View Single Post
Old 04-05-10, 09:25 PM   #33
XMAN52373
Registered User
 
XMAN52373's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 534
Default Re: Physx Games Coming out?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninja Prime View Post
A quad core that can match the 76 Gflops I said above is only $90. NV is just suppressing CPU Physx in order to make their GPU's look better.
Actually, its a give and take thing between CPUs and GPUs. CPUs can handle about half of what is done in PhysX just fine without causing to much of an issue. Its when you get into the area of interactiveness, realism that even a lowly 8600GT can make an i7 920 at 4GHX look mighty puney in comparison because of the way the GPU handles the coding. Maybe you should revisit the PhysX thread you commented in once or twice Ninja and get a reminder over at B3D. I ferget who over there, but someone posted a link to a 16 core PhysX run of a fluid sim that was about on par with a 9600GT. 16 cores to equal 1 GPU for a fluid sim. Somethings are just better left to GPUs for now. And having looked at the PhysX SDK, it is the same one used for consoles which somehow manage to work fine with multi core CPUs. I'm more inclined to believe Devs laziness on this then somehow Nvidia playing with blocking of CPU cores. To code for paralle processing using PhysX takes alot of work. As consoles already do most everything in paralle, they dont think of the added work much, but to get the code to work right on CPUs not designed for that by default takes more work and almost all Devs wont do that unless they are exspecting their game to be a AAA massive seller. IE Metro 2033.
__________________
C2Q6600@3.3
ASUS GTX570
eVGA 780i SLi AR
8GB DDR2 PC8500
Windows 7 U x64
XMAN52373 is offline   Reply With Quote