Home
Sunday, December 17, 2017
5:42:38 AM
Users online: 0   You are here >> Home > Graphic Hardware

Forums | Graphic Hardware Forums search
Forum FAQ
   
 Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next Page 
physx with a radeon gpu?
nesquick 
25/8/08 9:29:16 PM
Guru

Quote by Baner86
much text


excellent read baner :)

-----
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|

F117_Nighthawk 
25/8/08 9:33:47 PM
Guru

Very quality post Banner86, I didnt want to say anything to that guy because id get in trouble from the mods :s

Every point you made was true, ATI for now is just sitting back to see how things roll out. Once physics kicks off properly they have the opportunity to implement physics into the drivers, Intel have already offered them Havok. I have no doubt when games such as Diablo 3 are released supporting physics ATI will join in the game


Edited by F117_Nighthawk: 25/8/2008 9:34:14 PM

-----

Baner86 
25/8/08 9:38:21 PM
Hero
Champion


???

Why would you get in trouble with the mods?

I've been speaking my mind ever since I started on these forums and I remember having a go at you a little bit a while back.

Recently your posts have been quite useful and informative to me though F117 so much respect to you :)

I really only posted the thing to test out the changes to my systems in the sig...

:D

-----
Q6600//GA-X38-DQ6//4x1GB ADATA DDR2-800//Hightech HD4870X2

E6600//P5B Deluxe WiFi-AP//2x1GB G.Skill DDR2-533//2x Palit 2900XT (Crossfire)

A64 4400+ x2//A8N-Sli Premium//2x1GB G.Skill DDR-400//2x XFX 8800GT (Sli)

layzi 
25/8/08 9:53:12 PM
Learner
lol nice rant, enough to make a goose look smart. so you proved a point with ageia and physx well not that i had ever disagreed with that in the first place, like i sed before physx engine is only part of the story mate get that in there, secondly i am aware havok and physx are both physics software engines but physx takes advantage of nvidias cuda which loads the calculations onto the gpu where as havok relies on the cpu. true havok has a more broad range of supporting games than physx but this is still early stages of the game, and by the time ati takes advantage of what all the other leading vendors out there are doing, theyd be left out in the dust. take intel for instance, they are slowly emerging gpu into their chips, why? because of the raw compute power it packs and hence many core architecture. hardware physx on a gpu will beat software physx processed on a cpu and trample over it like a rampaging stampede. oh and dont mind the tag its disturbing and thats the point.

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

nesquick 
25/8/08 10:08:08 PM
Guru

the source engine does physics on a software level and it does it dam well so i don't see why all this havok and physx stuff is going to be that great.

-----
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 10:12:12 PM
Titan

Quote by Baner86
I really only posted the thing to test out the changes to my systems in the sig...

:D



OMG Bastard! :P

Benchies? Games? What screen are you running btw? Still the 24"?
Moar informationz! +D

-----

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

SceptreCore 
26/8/08 1:37:42 AM
Guru

Quote by Baner86
I really only posted the thing to test out the changes to my systems in the sig...

:D


Yeah well that was pretty damn long just to see the changes made, but come on, admit it, you wanted to slam that noob.... didn't cha?

-----
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...



xguntherc 
26/8/08 2:48:24 AM
Overlord

Nice read there Banner.

lol. I have a Physx card. I'm cool. lol jk.
I could care less. I have not even downloaded the driver. my games all play fine, when i actually see a "Use" for the drivers. I'll get them.. for now they are not needed. unless I want a higher score in 3DMark, thats about it at the moment.

