View Single Post
Old 03-23-10, 06:40 PM   #49
Xion X2
Registered User
 
Xion X2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: U.S.
Posts: 6,701
Default Re: I have seen the future....

Hmm. This thread actually has some good information in it.

Thumbs up to both razor and Toss for providing their info. I had no idea that PhysX had gained so much marketshare.

Some key issues, I think, are:

1) How many of those PhysX titles from razor's graphs run on the GPU exclusively (this would be Nvidia's selling point.)
2) How does performance with multicore physics w/ a CPU compare to single-GPU physics (Toss answered this one with his graph.)

I still contend that most of the best physics effects that I've seen were ran strictly on the CPU. HardOCP comments on this here when demo'ng Ghostbusters on a quad-core with the Terminal Reality team:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9boF-JZKcU

And I've yet to see explosions and smoke effects of the quality of Battlefield Bad Company 2, with physics on the CPU:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDJqetBhR-Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lxjAVGcPCk&NR=1

Notice that the engine is smart enough to know how much structural damage a building can take before it collapses.

From what I've seen of Metro, I just don't see any significant gains at all from PhysX in that game over what the above titles offer. In fact, I'm generally less impressed than I am with the CPU-physics games.
__________________

i7-2700k @ 5.0 GHz
Nvidia GeForce 570 2.5GB Tri-SLI
Asus P67 WS Revolution (Tri-SLI)
OCZ Vertex SSD x 4 (Raid 5)
G.Skill 8GB DDR3 @ 1600MHz
PC Power & Cooling 950W PSU
Xion X2 is offline   Reply With Quote