PhysX

[NeMeSiS 11]

Ok fair enough i suppose.

I wonder what ATI CPU BI devs tested physX with then?.

Petkka said he tried PhysX in ArmA 3 on an ATI.

:)

On a PC with an Ati, in that PC there was also a CPU. Mystery solved.

[=war cloud= 10]

On a PC with an Ati, in that PC there was also a CPU. Mystery solved.

Well we know that now lol, but that was not clearly stated in the quote was it.

I don't mind what physX implementation is in ArmA 3, i just wanted to know if it was GPU accelerated, it was misleading that's all.

[NeMeSiS 11]

Well we know that now lol, but that was not clearly stated in the quote was it.

I don't mind what physX implementation is in ArmA 3, i just wanted to know if it was GPU accelerated, it was misleading that's all.

Well, BI cannot add physX GPU acceleration to Ati cards, thats in nVidia's hands. Hence our confusion. ;)

[=war cloud= 10]

Well, BI cannot add physX GPU acceleration to Ati cards, thats in nVidia's hands. Hence our confusion. ;)

No mate, the PhysX implementation or acceleration in AMD graphics cards would be down to AMD alone, they would have to purchase the licence from nvidia to do so but that's not going to happen hehe. The confusion was because petkka never explained in his original quote/statement that physX was run purely on the cpu.

So, are PC gamers going to need a quad core for PhysX as a minimum and 6 to eight as recommended?.

Good times ahead, can't wait to try out ArmA 3, it's the only proper PC game i'm looking forward to playing, not many proper PC games in development, so big thanks to BI/Sprocket :)

[froggyluv 2130]

*flamesuit on*

Must say I was hoping for some Nvidia GPU acceleration as well. Although it's way to early to make any assumptions really, the CPU just already seems so taxed while much GPU power seemed, erhm, not optimally utilized.

Of course most of us are probably dreaming 'all things physics!' tho it will be probably be a much more modest approach -never heard any VBS2 users talking about an entirely different physics feel.

Either way, I'm still stoked that they're moving in this direction and will try to keep expectations low to medium on this issue.

[NeMeSiS 11]

No mate, the PhysX implementation or acceleration in AMD graphics cards would be down to AMD alone, they would have to purchase the licence from nvidia to do so but that's not going to happen hehe. The confusion was because petkka never explained in his original quote/statement that physX was run purely on the cpu.

I thought that nVidia didnt sell any licences, but since i cant be bothered to look it up i am just going to assume i was mistaken. :)

[max power 21]

Ok fair enough i suppose.

I wonder what ATI CPU BI devs tested physX with then?.

Petkka said he tried PhysX in ArmA 3 on an ATI.

Here it is again

:)

Now you're just trolling. I am having a hard time believing you are actually as obstinate as you are pretending to be. If this is your actual personality, you must be in the top 95th percentile at least.

Around 50 fps with i5 750 @ 2.67 GHz, Radeon 5700 and 4 GB od RAM :icon_twisted: Thats not any NASA computer.

Read this one more time, understand it if you can, then let it rest.

He said that he played ArmA 3 with an ATI graphics card and he got 50fps to alleviate peoples' anxiety. There was some concern that running GPUs without PhysX would not be able to run the game properly. Nothing more. Nothing about an AMD cpu, nothing about running PhysX on an ATI Gcard. Every interpretation you have of what he says is wrong. Accept it and move on.

Edited July 13, 2011 by Max Power

[dmarkwick 261]

*flamesuit on*

Must say I was hoping for some Nvidia GPU acceleration as well. Although it's way to early to make any assumptions really, the CPU just already seems so taxed while much GPU power seemed, erhm, not optimally utilized.

Of course most of us are probably dreaming 'all things physics!' tho it will be probably be a much more modest approach -never heard any VBS2 users talking about an entirely different physics feel.

Either way, I'm still stoked that they're moving in this direction and will try to keep expectations low to medium on this issue.

To be fair, I just played a rather taxing ArmA2 scenario that dragged my FPS down, and yet my CPU is less than 25% utilised. I assume this to be because of unused threads. So if the PhysX can work in its own thread, there would be no impact on performance at least on my machine.

[froggyluv 2130]

Hehe, well I guess I should know better then delving into a subject I really know little about :)

Just thought that physics was better offloaded to graphics cards.

[pettka 694]

The confusion was because petkka never explained in his original quote/statement that physX was run purely on the cpu.

Your confusion came from losing context of my post. It was all clear at that time, PhysX was said to be processed by CPU, just issue for ATI cards was adressed by some users to be asured. And asured they were, maybe the same way you was asured yesterday. If it is not enough, I don't know what other would be :icon_twisted:

[dmarkwick 261]

Hehe, well I guess I should know better then delving into a subject I really know little about :)

Just thought that physics was better offloaded to graphics cards.

I'm sure that hardware solutions can be more efficient, but in context to ArmA3 I'm sure a CPU solution can be even better. I don't know what load my GPU was under for that speceific mission, but I do note that it's one of those missions that gradually becomes more complex. I was getting great FPS at the beginning, and poor FPS at the end. As I said I don't have a GPU load monitor, but I do have a CPU monitor, and at no point in the mission did it read over 25%. Great news for me, because that means the potential for a heck of a lot more performance in future RV builds. In fact I'm wondering on the possibility of running a dedicated server on one core, and the game on another.

[=war cloud= 10]

Read this one more time, understand it if you can, then let it rest.

He said that he played ArmA 3 with an ATI graphics card and he got 50fps to alleviate peoples' anxiety. There was some concern that running GPUs without PhysX would not be able to run the game properly. Nothing more. Nothing about an AMD cpu, nothing about running PhysX on an ATI Gcard. Every interpretation you have of what he says is wrong. Accept it and move on.

Ahh, well, i didn't see that quote/statement from petkka, that's more understandable, i get that. I read the sticky of confirmed features and there was a link to PhysX which didn't explain it proper.

APEX ftw lol :)

---------- Post added at 10:38 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:34 AM ----------

Your confusion came from losing context of my post. It was all clear at that time, PhysX was said to be processed by CPU, just issue for ATI cards was adressed by some users to be asured. And asured they were, maybe the same way you was asured yesterday. If it is not enough, I don't know what other would be :icon_twisted:

My apologies, i didn't see/read your other statement confirming cpu physX. In the sticky it just mentions physX ran on ATI that's where the confusion was (maybe the sticky should be ammended for clarity). I don't know why some would be concerned about AMD graphics cards and physX if the physX runs on cpu.

All clear and no present danger, nice one :)

Thanks

[lozz08 10]

I don't know why some would be concerned about AMD graphics cards and physX if the physX runs on cpu.

Because in many of today's games, there is an option to enable physx. For instance Mafia 2. Now this game slows to a crawl on systems without an nvidia GPU, because nvidia GPUs are able to offload physx processing, and ATI cards cannot.

However, I understand that most of that load is caused by things such as cloth simulation and destruction, which ARMA 3 does not seem it will implement. The RV implementation of physx is going to be "light" you might say. Including features that require relatively little parallel processing (the thing that GPUs are made for)

[PuFu 4591]

Because in many of today's games, there is an option to enable physx. For instance Mafia 2. Now this game slows to a crawl on systems without an nvidia GPU, because nvidia GPUs are able to offload physx processing, and ATI cards cannot.

You are talking about physics particle effects and other visual gimmicks, not the physics engine

[dunedain 48]

He, definetly he. Or me, in this cause. And the statement was meant as assurance, that PhysX is GPU independent. It is software mode, which means PhysX is running on Your CPU. Any more 20+ post questions about every word i wrote? :icon_twisted:

Well yeah sorry. Maybe the answer is obvious, but it does mean as well that Nvidia users won't have any performance gain ? I mean optimisation is a nice thing right ? :p

If Nvidia cards can handle it, why not allow PhysX to use the GPU for Nvidia users ? :confused:

Edited July 14, 2011 by dunedain

[dmarkwick 261]

Well yeah sorry. Maybe the answer is obvious, but it does mean as well that Nvidia users won't have any performance gain ? I mean optimisation is a nice thing right ? :p

If Nvidia cards can handle it, why not allow PhysX to use the GPU for Nvidia users ? :confused:

I daresay that might make it in a patch after initial release, say a couple of months. As you might know, the Big Issue is that some ATI users feel that, rather than nVidia owners taking advantage of their components, that it is ATI users who are actively disadvantaged :) A quick perusal of this thread confirms that.

[dm 9]

I mean optimisation is a nice thing right ? :p

Enabling hardware accelleraton != optimisation. I really wish people would stop throwing that word around so much...

