Physx Games Coming out?

[Vardant]

Originally Posted by shadow001

Steam isn't actually that accurate,as their own games can be run by fairly old hardware anyhow....They haven't released any game that can be really taxing on hardware in a long while,hence why dual core and even single core processors are still used.

Stats taken from hundreds of thousands of players, how can that even be accurate?

I don't know if you're on drugs or just drunk or you have no idea what Steam is, because you're not making any sense.

[Xion X2]

Originally Posted by Vardant

Stats taken from hundreds of thousands of players, how can that even be accurate?

I don't know if you're on drugs or just drunk or you have no idea what Steam is, because you're not making any sense.

+1.

If that really is from steam, then that's probably as accurate as you're going to get from the gaming population.

Steam handles everything.. not just Valve games.

[shadow001]

Originally Posted by Vardant

Stats taken from hundreds of thousands of players, how can that even be accurate?

I don't know if you're on drugs or just drunk or you have no idea what Steam is, because you're not making any sense.

Put it this way,ask someone who wants to play games like battlefield bad company,or any of the very latest releases,if the user still thinks a single or even dual core processor would be enough to play it smoothly....I'm betting the answer is no.


The added incentive is that Quad core chips can be bought dirt cheap these days,especially for AMD models,as they sell for less than a midrange video card,never mind a high end one.

[noko]

Originally Posted by JasonPC

He never specifically says if it will be GPU or CPU physx. I'm guessing it will make use of GPU physx but I'm not that impressed with what I see there. Seems like a CPU should be able to do that.

Game is using PhysX, if it is using multithreading on the cpu then it should do OK, if not then I expect a rather cut down version for the rest of us without PhysX

[snowmanwithahat]

Originally Posted by Xion X2

GPU-based PhysX will never take off as long as it's proprietary. With the success of the 4*** and 5*** series, a good amount of the population now owns ATI cards, and developers aren't going to waste their time coding stuff that only 60-70% of the population can leverage or enjoy.

You're telling me the 4000 ATI series was successful....?

I don't think they enjoyed a best-in-class card at any point except for the 4870x2 which was easily beaten by the 295 when it came out.

They were behind through the whole last set of cards

[JasonPC]

The 4800s took first place in DX10 graphic cards over the 8800s in Steam's Hardware survey. That's pretty successful if you ask me. They may have not had superior performance but the price/performance ratio was good.

[Ninja Prime]

Originally Posted by snowmanwithahat

You're telling me the 4000 ATI series was successful....?

Well, it gained them 4% of NV's marketshare, so yeah.

[shadow001]

Originally Posted by snowmanwithahat

You're telling me the 4000 ATI series was successful....?

I don't think they enjoyed a best-in-class card at any point except for the 4870x2 which was easily beaten by the 295 when it came out.

They were behind through the whole last set of cards

When the GTX295 came out 6 months later you mean....The HD4870X2 was without any challenge for the second half of 2008,as the GTX295 was only released in early 2009(january i think).


The HD5970 has been out since november 2009(5 months now),and there's still no word on when we'll see a dual Fermi card on retail shelves.

[XMAN52373]

Originally Posted by Ninja Prime

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.

[Ninja Prime]

Originally Posted by XMAN52373

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..

A: A bench designed on and for a GPU core doesn't run well on a CPU. If it were re-coded to work better on a CPU, it would probably be a closer match. It would still get beat of course, but it might be closer.

B: Its not about benchmarks like "fluid sim" which I'm guessing is fluidmark. Its about what is needed for physics in games. Yeah, a GTX 280 could crush a CPU in random physics benchmark #1, but, is anyone going to use that much power in a game? No. Do they need that much power? No. If they had that much power on every system could they even use it in games? I doubt it. My point was, its to the point where some CPU cores is going to be enough, and certainly in the future with 6-8 cores, you will have enough power on CPU cores.

3: Last time I checked, fluidmark wasn't a game. Last time I checked, no game has any effects even close to similar to what fluidmark has. So then, what does fluidmark have to do with games? Nothing. Its furmark, but for physics.

E: Your final point, is that devs are lazy and that is why physx doesn't use multicore hardly at all, right? So you're saying, devs are lazy, so they spend extra time coding for a feature (physx) that most people won't use, but they won't spend extra time coding for something that most people can use, i.e. multicore support. Is that right?

Edit: Upon further review, the thread you referenced at B3D seems to have everyone arguing against you, and you got banned for it. Not sure you wanted to bring that up in support of yourself...

[Rollo]

Originally Posted by Ninja Prime

I thought you comparison was cost? Whats a whole CPU verses a whole GPU? If two socket boards were more common, this would probably be a major issue, NV is just lucky they aren't. In a year or two when more cores are common, there will be no reason for GPU only Physx, although I suspect by then it will be gone or have become open source by demand.

NP- you are just going to have to get used to the idea that NVIDIA didn't spend millions on AGEIA, and Intel didn't spend millions on Havok, so they could help ATi users have GPU accelerated physics effects.

You guys are just going to have to do without.

For example, I'm in the middle of Metro 2033 right now. It kicks ass:
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/me...uge/index.html and because I'm using a NVIDIA GTX480 + 8800GT, I can see it like the devs meant, with all the effects turned on. Optomized for 3d Vision, includes PhysX effects.

If I had an ATi card, I'd only be able to decide if I could use "advanced" features like "AA" and "AF" that I was using back in GF2 days.

Luckily for me, the upcoming Terminator Salvation will be sporting some killer PhysX effects as well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWukRISu8cg

And of course other games are on the way....but for NVIDIA users......

[Ninja Prime]

Originally Posted by Rollo

NP- you are just going to have to get used to the idea that NVIDIA didn't spend millions on AGEIA, and Intel didn't spend millions on Havok, so they could help ATi users have GPU accelerated physics effects.

You guys are just going to have to do without.

For example, I'm in the middle of Metro 2033 right now. It kicks ass:
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/me...uge/index.html and because I'm using a NVIDIA GTX480 + 8800GT, I can see it like the devs meant, with all the effects turned on. Optomized for 3d Vision, includes PhysX effects.

If I had an ATi card, I'd only be able to decide if I could use "advanced" features like "AA" and "AF" that I was using back in GF2 days.

Luckily for me, the upcoming Terminator Salvation will be sporting some killer PhysX effects as well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWukRISu8cg

And of course other games are on the way....but for NVIDIA users......

Couple things here rollo, in metro 2033 you can turn on the advanced physics effect if you have a NV card or not. Probably runs a lot slower, but nonetheless.

Secondly, whats so great in the terminator video there? I see... a bunch of crap flying around, that doesn't interact. I see a smoke effect that could be done on a CPU... hell it could be done on a game from 2004. I see some wavy cloth in front of windows or doors that doesn't serve any purpose and has no reason to be a physics effect, it could be a static animated thing and no one could tell or would care. Kinda looks like a lot of fail to me, I wouldn't showcase anything with that. In fact, I bet I could dig up some non-physx games that have every one of those "advanced effects" in them, if I were so inclined.