Details on Nvidia PhysX - please read

[lukesky]

You guys should really check out http://www.gamephys.com/category/game-physics/ for some real physics and physx action.

Another site that has the updated list of physx and hardware physx games http://physxinfo.com/

 

[bobzilla2009]

Sorry, but PhsyX is free to develope for any platform. It is used in all three current consoles, without charge. They know this is the only way it would be used, it had to run on ATi hardware to be sucessful, otherwise developers wouldn't use it. ATi of course knew that also, which is why they didn't allow it.

physX ran on a cpu is free to develop. The gpu version is locked to nvidia. Also, nvidia would gimp ati performance to gain an unfair lead in performance. AMD would rather wait for an open standard to arrive, as should all gamers. No one company should have any direct power over another ability to perform well (i'm looking at you The way it's meant to be paid off).

 

[newtekie1]

physX ran on a cpu is free to develop. The gpu version is locked to nvidia. Also, nvidia would gimp ati performance to gain an unfair lead in performance. AMD would rather wait for an open standard to arrive, as should all gamers. No one company should have any direct power over another ability to perform well (i'm looking at you The way it's meant to be paid off).

It is free for GPU or CPU. And I already addressed the issue of nVidia "gimping" performance, it simply isn't possible.

And TWIMTBP doesn't hinder ATi performance, it just improves nVidia's performance.

 

[erocker]

It is free for GPU or CPU. And I already addressed the issue of nVidia "gimping" performance, it simply isn't possible.

And TWIMTBP doesn't hinder ATi performance, it just improves nVidia's performance.

I still haven't seen PhysX being run on any other GPU than Nvidia or an Ageia PPU. I haven't seen any "hacks" to run PhysX on any other GPU. Are you sure this is fact that PhysX is open to run on any GPU? Is it purely software to make it work or does there need to be some archetectural things in place for it to work? Why hasn't anyone from the "modding" community gotten PhysX to work on a non-Nvidia GPU? Does PhysX need to be run on a GPU? From what I've seen PhysX isn't coded well enough to use a CPU properly, but it does a great job on Nvidia GPU's.. sometimes. With the way things are currently, it certainly seems as if PhysX isn't open at all.

 

[Grings]

I still haven't seen PhysX being run on any other GPU than Nvidia or an Ageia PPU. I haven't seen any "hacks" to run PhysX on any other GPU. Are you sure this is fact that PhysX is open to run on any GPU? Is it purely software to make it work or does there need to be some archetectural things in place for it to work? Why hasn't anyone from the "modding" community gotten PhysX to work on a non-Nvidia GPU? Does PhysX need to be run on a GPU? From what I've seen PhysX isn't coded well enough to use a CPU properly, but it does a great job on Nvidia GPU's.. sometimes. With the way things are currently, it certainly seems as if PhysX isn't open at all.

I've been wondering about the software side too, back when Aegia were making it games used to install the Aegia drivers, and that got updated by newer games also using PhysX, however since its been Nvidia i havent seen anything add in a PhysX driver on my Ati rig (and wouldnt on my Nvidia one anyway, its inside forceware)

 

[newtekie1]

I still haven't seen PhysX being run on any other GPU than Nvidia or an Ageia PPU. I haven't seen any "hacks" to run PhysX on any other GPU. Are you sure this is fact that PhysX is open to run on any GPU? Is it purely software to make it work or does there need to be some archetectural things in place for it to work? Why hasn't anyone from the "modding" community gotten PhysX to work on a non-Nvidia GPU? Does PhysX need to be run on a GPU? From what I've seen PhysX isn't coded well enough to use a CPU properly, but it does a great job on Nvidia GPU's.. sometimes. With the way things are currently, it certainly seems as if PhysX isn't open at all.

It was running wonderfully on the HD3800 series. The ATi drivers needed to be modified to get it running, apparently they modifications were rather minor and easy. However, the biggest hurdle was that the drivers would only work in Test Mode, ATi had to officially add support for CUDA to allow it to work in normal mode in Windows. The hack was posted on ngohq. Then nVidia offered the hacker, Eran Badit editor-in-chief of ngohq.com, a spot on their developement team. The issue then came down not to adding support for ATi into the PhysX engine, but adding support for CUDA into ATi's drivers. That is where it ended, ATi never allowed CUDA support for the drivers, and Erin gave up trying it seems. ATi had to do very little to get it working, and there wouldn't really be any shady stuff since developement was actually being done by a 3rd party, someone how originally though he was defying nVidia when he made his hack...

If you really want to lean who was responsible for ATi not having PhysX, this is an interesting article, it certainly wasn't nVidia's fault that PhysX doesn't run on ATi hardware, nVidia tried...

 

[erocker]

It was running wonderfully on the HD3800 series. The ATi drivers needed to be modified to get it running, apparently they modifications were rather minor and easy. However, the biggest hurdle was that the drivers would only work in Test Mode, ATi had to officially add support for CUDA to allow it to work in normal mode in Windows. The hack was posted on ngohq. Then nVidia offered the hacker, Eran Badit editor-in-chief of ngohq.com, a spot on their developement team. The issue then came down not to adding support for ATi into the PhysX engine, but adding support for CUDA into ATi's drivers. That is where it ended, ATi never allowed CUDA support for the drivers, and Erin gave up trying it seems. ATi had to do very little to get it working, and there wouldn't really be any shady stuff since developement was actually being done by a 3rd party, someone how originally though he was defying nVidia when he made his hack...

If you really want to lean who was responsible for ATi not having PhysX, this is an interesting article, it certainly wasn't nVidia's fault that PhysX doesn't run on ATi hardware, nVidia tried...

Now I remember the NGHQ thing. I mean really, if CUDA is free and takes minimal effort to implement, why not make CUDA the open solution since it works! PhysX aside, CUDA is more mature than ATi Stream which is still in beta and still has very limited support. It seems to be a pride issue, thing is if CUDA was being used as an open standard nobody would even care who came up with it. ATi also may have contractual obligations to use things such as Havok and whatever else there is, but that isn't anything we could or would know about.

 

[crazyeyesreaper]

You guys should really check out http://www.gamephys.com/category/game-physics/ for some real physics and physx action.

Another site that has the updated list of physx and hardware physx games http://physxinfo.com/

you fail to understand the difference of CPU physx and GPU physx

19 games support the PPU 26 supported with GPU total including games indevelopment

total games that use physx 247

so out of 247 games 19 support the ppu and 26 support the GPU

out of those games 3 on the PPU dont even NEED it to run with all those physx calculations ie cloth tearing etc from cellfactor was easily done a cpu and was just as fast

of those games for the GPU out of 26 total only 15 are released of the 15 released

only 1 makes heavy use of it Cryostasis and since 3 gtx 280s cant even maintain 60 fps at 1600x1200 means epic fail.

and Batman AA is a perfect example of ignorance Nvidia gets AA in game with a few extra particles and some extra effects ATi users get no AA in game but at the end of the day u get extra gimmicks and 30% of your target audience gets shafted.

software physx is whats used 90% of the time out of 26 games indevelopment for PC only 15 are released and only 1 must have physx to be playable properly.

so tell me how many out there who play PC games are gonna buy an Nvidia gpu then buy another just for physx when only 26 games over the course of almost 5 years support it?

wake up and smell the green tinted roses physx is a nice gimmick nothing more i fell for it once but never again (i had an ageia PPU the first day of release.)

what i want to see is how Tessellation + Physx work after all Nvidias tessellation uses the shaders so as those get eaten up for tessellation and more is used for textures rendering etc how much more of a frame rate hit are we gonna see from Physx on a gpu.. ppl need to stop sniffing the green glue and look around i have yet to see a KILLER title that makes me want to waste money on gpu physx most of the games seem to be shooters and im to damn busy trying NOT to die to worry about a few particles that ill only see for a split second. wake me up when physx matters and isnt just marketing bullcrap

 

[newtekie1]

Now I remember the NGHQ thing. I mean really, if CUDA is free and takes minimal effort to implement, why not make CUDA the open solution since it works! PhysX aside, CUDA is more mature than ATi Stream which is still in beta and still has very limited support. It seems to be a pride issue, thing is if CUDA was being used as an open standard nobody would even care who came up with it. ATi also may have contractual obligations to use things such as Havok and whatever else there is, but that isn't anything we could or would know about.

It is all politics my friend, all politics...:shadedshu

 

[air_ii]

It is all politics my friend, all politics...:shadedshu

And business. I believe that folks at AMD are reluctant to support a proprietary standard, as it's a risk from business perspective. If CUDA gained dominant position, nVidia could suddenly change their minds and start charging AMD (or any other company) licence fees. AMD would be with their backs against the wall, as they would HAVE to support it to stay in the game.

EDIT: And it would be developed only by nVidia, which means it would never be optimised for another architecture. They would be in position to do almost anything performance wise.

So it's not that you can say they tried, as it's something that anyone sane would reject (the PhysX - CUDA deal combo)...

 

[eidairaman1]

MS probably doesnt like what NV is doing either.

 

[$immond$]

All in all I find physx more useful than eyefinity.

 

[newtekie1]

And business. I believe that folks at AMD are reluctant to support a proprietary standard, as it's a risk from business perspective. If CUDA gained dominant position, nVidia could suddenly change their minds and start charging AMD (or any other company) licence fees. AMD would be with their backs against the wall, as they would HAVE to support it to stay in the game.

EDIT: And it would be developed only by nVidia, which means it would never be optimised for another architecture. They would be in position to do almost anything performance wise.

So it's not that you can say they tried, as it's something that anyone sane would reject (the PhysX - CUDA deal combo)...

Legally, at least in the US and likely the EU, nVidia could not do that. If they agree that it is free to develope in the beginning, they can't legally "change your mind" once it is popular and in use by other companies. The trade courts would rip nVidia a new asshole bigger than the one they ripped Microsoft.

As for performance, the implementation was actually being done by a 3rd party, so while nVidia could optimized CUDA for their hardware, if it became popular ATi could actually do the same. PhysX itself wouldn't likely matter, as it doesn't really take a whole lot to run, but other CUDA apps such as the video conversion tools likely benefit from optimizations, this would likely be left up to ATi to do if they really wanted the optimizations.

All in all I find physx more useful than eyefinity.

Why do you keep comparing it to eyefinity? This is like the 2nd or 3rd time I've seen you do it. They aren't even similar technologies. If you are going to make comments like this, do it with something like Streams, at least that is in the same category as PhysX/CUDA.

And really, as I asking the last thread and you ignored, I'd like to know what you found it useful in. Because of the 15 current and future* games that support hardware PhysX, Batman is the only one I found PhysX actually made more enjoyable. At least eyefinity works with essentially every game... And it also seems to be a solution to a problem that some people have been wanting for years.

*Are there even any future titles that plan to use it?

 

[bobzilla2009]

I suppose if you have one screen, then physX is more useful but thats equivalent to saying you find radio better than tv overall and are blind.

 

[$immond$]

I suppose if you have one screen, then physX is more useful but thats equivalent to saying you find radio better than tv overall and are blind.

Because they are both marketing gimmicks. I honestly think Eyefinity is an eyesore if you have depth perception.

 

[bobzilla2009]

Because they are both marketing gimmicks. I honestly think Eyefinity is an eyesore if you have depth perception.

http://www.forcatech.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/AMD-Eyefinity-Graphics1.jpg

6 screens is terrible. But eyefinity definitley has a future with bezel-less panels. Plus 3 screen setups work fine as the game is not stretched across the screens like you imagine they are ( for example, that picture above is actually nothing like 3 screen eyefinity) . The 2 extra screens give you a wider FOV that is more for immersions sake than for staring at. For example in L4D your gun is on the center screen as per usual, but the two side screens show more of the environment around you. The bezels dont get in the way because you're not staring at a stretched screen. You look at a central screen but have peripheral vision on the sides.

Plus PhysX is dead, or may as well be. In the 2 years i owned an nvidia card i played 1 physX game (ME) and physX is not the reason i bought it, whereas eyefinity actually has a future (albeit in the high end niche). Also, a lot more games run with eyefinity than with physX. Both are gimmicks, but one of them is the one with some potential, whereas the other will be dead before the year is out

now, as you can see, the game is not stretched across the screens at all. The two screens provide extra viewing area to the game. You don't lose anything and you should still be focusing on the central screen. The image looks a bit off at the seems due to the angling of the screens themselves though

Still, i won't use eyefinity personally, i can't fit 3 monitors on my desk ^^ but i'm trying to clear up some of your misconceptions of how it is implemented as proven by your image.

 

[$immond$]

This still looks unappealing...

 

[bobzilla2009]

http://media.bestofmicro.com/ati-catalyst-eyefinity,E-E-238982-13.jpg

This still looks unappealing...

Bezel correction in 10.3 (or was it 10.2?) solved that.

 

[$immond$]

I am not sure spending $250-300 per monitor is going to enhance my gaming experience over 42" widescreen costing $700.

 

[newtekie1]

http://media.bestofmicro.com/ati-catalyst-eyefinity,E-E-238982-13.jpg

This still looks unappealing...

Yes, and without it, you just get to see half a jeep, certainly better...

And you have yet to answer the simple question that I've asking in both this and the other thread. In what exactly did you find PhysX more useful?

I am not sure spending $250-300 per monitor is going to enhance my gaming experience over 42" widescreen costing $700.

Yes, because despite that 42" being bigger, the resolution is still low, so you don't actually see anything more. While eyefinity adds peripheral vision and actually increases the field of view in the game. So spending $150 per monitor actually will enhance the gaming experience, while a 42" screen won't do shit.

 

[bobzilla2009]

Yes, and without it, you just get to see half a jeep, certainly better...

And you have yet to answer the simple question that I've asking in both this and the other thread. In what exactly did you find PhysX more useful?

In the same way OpenCL and directcompute will be much more useful at doing for everyone ^^

I am not sure spending $250-300 per monitor is going to enhance my gaming experience over 42" widescreen costing $700.

I find a single 22" monitor better than a 42" personally. Using a mouse and keyboard is a mega fail for the most part. So 3 19" monitors would beat a single 42" imo.

 

[imperialreign]

I still haven't seen PhysX being run on any other GPU than Nvidia or an Ageia PPU. I haven't seen any "hacks" to run PhysX on any other GPU. Are you sure this is fact that PhysX is open to run on any GPU? Is it purely software to make it work or does there need to be some archetectural things in place for it to work? Why hasn't anyone from the "modding" community gotten PhysX to work on a non-Nvidia GPU? Does PhysX need to be run on a GPU? From what I've seen PhysX isn't coded well enough to use a CPU properly, but it does a great job on Nvidia GPU's.. sometimes. With the way things are currently, it certainly seems as if PhysX isn't open at all.

I've been able to run with it enabled in both Metro and Cryostasis . . . and I take one helluva FPS hit with it on.

But, I wouldn't be surprised if this was all software side, being computed via the CPU, not the GPU.

 

[TheMailMan78]

Thanks for the thread mussels. I for one thought all games that supported Physx also supported hardware acceleration. How wrong I was. This was a real eye opener.

 

[crazyeyesreaper]

lol yea 247 games only 26 use it of the 26 that do only 15 are real games of those 15 only 2-3 make use of it and of those 2-3 games only 1 actually NEEDS it for the visual quality as the others it can all be done with regular physics calculations. as i said wake me up when its nots marketing fluff oh and wasnt there a post in the news threads bout fluidmark or something making physx multi threaded and it ran better on a stock q9400 then it did a gtx 275 so tell me if thats the case how well would an i7 handle physx on 8 threads compared to nvidias precious gpus

 

[Jeffredo]

I actually own one of those hardware accelerated games - and an Nvidia card. Yay.