• 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

Physics, even this kind of "PhysX" does not need to run on the GPU, there is more than enough horsepower on modern CPU's, even on the new GC's weak CPU because it has 8 cores. having said that there is no reason why it can't run on GPU OpenGL

That has long been the issue with PhysX on the CPU, its gimped to just one thread and seemingly uses a very badley optimised API ontop of that.
Well, this more recently, Metro 2033 with full PhysX actually ran better on an overclocked i7 9## of the time than it did on a GTX 480, (when it was still multi-threaded.)
Things changed dramatically after that.

I hope Nvidia put this right again, i want Mantle, i want PhysX, i want my cake and eat it, i don't want to have to chose between GPU's to get just one or the other. more over, i want to see Mantle and PhysX in more than just one or two games a year.

So, AMD hold to your Open promises on Mantle, Nvidia, please do the right thing. :)

Probably because the 480 struggles with that AND the graphics. Physx runs a lot worse on my 4770k @4.6 than it does on a single 780 in metro
 
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.

Yeah, i just don't think Nvidia make anywhere near as much use of the GPU for PhysX as they could, i do think whats currently being done on the GPU can be done on the CPU, or more on the iGPU, a lot more on a high end discrete GPU.
 
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.

Having made the switch from nvidia to AMD and back (alternate) every other generation,although Physx is comparable to Havoc it dosnt look as good imo. If and when its used physx always looks more impressive for some reason
 
Looks mildly intresting but wonder how much performance it will take in real games not just stand alone isolated screen demos. Also how many games will actually adopt It? From the demo i could see it working well in tetris

If this only works in new cards i dont see it going anywhere

Amd must be ****ing themselves they develop what could be a real game changer with mantle and Nivida make blocks fall down lmao.
 
I can see these kind of effects becoming a reality with better optimizations and it is stated that one game is already on board.

Surely this can't be a bad thing?
 
Looks mildly intresting but wonder how much performance it will take in real games not just stand alone isolated screen demos. Also how many games will actually adopt It? From the demo i could see it working well in tetris

If this only works in new cards i dont see it going anywhere

Amd must be ****ing themselves they develop what could be a real game changer with mantle and Nivida make blocks fall down lmao.

Where as AMD currently can't make blocks fall down.
 
Back
Top Bottom