Merry Xmas Pottsey

[jrodga2k5]

Well there is no mention of acceleration anywhere in terms of the default levels in the game when using physx so lets stop trying to flog a dead dog pottsey!

 

[Pottsey]

"Huddy pointed out that there are two main categories of physics in games – eye candy and interactive physics that actually change the way in which the game is played. The latter ‘tends to be better done on the CPU, or Ageia would argue the PPU,’ says Huddy, ‘but the rest can all be turfed off onto the GPU.’ Unsurprisingly, Huddy said that ‘Ageia aren’t really enthusiastic about that, because it does show just how much faster we are then them, and it undermines their message, so I see us having quite major problems in that kind of market dynamic."

ATI marketing at its best. http://www.custompc.co.uk/news/601677/gpu-physics-dead-says-amd.html

ATI Translated to English we cannot do interactive physics, we don’t have an API to use, we don’t have any games supporting us, we don’t have any FPS numbers or fair comparisons, but we are the fastest, at least according go us.




“Let's say game X is running on a map with no PhysX effects, how could adding a PhysX card possibly help the framerate when there are no physics to process?”
No physics? What do you all it when you move, jump, shoot a box e.c.t Every little movement is done by PhysX. Thats all work you take away from the CPU.





“7fps on hardware that's suppose to do this thing for fun, its embarrassing, a joke, cant see how any one can defend this POS hardware, they must be delusional.“
7fps is because the review site used old drivers and don’t seem to know how to write a fair benchmark. 7fps more like 20+ FPS. Why is it you get one badly written review that’s the opposite to what 99% of end users say and you all take the badly written review as fact even though its proven to be a poor review.

“The tornado level seems better optimized for the physx card, because the framerate rarely dip below 30's."

“This could be better optimized, framerate is most of the time in the 20's.”

“Yep - same situation) 20-25 fps on Lighthouse map)”

"Nope. I have 30+ fps on Tornado map, and 20-25 on Lighthouse.
Those reviewer is trying to twist facts”

Loads of stuff like that all over the place. http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?p=2488461
http://www.ageia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=37&start=0




“Well there is no mention of acceleration anywhere in terms of the default levels in the game when using physx so lets stop trying to flog a dead dog pottsey!“
Errm its in the main menu. An option you turn on. The main point of the option is acceleration of the default levels.

“Hold on so your saying the PPU increases framerates in UT3? Are there any benchies with and without to look at?“
I have yet to find a single benchmark I would class as fair. There are lots of forum posts from talking about more speed.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?p=2488461
http://www.ageia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=37&start=0




“You basically gets tonnes of extra polygons on screen (which promptly disappear, see: GRAW1/2 PhysX videos)”
You get get more then just tonnes of extra polygons on screen and in the case of GRAW 2 people say the extra polygons and blood look much better.

 

[MystaEB]

“Let's say game X is running on a map with no PhysX effects, how could adding a PhysX card possibly help the framerate when there are no physics to process?”
No physics? What do you all it when you move, jump, shoot a box e.c.t Every little movement is done by PhysX. Thats all work you take away from the CPU.

Really? I wasn't aware you needed a PhysX card in games like UT3 to jump and shoot? In fact, I'm pretty sure you don't since I was doing all those things without a PhysX card in the demo. Are you telling me having a PhysX card is going to improve performance in non-PhysX maps and improve performance while jumping and shooting? Would Epic really do something like that? The basic core physics elements in UT3 are clearly not handled by PhysX technology as they are available without a PhysX card, and adding one doesn't change them any. What a PhysX card does add is the aforementioned clumsy debris and extra effects.

“You basically gets tonnes of extra polygons on screen (which promptly disappear, see: GRAW1/2 PhysX videos)”
You get get more then just tonnes of extra polygons on screen and in the case of GRAW 2 people say the extra polygons and blood look much better.

I can't view YouTube videos here at work, but I watched a GRAW2 PhysX video last night and well, it was awful to say the least. All you get are dark chunks of.. something when stuff explodes, and the stuff disappears almost instantaneously. This seems to be a trend with most PhysX games. Also, explosions and the trajectory of debris after explosions is.. irregular. It almost floats rather than being propelled.

 

[jrodga2k5]

Forum posts about the speed increases are all fine and well but with no real benchmarks or tests to show this being the case are useless. Its like saying we have a product and there are no reviews, I have it so I will say its faster by 10 or fps with it enabled. You know where im coming from? Plus the Images the guy posted with Physx on and off didnt even show a framerate on them as its pretty easy to tell from them, take a pic in a situation with it on, take a pic in a situation with it off! lol! So I wouldnt count them as proof.

Yeah I'm aware the option is in the menu's as well and I can even tick it without having a PPU lol! Anyways people in the Aegia forums aint happy about it either since they say they PPU is actually bottlenecking their performance and that is why they are getting low frame rates in the physx specific levels! Oh yeah that hurricane level, the debris looks simply awful in the screenies iv seen! Not realistic compared to what they are apparently being ripped off of.

 

[Pottsey]

“Really? I wasn't aware you needed a PhysX card in games like UT3 to jump and shoot? In fact, I'm pretty sure you don't since I was doing all those things without a PhysX card in the demo.”
No you don’t need a PhysX card but you do need PhysX. You are using PhysX your self. You cannot play the game without PhysX.



“Are you telling me having a PhysX card is going to improve performance in non-PhysX maps and improve performance while jumping and shooting?”
Yes that’s just what I am saying. I think your misunderstand how it all works. You program your game to use PhysX to do all the physics. If you don’t have a PPU it’s all done on the CPU. If you have a PPU its moved to the PPU.

PhysX is a software API that anyone can use. PhysX card is just a way to use that software API in hardware.

 

[RavenXXX2]

You don't need the POS physx in any game, you need Physics. this thread is just going round and round in circles with one guy embarrassing himself defending this card and and its crap performance and non existent future support.

 

[SteveOBHave]

Really? I wasn't aware you needed a PhysX card in games like UT3 to jump and shoot? In fact, I'm pretty sure you don't since I was doing all those things without a PhysX card in the demo. Are you telling me having a PhysX card is going to improve performance in non-PhysX maps and improve performance while jumping and shooting? Would Epic really do something like that? The basic core physics elements in UT3 are clearly not handled by PhysX technology as they are available without a PhysX card, and adding one doesn't change them any. What a PhysX card does add is the aforementioned clumsy debris and extra effects.

This is my point - whilst there is the marketing spin from Ageia about their PhysX physics being of a gameplay nature whereas every other solution is of an eye candy nature, they have done nothing to back it up. It may very well be capable of it but we don't want to play tech demos or watch gloopy liquid flow over the ground, we want what we get in Crysis - physics which have a direct relationship to the gameplay.

The problem is not with the PhysX hardware but with the developers that choose to utilise it. However where the PhysX hardware falls down is in it's marketablility and the structure of Ageias distribution.

It's all very well to take work away from the CPU but when I have a PC that is more than capable of dealing with these calculations without a PPU, what is the point of spending the money and plugging it in.

The PhysX card is useless by definition to a game - i.e. it has no (or very limited) use.

The PPU concept is a great one and to a certain extent makes sense but they are faced with some very obvious issues. With multicore processors out there it just doesn't make sense to introduce a further processor to a machine to specifically deal with one aspect of an environmental calculation. Sure if it could be utilised to do something else, if it could speed up every day computer use and make an overall user experience smoother they might have something - but they don't - all the do is physics calculations which CPUs are rapidly taking over in capability.

 

[SteveOBHave]

“Really? I wasn't aware you needed a PhysX card in games like UT3 to jump and shoot? In fact, I'm pretty sure you don't since I was doing all those things without a PhysX card in the demo.”
No you don’t need a PhysX card but you do need PhysX. You are using PhysX your self. You cannot play the game without PhysX.



“Are you telling me having a PhysX card is going to improve performance in non-PhysX maps and improve performance while jumping and shooting?”
Yes that’s just what I am saying. I think your misunderstand how it all works. You program your game to use PhysX to do all the physics. If you don’t have a PPU it’s all done on the CPU. If you have a PPU its moved to the PPU.

