View Single Post
Old 03-24-10, 02:36 PM   #88
Razor1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 574
Default Re: I have seen the future....

Quote:
Originally Posted by shadow001 View Post
Given what we've seen so far from GPU physics,and knowing that in all of those games where it is being used,i had task manager up an running and only see 2~3 CPU threads getting used for the most part,where the other 5 CPU threads are doing jack **** basically(i7+ hyperthreading enabled here),it would be interesting to see the same physics calculations attempted on those 5 CPU threads doing nothing,seeing if it can still handle the load,and then see which is the better solution in overall performance.


i7 has a max of 8 threads in parallel, if you think about it a GPU has hundreds of threads in parallel. If those effects hurt a GPU, its going to hurt a CPU even more. In games most games are done this way 1 thread for graphics and game needs, 1 thread for physics needs, and one thread for AI needs. So yeah you can have up to 6 threads for physics, 6 vs hundreds, its quite a big difference . Also hypertheading is nice but doesn't always equate to the same amount of parrallelism as a GPU, so you have factor that in.

Quote:
What i'm talking about is making an educated decision based on observation and pushing the limits on the hardware i already own,and not simply using a physics API that limits itself to looking for an Nvidia video card in the system,and never allowing the option for the CPU to handle the workload,even if it's a high end one that more than half it's resources aren't being used to begin with.
The developers have the choice here, not you, or anyone else, its a good thought no doubt but realistically speaking look above, I'm sure developers have looked into it to some degree, since physX is multithread, just needs to be used.

Quote:
As it is,some users that bought those Ageia physics cards are already pretty furious that they can't use a card they paid 300$ at the time for,since the latest physX updates don't allow it to be used anymore,and it's a better physics processor than using an Nvidia GPU,since all the physics calculations are supported in actual hardware,not partially using the CPU for some of them.
Unfortunately not much choice there early adopters always have that to take into consideration, specially since Ageia didn't look to viable at first because their delays in hardware and software.

Quote:
Or how about Nvidia also not allowing users to have ATI cards for the graphics portion,and using an Nvidia card for the physics calculations....Nope,not allowed either,even though it was in the past,so Nvidia wants to make sure that you buy their hardware exclusively for no real reason except making more money,and shot themselves in the foot in the process,hence why there's so few games using GPU accelerated physics,even after 2 years.
Sux to be an ATi user, it would be nice I agree, but nV owns what they make, and they are in the business of make money.
Razor1 is offline   Reply With Quote