PhysX

Nvidia use hardware (GeForce) for software based PhysX.

Oof :D

Your not even close.

:)

Your not even close.

That's a little self-deprecating, don't you think? ;)

But just to sum up again: PhysX does not and cannot take advantage of hardware acceleration on AMD/ATI GPUs. Period. Arma3 is no exception. (And no one ever stated otherwise.)

ArmA 3 PhysX is used on CPU's and not GPU's. Why not make use of GeForce cards to do this?, or maybe they have?, it would make sense to use geForce GPU's and not CPU's doh!.

ArmA 3 PhysX is used on CPU's and not GPU's. Why not make use of GeForce cards to do this?, or maybe they have?, it would make sense to use geForce GPU's and not CPU's doh!.

So as not to split their customer base. If they use the performance on AMD machines as a benchmark, no one has any issues. Obviously we have to wait for official word on that.

ArmA 3 PhysX is used on CPU's and not GPU's. Why not make use of GeForce cards to do this?, or maybe they have?, it would make sense to use geForce GPU's and not CPU's doh!.

We don't yet know if there will be optional hardware acceleration on NVidia GPUs. The game is still a year away, after all, and there hasn't been much info on the PhysX implementation yet.

And no one ever stated otherwise.

Pettka quite clearly stated that he/she? had tried PhysX in A3 on an ATI, lol. He/she never said physX was running on the CPU and the "ATI" GPU was doing the rest.

ArmA 3 PhysX is used on CPU's and not GPU's. Why not make use of GeForce cards to do this?, or maybe they have?, it would make sense to use geForce GPU's and not CPU's doh!.

Indeed. But some posters have expressed the opinion that it's not nVidia users who might possibly use some part of their equipment advantageously, but it is that ATI users are actively disadvantaged :)

IMO it's similar to saying that users with slower processors are disadvantaged, or that non-TrackIR users are disadvantaged, or that people with lower res monitors are disadvantaged.

So as not to split their customer base. If they use the performance on AMD machines as a benchmark, no one has any issues. Obviously we have to wait for official word on that.

Screw amd lol. Nvidia for PhysX :) you know it makes sense.

It's stupid if you ask me, why not just use havok? lol at bi.

Fingers crossed for an a3 patch that adds the GPU possibility ;)

Screw amd lol. Nvidia for PhysX :) you know it makes sense.

It's stupid if you ask me, why not just use havok? lol at bi.

Did you realize - the havok is more expensive than Physx and BIS already have Physx working in VBS2

Oof :D

:)

Oof at what noob?. AGEIA used their hardware PPU but it's no good without software code chappy, the same with GeForce or any gpu for that matter.

PC Hardware such as GPU's are basically useless/redundant for their purpose without software code, lol at you noobhead.

Oof at what noob?. AGEIA used their hardware PPU but it's no good without software code chappy, the same with GeForce or any gpu for that matter.

PC Hardware such as GPU's are basically useless/redundant for their purpose without software code, lol at you noobhead.

Bit like saying that TrackIR is software based run on NaturalPoint's hardware. In that case, EVERYTHING is software based.

Well, GRAW had Physx.

I could play it with NO PROBLEMs at all using a non-CUDA (or Physx not ready NVIDIA) and with my ATi, while seeing ragdools and some fancy physics (most important stuff).

When I played it with Physx ON the effects were somehow better (more dust, particles around) but not so much better and didn´t change the gameplay at all.

So I will wait and see...

GRAW physX was purely ran on the AGEIA PPU or later by nvidia GeForce, and it was not tied to ragdoll, so that's not quite right there mate. Not possible with ATI hardware nor was PhysX ran on the CPU in GRAW 1 or 2 on the PC. PhysX software ran on the XBOX360 GRAW games yes but not on PC cpu's.

Pettka quite clearly stated that he/she? had tried PhysX in A3 on an ATI, lol. He/she never said physX was running on the CPU and the "ATI" GPU was doing the rest.

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:

It is software mode, which means PhysX is running on Your CPU.

Thankyou that is all i wanted to know.

---------- Post added at 01:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:26 PM ----------

Any more 20+ post questions about every word i wrote? :icon_twisted:

Depends if you make any more slightly misleading statements :)

Depends if you make any more slightly misleading statements :)

What was misleading about what he wrote?

"I just tried the physX on my pc, which has an ATI card"

There really is nothing misleading about that at all.

pX works, it is GPU independant.

What was misleading about what he wrote?

"I just tried the physX on my pc, which has an ATI card"

There really is nothing misleading about that at all.

pX works, it is GPU independant.

Noooo! We've just been through three pages of this. Please, stop it. :D

What was misleading about what he wrote?

"I just tried the physX on my pc, which has an ATI card"

There really is nothing misleading about that at all.

pX works, it is GPU independant.

Its been sorted chappy. Of course it was misleading, he said physX was running off ATI, well AMD/ATI/Radeon can't do PhysX and they don't manufacture CPU's, so the reference to ATI in petkka's statement meant ArmA 3 was running off a AMD/ATI Radeon Graphics card (why would he state framerate was good/ok on ATI?), what he should of said was PhysX in ArmA 3 runs purely on the Central Processing Unit, i don't understand the reference to ATI and PhysX which was misleading.

All sorted now, lol :)

I have to agree with DMarkwick.

war could, he said he was running on a pc with an ATI card. Thats not misleading, it means pX is running on the CPU. YOU assumed that he meant it was running on the GPU. Just because you misread it doesnt mean he was misleading.

(I refer back to my first post in this thread, where I said:

And until BI confirms whether or not their physX implementation will actually use hardware acceleration, then all you anti-physX'ers are talking out your asses too ;) :rolleyes:

Okay, new page, clean start.

PhysX in Arma3 is confirmed to be software only (at this point). Nothing else to see here, peeps...

I have to agree with DMarkwick.

war could, he said he was running on a pc with an ATI card. Thats not misleading, it means pX is running on the CPU. YOU assumed that he meant it was running on the GPU.

In all fairness mate, most would of assumed physX was running on the gpu. This is what he said... i have tried PhysX in A3 on an ATI and framerate steadily holds its ground. He said physX on an ATI, which can only mean GPU or VPU not a CPU because ATI don't manufacture CPU's.

Anyway no worries all clear and no present danger :).

PhysX acceleration on the GPU would of made more sense but it has come to my knowledge that PhysX SDK 3.0 was released in May 2011 and represented a significant rewrite of the SDK, bringing improvements such as more efficient multithreading and a unified code base for all supported platforms.

So that's good news then, hopefully the cpu will not suffer with the extra load put on it or them?.

I'm sure BI know what they are doing.

If PhysX can be utilised on a whole thread to itself, the benefits would be enormous.

In all fairness mate, most would of assumed physX was running on the gpu.

You're the only one who as expressed that interpretation out of hundreds of people participating on the forum so far...

You're the only one who as expressed that interpretation out of hundreds of people participating on the forum so far...

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

I have tried PhysX in A3 on an ATI and framerate steadily holds its ground :icon_twisted:

:)