PhysX is a software API that anyone can use. PhysX card is just a way to use that software API in hardware.

C'mon Pottsey that's a slightly underhanded deliberate misinterpretation of what he said. You know full well he was talking about the hardware and not the API. If you're going to argue semantics at least do it properly.

 

[Marc Fraser]

C'mon Pottsey that's a slightly underhanded deliberate misinterpretation of what he said. You know full well he was talking about the hardware and not the API. If you're going to argue semantics at least do it properly.

If you read the whole post MystaEB has clearly said that the basic core physics elements are not handled by PhysX technology. He also said in an earlier map that he couldn't see how using a PPU on a none PPU map could incease performance as there were no physics to process.

Really? I wasn't aware you needed a PhysX card in games like UT3 to jump and shoot? In fact, I'm pretty sure you don't since I was doing all those things without a PhysX card in the demo. Are you telling me having a PhysX card is going to improve performance in non-PhysX maps and improve performance while jumping and shooting? Would Epic really do something like that? The basic core physics elements in UT3 are clearly not handled by PhysX technology as they are available without a PhysX card, and adding one doesn't change them any. What a PhysX card does add is the aforementioned clumsy debris and extra effects.

I am skeptical that you would get a speed increase in any of the non-PhysX maps, too. Let's say game X is running on a map with no PhysX effects, how could adding a PhysX card possibly help the framerate when there are no physics to process? It wouldn't be doing anything. It would only help framerate once you actually enabled the PhysX effects, which is a given really. It only helps framerate if you are actually bothered about running games with PhysX effects cranked up, and with the current status of PhysX games available, I'd say there is close to nil interest. I know that I personally couldn't care less.

This is a perfect example of someone arguing against the PPU when then do not understand what it is meant to do or what the PhysX API is and what it is used for.

 

[SteveOBHave]

If you read the whole post MystaEB has clearly said that the basic core physics elements are not handled by PhysX technology. He also said in an earlier map that he couldn't see how using a PPU on a none PPU map could incease performance as there were no physics to process.

That is just weak semantic argument Marc - In saying PhysX technology he clearly means the PhysX hardware - I'm not sure how you infer that he meant the API.

The second part of the argument is clearly a misunderstanding on his part on how the PhysX API works but regardless he was arguing fairly that the PhysX hardware doesn't have an appreciable impact on gameplay.

 

[Marc Fraser]

That is just weak semantic argument Marc - In saying PhysX technology he clearly means the PhysX hardware - I'm not sure how you infer that he meant the API.

The second part of the argument is clearly a misunderstanding on his part on how the PhysX API works but regardless he was arguing fairly that the PhysX hardware doesn't have an appreciable impact on gameplay.

He was arguing that he couldn't see how the PPU could provide a boost in fps on the none PPU maps as he didn't think any of it was handled by Physx and therefore the ppu would just sit there idle.

He clearly does not understand how the ppu or the PhysX API works yet is happy to rubbish the PPU based on his lack of understanding.

This is the main problem with debates about the ppu card. There are a lot of people who don't really know what it is meant to do or how the API works but are happy to get stuck into arguments rubbishing it. When it has been proved that some people don't really understand they tend to stop posting in the thread. However as soon as another thread appears they start over again with exactly the same arguments.

 

[MystaEB]

“Really? I wasn't aware you needed a PhysX card in games like UT3 to jump and shoot? In fact, I'm pretty sure you don't since I was doing all those things without a PhysX card in the demo.”
No you don’t need a PhysX card but you do need PhysX. You are using PhysX your self. You cannot play the game without PhysX.

So what are you arguing here, the card or the API? I've been arguing about the card and how it is useless, not the API. The API is free, I couldn't care less about it, and I'm well aware of what it does and doesn't do. The card is a different story however, it costs money and doesn't really help at all.

If you read the whole post MystaEB has clearly said that the basic core physics elements are not handled by PhysX technology. He also said in an earlier map that he couldn't see how using a PPU on a none PPU map could incease performance as there were no physics to process.

