Physx Games Coming out?

[Viral]

Originally Posted by XMAN52373

Now for havok. Havok is yet another physics engine that could be as good as physx IF games that used it wouldn't script 100% of all physics basd stuff and constantly reuse it and call it reactionary. It could also use some GPU support to maybe help that along(see my point on OCL and ATI above).

You do know Intel bought Havok right? Is it at all a surprise that it has not moved into the field of using the GPU for acceleration and that ATI/AMD are no longer relying on it as their alternative to Physx?

Havok has become just another example of the way it shouldn't be done. It's a massive shame that the two companies with the standards in place to move PC gaming forward were bought out by corperations only looking to use the standards to pimp their own products and reassure future market viability of the market segment they just so happen to have a near-monopoly on. It's like to a big car company buying out an emerging hydrogen car company and making hydrogen/petrol hybrid cars instead with a whole load of limitations to how and under what circumstances you can use the hydrogen capabilities of the car - like only being able to fill up with "brand x" hydrogen at the bowser .

[XMAN52373]

Originally Posted by Ninja Prime

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...

A. While true, but at what kinda loss or how many cores. CPUs are not designed to be parallel.

B. Where did a GTX280 come from, I mentioned a 9600GT?

3. Granted Fluidmark isn't a game but it is a valid physics test.

E. All you gotta do is look at Metro 2033. They use PhysX just like many other games, but it is somehow the exception because mult cores work while it took longer for the game to come out? The Dev of Metro admit to working on it for 4 years and taking the time to ensure multi CPU cores work all the while threw dev, but yet other games are in dev for 2-3 years and only work with on CPU when using PhysX, that should tell you something alone. Nvidia has not changed the PhysX SDK, it is the same for consoles as it is for PCs, their is no difference.

As to your edit, my banned was for the GF100 poll thread, not the Physics thread and it ends on saturday.

[XMAN52373]

Originally Posted by Viral

You do know Intel bought Havok right? Is it at all a surprise that it has not moved into the field of using the GPU for acceleration and that ATI/AMD are no longer relying on it as their alternative to Physx?

Havok has become just another example of the way it shouldn't be done. It's a massive shame that the two companies with the standards in place to move PC gaming forward were bought out by corperations only looking to use the standards to pimp their own products and reassure future market viability of the market segment they just so happen to have a near-monopoly on. It's like to a big car company buying out an emerging hydrogen car company and making hydrogen/petrol hybrid cars instead with a whole load of limitations to how and under what circumstances you can use the hydrogen capabilities of the car - like only being able to fill up with "brand x" hydrogen at the bowser .

Actually, Havok was bought up by Intel for the purpose of promoting Larrabee, but when Larrabe was canned pretty much all GPU based coding and support intel was working on for Havok was as well and they are doing zip, zilch, nadda to help ATI bring OCL GPU based support to the Havok API, which by the way, Intel is not charging a license fee for, they just are not doing anything with it until they can figure out how to enter the discrete GPU market again with something that can compete with ATI and Nvidia. Had they continued with Larrabee as it was, when it launched, it might have only been as good as a high entry lvlv to low mid range GPU based card from ATI or Nvidia.

[Vardant]

Originally Posted by Xion X2

It's really that simple, people. And since ATI is prevalent in the market right now, GPU PhysX is as good as dead. You'll have a title here or there that may use it for a few "ah, neat-o" effects that get tired after a few minutes and that's about it. Developers simply aren't going to delegate resources to something that won't be leveraged by everyone. As they shouldn't.

If I were Nvidia, I would probably try to do the same thing by keeping GPU PhysX in my hands, but they cannot win this game as long as ATI is a player in the industry. And it doesn't look as if that's changing any time soon.

Open standard is the only way to go at this point.

There's still no competition, so porting PhysX to OpenCL or Direct Compute is not necessary. Even if Bullet comes out, it will take a few years before we see game built on that from the ground up. PhysX is way ahead in GPU department and they can always port it in the future.

It doesn't matter if it's proprietary or not, they're making progress and other companies are trying to catch up. If it wasn't for NV, we would be nowhere near this.

[Slytat]

Originally Posted by Rollo

NP- Metro 2033 is a very demanding game with a high end NVIDIA rig. It would be totally unplayable on an ATi system with the PhysX effects. (and the 3d Vision would be impossible)

Same deal onTerminator- won't run playable on ATi.

Whether it "could" is a moot point.

I played through 2033 on Tri SLI and I just completed it again on 5870 CF - Honestly, I'm sure there are subtle differences but I enjoyed it just the same on both systems.

And Terminator? That game is awful, PhysX or not.

If Nvidia really cares about PhysX surviving, stop this disabling of PhysX if a non Nvidia GPU is detected (at the very least).

[Rollo]

Originally Posted by Ninja Prime

Good way to dodge the question while feeling superior. Too bad everyone else can see through it and just thinks you're a douche dodging the question.

I'm not dodging any questions NP, just noting what the whole PhysX issue looks like to me.

1. Could PhysX effects be done on the CPU? Maybe, and they could for sure be done with ATi cards, but they're not. So is this really a question?

2. Is there some aspect of nearly every game produced that could be attacked to divert attention from the PhysX issue? Sure, there's no game that is perfect, so again there's nothing there to really answer.

3. Will PhysX ever "take off" being a proprietary standard? What's the difference? Once developers had time to implement, games started coming out every month or two. Starting with GRAW, then on to Mirror's Edge, PT Boats, Cryostasis, Sacred 2, Batman, Darkest of Days, Dark Void, Metro 2033. How many games has ATi pushed to market with GPU accelerated physics since they promised it back in X1900 days? Oh yeah- zero. Looks to me like whether PhysX is "taking off" or not, NVIDIA users get GPU accelerated physics, while ATi users get empty promises.

4. Can ATi users utilize driver hacks to get PhysX? Maybe. The driver hacks have never been QAd, we don't know if they give the same experience, work with every game, they do seem to be specific to old driver revisions, etc etc etc.. Not exactly what you would pick.

It's just like 3d NP. ATi likes to say "We'll have this, when somebody with some money does it for us!" but ATi users are left to post about why NVIDIAs version (that actually exists) isn't perfect and wonder if someone with some money will ever help them and ATi out.

That's why it's easier for me just to post a link to "the fox and the grapes" because most of ATi fans "points" boil down to the "fox and the grapes".

[Rollo]

Originally Posted by noko

Rollo, fermi is not strong enough by itself to run PhysX and the game Metro 2033? Must have a separate PhysX dedicated card? That is way beyond what most folks would do. Kinda cool but misses by a mile except for a niche market.

Developers will probably get tired of PhysX anyways and make their own physics routines using OpenCL or Direct Compute and pass it along, maybe a bullet game will finally come out. I am glad Nvidia is pushing PhysX and seeing developers use it, gives folks an option to have these effects if they want which is good. For me a single 260 card didn't do well with physX and rendering at the same time unless one degrades everything which made PhysX pointless.

1. Who knows? Why would I not use a dedicated PhysX card for higher framerates when I have plenty?

2. Hmmm. Developers will "get tired of PhysX"? Why would they when NVIDIA provides them with hardware and staff to implement it? Who's doing that for OpenCL?

[Ninja Prime]

... You still didn't answer the question, but ok. /shrug

[Rollo]

Originally Posted by Xion X2

It's really that simple, people. And since ATI is prevalent in the market right now, GPU PhysX is as good as dead. You'll have a title here or there that may use it for a few "ah, neat-o" effects that get tired after a few minutes and that's about it. Developers simply aren't going to delegate resources to something that won't be leveraged by everyone. As they shouldn't.

If I were Nvidia, I would probably try to do the same thing by keeping GPU PhysX in my hands, but they cannot win this game as long as ATI is a player in the industry. And it doesn't look as if that's changing any time soon.

Open standard is the only way to go at this point.

ATi isn't "prevalent in the market now" - they lost some of their second place desktop market share in Q4 2009.

As for what devs "will" do, given that many games are still in development, and several have launched, I guess they don't care as much about it being proprietary as you do Xion.

Here's the difference: NVIDIA has the dev relations and resources to make things like PhysX a reality.

The staff at ATi probably spend their weekends scouring parking lots and ditches for aluminum cans and deposit bottles to cash in for their "Let's get hardware accelerated physics in one game so we can say we have this" project.

[Rollo]

Originally Posted by Ninja Prime

... You still didn't answer the question, but ok. /shrug

What question? You mean how you could have PhysX if it was great?

Again, it's not really a question. Either my wife or I can afford the house and cars, etc.. I could buy 5970CF any month of the year, but don't. Does that mean it has nothing to recommend it? Hardly.

Ask a question with some logic behind it and I'll be more inclined to answer it.

[Vardant]

Originally Posted by Ninja Prime

... You still didn't answer the question, but ok. /shrug

If you think, that PhysX needs to in some way affect the gameplay or otherwise it's uselless, that's fine. It's your opinion after all. But then again, you can say the same thing about AA, AF, HDR and other post-processing effects.

[Slytat]

Originally Posted by Vardant

If you think, that PhysX needs to in some way affect the gameplay or otherwise it's uselless, that's fine. It's your opinion after all. But then again, you can say the same thing about AA, AF, HDR and other post-processing effects.

That's a very bad comparison tbh, at least AFAIAC. I've only ever seen one game where PhysX was truly impressive (Mirror's Edge). It's been used to mediocre effect in other games, but most of the time, I find it unnecessary. I was going to put one of my 280s in my new rig for PhysX, but on reflection, I'd rather not mess around with hacks etc for the extremely limited gains that PhysX affords.

I'd give up PhysX long before I'd give up AA for example. But as you said, it's entirely subjective. I saw a video of Mafia 2's PhysX and it looks weak IMHO. Then again, I wasn't holding out much hope that Mafia 2 would be even half as good as the 1st one , regardless of PhysX.