-----
eVGA 750i FTW- -Q6700 GO @3.4Ghz w/Tuniq- -eVGA GTX 260- -2x2GB G-Skill- -Seagate Cuda 500GB 32mb 7200.(11)+ 500GB Ext- -ASUS 20x ODD- -Samsung 226BW & 2253BW Dual 22's- -Bose Companion 3-

http://tinyurl.com/3DMark06


Baner86 
26/8/08 8:57:51 AM
Hero
Champion


Yo nesquick, I'm pretty certain if you wiki Half-Life 2 you'll find that it uses heavily modified Havok for it's physics :)

Yo FB: I'm not really the type to show you guys my video card porn...that's all between me and my silicon harem. As for benchies, aren't the ten million or so that are already on the net enough for you. BTW. I'm only running a 22 inch monitor....yeah yeah "BUT YOU'RE NOT UTILISING THE FULL...." blah blah. Doesn't change the fact it's a HD4870x2 though? :D

Which was part of my point, in one of the only games we have had meaningful physics...the physics was implemented with the software and didn't need hardware acceleration for good performance...hell, it ran good on a 9700 Pro and Athlon XP system (!)

layzi, it looks like you still didn't see the point of my post. It explained everything quite clearly and I'm pretty sure I went over the main points again in the conclusion.

This is not the early stages of the game...HAVOK has been around since 2000.

AGEIA was selling physX cards for a VERY short time and were floundering about like fish out of water until they were bought by Nvidia.

I completely agree with you that Nvidia is ahead in terms of having a proprietary physics engine that can be hardware accelerated which they solely own and control. It's also great that the physics can run on CUDA which is also a great development by Nvidia to use the parallel nature of the GPU to run CPU-like tasks.

But like I said, PhysX was dead in the water and still is when it offers no performance boost or more problems than it's worth.

http://utforums.epicgames.com/showthread.php?t=620375&highlight=physx

Sure. Some people love it...but what are you getting? Some more particle effects and semi-destructible parts of the terrain.

The physics still isn't an integral part of the gameplay. You're still just owning noobs with your gun and it doesn't matter that the smoke effect on that rocket looks a bit "smokier".

With the Olympics just gone let me try to use an Olympic analogy:

Nvidia is certainly off to a headstart but thats a headstart in a race noone else needs to run.

-----
Q6600//GA-X38-DQ6//4x1GB ADATA DDR2-800//Hightech HD4870X2

E6600//P5B Deluxe WiFi-AP//2x1GB G.Skill DDR2-533//2x Palit 2900XT (Crossfire)

A64 4400+ x2//A8N-Sli Premium//2x1GB G.Skill DDR-400//2x XFX 8800GT (Sli)

nesquick 
26/8/08 9:41:27 AM
Guru

yea man i have seen it in the fine print when you load up ep2, i was just saying that software physics does just as good a job as using a gpu or physx card to run it on

-----
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|

sora3 
26/8/08 9:44:56 AM
Immortal

Quote by layzi
A stupid post here



You still don't get it, do you?

The Havok engine is much relatively simplier to code into a game engine as compared to the PhysX engine. Why? Ask anyone who's done game engine programming and they'll tell you it's a lot easier to go with a package that's tried and test as compared to an untried package that requires external help in the form of new hardware. AS if any good studio house will do that as that means more testing for bugs and generally only allow an exclusive handful for that privilege.

The reason why ATI hasn't embraced the GPGPU yet through PhysX or HavocFX is because they don't want to look like idiots should consumer views change. nVidia did what they can to keep the heat off their back. I'm guessing that this is more a PR stunt to keep the awesomeness of the HD 4800 series off their back.

Tell me. Is there any benefit from having real time physics in the game? I personally don't think so as the current physics implementation is good enough. So what if a ball can bounce better or the flag in the wind ripples better? I'm not going to spend $90 or upwards just to see that.

-----
Embrace your dreams and never forget your honour.

Quote by Jen-Hsun Huang
"How much faster can you render the blue screen of death?"



illdrift 
26/8/08 10:06:45 AM
Overlord

Not disagreeing with anything previously said, but other than the complexity, i fail to see whats not to like about hardware accelerated physics. Doesn't make a difference who is behind it, but atleast nvidia are trying to make a headstart in simplifying the process.

You guys won't notice it with the games you play. But take car sims for example, especially drifting. Imagine all the physics calculations required to simulate that. Weight distribution, tyre contact patches, grip of the road surface, suspension travel, relative tyre speeds etc. Then try calculating the effect of wind resistance at high speeds, and the movement of the tyre smoke particles as they follow the turbulent air around the rear underside of the car.

I look forward to better physics processing, and hope it does become more mainstream.


Edited by illdrift: 26/8/2008 10:08:48 AM

-----
Desktop|xfx 790i|q6600@450x8(h2o)|2x2GB@1600-777|3xVX2640W|8800gt(h2o)| 2x8600gt(passive)|LG GGC-H20L|CoolMax 480w(passive)|

Nas|iCute Super18|msi 680i|e4300|2x640gb Rd1|HighPoint 2320|5x1tb Rd5|TX750W|

sora3 
26/8/08 10:13:58 AM
Immortal

Quote by illdrift
Not disagreeing with anything previously said, but other than the complexity, i fail to see whats not to like about hardware accelerated physics. Doesn't make a difference who is behind it, but atleast nvidia are trying to make a headstart in simplifying the process.

You guys won't notice it with the games you play. But take car sims for example, especially drifting. Imagine all the physics calculations required to simulate that. Weight distribution, tyre contact patches, grip of the road surface, suspension travel, relative tyre speeds etc. Then try calculating the effect of wind resistance at high speeds, and the movement of the tyre smoke particles as they follow the turbulent air around the rear underside of the car.

I look forward to better physics processing, and hope it does become more mainstream.


Edited by illdrift: 26/8/2008 10:08:48 AM



That may be the case later but for the time being, I do believe that current physics is already good enough and should a game demand something like that (which I assume won't be too far off), then we could embrace it. But for the time being, the GPGPU program is only just beginning so maybe...

-----
Embrace your dreams and never forget your honour.

Quote by Jen-Hsun Huang
"How much faster can you render the blue screen of death?"



Doctor Octopus 
26/8/08 10:39:19 AM
Disciple
Quote by illdrift
Not disagreeing with anything previously said, but other than the complexity, i fail to see whats not to like about hardware accelerated physics. Doesn't make a difference who is behind it, but atleast nvidia are trying to make a headstart in simplifying the process.

You guys won't notice it with the games you play. But take car sims for example, especially drifting. Imagine all the physics calculations required to simulate that. Weight distribution, tyre contact patches, grip of the road surface, suspension travel, relative tyre speeds etc. Then try calculating the effect of wind resistance at high speeds, and the movement of the tyre smoke particles as they follow the turbulent air around the rear underside of the car.

I look forward to better physics processing, and hope it does become more mainstream.


Edited by illdrift: 26/8/2008 10:08:48 AM



Yes, that's complex PhysX, however as already stated, modern day CPUs are far more than capable to be able to handle that.

-----
"Make sure your answer uses Scripture, not logic." - The Christian Forums

illdrift 
26/8/08 10:58:28 AM
Overlord

sora3 - yea, agreed

Quote by Doctor Octopus
Quote by illdrift
Not disagreeing with anything previously said, but other than the complexity, i fail to see whats not to like about hardware accelerated physics. Doesn't make a difference who is behind it, but atleast nvidia are trying to make a headstart in simplifying the process.

You guys won't notice it with the games you play. But take car sims for example, especially drifting. Imagine all the physics calculations required to simulate that. Weight distribution, tyre contact patches, grip of the road surface, suspension travel, relative tyre speeds etc. Then try calculating the effect of wind resistance at high speeds, and the movement of the tyre smoke particles as they follow the turbulent air around the rear underside of the car.

I look forward to better physics processing, and hope it does become more mainstream.


Edited by illdrift: 26/8/2008 10:08:48 AM



Yes, that's complex PhysX, however as already stated, modern day CPUs are far more than capable to be able to handle that.



o.0

I'm confused by which part you are referring to. If you mean modern day cpu's can handle the example i gave of true car simulation, then no they can't.

