Analysis: PhysX On Systems With AMD Graphics Cards

Status
Not open for further replies.
Is it 'Physx by Nvidia' or 'Physx for Nvidia'..!! Its a pity to read those lines wherein it says that Nvidia is holding back performance when a non-Nvidia primary card is detected..
 
G

Guest

Guest
It looks like the increase in CPU utilization with CPU physX is only 154%, which could be 1 thread plus synchronization overhead with the main rendering threads.
 

eyefinity

Distinguished
Mar 6, 2010
1,106
0
19,310
24
The article could barely spell it out more clearly.

Everyone could be enjoying cpu based Physics, making use of their otherwise idle cores.


The problem is, nVidia doesn't want that. They have a proprietary solution which slows down their own cards, and AMD cards even more, making theirs seem better. On top of that, they throw money at games devs so they don't include better cpu physics.

Everybody loses except nVidia. This is not unusual behaviour for them, they are doing it with Tesellation now too - slowing down their own cards because it slows down AMD cards even more, when there is a better solution that doesn't hurt anybody.

They are a pure scumbag company.
 

rohitbaran

Distinguished
Mar 21, 2010
1,938
0
20,160
116
In short, a good config to enjoy Physx requires selling an arm or a leg and the game developers and nVidia keep screwing the users to save their money and propagate their business interests respectively.
 

iam2thecrowe

Glorious
Moderator
The world needs need opencl physics NOW! Also, while this is an informative article, it would be good to see what single nvidia cards make games using physx playable. Will a single gts450 cut it? probably not. That way budget gamers can make a more informed choice as its no point chosing nvidia for physx and finding it doesnt run well anyway on mid range cards so they could have just bought an ATI card and been better off.
 

archange

Distinguished
May 7, 2007
305
0
18,780
0
Believe it or not, this morning I was determined to look into this same problem, since I just upgraded from an 8800 GTS 512 to an HD 6850. :O

Thank you, Tom's, thank you Igor Wallossek for makinng it easy!
You just made my day: a big thumbs up!
 

skokie2

Distinguished
Nov 18, 2010
1
0
18,510
0
What is failed to be mentioned (and if what I see is real its much more predatory) that simply having an onboard AMD graphics, even if its disabled in the BIOS, stops PhysX working. This is simply outragous. My main hope is that AMD finally gets better at linux drivers so my next card does not need to be nVidia. I will vote with my feet... so long as there is another name on the slip :( Sad state of graphics generally and been getting worse since AMD bought ATI.. it was then that this game started... nVidia just takes it up a notch.
 

super_tycoon

Distinguished
Apr 15, 2010
22
0
18,510
0
@jamesedgeuk2000, the ppu is abandoned. You would have to run some pretty old drivers to have it recognized. That being said, almost all of the older physx games require a ppu for acceleration. I'm still annoyed Nvidia hasn't come up with some sort of compatibility layer so a gpu ppu can act as a ppu.

I've been running a hybrid system for almost half a year now. I have a 5770 (replacing it with a 6970, assuming it ever comes out while I still have money to my name) and GT 240 with 512 GDDR5. (I got it for 30 before tax on a whim) The only game I've ever found improved by the 240 is Mirror's Edge. I can get some pretty glass shattering while my friend's GTS 250 just craps out. However, a hybrid system does have the advantage of CUDA. Start up a CUDA app, boom, get awesome opengl (or directX) performance and cuda acceleration. One caveat with my 240 is that you need at least 768mb (I THINK) of vram to enable the Mercury Playback Engine is CS5.
 

IzzyCraft

Distinguished
Nov 20, 2008
1,438
0
19,290
2

I always enjoy reading your hate it's like i'm reading Charlie except not quite as eloquent.

So would you rather have a game with 0 physics/really shitty or one that nvidia proved to the devs for free? Should i point out all the games that utter lack AA all together funny how such a basic thing can be overlooked, things cost money. The article points out a large portion of the bad cpu utilization is due to no dev work to make it better that cuts both ways not just to nvidia.

Nvidia is a publicly traded company any action that they make is made in the interest in profits anything else gets people fired.

It's cool how the article is about phsyx but you bring up tessellation and then end it with scumbag company. Maybe i should bring up how ATI cuts texture quality.

So why would nvidia who already is spending butt loads of money developing a game for another company cut down it's own bottom line? The stuff is all there it's just a matter of devs actually doing the leg work, which nvidia would be stupid to do themselves. With people like you they could cure cancer but still be satin, so you already are the case study to why they shouldn't do any real work do improving cpu utilization with their Phsyx, because i'm sure to you it would just fall on deaf ears.

Granted even i don't quite get the gambit of cutting ATI support for physics but business is business, and like all things proprietary the end users always loose.
 

blibba

Distinguished
Aug 27, 2008
166
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]jamesedgeuk2000[/nom]What about people with dedicated PPU's? I have 8800 GTX SLi and an Ageia Physx card where do I come into it?[/citation]

Looks like you might be better leaving physx to the 8800s...
 

varfantomen

Distinguished
Mar 24, 2010
4
0
18,510
0
[citation][nom]eyefinity[/nom]They are a pure scumbag company.[/citation]

Heh why should nvidia spend their time and money to help AMD? It's as much nonsense as saying Toyota should help Ford be cause that too would be for the greater good. Yeah damn those scumbags at Toyota!
 

sudeshc

Distinguished
Apr 30, 2009
261
0
18,780
0
I believe that Physix should be improved and should take advantage to all cores of CPU and the GPU-CPU load balancing should be more practical and performance based...........After we want to play better Games :D
 

gti88

Distinguished
Jul 11, 2009
242
0
18,680
0
Only 1 out of 100 gamers may have a dedicated "phisix" card.
Other 99 don't bother at all and avoid phisix to get smoother gameplay.
Is it really worth it in eyes of Jen-Hsung?
 

Ciuy

Distinguished
Feb 26, 2009
565
0
18,980
0
nvidia can go to hell for ruining phisix.

Gj tom for the findings. Clearly nvidia want phisix just for bussiness and marketing, not trying to make it something good.

up yours nVidia managers.
 

alidan

Splendid
Aug 5, 2009
5,303
0
25,780
0
[citation][nom]gti88[/nom]Only 1 out of 100 gamers may have a dedicated "phisix" card.Other 99 don't bother at all and avoid phisix to get smoother gameplay.Is it really worth it in eyes of Jen-Hsung?[/citation]

1 in 100
lets say there are 4 million gamers on the pc, probably more, but lets say there are 4 million that try to stay current within 2 years of current tech.

that means there are 40000 for dual gpu (amd and nvidia)
the means that its a t least 4 mill that they lose by not letting a amd thing in the computer and nvidia run physix.

i believe that there are more, considering that last time i checked, if you have an amd integrated card, you are equally as screwed,
 
People stop it; Physics calculations (And I mean actual dynamic stuff; not the linear stuff we currently get shoved down our throats) is easier to process on a massivly parralel execution engine (EG: GPU) then it is on a serial based one (EG: CPU).

I'm seeing an exact repeat of the "Graphical Accelerator" debate of the late 90's. And at the end of the day, the extra eye-candy we currently experiance on GPU's shows exactly why a dedicated PPU (whether its a second GPU or a seperate unit in and of itself) is a necessity. Because unless a dedicated API is in place, and a means to execute that API is provied in hardware, we won't see any improvement by software devoplers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY