ATI CrossFire and Physics

fern420

Member
Dec 3, 2005
170
0
0
I've been reading up on the ati physics/crossfire combo and am wondering if anyone is currently running it and if they could shed some light on it. i just got these two 2900xt cards so i have x1900xt sitting here and my badaxe board has a third pcie slot so i was thinking about using the x1900 as a physics card. the ati/amd website is pretty vague on this area and doesn't give much info on actually setting it up or compatibility.

ATI PHYSICS PAGE

PDF

is this setup automatically recognized by the CAT? i just cant seem to find any info on actually setting it up. it only refers to the x series of cards on the site so i don't even know if its possible on the r600 gpu. im just wondering if anyone knows if you can still do this with the r600 gpu series of cards and if so can i mix a x1900 with the two 2900's? i want to see if i can make the meter on the side of the house spin faster so i figured why not 3 power hungry video cards.
 

aka1nas

Diamond Member
Aug 30, 2001
4,335
1
0
What would you try it on? There aren't any games out that you could use either ATI's or Nvidia's proposed solutions on. Both solutions pretty much only exist as powerpoint slides at this point.

I'll be the first to admit that I haven't gotten a ton of use out of my PhysX card, but at least there are a few games out already that can actually use it effectively.
 

fern420

Member
Dec 3, 2005
170
0
0
according to the ati site it works for any game using the Havok FX physics engine and there are a few games with it, this is all the pc games listed as using havox physics, it says there are 49, can that be right?

http://www.havok.com/content/b...ory/29/73?platformid=7

i sent a support ticket but im just gonna give it a shot and find out.

company of heroes alone would be worth it, its such a demanding game. also HL2 would be nice for that new insurgency mod coming out and also HL episode 2.
 

Matt2

Diamond Member
Jul 28, 2001
4,762
0
0
That solution should work with any Havok games.

Try it out and see. Even if it does work, I can't see the gains being that big.
 

fern420

Member
Dec 3, 2005
170
0
0
im going to reinstall company of heroes and do some benching with it before i install the 3rd card. i want to see if i can actually notice the gains. ill get it done in the morning, should have a response from ati buy then too, if they are one thing its quick on the ticket support, ive had all mine answered by 10 am the next morning.
 

aka1nas

Diamond Member
Aug 30, 2001
4,335
1
0
Havok Physics is not the same as Havok FX. Half Life 2, Oblivion, and many other games use the regular (software-based) Havok Physics package. Havok FX is a seperate package that the developer would have to add to their game engine to enable GPU-assisted physics.

Their list of supported games does not show which Havok product the game actually uses. I haven't actually heard of any games announced that explicitly have Havok FX support.
 

mruffin75

Senior member
May 19, 2007
343
0
0
Found this doing a Google search:

In related news, Havok is also announcing game support for its Havok FX GPU-accelerated middleware, which uses Pixel Shader 3.0-compliant graphics cards to accelerate physics. The company says Hellgate: London from Flagship Studios and Alone in the Dark from Eden Games will both support Havok FX.
 

fern420

Member
Dec 3, 2005
170
0
0
well just got off the phone with ati, no go. they say it isnt possible and on top of that there are no drivers yet to make a 3rd card act as a physics card. i just cant understand why ati would of plastering this crap all over their website over a year ago if it isnt even possible. even if i had three 1900 cards i couldn't do it because the drivers dont exist. ive seen mention of beta drivers in some articles about the physic but the ati customer care has no clue about them, imagine that, hehehe.


http://ati.amd.com/technology/...ire/physics/index.html

that was put on their website almost a year ago and it still cant even be done? why even tease people?
 

aka1nas

Diamond Member
Aug 30, 2001
4,335
1
0
Both ATI and Nvidia got caught with their pants down so to speak when Ageia launched the PhysX card. They basically both announced vaporware solutions to try to convince developers/consumers not to go with Ageia's tech until they got their own solutions out.
 

n7

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2004
21,281
4
81
I love marketing BS

IMO, till UT3 & other future games come out that truely utilize a physics card (if it actually happens), physics cards are a bust.

I suspect they'll always be a bust, since we have quad cores these days, but i suppose time will tell.
 

fern420

Member
Dec 3, 2005
170
0
0
Originally posted by: aka1nas
Both ATI and Nvidia got caught with their pants down so to speak when Ageia launched the PhysX card. They basically both announced vaporware solutions to try to convince developers/consumers not to go with Ageia's tech until they got their own solutions out.

how do you like your ageia card? ive been considering one but theres just no games yet that i play that can use it but ive heard conflicting reports of people saying they are getting better performance in games such as battlefield 2142. are they just imagining it? doesn't the game have to be built around the physics card?
 

aka1nas

Diamond Member
Aug 30, 2001
4,335
1
0
BF 2142 doesn't have PhysX support at all, so it couldn't possibly be affecting things. The game must use the PhysX API for it's physics support to potentially use the card. The PhysX API also supports software-based physics and can take advantage of multiple cores in this mode. So, it's essentially similar to Havok Physics in that mode, except that they only have one unified API for hardware and software physics where Havok currently has two products that developers would license separately to use in their game.



So far, GRAW was kind of a wash with PhysX support. That game actually uses Havok for software-based physics and PhysX only if there is a PPU present. While the hardware physics effects were nicer, the net result was lower framerates due to all the extra objects on screen.

City of Villains/Heroes was a little brighter note. I received the game and a free month with the card, so I gave it a try. CoV does support the card and shows a fair performance increase with it.

CellFactor is pretty sweet and is probably the best showcase title currently. They ended up making the game a free download so I am going to try it now that school is out. I have played the demo previously and it was a blast.

I've also played played the Infernal demo on Steam and it does have extra effects if you play with a PPU, which make it a bit prettier.

I probably bought the card way too early, and I wouldn't necessarily recommend purchasing one right now until there is a game or two that you would actually play supporting it. I rationalized my purchase because I plan to mess around with 3d programming this summer (OGRE already has some nice PhysX plugins) and potentially do my Graduate Thesis on something involving Asymmetric Multi-Processing and offloading workloads to multiple alternative architectures. I was able to self-justify getting a G80 the same way.

Hmm, come to think of it, I think an 8-core workstation could be very helpful in my thesis also.
 

ViRGE

Elite Member, Moderator Emeritus
Oct 9, 1999
31,516
167
106
Originally posted by: aka1nas
BF 2142 doesn't have PhysX support at all, so it couldn't possibly be affecting things. The game must use the PhysX API for it's physics support to potentially use the card. The PhysX API also supports software-based physics and can take advantage of multiple cores in this mode. So, it's essentially similar to Havok Physics in that mode, except that they only have one unified API for hardware and software physics where Havok currently has two products that developers would license separately to use in their game.



So far, GRAW was kind of a wash with PhysX support. That game actually uses Havok for software-based physics and PhysX only if there is a PPU present. While the hardware physics effects were nicer, the net result was lower framerates due to all the extra objects on screen.

City of Villains/Heroes was a little brighter note. I received the game and a free month with the card, so I gave it a try. CoV does support the card and shows a fair performance increase with it.

CellFactor is pretty sweet and is probably the best showcase title currently. They ended up making the game a free download so I am going to try it now that school is out. I have played the demo previously and it was a blast.

I've also played played the Infernal demo on Steam and it does have extra effects if you play with a PPU, which make it a bit prettier.

I probably bought the card way too early, and I wouldn't necessarily recommend purchasing one right now until there is a game or two that you would actually play supporting it. I rationalized my purchase because I plan to mess around with 3d programming this summer (OGRE already has some nice PhysX plugins) and potentially do my Graduate Thesis on something involving Asymmetric Multi-Processing and offloading workloads to multiple alternative architectures. I was able to self-justify getting a G80 the same way.

Hmm, come to think of it, I think an 8-core workstation could be very helpful in my thesis also.
As another PhysX owner:

Cellfactor: You look at it for 15 minutes and then you never touch it again. It runs like crud even with the PhysX card, and it's a UT-style MP only game that only works over a LAN and comes with mentally-challenged bots. It's a tech demo, it's barely worth it at free.

The other games aren't bad, but none of them are remarkable. The extra effects in GRAW/CoV/Infernal really don't add much; they're all second-order goodies that have no impact on the actual game(and on a side note, the water physics in Infernal are silly).

Sadly, that's about all of the notable games currently out that even use PhysX, and it has been a good year later. AMD and Nvidia's rhetoric about GPU-based physics have pretty much killed PhysX as a product by enticing/confusing developers in to not using PhysX. The number of upcoming titles listed on Ageia's software page has shrunk in quantity and quality greatly over the last year. UT3 is the only major title still listed that will matter; it will make or break PhysX based on what it does with the hardware and how it performs with it.

But getting back to the GPU stuff for a moment, I would not expect to see this in the near future - I would not hesitate to say not to expect it at all. Havok FX is already over a year old and no one is using it, and apparently there's still no support for it in shipping drivers (i.e. stuff that works well enough to pass Q/A). This will end up like GPU support for hardware assisted video encoding: a nice promise that will be quietly swept under a rug.
 

nullpointerus

Golden Member
Apr 17, 2003
1,326
0
0
Originally posted by: ViRGE
This will end up like GPU support for hardware assisted video encoding: a nice promise that will be quietly swept under a rug.

Aren't nVidia and ATI introducing official GPGPU support through an API or something? If so, third parties should be able to write video encoders that take advantage of GPU acceleration. PCIe certainly has the bi-directional bandwidth, and, for years now, we have seen third parties making media plugins with varying levels of SSE support.

But yeah, I don't trust GPU companies to deliver this. My word for this kind of stuff is gimmickware: companies just announce it and/or produce one version of it for marketing value with no intention of actually making the software solid and maintaining it for years.
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
32,886
12,165
136
Originally posted by: ViRGE
Originally posted by: aka1nas
BF 2142 doesn't have PhysX support at all, so it couldn't possibly be affecting things. The game must use the PhysX API for it's physics support to potentially use the card. The PhysX API also supports software-based physics and can take advantage of multiple cores in this mode. So, it's essentially similar to Havok Physics in that mode, except that they only have one unified API for hardware and software physics where Havok currently has two products that developers would license separately to use in their game.



So far, GRAW was kind of a wash with PhysX support. That game actually uses Havok for software-based physics and PhysX only if there is a PPU present. While the hardware physics effects were nicer, the net result was lower framerates due to all the extra objects on screen.

City of Villains/Heroes was a little brighter note. I received the game and a free month with the card, so I gave it a try. CoV does support the card and shows a fair performance increase with it.

CellFactor is pretty sweet and is probably the best showcase title currently. They ended up making the game a free download so I am going to try it now that school is out. I have played the demo previously and it was a blast.

I've also played played the Infernal demo on Steam and it does have extra effects if you play with a PPU, which make it a bit prettier.

I probably bought the card way too early, and I wouldn't necessarily recommend purchasing one right now until there is a game or two that you would actually play supporting it. I rationalized my purchase because I plan to mess around with 3d programming this summer (OGRE already has some nice PhysX plugins) and potentially do my Graduate Thesis on something involving Asymmetric Multi-Processing and offloading workloads to multiple alternative architectures. I was able to self-justify getting a G80 the same way.

Hmm, come to think of it, I think an 8-core workstation could be very helpful in my thesis also.
As another PhysX owner:

Cellfactor: You look at it for 15 minutes and then you never touch it again. It runs like crud even with the PhysX card, and it's a UT-style MP only game that only works over a LAN and comes with mentally-challenged bots. It's a tech demo, it's barely worth it at free.

The other games aren't bad, but none of them are remarkable. The extra effects in GRAW/CoV/Infernal really don't add much; they're all second-order goodies that have no impact on the actual game(and on a side note, the water physics in Infernal are silly).

Sadly, that's about all of the notable games currently out that even use PhysX, and it has been a good year later. AMD and Nvidia's rhetoric about GPU-based physics have pretty much killed PhysX as a product by enticing/confusing developers in to not using PhysX. The number of upcoming titles listed on Ageia's software page has shrunk in quantity and quality greatly over the last year. UT3 is the only major title still listed that will matter; it will make or break PhysX based on what it does with the hardware and how it performs with it.

But getting back to the GPU stuff for a moment, I would not expect to see this in the near future - I would not hesitate to say not to expect it at all. Havok FX is already over a year old and no one is using it, and apparently there's still no support for it in shipping drivers (i.e. stuff that works well enough to pass Q/A). This will end up like GPU support for hardware assisted video encoding: a nice promise that will be quietly swept under a rug.

PhysX wasn't a viable option from the consumer perspective for a several hundred dollar add-on card (currently $143 on newegg though).
 

Chadder007

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
7,560
0
0
4 physics options with hardly any support (except for software mode).....They need to come up with a common API first for all of this, such as an addition to DirectX. Make it easier for the programmers to take advantage of to have it as an option without a lot of added cost/time.
 

aka1nas

Diamond Member
Aug 30, 2001
4,335
1
0
Yep, the Dx10 devs dropped some hints that they were interested in adding such an API in Dx11. Oh well, someone has to make a Glide and then go out of business before you can have a D3D.
 

ViRGE

Elite Member, Moderator Emeritus
Oct 9, 1999
31,516
167
106
Originally posted by: nullpointerus
Originally posted by: ViRGE
This will end up like GPU support for hardware assisted video encoding: a nice promise that will be quietly swept under a rug.

Aren't nVidia and ATI introducing official GPGPU support through an API or something? If so, third parties should be able to write video encoders that take advantage of GPU acceleration. PCIe certainly has the bi-directional bandwidth, and, for years now, we have seen third parties making media plugins with varying levels of SSE support.

But yeah, I don't trust GPU companies to deliver this. My word for this kind of stuff is gimmickware: companies just announce it and/or produce one version of it for marketing value with no intention of actually making the software solid and maintaining it for years.
Hardware encoding has always been "just around the corner", I have press slides from 2004 for both the R420 and NV40 touting hardware encoding of MPEG 1, 2, and 4. That was 3 years ago, look at where we're at now.

GPU-assisted physics simply isn't going to happen, ATI and Nvidia are simply going to drag their heals on it until the end. It may very well be better that way anyhow, their solutions have some major design issues in that all the physics calculations have to be second-order, presumably this is because the GPU can't pass physics data back fast/soon enough for first-order physics(i.e. physics that actually affect gameplay).
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |