AMD: Developers Only Use PhysX for the Money

[Izerous]

I still have a few 3DFX cards in a bin of old parts that still work.

 

[phoenix352]

does the Nvidia PhysX thing also implements stuff like gravity and such?
because i never seen any use of the physX option besides adding gusts of wind and weather effects o.0

 

[UnravThreads]

So AMD are getting annoyed because no one's using their physics software (which I've never heard of) and everyone's using Havok or PhysX, both of which are heavy hitters in physics software for games. nVidia owned or not, PhysX has been around a while now (I remember the PPU coming out) and as such it has brand recognition. nVidia are just playing to its strengths, so what if they're doing deals? If those deals are 100% legal then there's no problem, IMHO. Are they also going to complain about a lot of games having nVidia on the box too?

AMD have made some damn good GPUs since their "reboot" with the 2x00 series, especially the 3xx0 series. They should get their physics standard out there, yes, but I don't think they really have much to complain about right now.

 

[MR T3D]

so OPI has NO GAEMS!
heh

So AMD are getting annoyed because no one's using their physics software (which I've never heard of) and everyone's using Havok or PhysX, both of which are heavy hitters in physics software for games. nVidia owned or not, PhysX has been around a while now (I remember the PPU coming out) and as such it has brand recognition. nVidia are just playing to its strengths, so what if they're doing deals? If those deals are 100% legal then there's no problem, IMHO. Are they also going to complain about a lot of games having nVidia on the box too?

AMD have made some damn good GPUs since their "reboot" with the 2x00 series, especially the 3xx0 series. They should get their physics standard out there, yes, but I don't think they really have much to complain about right now.

i am under the impression that this is more about drivers for phyics engines on vidya cards.
havok is a software physics engine, uses processor to do the computations, which means that there is more load on said CPU and a relatively undertaxed graphics card, which means weaker framerate.

does the Nvidia PhysX thing also implements stuff like gravity and such?
because i never seen any use of the physX option besides adding gusts of wind and weather effects o.0

pretty sure it makes it a lot easier to run things that have LOTS of ploygons bouncing around.
if it were to become mainstream enough, i would think that things like lots of bullet sized HOLES you can SEE through and generally interactive environments.

 

[Monshroud]

If memory serves, Nvidia bought PhysX. PhysX was a hardware chip originally, and Nvidia said "Everything that you are doing in a chip, we can emulate on our GPU and API" I don't believe that PhysX was developed by Nvidia, just acquired.

EDIT: Adding link to back up what I said: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhysX

 

[saejox]

Bullet Physics is the best open source physics engine, not competion there (gta4, trial HD, free Realms etc...)
Also bullet supports windows,linux,mac,xbox,ps3,wii and it doesnt cost shit to use (or change).
AMD/ATI supporting it means it is gonna get bigger and better.
i can see it becoming opengl of physics engines.

sadly for havok company, things dont look so good. nvidia and AMD give free awesome engines while they are still charging developers.
nobody is gonna buy their engine if both gpu manufacturers have their own engines.

 

[WJeff]

Yeah, Physx is pretty bad. But, the idea behind it isn't. GPU accelerated physics frees up so much CPU space. If Valve added CUDA support to Source, I could actually run TF2 at higher framerates than Far Cry 2 maxed out.

 

[Jared]

PhysX is a complete and utter "What's the point" thing. It barely makes a difference to anything I've played.

Im the same...Its something I am sure will make them money but from what I have played it only makes minor improvements

 

[NLS]

I don't remember playing any games where PhysX played an important part of the game. Valve did a great job implementing Havok into Source and making it even better.
I'd prefer it if physics stayed on the CPU, while the GPU handled the graphics.

 

[Undead_David]

IN all honesty which ever one learns to use multi-core processors for physics is going to win easily. GPU based physics is great only if you have multiple video cards or one with a 2 cores the way it is now, otherwise you may have cool effects but you would have to lower the visual settings just to play at decent frame rates. Alan Wake uses one of the cpu's on the 360 for dedicated physics work and it has some very amazing physics effects and great graphics visually.
More and more computers are being sold with quad cores which as of yet go unrealized of their full potential because programmers have yet to catch up with the technology really. So from a reasonable point of view, you could have your physics on one cpu, effects on the other, game information on the third, your OS on the fourth and the graphics on your video card. You could than have a high resolution, all the pretty effects, and mind blowing physics without having to sacrifice frame rates or your visual settings.
SO in short Ati might be the company to go for since their cards are the best dollar for performance, early adopters of new technology and are looking for industry standards and not propiatary dominance. Though Nvidia is still sweet despite it being more costly lol. i honestly hope they develop some industry standard soon

 

[ratix2]

Am I the only one who thinks Havok isn't all its cracked up to be? Maybe it's because my computer has 4GB of RAM and a Dual-Core processor but still chokes on a lot of high-intensity physics shenanigans in games (not badly mind you but enough to be noticeable, especially in things like Gmod)

Course maybe I'm just doing something wrong with the way I configure things

no. havok is a good physics engine, but it is pretty buggy and doesent really offer much actual physics. most games that have used havok successfully have actually had the engine almost completly rewritten. valve in fact rewrote the entire thing similar to what they did with the quake engine for the original half-life.

physx on the other hand, while not the best, is still a good physics engine. its one of the most realistic engines with more features than most others (its one of the only ones to fully support cloth and liquid physics, among other things. the only problem with it is that its kind of hardware intensive.

IN all honesty which ever one learns to use multi-core processors for physics is going to win easily.

not really. modern processors dont have the capabilities to perform cloth and liquid physics, not even the core i7s. its going to be a long time before processors are able to catch up to what is possible on a gpu performing the calculations, even if you use all 8 threads of a core i7 the best your going to get is deformable environments.

 

[HentMas]

i am no expert in programing or physics, nu when i read what the "Havoc" engine could do i was awestrucked, its amazing simply put, and comparing it to what i read about "PhysiX" i can see why Havoc would be better

 

[Flunk]

PhysX is worthless, Direct Compute and OpenCL take away any need for another proprietary single-use API. Hopefully Nvidia will see the wisdom in letting this dead horse go. It's certainly not going to get me to buy another Nvidia graphics card.

 

[AceDiamond]

Am I the only one who thinks Havok isn't all its cracked up to be? Maybe it's because my computer has 4GB of RAM and a Dual-Core processor but still chokes on a lot of high-intensity physics shenanigans in games (not badly mind you but enough to be noticeable, especially in things like Gmod)

Course maybe I'm just doing something wrong with the way I configure things

no. havok is a good physics engine, but it is pretty buggy and doesent really offer much actual physics. most games that have used havok successfully have actually had the engine almost completly rewritten. valve in fact rewrote the entire thing similar to what they did with the quake engine for the original half-life.

physx on the other hand, while not the best, is still a good physics engine. its one of the most realistic engines with more features than most others (its one of the only ones to fully support cloth and liquid physics, among other things. the only problem with it is that its kind of hardware intensive.

IN all honesty which ever one learns to use multi-core processors for physics is going to win easily.

not really. modern processors dont have the capabilities to perform cloth and liquid physics, not even the core i7s. its going to be a long time before processors are able to catch up to what is possible on a gpu performing the calculations, even if you use all 8 threads of a core i7 the best your going to get is deformable environments.

I'm glad someone could elaborate on this, especially because I thought that hardware based physics were, in theory, the better idea (as in having a GPU on the card handle it) since it would take pressure off your CPU in terms of processing it.

 

[Scrythe]

Source is always the best with physics. That is because Source uses Havok. Havok>Any other physics engine.

I LOVE it when people make this huge misconception again and again.
Technically, you are correct. Valve downloaded the Havok library and used that code in their game. It is also worth noting that they practically STRIPPED OUT about 90% of that library and rewrote it.

It is not hard to compare Source to the 100s of other games using Havok (Doom 3, OBLIVION, Just Cause 1 and 2) and see that they're not the same physics. Source's is more precise, faster, and used for more forms of movement. Just check out Garry's Mod.

The saddest thing is that almost everyone has been led to believe, and will harshly defend the notion that Source=Havok, despite the overwhelming differences between the two.

But back on topic: I honestly can give that much of a shit when it comes to physics in game, just so long as I'm not constantly getting stuck in the geography or if the controls aren't shit.

 

[hansari]

Stop wasting time guys on Nvidia and ATI...the best thing in gaming with regards to graphics goes to what was used to make Crysis 2...

 

[LiftYourSkinnyFists]

I wasn't planning on getting an Nvidia, I'm an ATI RAGE XL man myself.

 

[WestMountain]

Is this why Mirrors Edge have only smallthings like buckets and stuff you can kick around with this enabled?..

 

[Undead_David]

Am I the only one who thinks Havok isn't all its cracked up to be? Maybe it's because my computer has 4GB of RAM and a Dual-Core processor but still chokes on a lot of high-intensity physics shenanigans in games (not badly mind you but enough to be noticeable, especially in things like Gmod)

Course maybe I'm just doing something wrong with the way I configure things

no. havok is a good physics engine, but it is pretty buggy and doesent really offer much actual physics. most games that have used havok successfully have actually had the engine almost completly rewritten. valve in fact rewrote the entire thing similar to what they did with the quake engine for the original half-life.

physx on the other hand, while not the best, is still a good physics engine. its one of the most realistic engines with more features than most others (its one of the only ones to fully support cloth and liquid physics, among other things. the only problem with it is that its kind of hardware intensive.

IN all honesty which ever one learns to use multi-core processors for physics is going to win easily.

not really. modern processors dont have the capabilities to perform cloth and liquid physics, not even the core i7s. its going to be a long time before processors are able to catch up to what is possible on a gpu performing the calculations, even if you use all 8 threads of a core i7 the best your going to get is deformable environments.

Actually the physx cards (before nvidia bought them out) was just a processor that handled only physics in games which freed up the processor and video card to do other things allowing for more complex effects. The only real difference from a gpu and cpu is that a cpu does free point calculations to create its images while a cpu does linear information such as physics and AI. since they moved physics to graphics cards you have to turn your graphics way down inorder to play at reasonable framerates unless you have more than one card to process the effects. For a comparison look at the early Alan Wake demos that were designed to show waht can happen when you use multi-core processor to split the effects up. the game was designed to use three processors just for the game, one for data onscreen, data coming on screen, and than one for physics. The only limitation that keeps those effects from being relayed to other cores on pc is that you pretty much have to wait for microsoft to include it in their next directx library or for someone to invent it for pc but again that means learning and mastering quads which hasnt even been mastered beyond load spreading, except for GTAIV since it did so on the 360