Details on Nvidia PhysX - please read

[human_error]

After ATi had already shut the door on CUDA running on ATi hardware natively

Again i'll have to correct you on this - it is not native support. It is emulation. Emulation is almost always inefficient and buggy when trying to run hardware supported calculations on hardware which does not have those exact calculations supported. You would not get a very good result running CUDA on STREAM hardware (on the 4k series) because CUDA had things such as double floating point precision (i think that is correct, been a while since i looked into the fundamental differences), which stream and the 4k series did not have, so the emulation would needto do a lot more calculations to perform the same task, and even then it isn't guaranteed that the emulation would work with 100% compatability.

Anyway i feel this is getting too far off topic, if you want to discuss this further open up a new thread and we can look into it in detail there.

 

[Mussels]

Again i'll have to correct you on this - it is not native support. It is emulation. Emulation is almost always inefficient and buggy when trying to run hardware supported calculations on hardware which does not have those exact calculations supported. You would not get a very good result running CUDA on STREAM hardware (on the 4k series) because CUDA had things such as double floating point precision (i think that is correct, been a while since i looked into the fundamental differences), which stream and the 4k series did not have, so the emulation would needto do a lot more calculations to perform the same task, and even then it isn't guaranteed that the emulation would work with 100% compatability.

Anyway i feel this is getting too far off topic, if you want to discuss this further open up a new thread and we can look into it in detail there.

4k does have double float etc, although oddly not all 5k do (5770 doesnt for example)

but yeah - the hardware was totally different, theres no damn way.

 

[cadaveca]

I didn't see anyone mention that it's not Phys-X that sucks really, but now developer's implement it?

I mean, it's like DX11 is now...kinda useless, and just used for visual effects, rather accelerating the existing app....

Any tech that serves as an "add-on" will be presented this way though. Open standards, or whatever, aren't going to make a difference until development houses actually work to have this stuff integrated into gameplay...and because the lowest common denominator is consoles, any sort of add-on to graphics is gonna be just that...an add-on.

 

[bobzilla2009]

I didn't see anyone mention that it's not Phys-X that sucks really, but now developer's implement it?

I mean, it's like DX11 is now...kinda useless, and just used for visual effects, rather accelerating the existing app....

Any tech that serves as an "add-on" will be presented this way though. Open standards, or whatever, aren't going to make a difference until development houses actually work to have this stuff integrated into gameplay...and because the lowest common denominator is consoles, any sort of add-on to graphics is gonna be just that...an add-on.

Indeed, physX could be fantastic as an overlay for detail, but the fact that nvidia hold onto it like a safety blanket is going to cause its death. Tbh i expect the next console generation to be the end of consoles as a gaming medium for actual gamers and not casuals. I foresee a lot of wii clones (both the ps3 and the 360 are guilty of it already) and the PC will be left as the only real gaming platform. So that might lead to some decent games then ^^

 

[newtekie1]

Again i'll have to correct you on this - it is not native support. It is emulation. Emulation is almost always inefficient and buggy when trying to run hardware supported calculations on hardware which does not have those exact calculations supported. You would not get a very good result running CUDA on STREAM hardware (on the 4k series) because CUDA had things such as double floating point precision (i think that is correct, been a while since i looked into the fundamental differences), which stream and the 4k series did not have, so the emulation would needto do a lot more calculations to perform the same task, and even then it isn't guaranteed that the emulation would work with 100% compatability.

Anyway i feel this is getting too far off topic, if you want to discuss this further open up a new thread and we can look into it in detail there.

No, it is native support, not emulation. Emulation would be running CUDA inside of Stream, which wasn't what was happening. CUDA was accessing the GPU directly to do the work.

Again, another beauty of CUDA, it can be adapted to run on pretty much anything.

 

[Mussels]

I didn't see anyone mention that it's not Phys-X that sucks really, but now developer's implement it?

I mean, it's like DX11 is now...kinda useless, and just used for visual effects, rather accelerating the existing app....

Any tech that serves as an "add-on" will be presented this way though. Open standards, or whatever, aren't going to make a difference until development houses actually work to have this stuff integrated into gameplay...and because the lowest common denominator is consoles, any sort of add-on to graphics is gonna be just that...an add-on.

PhysX itself can only do visual effects. it cant do 'interactive' physics - you know, you cant have the box you pick up with a gravity gun in half life 2 and squish people with it... you can only have 'visual effects' like more debris (that passes through everything) or flags/cloth that cant touch anything that isnt themselves.

combine that with the fact that they cant make it essential (if a game required hardware physX like say, warmonger... so few people can run it, that no one does)

the only way to make it do interactive physics is like what they did in the UT3 bonus maps - it REQUIRES hardware physX to run (thus making the amount of gamers that can use it, very damn little)

 

[kid41212003]

I have played few games on PS3 that use PhysX.

PhysX is not a problem here, it's GPU Acc thing, and PC only thing.

 

[bobzilla2009]

No, it is native support, not emulation. Emulation would be running CUDA inside of Stream, which wasn't what was happening. CUDA was accessing the GPU directly to do the work.

then why haven't we seen anything other than a botched screenshot?

 

[newtekie1]

then why haven't we seen anything other than a botched screenshot?

Already explained, please try reading.

 

[bobzilla2009]

PhysX itself can only do visual effects. it cant do 'interactive' physics - you know, you cant have the box you pick up with a gravity gun in half life 2 and squish people with it... you can only have 'visual effects' like more debris (that passes through everything) or flags/cloth that cant touch anything that isnt themselves.

combine that with the fact that they cant make it essential (if a game required hardware physX like say, warmonger... so few people can run it, that no one does)

I didn't know that! PhysX really is crap then it has no future. Interactive physics >>>>>>> pretties.

 

[bobzilla2009]

Already explained, please try reading.

so they couldn't make a video? or post some pictures that show the hd3870 is doing the work? nothing? at all? really? you sure? please try thinking instead of swallowing up what some website told you.

Also, judging by some of the comments by the guy making it, pretty much all companies were out to get him lol. ATi just didn't give them cards it would seem. I can't seem to find the post saying amd blocked driver development. But i've seen ones where nvidia were banning the site from posting nvidia drivers ect. Basically, no-one wanted physX on ATi cards.

 

[cadaveca]

PhysX itself can only do visual effects. it cant do 'interactive' physics - you know, you cant have the box you pick up with a gravity gun in half life 2 and squish people with it... you can only have 'visual effects' like more debris (that passes through everything) or flags/cloth that cant touch anything that isnt themselves.

combine that with the fact that they cant make it essential (if a game required hardware physX like say, warmonger... so few people can run it, that no one does)

Yeah, I think this is it's major downfall. Havoc provides interactive physics, and so does DICE's BFBC engine, so there's really no appeal to Phys-X at all for me...I mean, I was one of thsoe that bougth the Ageia hardware when it first came out, and back then, those effects were something that seemed new, and innovative....

But now that it has been years, and nothing new has been offered...it's kinda stale.

If every system had the required hardware, things might change, but that will never happen, or it would have already, so Phys-X is a dead end, for me.

That said, I'm gonna buy a GTX480, and I'll be able to see the effects Phys-X brings...but that's NOT why I'm buying one.

 

[[I.R.A]_FBi]

these bitchfests get annoying quite fast =\

 

[kid41212003]

Umm... err

You forgot the game called Cell Factor that does that?

Even Bioshock that using CPU physics don't need GPU acc to do that.

 

[newtekie1]

so they couldn't make a video? or post some pictures that show the hd3870 is doing the work? nothing? at all? really? you sure? please try thinking instead of swallowing up what some website told you.

Lets see, swallow what some website told me, or listen to some random forum user...

Yeah, I'll believe the website that provided proof and not you, sorry.

Yeah, I think this is it's major downfall. Havoc provides interactive physics, and so does DICE's BFBC engine, so there's really no appeal to Phys-X at all for me...I mean, I was one of thsoe that bougth the Ageia hardware when it first came out, and back then, those effects were something that seemed new, and innovative....

But now that it has been years, and nothing new has been offered...it's kinda stale.

If every system had the required hardware, things might change, but that will never happen, or it would have already, so Phys-X is a dead end, for me.

That said, I'm gonna buy a GTX480, and I'll be able to see the effects Phys-X brings...but that's NOT why I'm buying one.

PhysX can in fact do interactive physics. However, most developers didn't implement it in this way because it would make the game drasticly different on nVidia hardware then on ATi hardware.

Can you image a game that requires you to break down a wall or move a box or several boxes, and it works with nVidia but no ATi cards? That game wouldn't work in the market. So PhysX was limitted to only eye candy effects.

 

[bobzilla2009]

Lets see, swallow what some website told me, or listen to some random forum user...

Yeah, I'll believe the website that provided proof and not you, sorry.

I'm sorry i guess i don't take one picture as proof, especially when the excuses for not making videos were:

'our camcorders aren't very good'

http://www.ngohq.com/news/14219-physx-gpu-acceleration-on-radeon-hd-3850-a-2.html

half way down the comments, but they never needed to camcorder it they could have done a desktop video and have provided far more compelling proof.

I'm sorry for not being so gullible but it took me about 10 minutes of happily reading the comments about a year ago to realize that it was just a hoax or a sham. It would have been nice if it weren't though. Still, it would never have been official, so it never would have achieved anything. I can live without a few little moving pieces in about 2 of the games i own without having to pay an extra £150 for the same performance.

 

[Mussels]

I'm sorry i guess i don't take one picture as proof, especially when the excuses for not making videos were:

'our camcorders aren't very good'

http://www.ngohq.com/news/14219-physx-gpu-acceleration-on-radeon-hd-3850-a-2.html

half way down the comments.

I'm sorry for not being so gullible ^^

I tell ya what i see here.

I see a user who ran a 3850 at the same time as an nvidia card for physx, and then edited a single word in his screenshot from nvidia to radeon.

 

[newtekie1]

I'm sorry i guess i don't take one picture as proof, especially when the excuses for not making videos were:

'our camcorders aren't very good'

http://www.ngohq.com/news/14219-physx-gpu-acceleration-on-radeon-hd-3850-a-2.html

half way down the comments, but they never needed to camcorder it, they could have done a desktop video and have provided far more compelling proof.

I'm sorry for not being so gullible

Or you are just more willing to believe whatever makes ATi look better...

So I guess you are calling all the reporters from the multiple big name websites that interviewed him and nVidia's spokemen guilible also.

http://www.ngohq.com/images/physxonradeon.jpg

I tell ya what i see here.

I see a user who ran a 3850 at the same time as an nvidia card for physx, and then edited a single word in his screenshot from nvidia to radeon.

I like how at first you are like, ATi was right for not allowing it. And once your arguments didn't really work out to prove that point, you switch to, well it probably wasn't real anyway...

Whatever...we're just going around in circles here anyway arguing about a technology that doesn't really matter anyway because it is barely used, and won't be used anymore.

 

[bobzilla2009]

Or you are just more willing to believe whatever makes ATi look better...

So I guess you are calling all the reporters from the multiple big name websites that interviewed him and nVidia's spokemen guilible also.

The reporters are just reporting what they were told to report, it's their job. Also, who trusts spokesmen for any company without any kind of real proof from other sources that aren't just reporting the garbage that was initially claimed?

It's like when nvidia was initally showing the gtx480 to be super duper awesome, we all thought 'coolio!' but we all were skeptical (well, mostly) and rightly so. If AMD did that I'd be just as skeptical. Since it's been 2 years without any significant proof, I quite happily say it's all crap.

But whatever you think, it cannot be significantly proved, nor disproved (as you can't disprove something that never existed if someone believes it to be so). We are in religion debate territory here. Therefore further debate is entirely pointless. You may as well be saying unicorns are real, the argument is equally valid because there are pictures too.

Therefore they exist, obviously.

Anyways, i think we should start hoping for better physics in games when we actually have crysis level graphics as standard

 

[Mussels]

Or you are just more willing to believe whatever makes ATi look better...

So I guess you are calling all the reporters from the multiple big name websites that interviewed him and nVidia's spokemen guilible also.



I like how at first you are like, ATi was right for not allowing it. And once your arguments didn't really work out to prove that point, you switch to, well it probably wasn't real anyway...

Whatever...we're just going around in circles here anyway arguing about a technology that doesn't really matter anyway because it is barely used, and won't be used anymore.

i never said ATI was right for not allowing it - i said the entire thing about nvidia offering it for free was made up bullshit. There was simply no way it was ever going to happen like the rumours with zero factual backing stated, just like the crap you're making up about CUDA running on ATI.

 

[human_error]

2 minutes in paint results in this proof i have physx running on my 5970:

Reasons on discrepencies: "Now of course gpu-z didn't pick me up running physx because it wouldn't look for it on ATi cards", "I can't take a video because my camera isn't very good", "I can't distribute it because ATi sent me a nasty letter threatening legal action if i release it" etc

Screenshots mean nothing - unless we have reputable people confirming it running plus videos or a version to try ourselves then it is all FUD.

 

[newtekie1]

i never said ATI was right for not allowing it - i said the entire thing about nvidia offering it for free was made up bullshit. There was simply no way it was ever going to happen like the rumours with zero factual backing stated, just like the crap you're making up about CUDA running on ATI.

Now I'm making it up...ok...

I'm just posting what has been said by others, I'm not making a thing up. But I guess trying to invalidate the poster personally is a rather common resort when you argument is failing...

I guess the true test would have been for ATi to allow it and see what happened, but alas we didn't see that, so we can't really know.

And as I said, it is kind of pointless to keep arguing about it, since as pointed out in the first post, PhysX is pretty much unused at this point, and won't likely be used for anything major in the future.

Have a nice day ya'll, I'm going to play some games. Fuck PhysX.

 

[bobzilla2009]

2 minutes in paint results in this proof i have physx running on my 5970:

http://img.techpowerup.org/100412/Capture.png

Reasons on discrepencies: "Now of course gpu-z didn't pick me up running physx because it wouldn't look for it on ATi cards", "I can't take a video because my camera isn't very good", "I can't distribute it because ATi sent me a nasty letter threatening legal action if i release it" etc

Screenshots mean nothing - unless we have reputable people confirming it running plus videos or a version to try ourselves then it is all FUD.

omg! physX running on a hd5970!!!! when are you going to release the drivers!

 

[Mussels]

Now I'm making it up...ok...

I'm just posting what has been said by others, I'm not making a thing up. But I guess trying to invalidate the poster personally is a rather common resort when you argument is failing...

Dude... you fell for a fake screenshot. If i go around telling people that the sky is falling, i quote the source - and when that source turns out to be the town drunk in the middle of a hailstorm, well gee, i dunno... maybe its fake?

please stop threadcrapping about something that everyone but you knows is not true.

 

[newtekie1]

Dude... you fell for a fake screenshot. If i go around telling people that the sky is falling, i quote the source - and when that source turns out to be the town drunk in the middle of a hailstorm, well gee, i dunno... maybe its fake?

please stop threadcrapping about something that everyone but you knows is not true.

The screenshot is one thing, which I agree could be faked easily. The verification by nVidia, and the statements from both him and nVidia afterward...thats something else and more to my point.

Why does everyone assume everything I've said is based soley on one screenshot? Did none of you read the article with statements from nVidia saying they supported developement of CUDA for ATi hardware?