Wow, yes, I clearly meant that there were no physics at all and that the basic core elements were handled by.. magic faeries! I was talking about the damn card. The basic core elements are clearly designed to work primarily on the CPU, and the additional "PhysX" effects offloaded to the card. On the non-PhysX maps there is nothing extra to process, obviously you get the added godawful debris effect when you shoot walls, but that's it really. None of the other tornado or cloth effects. God how tempted I am to just shell out £50 so I can actually benchmark it for myself, something which this thread seems to be devoid of. Plenty of claims, no figures or evidence to back it up.

The amount of misinterpretation and misunderstanding in this thread is actually causing my IQ to drop slightly. I think I'm going to bow out before I become as daft as some of the people in thie thread.

The popularity of the PhysX card and number of titles available using the PhysX technology speaks more about it than anything we can say here. The technology is poorly marketed, doesn't provide enough real benefits to gameplay and is too expensive. It's a waste of a PCI slot. That's all I have to say, I'm done.

It's a shame pottsey will walk away like he has won another argument, when in reality he just drives people up the wall by putting words in their mouths and blatant misinterpretation of what is being said.

I bid you good day!

 

[Marc Fraser]

Wow, yes, I clearly meant that there were no physics at all and that the basic core elements were handled by.. magic faeries! I was talking about the damn card. The basic core elements are clearly designed to work primarily on the CPU, and the additional "PhysX" effects are handled by the card. On the non-PhysX maps there is nothing extra to process, obviously you get the added godawful debris effect when you shoot walls, but that's it really. None of the other tornado or cloth effects. God how tempted I am to just shell out £50 so I can actually benchmark it for myself, something which this thread seems to be devoid of. Plenty of claims, no figures or evidence to back it up.

You either still don't get it or I am misunderstanding what you are saying.

When you install a physics card all of the physics calculations are handled by the PPU and taken off the CPU. The basic core elements only run on the cpu if a ppu is not present. There doesn't need to be anything extra to process.

By moving calculations from the cpu to the ppu you are freeing up the cpu to do other tasks and will potentially get an increase in fps.

 

[MystaEB]

You either still don't get it or I am misunderstanding what you are saying.

When you install a physics card all of the physics calculations are handled by the PPU and taken off the CPU. The basic core elements only run on the cpu if a ppu is not present. There doesn't need to be anything extra to process.

By moving calculations from the cpu to the ppu you are freeing up the cpu to do other tasks and will potentially get an increase in fps.

Yeah, there's that word I hate, potentially. We've gone around in a big circle and ended up back to where I started with my post a little while back. You know, the one where I was talking about how games like HL2 and Crysis do less complex, but from a gameplay stand point, better physics despite the fact that they are running entirely on a CPU.

Consider this: we're already established basic physics are handled by the CPU when a PPU is not present, correct? We also know that games like Crysis are very heavily GPU based, so clearly the physics are not hampering performance despite the fact that they work entirely on the CPU, correct? Obviously, you get more complex physics effects from the PhysX tech when using a PPU, but you have to shell out the money for it, and very few games take advantage of these extra effects. The basic stuff you get from the PhysX API is nothing that isn't already available. Plus, like I said earlier, these effects are purely cosmetic. It's not like in HL2 where they provide very real and critical interaction with the game itself.

So, the bottom line is, why buy a PhysX card to offload the basic physics onto, when games like Crysis can handle those same equivelent physics effects absolutely fine on my Dual Core processor? Clearly, if there is a performance benefit it's because the PhysX technology is horrible when running without a PPU, which is daft considering other games can do it fine without a PPU? In other words, you're gaining performance in an area that shouldn't need improvement in? Granted, I'm willing to accept that the PhysX card helps tremendously when the technology is used on a huge scale, but there are no games that do that yet, and probably no games that ever will at this rate. Even in the games that do have large scale PPU geared maps such as the PhysX maps in UT3, they perform horribly!

All I want is one question answering: why would I buy a PhysX card when there is no tangible benefit from doing so? Overall it's not going to improve my gaming experience because the small stuff that it would offload in a normal non-PhysX map in UT3 isn't going to help much, if at all, and the PhysX geared maps just lag and are horribly designed.

 

[Pottsey]

“It's a shame pottsey will walk away like he has won another argument, when in reality he just drives people up the wall by putting words in their mouths and blatant misinterpretation of what is being said.”
Its not misinterpretation of what being said. You said “how could adding a PhysX card possibly help the framerate when there are no physics to process?”
I pointed out that all the Physics are done by PhysX so there are physics to process.
How is that misinterpretation of what you said?




“The basic core elements are clearly designed to work primarily on the CPU, and the additional "PhysX" effects offloaded to the card.”
There are no additional PhysX effects.
All physics are PhysX effects.
The basic core elements are all done by Physx.




“C'mon Pottsey that's a slightly underhanded deliberate misinterpretation of what he said. You know full well he was talking about the hardware and not the API.”
Its not underhanded deliberate misinterpretation. It him not understanding how it works. I said I said every little movement is done by PhysX which is correct. He then came in and said “The basic core physics elements in UT3 are clearly not handled by PhysX technology as they are available without a PhysX card,” He also said ”how could adding a PhysX card possibly help the framerate when there are no physics to process?”

I don’t see how that is misinterpretation by me. As the basic core physics elements in UT3 are by PhysX technology.

 

[Marc Fraser]

Yeah, there's that word I hate, potentially. We've gone around in a big circle and ended up back to where I started with my post a little while back. You know, the one where I was talking about how games like HL2 and Crysis do less complex, but from a gameplay stand point, better physics despite the fact that they are running entirely on a CPU.

Consider this: we're already established basic physics are handled by the CPU when a PPU is not present, correct? We also know that games like Crysis are very heavily GPU based, so clearly the physics are not hampering performance despite the fact that they work entirely on the CPU, correct? Obviously, you get more complex physics effects from the PhysX tech when using a PPU, but you have to shell out the money for it, and very few games take advantage of these extra effects. The basic stuff you get from the PhysX API is nothing that isn't already available. Plus, like I said earlier, these effects are purely cosmetic. It's not like in HL2 where they provide very real and critical interaction with the game itself.

You are focusing far too much on the cosmetic effects that GRAW used the PPU for. Have you looked at the videos for BOS and Warmonger. Do you see how the PPU is used in those games. In Warmonger it looks like you can pretty much destroy everything around you. Not only that but the debris stays in the environment to play a further part in the game. The CPU cannot handle physics on this scale.

This has been partly proved by the people who have increased the blast radius of the nuke in crysis. The framerate completely stalls as the number of objects effected by the blast is increased dramatically.

When you offload the physics calculations to the ppu you can increase the number of objects and interaction you can have in a game far in excess of anything you see in Crysis.

 

[MystaEB]

“It's a shame pottsey will walk away like he has won another argument, when in reality he just drives people up the wall by putting words in their mouths and blatant misinterpretation of what is being said.”
Its not misinterpretation of what being said. You said “how could adding a PhysX card possibly help the framerate when there are no physics to process?”
I pointed out that all the Physics are done by PhysX so there are physics to process.
How is that misinterpretation of what you said?

What I talking about was no additional physics effects to process. When on a non-PhysX map you just get the bog standard physics effects that have been available for years. How, and more specifically, why would adding a PhysX card help those when CPUs have been capable of doing those things for years?

“The basic core elements are clearly designed to work primarily on the CPU, and the additional "PhysX" effects offloaded to the card.”
There are no additional PhysX effects.
All physics are PhysX effects.
The basic core elements are all done by Physx.

I know they are all done by PhysX, that's the problem. I'm talking about stuff like, jumping, shooting, etc etc. Again, things that have been available for years and don't need to be offloaded to a PPU, thus rendering the addition of a card useless. You shouldn't need a PPU for stuff like that.