If Nvidia cards can handle it, why not allow PhysX to use the GPU for Nvidia users ? :confused:

Because it might not be as simple as just "enabling it" ? ;)

[=war cloud= 10]

AMD on Game Development and DX11 jan 2010.

SNIP! :)

"all these CPU cores we have are underutilised"

"Nvidia simply takes out all the multicore optimisations in PhysX. In fact, if coded well, the CPU can tackle most of the physics situations presented to it. The emphasis we're seeing on GPU physics is an over-emphasis that comes from one company having GPU physics... promoting PhysX as if it's Gods answer to all physics problems, when actually it's more a solution in search of problems".

http://www.bit-tech.net/bits/interviews/2010/01/06/interview-amd-on-game-development-and-dx11/5

[5LEvEN 11]

hmmm, what observations are you making :j:

I have an ati card, for an (speed and vram) equivalent card by Nvidia I was going to have to fork out 100-200 dollars more (180 dollars vs 370 dollars, current pricing, it was different when I bought the card).

The difference is that you get more features with nvidia such as: 3d, Cuda support (and hence video card based physx, not to be confused with the physx physics engine) and generally better support.

here are some statistics for now:

http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html

for comparing graphics cards (high end). use ctrl f to find the 6870 and the GeForce GTX 470 (the closest card by nvidia to the 6870)

price:

ati 6870: $189

nvidia gtx270 (geforce): $369

And yes, I have way too much time on my hands at the moment :D

Uh the 2 series is no longer sold brand new (unless you get lucky at finding it)... Compare it to the 560 gtx and 560 ti... Those are the two closest... BTW those type of benchmarks are NOT in direct relation to game performance 100% of the time.... So look for game benchmarks (but the drivers are almost never the most current for any benchmark...)

---------- Post added at 04:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:00 PM ----------

/sarcasm on

This obviously has not been stated enough... If you have an AMD card... AMD cards do NOT run physx. The CPU does through software... In other words AMD owners can have physx, but it will run on the CPU not the GPU....

/sarcasm off

[bangtail 0]

AMD on Game Development and DX11 jan 2010.

SNIP! :)

"all these CPU cores we have are underutilised"

"Nvidia simply takes out all the multicore optimisations in PhysX. In fact, if coded well, the CPU can tackle most of the physics situations presented to it. The emphasis we're seeing on GPU physics is an over-emphasis that comes from one company having GPU physics... promoting PhysX as if it's Gods answer to all physics problems, when actually it's more a solution in search of problems".

http://www.bit-tech.net/bits/interviews/2010/01/06/interview-amd-on-game-development-and-dx11/5

AMD's usual sour grapes attitude. Instead of discussing what the question quite clearly asked, they start tearing down PhysX and Nvidia despite the fact that they do not have a comparable solution.

I'm pretty much done with AMD's GPUs for the forseeable future and I sincerely hope that we do have some hardware GPU based impementation of PhysX at some point (even if it is just for the purposes of goofing around in the editor).

People knew they wouldn't have GPU PhysX when they purchased an AMD card, and while I understand that they will be upset should it ever be implemented through hardware, why shouldn't Nvidia users benefit from features they paid for?

Edited July 15, 2011 by BangTail

[Leon86 13]

That interview is 1,5 years old.

I'm sure you'd be able to create a situation in the editor that would benefit from gpu physx, like spawning 50 empty vehicles on top of eachother but ati users shouldnt worry. Any "normal" scenario will probably have bottlenecks elsewhere, like the ai, animations or the renderthread.

[Sniper_Kyle 0]

I haven't read through all 55 pages of this thread to see if someone had posted this before, but I found this and thought it could come in handy, should BIS use some GPU-based Physx features.

How To Run Physx On an ATI GPU on Windows 7

[=war cloud= 10]

why shouldn't Nvidia users benefit from features they paid for?

If nVidia want to hold some ground/weight with ArmA 3 as a "TWIMTBP" title then Nvidia should work with and pay Bohemia Interactive Services for that privilege of GeForce GPU acceleration in ArmA III, don't you reckon?.

But, as it has been pointed out by BIS devs, PhysX in ArmA 3 is GPU independent.

[Leon86 13]

I haven't read through all 55 pages of this thread to see if someone had posted this before, but I found this and thought it could come in handy, should BIS use some GPU-based Physx features.

How To Run Physx On an ATI GPU on Windows 7

I believe that's a way to get physx to run on an old nvidia card while using an ati card to render the game.

[PuFu 4591]

it is yes