Home
Sunday, October 22, 2017
2:46:35 AM
Users online: 0   You are here >> Home > Graphic Hardware

Forums | Graphic Hardware Forums search
Forum FAQ
   
  1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next Page 
physx with a radeon gpu?
layzi 
25/8/08 6:33:50 AM
Learner
anyone ever tried using the ageia physx card and a radeon gpu to play physx games? apparently this website shows that you can and it should improve performance over a radeon with no ppu. i dont have a radeon card myself so just wondering is it any good? or if someone has tried it can let us know thx!

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/physx_performance_update/


Edited by layzi: 25/8/2008 6:35:17 AM

-----
future gaming=realism=physics processing=nvidia.

Fat_Bodybuilder 
25/8/08 9:01:47 AM
Titan

I don't see why it "wouldn't" work... :-)

-----

E8500 @ 4.0Ghz Daily || 2GB OCZ Special Ops || X38-DS4 || HD 4870   
ViewSonic 26" || Logitech Z4 || TJ07 || G11 and G5

osama_bin_athlon 
25/8/08 9:53:23 AM
Hero
Immortal


wouldn't a PhysX card work the same with either brand of graphics card? what's so special about ATI cards (apart from being the current card of choice)??

-----
....it's called a 'snuke'.

layzi 
25/8/08 12:08:03 PM
Learner
well lets say you have 2x 4870 in crossfire + ga x48 ds4 and you have an old physx card lying around, you could add that to 1 of the spare pci slots and run it so you get the benefit of playing physx games without compromising framerates as much compared to the cpu. according to the article the performance gain is quite decent so i just wanna know if anyone has this setup and if so whats it like? is it playable? *pokes nesquik*

-----
future gaming=realism=physics processing=nvidia.

Fat_Bodybuilder 
25/8/08 4:24:52 PM
Titan

Quote by layzi
well lets say you have 2x 4870 in crossfire + ga x48 ds4 and you have an old physx card lying around, you could add that to 1 of the spare pci slots and run it so you get the benefit of playing physx games without compromising framerates as much compared to the cpu. according to the article the performance gain is quite decent so i just wanna know if anyone has this setup and if so whats it like? is it playable? *pokes nesquik*



Well yeah, that would work, not sure why you would think it's not though.

The problem lies in the support. Very few games are natively supportive the PhysX instruction set and so there would be little or no benefit on 98% of games. Also the fact that games that have a mod to use PhysX actually get a decrease in performance, apparently.

Flight Sim X would be a good game to try, but the truth is there's no reason to even use a physX card, because modern day CPUs such as the Core2Duo can handle the physics of a game perfectly anyway, it helps if you have an old CPU, in which case the money would be better spent on a new one rather than a physX card.

-----

E8500 @ 4.0Ghz Daily || 2GB OCZ Special Ops || X38-DS4 || HD 4870   
ViewSonic 26" || Logitech Z4 || TJ07 || G11 and G5

nesquick 
25/8/08 4:41:14 PM
Guru

I had a physx card and sold it to vanne because physx is a gimmick imo and your wasting your time thinking it is going to be the future of gaming.


Edited by nesquick: 25/8/2008 4:41:28 PM

-----
e8600@4.5ghz 1.39v|GIGABYTE X48DS4|BALLISTIX TRACERS 4GB+PATRIOT PC9200 1GB|HD4870 790/4400/HD4850 CROSSFIREX|640GB WD HD|CORSAIR HX520|ANTEC TX1050B CASE|TRUE|

Fat_Bodybuilder 
25/8/08 4:46:11 PM
Titan

Quote by nesquick
I had a physx card and sold it to vanne because physx is a gimmick imo and your wasting your time thinking it is going to be the future of gaming.


Edited by nesquick: 25/8/2008 4:41:28 PM



Bet you didn't put that in the add. :P

-----

E8500 @ 4.0Ghz Daily || 2GB OCZ Special Ops || X38-DS4 || HD 4870   
ViewSonic 26" || Logitech Z4 || TJ07 || G11 and G5

nesquick 
25/8/08 4:48:32 PM
Guru

vanne plays ut3 with a 7900gtx making it impossible for him to utilise onboard physics

-----
e8600@4.5ghz 1.39v|GIGABYTE X48DS4|BALLISTIX TRACERS 4GB+PATRIOT PC9200 1GB|HD4870 790/4400/HD4850 CROSSFIREX|640GB WD HD|CORSAIR HX520|ANTEC TX1050B CASE|TRUE|

Fat_Bodybuilder 
25/8/08 5:36:49 PM
Titan

Quote by nesquick
vanne plays ut3 with a 7900gtx making it impossible for him to utilise onboard physics



Physics is done by the CPU, and regardless the 7900GTX doesn't have the PhysX instruction set. What CPU is he running?

-----

E8500 @ 4.0Ghz Daily || 2GB OCZ Special Ops || X38-DS4 || HD 4870   
ViewSonic 26" || Logitech Z4 || TJ07 || G11 and G5

nesquick 
25/8/08 6:38:05 PM
Guru

Quote by Fat_Bodybuilder
Quote by nesquick
vanne plays ut3 with a 7900gtx making it impossible for him to utilise onboard physics


regardless the 7900GTX doesn't have the PhysX instruction set.


:/ like i said ^

-----
e8600@4.5ghz 1.39v|GIGABYTE X48DS4|BALLISTIX TRACERS 4GB+PATRIOT PC9200 1GB|HD4870 790/4400/HD4850 CROSSFIREX|640GB WD HD|CORSAIR HX520|ANTEC TX1050B CASE|TRUE|

Fat_Bodybuilder 
25/8/08 7:50:58 PM
Titan

Quote by nesquick
Quote by Fat_Bodybuilder
Quote by nesquick
vanne plays ut3 with a 7900gtx making it impossible for him to utilise onboard physics


regardless the 7900GTX doesn't have the PhysX instruction set.


:/ like i said ^



Oh, lol. When you said impossible to utilize the onboard physX, I thought you meant "impossible to utilize the onboard physX" - as in there is physX to enable... :P

-----

E8500 @ 4.0Ghz Daily || 2GB OCZ Special Ops || X38-DS4 || HD 4870   
ViewSonic 26" || Logitech Z4 || TJ07 || G11 and G5

layzi 
25/8/08 8:00:48 PM
Learner
Quote by Fat_Bodybuilder

Well yeah, that would work, not sure why you would think it's not though.

The problem lies in the support. Very few games are natively supportive the PhysX instruction set and so there would be little or no benefit on 98% of games. Also the fact that games that have a mod to use PhysX actually get a decrease in performance, apparently.

Flight Sim X would be a good game to try, but the truth is there's no reason to even use a physX card, because modern day CPUs such as the Core2Duo can handle the physics of a game perfectly anyway, it helps if you have an old CPU, in which case the money would be better spent on a new one rather than a physX card.



yeah you love that little number at the bottom dont ya =P

i could agree there is currently not very much support on the physx side atm but its not entirely about the physx engine, im talking about gaming physics in general and if you look around its very evident more so in game consoles and definitely not just a fad, the only downside is when it comes to rendering physics especially during intensive scenes where you have mass debri and shit flying around. this is where your cpu will suffer compared to having a dedicated physics chip because physics calculation alone is a huge task and will only add more load to the cpu hence the drop in framerates as shown in the article. however if you have a top end video card rendering such scenes is more viable. if you look at the article they are using a qx9650, how modern of a chip can you get?


Edited by layzi: 25/8/2008 8:02:40 PM

-----
future gaming=realism=physics processing=nvidia.

SceptreCore 
25/8/08 8:11:43 PM
Guru

Umm correct me if Im wrong, but aren't ATI going to follow nVidia's lead and develop drivers for their GPU's to do the physic's calculations?

eliminating the need for physic's card altogether!

-----
Greatest Sayings Of Our Time:
Quote by sora3
...What drivers are you using? If you say the drivers on your CD, I will phone you and tell you that I will bone your f*cking dog...



layzi 
25/8/08 8:21:31 PM
Learner
ati has a similar approach to nvidia with this thing called CTM(close to metal) which is now replaced with stream sdk, stream sdk is their answer to CUDA.