You are focusing far too much on the cosmetic effects that GRAW used the PPU for. Have you looked at the videos for BOS and Warmonger. Do you see how the PPU is used in those games. In Warmonger it looks like you can pretty much destroy everything around you. Not only that but the debris stays in the environment to play a further part in the game. The CPU cannot handle physics on this scale.

This has been partly proved by the people who have increased the blast radius of the nuke in crysis. The framerate completely stalls as the number of objects effected by the blast is increased dramatically.

When you offload the physics calculations to the ppu you can increase the number of objects and interaction you can have in a game far in excess of anything you see in Crysis.

But these games aren't out yet, how do we know they are going to run any better? Have you read the bit-tech review of the PhysX only maps on UT3? The test machine got absolutely mauled.

As far as I'm concerned the physics in Crysis are handled exceptionally well. Granted, probably not as well as the PhysX card is "supposed" to handle physics, but at least the damn game is out and we can see for ourselves, unlike all these PhysX titles which continue to elude existance. I'm sure once you increase the blast radius of the nuke on Crysis it does cause performance problems, but are you really surprised? You're pushing a game into an area it wasn't designed to be pushed into. I'm sure Crytek are more than capable of producing a PhysX equivelent considering what they have done with Crysis so far.

 

[metalmackey]

If UT3 uses the API (which it does) then ALL themovement/shooting can be moved to the PPU. The problem im having is I dont believe the 30fps increase in non PPU maps. 2HY? bECAUSE THE BASIC PHYSICS WILL USE VERY LITTLE cpu ANYWAY, ALSO i CANT SEE HOW YOU WOULD GET EXTRA FPS WITH A DUEL CORE AS THE PHYSICS WILL BE ON A SEPERATE THEAD.

 

[Pottsey]

“When on a non-PhysX map you just get the bog standard physics effects that have been available for years. How, and more specifically, why would adding a PhysX card help those when CPUs have been capable of doing those things for years?”
The CPU might be capable of doing those things but it still takes up CPU power. By freeing up that CPU power you can use it on other stuff. That’s where the FPS boost comes from. Yes the CPUs are capable its just its slower to do it on the CPU so why do it on the CPU if you have a choice of a PPU?

A PhysX card is luxury in games like UT3. Not a must have item. You either have a PPU for a FPS boost or you don’t have a PPU and still play the game. For people like me with a 2 year old CPU its usefull to have a PPU in a game like UT3. I need all the free CPU cycles I can get.



“You shouldn't need a PPU for stuff like that.”
That’s correct you shouldn’t be forced to have a PPU for stuff like that and you don’t need a PPU anyway. It’s optional. It’s like SLI. You don’t need it but it’s nice to have it for the extra speed. SLI gives you nothing but extra speed. A PPU is just the same in games like UT3.

Put it another way. Yes you shouldn’t need a PPU for basics physics. But if you have a PPU why shouldn’t you move the stuff off the CPU?

 

[MystaEB]

“When on a non-PhysX map you just get the bog standard physics effects that have been available for years. How, and more specifically, why would adding a PhysX card help those when CPUs have been capable of doing those things for years?”
The CPU might be capable of doing those things but it still takes up CPU power. By freeing up that CPU power you can use it on other stuff. That’s where the FPS boost comes from. Yes the CPUs are capable its just its slower to do it on the CPU so why do it on the CPU if you have a choice of a PPU?

I'd have to say that this isn't true, not because what you're saying is wrong, but because it would only be the case if the CPU was being hammered by the game and the PPU was taking a considerable load off the CPU. When playing games like UT3 and Crysis my CPU cores are never maxed out, thus taking a tiny bit of load from them isn't going to help.

A PhysX card is luxury in games like UT3. Not a must have item. You either have a PPU for a FPS boost or you don’t have a PPU and still play the game. For people like me with a 2 year old CPU its usefull to have a PPU in a game like UT3. I need all the free CPU cycles I can get.

Good, I'm glad we're agreed on the fact that a PPU is not necessary, however I'm struggling to understand why you would spend money on a PPU instead of a new CPU when you just admitted your CPU is 2 years old? Surely a new CPU would overall be much more beneficial to you than a PPU?