Phyx on amd card?

[freshbuilder]

The guy from motherboard.org, the one with the bald head and kick ass beard, said it can be done. I'm just confused as to which video it was which is why I'm asking it here instead. If its possible, how can you do it?

 

[ricardois]

well actually physx is a real physics processing unit inside the graphics board, so since amd does not have this chip, physx will not work, probably what the kick ass bearded bald guy was saying is that you can use a main AMd graphics card and buy any Geforce (or ageia) physx card dedicated do physx (9800gtx+ or higher for good perf) so you will need 2 graphics card for that, but alone it is not possible...

 

[Rockdpm]

Yep, like ricado said, not possible without NVIDIA. NVIDIA owns Physx, its they're technology and they have stated before they will not sell it off to AMD. Even tho i read that the Co Designer of Physx moved to AMD.

 

[jaguarskx]

Physx is owned by nVidia and is purposely designed to only with nVidia cards.

AMD uses the Havok physics engine which is CPU based and I believe favors Intel CPUs over AMD CPUs, but not 100% positive on that.

If you have an AMD card, then you can setup a "hybrid Physx" system, but this requires you to buy a nVidia card to be used for Physx. This can be done on Win XP and Win 7. However, it does not work with Win Vista since it can only use one video driver at a time (AMD or nVidia) not both.

See following resource:

http://www.ngohq.com/graphic-cards/17706-hybrid-physx-mod-v1-03-v1-05ff.html

 

[ricardois]

AMD likes to do that, they have Havok physcs (it is just any computer without physx lol) it is calculated by the cpu...
Amd have hd3D it is just third party drivers that you can use even with nvidia 3d solution, so AMD simple does not have physx or 3D they are just saying that you will have to look for a solution by yourself, since you payed a little less for our graphics card...

 

[festerovic]

very interesting. In doing a little reading, some have mentioned that a fast CPU (i7...) could perform the same. Is that accurate? I have a 4.5ghz 2600k, what kind of nvidia card would I have to get to outpace the CPU in physx performance?

 

[ricardois]

no, i don't think a cpu can outperform the graphics card physx because to cpu calculate it, it will slow the other tasks, the graphics physx solution is exacly to let the cpu do its work properly.

I think even a 9800gtx+ will do better physx than "our" cpu.

but i'm saying about PHYSX specific, depending on how the physx were coded the result is totally different the physx is great for debris,fluids and clothing animations, these are the worst physx calculations;

 

[COLGeek]

The guy from motherboard.org, the one with the bald head and kick ass beard, said it can be done. I'm just confused as to which video it was which is why I'm asking it here instead. If its possible, how can you do it?

No AMD/ATI GPU will run Physx. That requires a Nvidia GPU. There are ways to configure the AMD/ATI drivers and the Nvidia/Physx drivers to co-exist on the same platform with the AMD/ATI being the primary video device.

Of course, the benefit of doing this is questionable as discussed within this thread.

 

[bystander]

Well, to be more accurate, all systems can perform PhysX, but only Nvidia cards support GPU accelerated PhysX.

There was a developer a while back that managed to get AMD cards to perform GPU accelerated PhysX, and just before he released it, he was hired by Nvidia, so it never was released.

It's not that PhysX requires special hardware, but the way it is programmed requires special hardware and Nvidia owns the rights to it.

I wouldn't worry about it, as there are not many games that use GPU accelerated PhysX and most are not that good: http://www.geforce.com/Hardware/Technologies/physx/games

 

[COLGeek]

GPU accelerated Physx requires CUDA. CUDA is Nvidia only. Bystander is right regarding software Physx running on any platform.

 

[bystander]

very interesting. In doing a little reading, some have mentioned that a fast CPU (i7...) could perform the same. Is that accurate? I have a 4.5ghz 2600k, what kind of nvidia card would I have to get to outpace the CPU in physx performance?

There is some truth to this but not directly. While the GPU can perform PhysX tasks faster, those tasks steal resources that are normally used to help render frames at the same time. Very few games use more than 2 or 3 cores from the CPU, which would not be hurt in performance if they performed the tasks on the CPU.

Metro 2033 is a good example of this. Enabling advanced PhysX in Metro 2033 on an Nvidia system will often hurt performance more than with an AMD system. This is because the Nvidia system will lose GPU resources while the AMD system will perform it on the CPU which is not as stressed. Metro 2033 might be the only game to exhibit this behavior.

 

[festerovic]

There is some truth to this but not directly. While the GPU can perform PhysX tasks faster, those tasks steal resources that are normally used to help render frames at the same time. Very few games use more than 2 or 3 cores from the CPU, which would not be hurt in performance if they performed the tasks on the CPU.

Metro 2033 is a good example of this. Enabling advanced PhysX in Metro 2033 on an Nvidia system will often hurt performance more than with an AMD system. This is because the Nvidia system will lose GPU resources while the AMD system will perform it on the CPU which is not as stressed. Metro 2033 might be the only game to exhibit this behavior.

ty for that, so let me bottom line it: I have an empty 16x slot (its 4x though...) on the mobo and a spare 8800gt (i could trade it very easy for a 9800gt if it makes a difference), is this worthwhile for physx? I have 2x6850 cards for graphics, and as mentioned ^ a 2600k cpu.

 

[rmpumper]

Don't bother with PhysX if you have a decent AMD card. Only Mafia2, Mirror's Edge and Batman game actually benefit from PhysX, but to get a second card and mess around with the hybrid driver stuff is just not worth it.

As far as I'm concerned, PhysX is just another of nVidia's marketing ploys and nothing more.

 

[bystander]

ty for that, so let me bottom line it: I have an empty 16x slot (its 4x though...) on the mobo and a spare 8800gt (i could trade it very easy for a 9800gt if it makes a difference), is this worthwhile for physx? I have 2x6850 cards for graphics, and as mentioned ^ a 2600k cpu.

Do you play any of these games, and wish you had more PhysX support? http://www.geforce.com/Hardware/Technologies/physx/games

 

[Murissokah]

ty for that, so let me bottom line it: I have an empty 16x slot (its 4x though...) on the mobo and a spare 8800gt (i could trade it very easy for a 9800gt if it makes a difference), is this worthwhile for physx? I have 2x6850 cards for graphics, and as mentioned ^ a 2600k cpu.

I would say PhysX is only worth the trouble when there is no trouble involved 😉

As for trading a 8800GT for a 9800GT for performance: no gain there, they are the same card.

Considering you already run crossfire, which will consume a fair amount of patience to run adequately (it does to me), I would certainly not add a third card for PhysX.

 

[ricardois]

I would say PhysX is only worth the trouble when there is no trouble involved 😉

As for trading a 8800GT for a 9800GT for performance: no gain there, they are the same card.

Considering you already run crossfire, which will consume a fair amount of patience to run adequately (it does to me), I would certainly not add a third card for PhysX.

well if you already have the amd solution really will not worth buying another nvidia just for the physx, this will only worth it if you had an old nvidia graphics and than upgraded to amd.

Doing that will just remove all the amd advantages (lowest price) you will finish paying more for a crossfire system with physx, than what you would have paid if you have bought 2 equivalent nvidia graphics solution without the extra physx card.

if you are looking to play 3D Games or use Physx you should go for Nvidia will be the cheapest solution, otherwise if you would never mess with that, them you can find a equivalent graphics card for less price removing those unused features.

 

[festerovic]

^ I already have the 8800gt card.

And since there aren't any benchmarks that really say how much Physx a boy needs when he plays games, I don't know if I need more than the CPU version of physx over the GPU version. I've always had the option greyed out on any of the games that supported it.

I don't mind the complexity of the drivers and dealing with that business. Ultimately, I want effects that I'm not seeing with my current setup. So if it's all boiled down to: add the card, install the drivers, profit. Is it worthwhile, or is the visual effects going to be the exact same run from the CPU vs. a 8800gt?

 

[ricardois]

^ I already have the 8800gt card.

And since there aren't any benchmarks that really say how much Physx a boy needs when he plays games, I don't know if I need more than the CPU version of physx over the GPU version. I've always had the option greyed out on any of the games that supported it.

I don't mind the complexity of the drivers and dealing with that business. Ultimately, I want effects that I'm not seeing with my current setup. So if it's all boiled down to: add the card, install the drivers, profit. Is it worthwhile, or is the visual effects going to be the exact same run from the CPU vs. a 8800gt?

8800gt will be better than your cpu of course, the problem of the cpu physx like is said is that the cpu already is full of work to do, and you will gain certainly performance over your cpu physx.

I've already readed that physx adjusts itself you can be able to activate it with the cpu and if your cpu is powerfull enough to handle it you will be running at a very low physx profile, the particles are decreased a lot and dissapear faster than what would happen if you had gpu physx calculated.

it will probably increase the performance on physx games...

There is some truth to this but not directly. While the GPU can perform PhysX tasks faster, those tasks steal resources that are normally used to help render frames at the same time. Very few games use more than 2 or 3 cores from the CPU, which would not be hurt in performance if they performed the tasks on the CPU.

Metro 2033 is a good example of this. Enabling advanced PhysX in Metro 2033 on an Nvidia system will often hurt performance more than with an AMD system. This is because the Nvidia system will lose GPU resources while the AMD system will perform it on the CPU which is not as stressed. Metro 2033 might be the only game to exhibit this behavior.

never heard of running cpu physx can be better than gpu, since nvidia Gpus have another Physix calculation unit just specific to that task, the performance hit is higher because like i said there will be physx effects at high levels, and not just some small particles that is what happen when cpu is calculating it.

 

[bystander]

Metro 2033 is a good example of this. Enabling advanced PhysX in Metro 2033 on an Nvidia system will often hurt performance more than with an AMD system. This is because the Nvidia system will lose GPU resources while the AMD system will perform it on the CPU which is not as stressed. Metro 2033 might be the only game to exhibit this behavior.

never heard of running cpu physx can be better than gpu, since nvidia Gpus have another Physix calculation unit just specific to that task, the performance hit is higher because like i said there will be physx effects at high levels, and not just some small particles that is what happen when cpu is calculating it.

Early Metro 2033 benchmarks at least, when the game first came out, showed that AMD systems ran faster than Nvidia systems when PhysX was enabled.

Nvidia's system is quite different than AMD, all their processing units are CUDA cores, and can be used in multiple ways. If you enable PhysX, it steals CUDA cores from performing their tasks. This is why even Nvidia systems perform better with a dedicated PhysX card. Metro 2033 uses GPU accelerated PhysX very lightly, enough that is actually performs best on the CPU, at least it did at release. Perhaps they've reworked it since then.

I'm also not saying that PhysX doesn't perform faster on the GPU, only that if it does run on the GPU, it steals performance from its normal tasks and it can slow things down. If Nvidia tried to optimize their PhysX engine to run better on the CPU, we'd likely see more examples of this.

 

[ricardois]

Early Metro 2033 benchmarks at least, when the game first came out, showed that AMD systems ran faster than Nvidia systems when PhysX was enabled.

Nvidia's system is quite different than AMD, all their processing units are CUDA cores, and can be used in multiple ways. If you enable PhysX, it steals CUDA cores from performing their tasks. This is why even Nvidia systems perform better with a dedicated PhysX card. Metro 2033 uses GPU accelerated PhysX very lightly, enough that is actually performs best on the CPU, at least it did at release. Perhaps they've reworked it since then.

I'm also not saying that PhysX doesn't perform faster on the GPU, only that if it does run on the GPU, it steals performance from its normal tasks and it can slow things down. If Nvidia tried to optimize their PhysX engine to run better on the CPU, we'd likely see more examples of this.

well i'm not any pro on this, but by what i've reader:

if i'm not mistaken CUDA is not even usable in metro 2033, and of course amd system would be faster with Physx on, is just like saying a game runs with higher frames on a dx9 graphics card.

Also physx is not quite stealing gpu power, the physx processing unit is working with the gpu, and it is much best to combine it with the gpu than stealing Cpu processing, that will really kill the performance if the cpu is not sending all the information for the graphics card the lag will be even higher.

if you have a nvidia card, you know that you can se the cpu to execute physx. and the lag in every game i've tested is much more extreme on any game, and/or removes most of the particles effects.

 

[bystander]

well i'm not any pro on this, but by what i've reader:

if i'm not mistaken CUDA is not even usable in metro 2033, and of course amd system would be faster with Physx on, is just like saying a game runs with higher frames on a dx9 graphics card.

Also physx is not quite stealing gpu power, the physx processing unit is working with the gpu, and it is much best to combine it with the gpu than stealing Cpu processing, that will really kill the performance if the cpu is not sending all the information for the graphics card the lag will be even higher.

if you have a nvidia card, you know that you can se the cpu to execute physx. and the lag in every game i've tested is much more extreme on any game, and/or removes most of the particles effects.

First off, I didn't say AMD systems run faster with PhysX on. I was saying that AMD systems were running faster than Nvidia systems when PhysX was on in Metro 2033 (at least at release, I haven't looked recently as the advanced PhysX seems pointless in that game).

2nd, Cuda cores, which are used for PhysX, are a universal graphics processor. When GPU accelerated PhysX is turned on, some of the Cuda cores which normally would be used to generated graphics are instead used to do PhysX calculations. They aren't units in addition to their normal graphics processing units. They are the same thing. This is why they steal GPU processing power when PhysX is turned on. This is why Nvidia systems with a dedicated PhysX processor can handle these games faster than without the dedicated processor.

 

[frombehind]

I really would not bother "PhysX" is a proprietary technology that has been pretty much passed over by every respectable game out there in favor of solution that don't lock their code to a specific set of hardware.

 

[Murissokah]

^ I already have the 8800gt card.

And since there aren't any benchmarks that really say how much Physx a boy needs when he plays games, I don't know if I need more than the CPU version of physx over the GPU version. I've always had the option greyed out on any of the games that supported it.

I don't mind the complexity of the drivers and dealing with that business. Ultimately, I want effects that I'm not seeing with my current setup. So if it's all boiled down to: add the card, install the drivers, profit. Is it worthwhile, or is the visual effects going to be the exact same run from the CPU vs. a 8800gt?

What I tried to emphasize is that the benefits gained from PhysX are very unimpressive. There are hardly any scenarios where you can actualy use it, and when you do, even fewer are worth it (I have had a 8800GT too, and played Mirror's Edge with it, and it was such a let down). If you decide that you are going to play Batman and you absolutely NEED the effect, than keep in mind that it is not as simple as "add the card, install the drivers, profit". It's more like: add the card, try to get windows to boot for a few hours, then try to make the third card run for another few hours, then try to set the drivers correctly, then get crossfire to work again, then PhysX, and then, MAYBE, you will get it all running. Then you find out stuff that WAS working no longer is.

Keep it all in mind if you really are going to add that card. I have a pair of 6870's myself, and that old 8800GT (which I also have) is going nowhere near them.

 

[ricardois]

What I tried to emphasize is that the benefits gained from PhysX are very unimpressive. There are hardly any scenarios where you can actualy use it, and when you do, even fewer are worth it (I have had a 8800GT too, and played Mirror's Edge with it, and it was such a let down). If you decide that you are going to play Batman and you absolutely NEED the effect, than keep in mind that it is not as simple as "add the card, install the drivers, profit". It's more like: add the card, try to get windows to boot for a few hours, then try to make the third card run for another few hours, then try to set the drivers correctly, then get crossfire to work again, then PhysX, and then, MAYBE, you will get it all running. Then you find out stuff that WAS working no longer is.

Keep it all in mind if you really are going to add that card. I have a pair of 6870's myself, and that old 8800GT (which I also have) is going nowhere near them.

well really there are few games that support physx, but if you play any of those the physx effect, are more than noticable, and they are everywere, Batman, Mafia II, Alice Madness, dark void, cryostasis, you see in almost all the game physx effect, but of course all of them does not affect gameplay, they are soft particles, movable cloth (and cutable), floating papers, debris on explosions,etc... stuff that just gives a best enviroment for playing, but noone of them will affect gameplay.

You can see a lot of videos on web to see the differences, but yes, of course that is just a Plus.

 

[bystander]

What I tried to emphasize is that the benefits gained from PhysX are very unimpressive. There are hardly any scenarios where you can actualy use it, and when you do, even fewer are worth it (I have had a 8800GT too, and played Mirror's Edge with it, and it was such a let down). If you decide that you are going to play Batman and you absolutely NEED the effect, than keep in mind that it is not as simple as "add the card, install the drivers, profit". It's more like: add the card, try to get windows to boot for a few hours, then try to make the third card run for another few hours, then try to set the drivers correctly, then get crossfire to work again, then PhysX, and then, MAYBE, you will get it all running. Then you find out stuff that WAS working no longer is.

Keep it all in mind if you really are going to add that card. I have a pair of 6870's myself, and that old 8800GT (which I also have) is going nowhere near them.

It's not nearly that difficult to get to work. I've done it on occasion, and it pretty much is install, install drivers, profit. Just get the latest GenL hack. Earlier versions were tougher to install, but if you install them in Safe mode, it's always worked the first time for me.