-----
Desktop|xfx 790i|q6600@450x8(h2o)|2x2GB@1600-777|3xVX2640W|8800gt(h2o)| 2x8600gt(passive)|LG GGC-H20L|CoolMax 480w(passive)|

Nas|iCute Super18|msi 680i|e4300|2x640gb Rd1|HighPoint 2320|5x1tb Rd5|TX750W|

layzi 
26/8/08 12:17:55 PM
Apprentice
baner86
yeah thx for that huge wall of text which was enlightening but at the same time a waste of energy and totally uncalled for. all i wanted was some feedback and instead i get chaos, must be the green aura im giving off or something. o_O everything youve mentioned earlier is nothing new to me but i appreciate your efforts and its not the answer i was looking for. im not bagging havok or anything in fact its a bloody good engine on the software side at least. the only reason i make physx out to be more than what people normally perceive is because of the performance through hardware accelerated processing and for that reason its got some potential, you may say that nvidia is stupid this and that but dont forget there are millions out there who may think otherwise.

illdrift
+1 +high five =)
the first time i saw the playstation 3 showcased on a 52" 1080p running a demo of gran turismo i gotta say i was blown away by its fluidness. i think nvidia is onto something here and you are definitely on the money it doesnt matter who is behind it as long as they embrace it.

sora
stupid is as stupid does ahur hur hur
i dont think very highly of you either and i think you are missing the point totally, you make it sound as if havok cannot run on nvidia gpus and only on ati. havok fx was cancelled not long after intel acquired havok, havok and havok fx are 2 seperate things so dont confuse yourself. any benefits you ask? yes huge imo.

dr octopus
so why is it that you get framerate drops on the article ive posted when comparing cpu to gpu?


Edited by layzi: 26/8/2008 12:19:08 PM


Edited by layzi: 26/8/2008 12:20:01 PM

-----
FTW!
http://overclockingpin.com/final%20gtx280/790isli-triple-tek9-40.jpg

Vanne 
26/8/08 12:43:35 PM
Champion

I like my PPU :) *nuff said* :)

-----
DFi Lanparty Ultra D-Hardmod to SLi
AMD X2 4400+ Holy Toledo Batman
TeamXtreem Cronus 3-3-2-8 DDR500
2xAsus 7900GTX (GA SLi bridge)
Enermax Liberty 620W SLi
2xApple 20 Inch LCD's
Ageia PhysX

SceptreCore 
26/8/08 2:42:19 PM
Guru

Quote by illdrift
Not disagreeing with anything previously said, but other than the complexity, i fail to see whats not to like about hardware accelerated physics. Doesn't make a difference who is behind it, but at least nvidia are trying to make a headstart in simplifying the process.

You guys won't notice it with the games you play. But take car sims for example, especially drifting. Imagine all the physics calculations required to simulate that. Weight distribution, tyre contact patches, grip of the road surface, suspension travel, relative tyre speeds etc. Then try calculating the effect of wind resistance at high speeds, and the movement of the tyre smoke particles as they follow the turbulent air around the rear underside of the car.

I look forward to better physics processing, and hope it does become more mainstream.


Edited by illdrift: 26/8/2008 10:08:48 AM


Exactly, the work nVidia are doing in terms of GPGPU and CUDA are returning excellent results. And I think the sooner this can be implemented into the mainstream gaming scene the better. ATI are playing it cool by waiting (but how we know they are waiting and don't have something in the works already I don't know) and it will be cheaper to implement it once the technology and development has been properly tested/integrated in to everyday computing. And I have no doubt that ATI will do something similar or find a way to have this ability.

I also look forward to mainstream physic processing and hats off to nVidia for getting the ball rolling, a process which will no doubt affect our gaming experience. GPGPU FTW!

Here is some more of what is being done in GPGPU and CUDA: http://www.gpgpu.org/

-----
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...



Baner86 
26/8/08 5:22:07 PM
Hero
Champion


illdrift: Have you played Live for Speed? There is a mode that represents all physics interaction with the car as coloured arrows. Almost everything you said:

"Weight distribution, tyre contact patches, grip of the road surface, suspension travel, relative tyre speeds etc. is already simulated in that game."

And it runs well on an Athlon XP 3000+

"effect of wind resistance at high speeds, and the movement of the tyre smoke particles as they follow the turbulent air around the rear underside of the car."

Effect of wind resistance is probably the only thing in modern car racing simulators that is missing if the game is actually a racing simulator. Also, I'd personally discount the "tyre smoke particles" thing because that's more of a graphical thing and not really impacting on the gameplay which is what physics really is for.

What I'm trying to get at is the best car simulator out right now (GTR2 or RFactor) do most of the physics calculations that you are after but run on ridiculously old systems. I can still play these games on my Athlon x2 4400+ with graphics cranked and everything and at the same time decode video.

There is a lot of processing power not being utilised from the CPU which could easily be utilised for more complex physics simulation in racing games.

I think they simply haven't gone further because it hasn't been called for to simulate even more hardcore physics. Imagine a racing game as intense as GTR2 already and ALSO having to worry about wether that bird that just flew past blew enough wind at your car so that on the next turn you either: go off the road in a ball of flame or perform a fap-worthy drift.

layzi here's two sites you should look at:

http://en.hardspell.com/doc/showcont.asp?news_id=3553

3dMark Vantage scores are made up of both scores based on physics tests as well as the traditional graphics testing.

If the CUDA physics actually helped in any way shouldn't the world 3DMark Vantage record be owned by a system running Nvidia hardware?

Also this:

http://www.evga.com/forums/printable.asp?m=431811

EVGA only makes Nvidia parts at the moment. Their forums would be full of Nvidia owners. They come to the conclusion that running physics with CUDA on their Nvidia graphics cards doesn't help performance at all because:

Frame rate is decreased because stream processors are diverted to calculating physics which completely defeats the purpose of hardware accelerating physics in the first place. After all you want the shit to run faster right?

It doesn't run faster because your graphics card is only half processing graphics and half processing video. It ends up slower.

All that Nvidia has achieved is running physics on a GPU. It's an interesting development but noone cares at this point in time.

Also if you'd google a bit you would realise PhysX is a seperate entity to Nvidia and has been confirmed that it can run on Ati hardware.

Why don't Ati pimp this fact for all it's worth? Because at the moment running physics on the graphics card does bugger all.

Also you said this: "havok fx was cancelled not long after intel acquired havok, havok and havok fx are 2 seperate things so dont confuse yourself. any benefits you ask? yes huge imo"

You must agree that Intel at the moment is a damn fine company dominating the CPU market by a huge margin right? If they spent wads of cash buying Havok to develop Havok FX WHY THE FUCK WOULD THEY CANCEL IT IF THEY THOUGHT PHYSICS WAS GOING TO BE BIG. After all they would be wading around in cash right now cos every man and his dog owns an Intel CPU so they could afford a bit of research dedicated to hardware accelerating physics.

They aren't because they see there is currently no point in it? Evidence for this? The majority of games in the most wanted lists for the coming years are running Havok.


-----
Q6600//GA-X38-DQ6//4x1GB ADATA DDR2-800//Hightech HD4870X2

E6600//P5B Deluxe WiFi-AP//2x1GB G.Skill DDR2-533//2x Palit 2900XT (Crossfire)

A64 4400+ x2//A8N-Sli Premium//2x1GB G.Skill DDR-400//2x XFX 8800GT (Sli)

nesquick 
26/8/08 5:30:48 PM
Guru

I think the best solution to the whole physics debacle would be to utilize the second, third or fourth core of a cpu when you are playing a game as pretty much every game i have does not benefit from X amount more cores, so in retrospect we could use the idle process of 1-3 cores on the cpu that would otherwise go to waste to process physics. That would mean we still got maximum fps whilst making full use of the available processing power that like i said would otherwise go to waste.


Edited by nesquick: 26/8/2008 5:31:14 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|

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