• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

PhysX87: Software Deficiency

It's weird. People boycott Microsoft products, get them on anti-competitive charges, and even get the European Council to fine/force changes upon them.

Yet people continue to buy nVidia products and don't seem phased by their outright childish approach to outside competition, marketing, and indeed customer relations.

They're stock hasn't plummeted for no reason. All of the above is priced in. You don't get into the top 10 worst performers without consequences; there will be change.

For me, the big reason they do well is the quality of their drivers. Without that I don't think I'd use them :eek:
 
I thought this was pretty old news (I mean I'm pretty sure we discussed this in previous threads) but it's good that it is finally coming to light I suppose.
 
lol, not all dev's want SSE enabled by default, because some have CPU's too old for it, and exactly how many serious dev's run code on over decade old CPU's, at 450Mhz and under, which don't have SSE? Likewise, the "retail" package they include in games will all have SSE1-3, most will have sse4.

They don't use it because 3 people out there code for pre P3 under 450Mhz non SSE having cpu's, the other 2billion people with computers are just **** out of luck.

My god, they can't even lie well anymore, and thats really bad news for Nvidia because thats what they've been best at for so long.

The thing is, I've been saying for ages, Physx does nothing other apps can't be writen to do, the reason Havok and other things don't get into quite as much detail is because its NOT required, not because there isn't the power to do it. Rroff can talk about realism but then physx is used in many situations where things don't interact well. INteraction is done via DESIGN, like paper/leaves going through Batman in one of Nvidia/Physx's "major titles" most of the effects simply aren't realistic and mimic, honestly, very very old style effects, leaves blowing around his feet, big whoop.

Physx for ages had obviously been purposefully design to run badly on CPU's so they could say/show how great it ran on a specific core, honestly they'd be silly to do otherwise, Ageia wanted to create a niche and sell hardware(well they wanted to sell the company to the first sucker who thought it was a good idea.....) theres little point creating code that will run great on other hardware making the thing that would make you the most profit pointless.

Even so the vast majority of what we see from physx hardware acceleration(which can clearly be done on the cpu as well if it wasn't crippled) is bonus effects that require extra gpu power to draw, after the effects have been calculated. Its STILL not anything fancy adding impossible to otherwise do in game primary physx's, like players interacting with doors and so on, as we've seen, Batman, one of the biggest "physx" games, doesn't use the hardware to have the character interact with the door, or fight, or bodys crumple to the floor, it deals with leaves blowing around, and a couple chucks falling off walls. Nothing we haven't seen in games for well over 5 years, and nothing thats not easy to do with little power cost.

They are basically pretty much standard effects removed, coded in poop to run badly and re-added for Nvidia cards only. None of its a massive leap forward, its just rubbish.
 
Last edited:

With comments like:

Charlie Demerjian said:
If you can imagine the coincidence, it runs really well on Nvidia cards, but chokes if there is an ATI card in the system. Frame rates tend to go from more than 50 to the single digits even when you have an overclocked i7 and an ATI HD5970. Since this setup is vastly faster than an i7 and a GTX480 in almost every objective test, you might suspect foul play if the inclusion of PhysX drops performance by an order of magnitude. As Real World Tech proved, those suspicions would be absolutely correct.

He should have done himself a favor and not bothered writing the article...

Taking the situation with the G80 GPUs into account and that the 400 series is the first where double precision calcuations really becomes feasible its no suprise they've not hurried to port away from x87 add to that a certain reticence in some videogame development circles to use MMX, SSE, etc.
 
Last edited:
add to that a certain reticence in some videogame development circles to use MMX, SSE, etc.

If you could give some real world examples with games people actually care about, that would be great.
 
I'm not quite sure what you mean... theres been quite a bit of feet dragging about using MMX, SSE and so on from certain developers/key individuals within the game development industry - I'm not really sure why other than in the past it would have potential compatibility issues - I think its somewhat down to people getting burnt trying to support things like 3D Now, etc. it doesn't really affect specific games as such.
 
Sorry, people, over a decade after SSE was introduced, are worried that SSE isn't stable, or might just dissappear so they are reluctant to use a speed boost when they can............ did you really really just say that?

I also note you quoted something Charlie said, then posted about something not in the quote. Whats DP got to do with anything, the only thing Charlie said was that it doesn't use DP, which increases the amount of numbers you can process per clock, because using double precision decreases the amount you can push through. They don't require double precision to use extensively available(read that as every CPU used in gaming rigs for over a decade) SSE instructions to speed things up.

The qoute and what you're saying don't have anything to do with each other, and what you've said is frankly, rubbish. Theres no need to get physx running perfectly fine on every system around with optimised code, so that every gaming computer out there can have supposedly better in game physics thanks to the fantastic Nvidia, so theres been no reason at all you can think of that optimising it for CPU's could have helped physics in games, Physx get more widely used, physx to get faster and able to use more power to do more effects and more complex things. Nope I too can't think of a single reason for Nvidia to get physx to work better.

The ONLY reason I can think of that Nvidia purposefully refuse to use the available power and optimise the code, is that it will make their hardware look less good. Well thank god we all have "worse" physx, and less widespread physx(because its sooo damn good) because Nvidia just doesn't want us to.

I'm sure you're literally not wrong about some developers dragging their feet, but theres some people who got soooo used to windows 98se that they wouldn't move on to Win XP for years, because they got stuck in the past, theres people who always refuse to move on with the times, I think you'd be hard pushed to find a proper high end game producing company that refuses to use SSE instructions to get the most out of their software, suggesting as much is a tad ridiculous in the context.
 
Last edited:
This is the reason why I stick to using the open source Bullet physics library. At least that works, and works well.

Plus its free to use in commercial projects. Can't say fairer than that.
 
Sorry, people, over a decade after SSE was introduced, are worried that SSE isn't stable, or might just dissappear so they are reluctant to use a speed boost when they can............ did you really really just say that?

Nope I didn't say that.

I also note you quoted something Charlie said, then posted about something not in the quote. Whats DP got to do with anything, the only thing Charlie said was that it doesn't use DP, which increases the amount of numbers you can process per clock, because using double precision decreases the amount you can push through. They don't require double precision to use extensively available(read that as every CPU used in gaming rigs for over a decade) SSE instructions to speed things up.

The second part of my post had nothing to do with the quote from charlies article - I hope that the problem with what he was saying stood out on its own.
 
This is the reason why I stick to using the open source Bullet physics library. At least that works, and works well.

Plus its free to use in commercial projects. Can't say fairer than that.

Depending on the game environment - I've not found bullet to work very well in typical game useage (slows down pace for the player or becomes clunky/awkward when they have to interact with the physics). I'm using a modified version of ODE myself but its a little prone to "exploding" if I'm not really careful - but its a bit easier to implement into the game flow.
 
Last edited:
I don't see it going anywhere while they lock it to their platform.


Ignoring the fact that some of these scenes are pre-rendered, from movies, etc. this does give you some idea of the kinda things PhysX can bring to video games:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyg9HgiD8X0

Video games are light years away from having effects like that in-game. Especially the way NV are pushing physx.
 
It might be a while before any physics library will allow that kind of quality in real time!

We aren't so far from that tho...

Video games are light years away from having effects like that in-game. Especially the way NV are pushing physx.

I only agree with the last part of that - PhysX itself (some restrictions aside) is capable of a good proportion of that kinda effects now - sure you'd need a GTX480 or 2 dedicated to physics and another 1-2 to rendering but its not light years away in terms of feasibility.
 
We aren't so far from that tho...



I only agree with the last part of that - PhysX itself (some restrictions aside) is capable of a good proportion of that kinda effects now - sure you'd need a GTX480 or 2 dedicated to physics and another 1-2 to rendering but its not light years away in terms of feasibility.

Ofcourse I meant in mainstream/enthusiast video gaming. Not a limited feature with very specific hardware and software for hardcore folks but even then I don't know of a game that has such effects shown in that video, yet. I didn't mean it isn't capable of it at all just that developers really aren't keen and NV are restricting it strangling it too much.
 
Are Nvidia still set on the fact you need more graphics processing power than CPU power?

This article reminded of the time they were saying SLi gives you greater performance over a Quad Core or something along those lines.

Err this has almost always been true and there are tests out there to show it. You're GPU limited long before CPU is an issue, it was very much the case before the i5/i7 and is even more dramatic now.
 
Mafia II

MINIMUM SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS
Operating System: Microsoft Windows XP (SP2 or later) / Windows Vista / Windows 7
Processor: Pentium D 3Ghz or AMD Athlon 64 X2 3600+ (Dual core) or higher
RAM: 1.5 GB
Video Card: nVidia GeForce 8600 / ATI HD2600 Pro or better
Hard Disc Space: 8 GB
Sound Card: 100% DirectX 9.0c compatible sound card
Peripherals: Keyboard and mouse or Windows compatible gamepad


RECOMMENDED SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS
Operating System: Microsoft Windows XP (SP2 or later) / Windows Vista / Windows 7
Processor: 2.4 GHz Quad Core processor
RAM: 2 GB
Video Card: nVidia GeForce 9800 GTX / ATI Radeon HD 3870 or better
Hard Disc: 10 GB
Sound Card: 100% DirectX 9.0c compliant card
Peripherals: Keyboard and mouse or Windows compatible gamepad


PHSYX/APEX ENHANCEMENTS SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS
Operating System: Microsoft Windows XP (SP2 or later) / Windows Vista / Windows 7 Minimum Processor: 2.4 GHz Quad Core processor
Recommended Processor: 2.66 GHz Core i7-920 RAM: 2 GB

Video Cards and resolution: APEX medium settings
Minimum: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260 (or better) for Graphics and a dedicated NVIDIA 9800GTX (or better) for PhysX
Recommended: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 470 (or better)

Video Cards and resolution: APEX High settings
Minimum: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 470 (or better) and a dedicated NVIDIA 9800GTX (or better) for PhysX
Recommended: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 for Graphics and a dedicated NVIDIA GTX 285 (or better) for PhysX NVIDIA GPU driver: 197.13 or later.
NVIDIA PhysX driver: 10.04.02_9.10.0522. Included and automatically installed with the game.
http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76223

WTH.
 
Back
Top Bottom