• 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.

Nvidia PhysX FLEX

BubbySoup said:
I'm not saying it's easy - what I am saying is people seem to accept having a 20fps hit on minimums at a rather basic 1080p res (God knows what kind of hit you take @ 1440p+) for effects that frankly, don't warrant the performance drop.

I don't really care how complex it actually is - if that's the kind of hit I have to accept, I'd rather have a more basic Havok version & higher frame rates. The point is, I pay this premium to nVidia to have these extra features - and PhysX is still a bitter pill to swallow imo.
Click to expand...

...I've already said PhysX needs to be better optimised. You keep saying 20fps hit but that really isn't the case in most PhysX games. Arkham Origins actually has LESS Physx based effects than Arkham City, yet somehow manages to run worse.
 
MjFrosty said:
Maybe the only people that can answer that are those who compiles for Havok. Whilst you're at it ask them why they've not produced something like it already :p
Click to expand...

Havok is owned by Intel, i'm not sure they are the best pepole to head such a GFX API.

But, others are starting to do things with it.

 
Yeah whenever the smoke comes on BAO I tank in FPS. I can't use AA at 1440 when the smoke comes! Ha ha.

I don't mind. I find the effects are really nice in Batman.
 
Humbug, that is rendered on the PS4 GPU lol.


Yeah Rusty AO is really poorly optimised, I get considerable frame drops in larger areas even with 3 cards with TXAA on, leave alone PhysX! Although I don't get any noticeable frame drops around the effects themselves.
 
Yawn...
Corsair 650d, Corsair TX 850W, Asus Maximus Gene V, 2500k @ 4.2GHZ, M4 SSD, 2 TB HD, Corsair H100 , 8GB Corsair Dominator, Sapphire 7850 2GB, Corsair K90 Mech Keyboard, Benq XL2420t.


;)
 
A few age old pointers here from Toms...

The CPU-based PhysX mode mostly uses only the older x87 instruction set instead of SSE2.
Testing other compilations in the Bullet benchmark shows only a maximum performance increase of 10% to 20% when using SSE2.
The optimization performance gains would thus only be marginal in a purely single-core application.
Contrary to many reports, CPU-based PhysX supports multi-threading.
There are scenarios in which PhysX is better on the CPU than the GPU.
A game like Metro 2033 shows that CPU-based PhysX could be quite competitive.

Then why is the performance picture so dreary right now?

With CPU-based PhysX, the game developers are largely responsible for fixing thread allocation and management, while GPU-based PhysX handles this automatically.
This is a time and money issue for the game developers.
The current situation is also architected to help promote GPU-based PhysX over CPU-based PhysX.
With SSE2 optimizations and good threading management for the CPU, modern quad-core processors would be highly competitive compared to GPU PhysX. Predictably, Nvidia’s interest in this is lackluster.
Click to expand...

So CPU optimisation for PhysX SDK is terrible, this we know. But contradictory to what a lot of people have been saying about PhysX, builds as early as this are multithread capable. So by game developers deciding to not optimise CPU PhysX AMD users get left out.

So maybe a little less NVhate on that front maybe!
 
humbug said:
The PS4 GPU is an AMD GPU equivalent to a 7750, whats your point?
Click to expand...

I think his point is, your whole argument in this thread is that the kind of physics thats possible using physx is doable on the cpu using havoc. Nobody is saying that AMD cards can't run comparable physics to what nvidia can do with physx.
 
Jeps said:
I think his point is, your whole argument in this thread is that the kind of physics thats possible using physx is doable on the cpu using havoc. Nobody is saying that AMD cards can't run comparable physics to what nvidia can do with physx.
Click to expand...

It running on a low budget AMD GPU doesn't dispel that.

If anything it shows it can be run off an iGPU, thats an interesting twist.
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
The PS4 GPU is an AMD GPU equivalent to a 7750, whats your point?
Click to expand...

"New information has surfaced which shows that the PS4 actually houses 1280 SPs instead of 1152 like everyone thought. Thats 128 SPs unaccounted for in the PS4 and an increase of 10% in gaming power just a Sony Update away."

Sounds a little more powerful than a 7750 and if the extra sp's get unlocked it's more like a 7870.
 
That is a 7870 ^^^

MjFrosty said:
Physx used to run on a 480 GTX. You know as well as I do anyway that dedicated hardware is a different kettle.
Click to expand...

Yes, as i said before at that time a fast CPU did the same job at the same performance, or at least it did in a well optimised game like Metro 2033 which game you the option of running full PhysX even if you didn't have an Nvidia GPU.
 
humbug said:
It running on a low budget AMD GPU doesn't dispel that.

If anything it shows it can be run off an iGPU, thats an interesting twist.
Click to expand...

I agree that the iGPU is a great candidate for offloading physics calculations to. Its not the same as it running on a CPU though. GPUs have thousands of stream processors able to do simple calculations in parallel which is what you need to calculate hundreds of physical objects interacting. A CPU trying to do the same on 8 cores isn't going to be able to cut it.

Even old GPUs will outperform current top end CPUs in that department by a long way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom