• 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.

does PhysX work on ATI..(proof?)

drunkenmaster said:
Physx will die off, every really popular destructible or large scale physics using game has basically been Havok, like Just Cause 2. Considering the massive list of successful titles that use Havok, the miniscule list that use Physx, that all the best games in terms of physics use Havok(best as in, most fun to play, sold most, considered the best games) and the fact that less good games that are deemed less successful that have used Physx have also been significantly slower due to Physx.

Really, I can't see the upside, and neither can seemingly anyone else. I mean Just Cause 2 had Nvidia involved in every which way, and they STILL decided to use Havok, largely because I think the same game, with the same detail and same gameplay and same feel, on Physx would have run slower and you get the impression the developer for that game, and MANY others all feel the same.

If it was better, and ran faster and was unmatched, its API would be used in every game and Havok would be nowhere, the opposite is true.

Personally I think Physx uptake is getting worse right now, and considering if it was successful it SHOULD be getting an ever increasing share of games its quite a huge failure.

As in, if Ageia had it in 5 games 5 years ago, 10 games 4 years ago, 40 games 3 years ago, it should have been in 100 games 2 years ago, and 200 games last year, etc, etc.

We're basically looking at a pathetic number of games that use the gpu accelerated physx, YEARS later when it should have sped up significantly, while Havok gets increasingly better game by game.

Physx has been on life support since 6 months after Ageia promised the world, Nvidia have just been pumping money into lots of over the top life saving equipment, eventually its going to die though, and its looking like quite soon now.
Click to expand...

p0rks0da said:
He was obviously talking about CPU Physx else he wouldn't have compared it to Havok, because as i'm sure you're aware there is no GPU support for any vendor with Havok. It belongs to Intel now and they have canned support for ATI/NV acceleration, i expect it to be supported on Larrabee though, exactly as PhysX is with NV cards now.
Click to expand...

Plenty of reference to hardware Physx in bold.

The assumption is the context of the thread when specifics are not used in following comments because not everyone is going to type GPU or CPU in front every time.
 
Last edited:
Final8y said:
Plenty of reference to hardware Physx in bold.

The assumption is the context of the thread when specifics are not used in following comments because not everyone is going to type GPU or CPU in front every time.
Click to expand...

Hes talking about both in general, as the numbers show - "40 3 years ago" then "should be blah..." there aren't 40 GPU PhysX games.
 
On a funny side note. My vantage CPU score was 25000 without hardware PhysX. My brother got the same score (around) with hardware PhysX on using 2 8800 Ultras in SLI.
 
Final8y said:
Plenty of reference to hardware Physx in bold.

The assumption is the context of the thread when specifics are not used in following comments because not everyone is going to type GPU or CPU in front every time.
Click to expand...

Well i've re-read the post several times now, and to me it looks exactly like he is talking about CPU Havok/PhysX in the first half, and GPU PhysX in the second half. Which is what i said before, why would he compare PhysX and Havok with regard to Just Cause 2, when you cannot have ANY hardware PhysX support in a console game?
 
Rroff said:
Hes talking about both in general, as the numbers show - "40 3 years ago" then "should be blah..." there aren't 40 GPU PhysX games.
Click to expand...

You will be surprised how often the games PhysX list is used in conjunction to reinforce hardware PhysX.

Official List of Hardware Accelerated AGEIA PhysX GAMES

* Batman: Arkham Asylum (NEEDS MOD PATCH)
* BeoWolf
* Bet on Soldier: Blackout Saigon
* Brothers in arms Hells Highway
* Cellfactor Revolution
* City of Villains
* Crazy Machines II
* Cryostasis
* Dark Physics
* Dark Void
* Darkest of Days
* Fallen Earth
* Gears of War
* Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2 (GRAW2)
* Gothic 3
* Huxley
* Infernal
* Legendary
* Mafia 2 (NEEDS MOD PATCH)
* Mass Effect
* Mass Effect 2 (NEEDS MOD PATCH)
* Medal of Honor: Airborne
* Metal Knight Zero Online (MKZ)
* Metro 2033 (NEEDS MOD PATCH)
* Mirror's Edge
* PT Boats: Knights of the Sea
* Roboblitz
* Sacred 2
* Shadowgrounds Survivor
* Star Tales
* The Last Remnant
* Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas
* Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Double Agent
* Turok
* Unreal Tournament 3
* U-WARS
* Wolverine Origins
* Warmonger: Operation Downtown Destruction

THE AGEIA PPU LIGHTS UP BLUE WHEN HARDWARE ACCELERATION IS IN USE.
TESTED BY ME
Click to expand...
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=4377526&postcount=86

The reason why we talk about PhysX over the years is because of the HARDWARE ACCELERATION.
 
Last edited:
Thats my point exactly if he was talking about GPU PhysX he wouldn't have said 40 games 3 years ago... and no I won't be suprised I do know exactly what games use hardware and software physics and how often the layman confuses them.
 
Although potentially a developer could make use of the Power OpenCL implementation, which according to IBM's FAQ not only makes use of the Cell's SPEs, but also the PowerPC VMX instruction set (http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com/tech/opencl), so could potentially be made to take advantage of both the PS3's and 360's hardware. Although that would likely leave the 360 lagging in terms of compute throughput unless Microsoft somehow managed to hack together an implementation for the Xenos GPU (may or may not be possible, there are multiple references to a 'shared memory architecture' in relation to the Xenos GPU and otherwise it's fairly similar to an R600 GPU in terms of it being a VLIW based design - but I'm pretty sure that 'shared memory architecture' in that context doesn't mean in terms of the GPU's local memory sub-system so much as it does simply sharing with the CPU. In any case I'm not convinced that it'd be worth the effort this late into the console's life) that'd leave them in a pretty poor position.
 
Pretty sure the 360 GPU lacks the local video memory/caches needed for making meaningful GPGPU performance happen - the write backs would kill it.
 
p0rks0da said:
Well i've re-read the post several times now, and to me it looks exactly like he is talking about CPU Havok/PhysX in the first half, and GPU PhysX in the second half. Which is what i said before, why would he compare PhysX and Havok with regard to Just Cause 2, when you cannot have ANY hardware PhysX support in a console game?
Click to expand...

He is & his point is that GPU PhysX is not needed because of the examples of what has been done on CPU physics.

People have been more impressed with what Havok has done on the CPU lately than what PhysX has been doing on the GPU.
What do you think would happen if PhysX on the CPU was doing what Havok has been doing, NV would have a fit that the CPU PhysX had more meaningful affect in a game than there GPU PhysX up till now.

There goes the marketing reason.
 
A developer could do physics like in Just Cause 2 using PhysX GPU (and I guess with a lot more objects than a CPU can handle). But they cant because it affects gameplay so only Nvidia owners could play it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom