Hawken, holy gpu physx!

[SirPauly]

I'm all for advanced physics,.

I believe you're for ideal advanced physics!

 

[BallaTheFeared]

My opinion is that it is resource hungry,unrealistic and tacky looking.

Are you sure you aren't describing a single ponytail which causes almost as much performance loss as full blown PhysX?

What exactly are you using as a point of reference to compare it to? Is there another API that rivals PhysX, please do share what it is I'm dying to know

 

[SirPauly]

If it was THAT good it would be in a LOT more games and would have a lot more support from BOTH Nvidia and AMD.

My opinion is that it is resource hungry,unrealistic and tacky looking.

GPU Physics is gaining momentum, imho!

 

[BallaTheFeared]

I dunno about you, but I sure hope hybrid works for The Witcher 3. It's nice to simply enjoy tech instead of having to pick sides based on my sig.

 

[SirPauly]

There seems to be more content as of late from the nVidia side but also wonderful to see AMD's TressFX using compute, and Havok with the GPU Physics for the SP4.

Gaining momentum.

 

[Lonyo]

but you did let mine conclusion out... it's not really fair, yet the cpu does a heck of a good job...

i would really love to see the same benchmarks done with a 95W GPU...remember a 650ti uses 110W

It doesn't. I barely managed to push 110w from the wall for an entire system (Celeron G530) + GTX650Ti running Unigine or 3D Mark + Intel Burn Test.
May spec for up to 110w but getting the card alone to use that much is hard.

 

[NIGELG]

Are you sure you aren't describing a single ponytail which causes almost as much performance loss as full blown PhysX?

What exactly are you using as a point of reference to compare it to? Is there another API that rivals PhysX, please do share what it is I'm dying to know

There is no point of reference.In it's current state those GPU effects look tacky.It's all about how it looks.That is part of the reason I play games...to please my own eyes...not to cheer on a tech no matter how silly it looks.

 

[SirPauly]

It's great that you have choice to turn it off or choose AMD!

 

[NIGELG]

It's great that you have choice to turn it off or choose AMD!

I also have the right to comment on it ...as do you and everyone else.

It looks silly and out of place.Improve it and I will alter my view.

 

[Lonbjerg]

but you did let mine conclusion out... it's not really fair, yet the cpu does a heck of a good job...

But noot good enough...so back to square one.

 

[Lonbjerg]

I also have the right to comment on it ...as do you and everyone else.

It looks silly and out of place.Improve it and I will alter my view.

No you won't...

 

[SirPauly]

I also have the right to comment on it ...as do you and everyone else.

It looks silly and out of place.Improve it and I will alter my view.

Sure! It's great to hear pros-and-cons and one of my constructive nit-picks was the lack of content but it seems to be picking up.

 

[SirPauly]

Zogrim offering his comparison video with Hawken:


GPU PhysX in Hawken

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pC6nIW1ji9s


Really enjoy his artistic flair with these videos!

 

[BallaTheFeared]

I liked when he levitated and the rubble pushed out, amazing work Nvidia :thumbsup:

 

[SirPauly]

Hehe, enjoyed that part as well, and said, "that was neat" to myself!

 

[NIGELG]

No you won't...

Who the hell are you to tell me what I will or won't do?I am not a rabid,militant,arrogant,obsessive,unreasonable,fan boy like you seem to be.

Improve and make Physics better and accessible and there will be converts.Now the effects in these 'GPU pHYSx' games today look silly and unrealistic.Got it?

 

[Lonbjerg]

Zogrim offering his comparison video with Hawken:


GPU PhysX in Hawken

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pC6nIW1ji9s


Really enjoy his artistic flair with these videos!

Funny, that videos do show something that people deined in this thread.
There are effects with PhysX off....they just look like turd scripts

I guess we can write off that "argument" now.

/cue next "excuse"...

 

[BallaTheFeared]

I think the next one, and it's my biggest dislike, is the lack of actual enviroment interaction.

I like when I shoot stuff that it causes debris, but I don't like that the decal placed on it is the same as when PhysX is off.

This is the "band-aid" effect of having to addon support instead of having it intertwined with the game, but without AMD getting on board we'll probably never see that level of integration.


Some things seem to be going backwards as well, like BFBC2 Havok destruction was great for what it was, then BF3 it was simply awful.

 

[Lonyo]

I think the next one, and it's my biggest dislike, is the lack of actual enviroment interaction.

I like when I shoot stuff that it causes debris, but I don't like that the decal placed on it is the same as when PhysX is off.

This is the "band-aid" effect of having to addon support instead of having it intertwined with the game, but without AMD getting on board we'll probably never see that level of integration.


Some things seem to be going backwards as well, like BFBC2 Havok destruction was great for what it was, then BF3 it was simply awful.

You mean without NV getting on board and making PhysX available to all varieties of PC GPUs.

Almost every modern PC comes with a free GPU which supports OpenCL, for example.
You are blaming AMD, I would say it's 100% the fault of NV (and also partly Intel).

NV want to sell GPUs, they don't care about consumers.
If they did, and were looking at the future, they would see a time when Intel GPUs can somewhat capably perform OpenCL and DirectCompute calculations, and allow their technologies to be run on the CPUs integrated graphics chip, at least at some level, while a real discrete GPU does the heavy lifting.

THAT is why we need open standards. It has nothing to do with NV or AMD, and everything to do with Intel, since Intel are the bringer of free GPUs. (No one wants to game on an AMD CPU)

It's a shame too many people think it's all about AMD vs NV though.

Oh, and consoles. NV isn't in consoles. You want PhysX in ports that's more than frilly nothingness? Well consoles can bring that, since most high end $$$ titles are on consoles too. Get PhysX to work on consoles as part of the game, and bam, easy, you also have it working on AMD GPUs! And you can intertwine it as part of the game!

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=29816016&highlight=intel#post29816016
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=31266579&highlight=intel#post31266579
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=27944806&highlight=intel#post27944806
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=34670419&highlight=physx+consoles#post34670419
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=31264529&highlight=physx+consoles#post31264529
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=31022059&highlight=physx+consoles#post31022059

(Those links are for Lonbjerg before he does a :whiste: and talks about me changing my opinion or similar)

http://gadgets.ndtv.com/games/news/sonys-playstation-4-to-get-nvidias-physx-and-apex-support-340963
Oh gee, Apex and PhysX on Playstation 4, that AMD CPU and AMD GPU powered console.

NVIDIA says with the help of these two technologies on the console, PS4 game designers will be able to "create intricate physics-enabled environments", "expand the quantity and visual quality of destructible objects" and "make smoke and other particle-based fluids integral to game play"

[...]

NVIDIA has worked with developers across generations of consoles and of course the PC. The PhysX console SDK runs on the CPU. Certain features, for example particle systems and clothing can be accelerated on CUDA capable GPUs which is why you see the most impressive features on the PC but we continue to work extensively with developers and the community to ensure PhysX acceleration on all architectures. Having PhysX and APEX on the PS4 will simply give developers the best tools to create incredible games.

Wait, what?

 

[ICDP]

I think the next one, and it's my biggest dislike, is the lack of actual enviroment interaction.

I like when I shoot stuff that it causes debris, but I don't like that the decal placed on it is the same as when PhysX is off.

This is the "band-aid" effect of having to addon support instead of having it intertwined with the game, but without AMD getting on board we'll probably never see that level of integration.


Some things seem to be going backwards as well, like BFBC2 Havok destruction was great for what it was, then BF3 it was simply awful.

My main beef with PhysX is that it is proprietary when a perfectly adequate standard already exists in OpenCL. The fact is that it polarises PC gamers as those who do and those who don't, this forces developers to split resources and actually hold back on what can be achieved. For example they can't use PhysX to make destructible environments because doing so would instantly eliminate ~40% of their customer potential. So they are left the only viable option, create some eye candy that looks good but has no effect what so ever on the environment.

Yes the effects taken on their own look good, the problem is the feeling of immersion is lost when debris is flying all over the place and then evaporates into thin air. It does not look good when walls/ground/ceilings/structures remain totally intact after seeing so much debris flying from them that they should be nothing but rubble.

If there was one single open standard that both vendors adopted the developers would not be left with limited choices. Nvidia are now so committed financially to PhysX that they will simply go on refusing to adopt OpenCL until they have no option. AMD have already shown they have no intention of paying Nvidia license fees to enable PhysX on their hardware.

In the end the user is left with no true physics standard and as such the status quo will remain.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

You mean without NV getting on board and making PhysX available to all varieties of PC GPUs.

Almost every modern PC comes with a free GPU which supports OpenCL, for example.
You are blaming AMD, I would say it's 100% the fault of NV (and also partly Intel).

Wait, what?

No, I'll stand by my original statement and say it's high time AMD paid Nvidia for their PhysX coding. Nvidia didn't get it for free, and developing it hasn't been free either.

HD4000 and below, you can't be serious...

I would say it's 50% Nvidia's fault for buying proprietary code, 100% AMD's fault for expecting everyone else to do the leg work for them, and 1000% Intels fault for laughing in AMD's face when they bought Havok and shut Havok FX down.

Wait, what what? Read between the lines. PhysX works on AMD and Intel cpu's, as well as ARM now.

 

[SirPauly]

Imho,

nVidia has placed resources on multi core, threading in the PhysX SDK. With nVidia evangelizing Arm with Tegra and future sku's potentially utilizing Arm it is in nVidia's self interest into creating a robust SDK for developers for many platforms.

 

[SirPauly]

My main beef with PhysX is that it is proprietary when a perfectly adequate standard already exists in OpenCL.

That's what I would like to know and ask nVidia.

What are their thoughts of OpenCL compared to Cuda? What are Cuda's tangible advantages?

 

[ICDP]

That's what I would like to know and ask nVidia.

What are their thoughts of OpenCL compared to Cuda? What are Cuda's tangible advantages?

It would be pointless asking to be honest, they are hardly going to say "we think OpenCL is amazing". Like I said above Nvidia are way too committed to PhysX to willingly adopt a different standard.

 

[Lonyo]

No, I'll stand by my original statement and say it's high time AMD paid Nvidia for their PhysX coding. Nvidia didn't get it for free, and developing it hasn't been free either.

HD4000 and below, you can't be serious...

I would say it's 50% Nvidia's fault for buying proprietary code, 100% AMD's fault for expecting everyone else to do the leg work for them, and 1000% Intels fault for laughing in AMD's face when they bought Havok and shut Havok FX down.

Wait, what what? Read between the lines. PhysX works on AMD and Intel cpu's, as well as ARM now.

Why would AMD pay NV in order to be at the whim of NV, when it doesn't really benefit them at all except by having a tiny bit of added stuff in about a dozen games over 6 years?
And no, I didn't say HD4000 and below, I said in the future, as in, HD4000 is slow... but Intel integrated GPUs will get faster. Or did you not work that out when I said Intel was partly to blame and talked about FUTURE Intel GPUs?

NV bought PhysX in order to sell GPU. The indications of the fact they are only doing software support in the PS4 means that they only want to use it to sell GPUs, not to advance gaming. So they are doing just as much as Intel did shutting down HavokFX.

They are also contradicting half the people here. Apparently (based on the investigation in what I linked above), you can use PhysX for game changing and immersive stuff using a CPU! Doesn't need a GPU at all, which is why they aren't supporting GPU PhysX on the PS4.

Hopefully developers will decide to use a more AMD friendly physics engine that actually allows them to push various aspects of the consoles processors, rather than the restrictive PhysX which apparently will be CPU only in the PS4 at least.

Blame AMD because NV don't want to make PhysX work on AMD GPUs, even when AMD GPUs are in both major consoles? Yeah, sure.
Blame NV when PhysX fails because developers use physics engines that support AMD GPUs that are used in both major next gen consoles? OK.