News AMD's FEMFX Deformable Physics Library Lands: Benefits From Lots of CPU Cores

jimmysmitty

Champion
Moderator
So PhysX but CPU based. I guess it is useful but only to those that have it. I think GPUs have more at rest resources to handle this stuff but until 8+ cores gets overloaded with background processes this could at least make the cores useful.

I just wish they would make a new Red Faction like the original that you could make tunnels in the maps . That was fun in multiplayer.
 

alextheblue

Distinguished
Apr 3, 2001
2,984
56
20,870
2
So PhysX but CPU based. I guess it is useful but only to those that have it. I think GPUs have more at rest resources to handle this stuff but until 8+ cores gets overloaded with background processes this could at least make the cores useful.

I just wish they would make a new Red Faction like the original that you could make tunnels in the maps . That was fun in multiplayer.
PhysX can be run on CPUs. It's just (intentionally) horribly optimized for CPUs. Unless things have changed - it was using x87 code and not well threaded last I knew.
 

mitch074

Distinguished
So PhysX but CPU based. I guess it is useful but only to those that have it. I think GPUs have more at rest resources to handle this stuff but until 8+ cores gets overloaded with background processes this could at least make the cores useful.

I just wish they would make a new Red Faction like the original that you could make tunnels in the maps . That was fun in multiplayer.
If I'm not mistaken, the fact that it's GPUOpen makes it able to run on both CPU and GPU - so no, it's more like PhysX that can run on any hardware. I don't think one would need to push very far to make it so that the game runs on CPU cores, the 3D rendering takes place on a GPU and the physics processing takes place in, say, an unused APU/iGPU, or on whatever CPU cores are unused, or even on whatever GPU resources are free (that's the kind of job async compute would be perfect for).
 

joeblowsmynose

Distinguished
Jun 14, 2011
485
188
18,960
0
So PhysX but CPU based. I guess it is useful but only to those that have it.
...
All those poor people gaming on their GPU with no CPU ... how dare AMD exclude these people with their proprietary BS!? ;)


I say it's about time. Physics in games has made no remarkable progress since HL2 and then Crysis, whatsoever, and the PhysX proprietary crap has done nothing but stifle that innovation.

I saw NVidias "Me Too!" marketing tech demo video on new PhysX "soft body" physics and looks like like a slow motion simulator by comparison. Not good.

FEMFX has a pretty poor name, but it actually looks good ... I hope it can be implemented to the level that the tech demo showed.

I've been rather dismayed at the lack of innovation in the use of physics in games for quite some time, hopefully this shakes things up a bit.
 
Last edited:

jimmysmitty

Champion
Moderator
All those poor people gaming on their GPU with no CPU ... how dare AMD exclude these people with their proprietary BS!? ;)


I say it's about time. Physics in games has made no remarkable progress since HL2 and then Crysis, whatsoever, and the PhysX proprietary crap has done nothing but stifle that innovation.

I saw NVidias "Me Too!" marketing tech demo video on new PhysX "soft body" physics and looks like like a slow motion simulator by comparison. Not good.

FEMFX has a pretty poor name, but it actually looks good ... I hope it can be implemented to the level that the tech demo showed.

I've been rather dismayed at the lack of innovation in the use of physics in games for quite some time, hopefully this shakes things up a bit.
Having an all in one would help but you know how it is with GPU APIs. Most are proprietary or only supported with certain hardware. Makes it harder to push physics.

But to be fair games having wacky physics has also made for some really funny stuff. Like the old GTA IV swing set glitch. Nothing like flinging a 4000 pound car through the New York skyline.
 

joeblowsmynose

Distinguished
Jun 14, 2011
485
188
18,960
0
Having an all in one would help but you know how it is with GPU APIs. Most are proprietary or only supported with certain hardware. Makes it harder to push physics.

But to be fair games having wacky physics has also made for some really funny stuff. Like the old GTA IV swing set glitch. Nothing like flinging a 4000 pound car through the New York skyline.

I think it makes sense for the CPU to do the physics, as long as the game engine doesn't rely on those calculations too heavily to produce a single frame. Some game engines re-calculate everything based on single frame cycle, those ones would probably benefit from GPU physics calculations over CPU, just to help keep any potential CPU bottleneck out of it.

With most games and most modern CPUs these days, there's almost always a a core or two or five that isn't getting any love during gaming, might as well put them to work!
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS