU core is inefficient when you have multiple cores available?

Mafia 2 was out before PhysX SDK 3.0.:
http://physxinfo.com/news/3414/physx-sdk-3-0-automatic-multi-threading/

 

[bryanW1995]

Physx in theory has a great deal of potential, unfortunately its closed nature and the extremely high computing costs of implementation have kept it as a niche feature. I don't blame NV for pushing it so hard, this really gave them something to talk about during the fermipocalypse of 09/10, and maybe once we get to 28nm we'll start to see a few games that truly make good use of the technology. However, with NV no longer having complete domination of the consumer graphics market it is likely going to be very hard for them to convince any developers of AAA games to integrate physx so completely into a game that other cards simply won't play the game without it. A couple million bucks for some TWIMTBP titles is great, but how much business would a game like, say, diablo 3 lose if you needed a physx capable card to play it? Not only that, but the performance hit is at least as great as the first AA implementation, but doesn't have as much of an impact on the typical user's gaming experience. Right now physx COULD be a big feature to have in the future, but so could eyefinity, surround, etc etc etc.

 

[Lonyo]

Mafia 2 was out before PhysX SDK 3.0.:
http://physxinfo.com/news/3414/physx-sdk-3-0-automatic-multi-threading/

He stated it was always inefficient. I agreed that when it can only use one CPU core it's inefficient.
Thanks for pointing out that his comparison is now invalid for newer games which use a more modern PhysX SDK which works properly on CPUs, and thus a problem with PhysX and not a problem with physics on CPUs.

 

[bryanW1995]

You wants it to make ya a sammich or a little sumpin sumpin?

just sent that to my wife. We are finalizing the divorce next week.

 

[bryanW1995]

Here is some information, about new game engines that Nvidia is helping to develop.

http://www.neoseeker.com/news/15919-unreal-engine-3-adding-directx-11-support-tessellation/



Facts about NVIDIA and Unreal Engine 3:

• Epic Games and NVIDIA have worked together to integrate PhysX and APEX technologies into Unreal Engine 3.
• Unreal Engine 3 powers some of the most exciting games in the market across multiple platforms including: Batman: Arkham Asylum, Borderlands, Bulletstorm, Dungeon Defenders, Infinity Blade, Gears of War 2, Mass Effect 2, DC Universe Online, Medal of Honor, and the upcoming Batman: Arkham City, BioShock Infinite, Gears of War 3, Mass Effect 3 and Mortal Kombat.
• The latest updates to Unreal Engine 3 are available now to all licensees. Unreal Engine 3 enables developers to ship games with "out of the box" support for DX11, APEX, PhysX, and 3D Vision.
• 3D Vision is the world's leading consumer 3D solution and supports PC gaming, 3D photos and videos, Blu-ray 3D movies, 3D Web browsing, and the new online 3D community, www.3DVisionLive.com.
• 3D Vision consists of wireless, active-shutter glasses and can work with compatible 120Hz desktop LCDs, 3D-capable notebooks, 3D HDTVs or projectors. A NVIDIA GeForce® 8800 GTX or higher GPU is also required.

don't know about me3, but I know that DAO was long touted as a big physx title until they let slip right before launch that all physx processing would be software based. apparently NV wasn't able to give bioware/EA enough money to get them to kill their game sales.

 

[Skurge]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2G7JRAH9LU

The power of the CPU is underestimated. If the outdated tri-core CPU in a 360 can manage that, why do I need to tap into the power of my GPU with the stuff Physx does. Inefficient indeed.

 

[bryanW1995]

how predictable of you OP. masquerade your daily bias as fact & wag fingers at the people who hurt your feelings. hope the thread replies here should keep your own FUD out of the other threads for a while

personal attacks are against TOS. if you want to refute points then do so on their own merits.

 

[taltamir]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/batman-arkham-asylum,2465-11.html

Reality would like a word...

This does not contradict any of my points.
Fog should be there as NON INTERACTABLE scripted fog without physics... instead it is gone entirely to make it look more impressive with physX on...

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate that interactive fog is superior to scripted fog, but it is total BS to completely erase fog and call it a victory.

Isn't the whole point of hardware accelerated physics to avoid "scripted pseudo physics?"

No, the point of physX is to IMPROVE upon said effects, however the improvement proved to be so miniscule that they cheat. They say "either you use physics or we completely erase all fog, debris, and cloth from the game".
Remember that game that had FLAGS and cloth DISAPPEAR when physX was disabled? same principle.
Bad: No flags/fog/etc
Good: Scripted flags/fog/etc
Slightly better: Interactive flags/fog/etc

If you delete it entirely you are cheating to artificially inflate the supposed difference and only end up creating an inferior product, not improving the game.

just sent that to my wife. We are finalizing the divorce next week.

Thats for atheists to show their religious girlfriend... its a win-win situation.

 

[bryanW1995]

Thats the WHOLE POINT behind using the GPU for the calculations. Do you expect them to make a game engine , ASSUMING everyone has a o/c 6 core- 12 thread cpu to do extra physic work ?
NO, they have to make a game engine that 2.0ghz c2d or Athlon dual cores can manage to run at some kind of settings.

If you have the gpu, you have the option to enable the added game enhancements. If you don't, you can't.
edited

HUH. wouldn't that be kind of like expecting them to assume that everyone has a spare nvidia gpu lying around to calculate physx for you. Oh, and also that the first gpu is also nvidia. NV could seriously drive their sales longterm imho if they would just allow physx to run on a computer that used an amd gpu as the primary.

 

[taltamir]

HUH. wouldn't that be kind of like expecting them to assume that everyone has a spare nvidia gpu lying around to calculate physx for you. Oh, and also that the first gpu is also nvidia. NV could seriously drive their sales longterm imho if they would just allow physx to run on a computer that used an amd gpu as the primary.

if that did that from the getgo I believe they would have probably already have cemented physX, and have widespread adoption.

 

[SirPauly]

Imho,

I don't expect wide-spread adoption yet. Only some titles that would be enhanced for the GeForce branded family of GPU's. It's going to take the effort of the entire industry to get wide-spread adoption and that's going to take more time. While I wait , will enjoy what is offered and try to see what the developers come up with.

 

[ioni]

Q about PhysX. I have an 8800GT. Can I just drop in a GTX 460 to use as my primary and use the 8800GT for PhysX? Is there any other special kind of setup I have to do?

 

[NoQuarter]

It's quite simple, the GPU is already doing something else. The CPU is not. So we use the CPU for physics.

As GPU's grow in power graphics demands will grow with them, thus GPU's will never have spare cycles to use on physics, even if it is a hundred times more efficient at it.

As CPU's grow in power the only thing to scale up to make use of the extra power is physics calculations.

Physics will always be a rarity on GPU for that reason. Physics will simply slowly evolve with CPU speed, especially as CPU's get integrated parallel processing capability.

 

[SirPauly]

Q about PhysX. I have an 8800GT. Can I just drop in a GTX 460 to use as my primary and use the 8800GT for PhysX? Is there any other special kind of setup I have to do?

I use a GTX 470 as my primary and an 8800GT as a PhysX discrete card. No special set up really and the drivers do all the work. That 8800 GT after all these years is still providing value but it would be nicer if there was more content to enjoy though.