-----
future gaming=realism=physics processing=nvidia.

nesquick 
25/8/08 8:21:34 PM
Guru

yea didn't they acquire the licenses to havok?

-----
e8600@4.5ghz 1.39v|GIGABYTE X48DS4|BALLISTIX TRACERS 4GB+PATRIOT PC9200 1GB|HD4870 790/4400/HD4850 CROSSFIREX|640GB WD HD|CORSAIR HX520|ANTEC TX1050B CASE|TRUE|

layzi 
25/8/08 8:29:43 PM
Learner
thats is exactly the reason why i asked this question, cos ati cannot utiltize physics properly without massive framerate degredation. they need supporting software for it.

oh on that note intel acquired havok fx which is same as nvidias physx, so where does that leave ati?


Edited by layzi: 25/8/2008 8:37:07 PM

-----
future gaming=realism=physics processing=nvidia.

SceptreCore 
25/8/08 8:48:04 PM
Guru

Quote by layzi
thats is exactly the reason why i asked this question, cos ati cannot utiltize physics properly without massive framerate degredation. they need supporting software for it.

oh on that note intel acquired havok fx which is same as nvidias physx, so where does that leave ati?


Edited by layzi: 25/8/2008 8:37:07 PM

asking nvidia very nicely if they can please incorporate PhysX into their drivers.

-----
Greatest Sayings Of Our Time:
Quote by sora3
...What drivers are you using? If you say the drivers on your CD, I will phone you and tell you that I will bone your f*cking dog...



nesquick 
25/8/08 8:55:04 PM
Guru

ati has done the smart thing, rushing into a new fad is not that great an idea from a business perspective however by watching nvidia success/failure in the physics department might save them a lot of money as if physics does take off it has been shown that it can easily be offloaded onto a radeon (there was an article of that guy who incorporated it into the catalyst drivers a few months ago)


Edited by nesquick: 25/8/2008 8:56:22 PM

-----
e8600@4.5ghz 1.39v|GIGABYTE X48DS4|BALLISTIX TRACERS 4GB+PATRIOT PC9200 1GB|HD4870 790/4400/HD4850 CROSSFIREX|640GB WD HD|CORSAIR HX520|ANTEC TX1050B CASE|TRUE|

layzi 
25/8/08 9:07:40 PM
Learner
hmm lets see so your saying intel, nvidia, microsft and major gaming consoles are all wasting their time on just a fad?

-----
future gaming=realism=physics processing=nvidia.

Baner86 
25/8/08 9:24:08 PM
Hero
Champion


Sorry layzi but you need some schoolin'.

Firstly. The Ageia PhysX card was a piece of hardware developed by a company called Ageia, I'm talking the design of the card, the silicon, the RAM placement etc. EVERYTHING. AGEIA the company made this.

This PhysX card fit into an ORIGINAL PCI slot...not even PCI-EXpress and all that this card did was run AGEIA supported physics simulation such as Cell Factor (I believe that was what it was called) and some physics demonstrations of cloth being ripped and balls bouncing etc. through the driver software.

This card ONLY ran AGEIA supported physics...ie. the card ONLY did anything if AGEIA the company was somehow involved.

You can tell if a game had AGEIA physics because it had the "PhysX" logo all over it. So GRAW 2 was an early game taht ran it...Cell Factor too and Lately UT3 uses AGEIA PhysX.

PhysX is just the name of the physics implementation that AGEIA uses. HAVOC is another physics implementation which is done at a software level. And so you could think of PhysX and HAVOC being the Nvidia and Ati of the gaming physics world.

Now here is where you learn something and maybe shut your mouth a bit so you don't look so foolish anymore.

After PhysX had been out for a while, people discovered that physics performance in Cell Factor, GRAW 2 etc. and other simulations was largely being artificially forced with a PhysX card. In other words, you'd see the game run shit on a computer without a PhysX card compared to a computer with one.

The problem is, people found ways to remove this artificial limitation through configuration files and stuff like that and discovered their computers WITHOUT a physX card could run the simulations JUST as fast with or without a PhysX card.

This immediately made the $500 PhysX cards redundant. Noone bought them...after all they were essentially completely useless. And in the one or two games they actually helped in...the games themselves were piles of crap and no fun to play.

So. We've established the PhysX card was: 1. Useless, and 2. Runs in a PCI slot.

Nvidia video cards don't somehow make your motherboard NOT have a PCI slot in it.

Wether you had an Ati card or a Nvidia card if you had a spare PCI slot you could use a $500 AGEIA Physics to NOT affect your performance at all.


Ok, hope you got that cos' here's some more.

Nvidia purchased the company AGEIA. Now...we have previously established AGEIA physics had little to no benefit for anyone. But Nvidia bought the company? It's not entirely stupid because at least they got a head start with their own propreitary physics implementation. Wrong...just like with AGEIA when it was a solo company, their success relied on games developers utilising AGEIA PhysX in their games so people will actually buy their PhysX card to run those games.

Why did noone buy AGEIA PhysX cards? you can count how many games used AGEIA PhysX on one hand.

Also, the vast majority of video games out now where physics are even remotely important in the game world use HAVOC. HL2 uses a heavily modified HAVOC physics engine. Starcraft 2 will use Havoc...Diablo 3 will use Havoc.

These are game that have and WILL no doubt sell more than a million copies in the first few days and they use HAVOC. A software physics implementation.

You know why that is? It's shits on PhysX because it has been around for far longer...everyone and their dog in the games world supports HAVOC and prolly the mosty important thing? You don't need to buy a half-grand card to actually run the physics...what they recommend in their game minimum requirements is perfectly fine to run the physics with HAVOC.

If everyone supports HAVOC....Why the fuck would you want to buy AGEIA like Nvidia did?

You said this at the end:

"cos ati cannot utiltize physics properly without massive framerate degredation. they need supporting software for it.

oh on that note intel acquired havok fx which is same as nvidias physx, so where does that leave ati?"

Physics is all the interaction between objects you see that occurs in a game right? If Ati couldn't utilize physics properly HOW THE HELL can I be sitting here running UT3 20FPS faster on my shiny new HD4870X2 than my mate running his EVGA GTX280?

After all if my Ati card couldn't utilize physics properly my character wouldn't move, my rockets wouldn't travel anywhere and I'd fall through the level as soon as I started.

Now...if you said...ATI can't utilise PhysX properly...you'd be correct. Ati didn't waste a cent on a proprietary physics engine that nobody uses. So I'm not gonna complain about that...after all if they put such a dodgy physics implementation on my graphics card they might have charged me more for it?

Ati has NOWHERE near a similair approach to Nvidia on this physics debacle.

They are watching and waiting....not paying shitloads of money for a physics engine noone uses.

The ONLY popular games out at the moment that actually use AGEIA PhysX and SHOULD benefit from running physics off the Nvidia GPU are GRAW2, Flight Simulator X and UT3.

It'll take you no more than a few minutes to have a look through the BeyondUnreal and official UnrealTournament3 forums to see running the drivers to let you use GPU physics makes the game either:

fuck up

run slower

5% frame rate increase.

Now a 5% frame rate increase might sound great.

But a 30% frame rate increase at ridiculous resolution with free 4x antialiasing on a HD4870X2 sounds better to me.

I've been browsing the Graphics Forum for a while now and you seem to want to bag Ati every chance you get for every little mistake you perceive Ati to have made.

They can't have made a mistake on physics because THEY HAVEN't DECIDED WHAT THE BEST THING TO DO IS YET.

You could say NOT deciding is a mistake but it's only a mistake if the game industry has actually decided if physics acceleration with hardware is worthwhile or not.

For the near future it is clear that physics acceleration is a gimmick because HAVOC provides all the physics that the gaming community actually wants for now.

BTW: future gaming=realism=physics processing=nvidia. is totally wrong...

future gaming = fun = whatever the hell the industry decides.

-----
Q6600//GA-X38-DQ6//4x1GB ADATA DDR2-800//2x Palit HD2900XT 512MB (CrossFire)

E6600//P5B Deluxe WiFi-AP//2x1GB G.Skill DDR2-533//XFX 8800GT 512MB

A64 4400+ x2//A8N-Sli Premium//2x1GB G.Skill DDR-400//XFX 8800GT 512MB

  1 | 2 | 3 | 4  | Next Page 
Forums | Graphic Hardware