[Ninjalane] PhysX performance tests - PhysX not going to die - Page 4 - Overclock.net

Rewindlabs · 2 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by FSF-Foxhound

Click below to show/hide Hidden Text Below!

yea a handful

lol look at all those major titles

And isn't this mainly a PC discussion? i see a few console titles toppled onto the list

vdek · 2 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by OmegaNemesis28

It allows games to have "advanced" physics but run smoothly.
My point was that - half the games listed on there have generic effects that would run fine with something like Havoc. It's truly nothing special at all.

It's not just about advanced physics, it's a physics engine. It saves developers significant amounts of time and money to develop games and not worry about developing accurate physics engines.

I think you don't realize that Havok costs significant sums of money to use while PhysX is licensed differently. Free on the PC platform I believe, not too sure how it is on the consoles however.

OmegaNemesis28 · 2 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by vdek

It's not just about advanced physics, it's a physics engine. It saves developers significant amounts of time and money to develop games and not worry about developing accurate physics engines.

I think you don't realize that Havok costs significant sums of money to use while PhysX is licensed differently. Free on the PC platform I believe, not too sure how it is on the consoles however.

I think you don't realize that isn't what I'm talking about. People talk big crap about how 'pretty' and how good physX performs. Hence the thread and the discussion. Yet, Havoc can do it if not better.

I would love to really link my Uncharted 2 videos (yes, PS3 game) that uses Havoc. But Activision got my account banned -.-

vdek · 2 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by OmegaNemesis28

I think you don't realize that isn't what I'm talking about. People talk big crap about how 'pretty' and how good physX performs. Hence the thread and the discussion. Yet, Havoc can do it if not better.

I would love to really link my Uncharted 2 videos (yes, PS3 game) that uses Havoc. But Activision got my account banned -.-

You still don't get the point that Havok costs thousands of dollars to license for a company. Why should they pay Havok when they can do it for free via PhysX??

You offer it as an alternative, but it's not really a realistic alternative unless you are talking about a multi-million dollar big developer.

You bring up Uncharted 2, what was the development budget behind that game?

SilverPotato · 2 Weeks Ago

Does Ageia PhysX work with ATi?

Gill.. · 2 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by glenbuck1914

lol, if your going to post a list, post the list of PC dedicated Physx games and not a big generic list that includes CPU physx and X360 games!!!

And as far as dedicated hardware physx games go at the moment... Yeah it's a handful.

As the other 2 posters said now - yeah the list is a joke.

The thing is, none of those games are really compelling me to do anything but laugh. It certainly doesn't make me want to buy any of those games, especially since "Physx" is used...And isn't that the ultimate goal?

The fact they make an easy to use SDK for the devs is just a band aid. It's the same reason there's many more CUDA apps than CAL/Stream apps for distibuted computing. The fact is, Nvidia was there first - and has a hold. This by no means it will be permanant - or even the way the industry goes.

I still think Physx time is numbered, due to Open CL and Direct compute. This thread, the whole subject is more than the average person wants to deal with when considering a game. The average user wants and expects good graphics/effects. If that comes in the form of advanced physics... then so be it.

So understanding the technology as it is today really has nothing to do with it. Now that Open CL, Direct Compute and Stream are here - hopefully easier to use SDK's will be made available - and real technological strides can be made to include the rendering on the GPU's without the heavy hits the GPU/CPU's of today's ATI cards take.

I'm not saying Physx will be dead tomorrow, a year from now... nothing - I'm just saying the wind of change is here, and without smart moves from the top on how they will handle it - yes, it will die sooner rather than later.

sodaholic134 · 2 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by vdek

You still don't get the point that Havok costs thousands of dollars to license for a company. Why should they pay Havok when they can do it for free via PhysX??

You offer it as an alternative, but it's not really a realistic alternative unless you are talking about a multi-million dollar big developer.

You bring up Uncharted 2, what was the development budget behind that game?

Cuts off all ATI users (if it's GPU accelerated, CPU PhysX blows performance-wise)...

Hence why they use Havok. Runs on the cpu. Problem solved.

BloodThirstyEmu · 2 Weeks Ago

Omega, how do you know that Havoc is a better engine? Have you taken apart both the engines and read all the lines of code? Have you developed a game to implement both of them and see the difference? I think not. You have no proof for what your stating. Plus, if you actually tried out physX you would see that it isn't just flags and banners. Its fog, smoke, tiles, water, explosions, particles, gravity, buildings (bricks), etc etc.

Im getting tired of seeing you bash Nvidia everywhere you post in an Nvidia section. This thread was meant to show people how physX works and how it can help your game be more realistic and sometimes even more fun. If you don't have something positive or helpful to add to this thread then don't post. I do agree with you in terms of the MW2 dedi problem though.

BACK ON TOPIC:
I think once developers start using the PhysX engine more and more, we will see it evolve into something that hopefully will become standard and HOPEFULLY Nvidia will allow ATI users to use the engine. That way everyone can be happy, and we all have a really good physics engine that doesnt give us a huge fps hit.

saulin · 2 Weeks Ago

double post...

saulin · 2 Weeks Ago

As far as I know Ageia PhysX was made to work besides any card. It performs poorly in today's PhysX games though.

And someone asked about the Wii using PhysX in some games.

Here is an article on it. And yes it seems to use GPU PhysX from what I get from the article.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/NVIDI...s-107258.shtml

Quote:

Originally Posted by sodaholic134

Cuts off all ATI users (if it's GPU accelerated, CPU PhysX blows performance-wise)...

Hence why they use Havok. Runs on the cpu. Problem solved.

No really. ATI users can still run PhysX on the CPU. It sucks but it's the price you pay for getting ATI. Or simply get a Nvidia card for dedicated PhysX and yes I know you need hacked drivers for it or old drivers.

I personally think Nvidia should let ATI users use a Nvidia card for PhysX.

		Overclock.net - Overclocking.net > Industry News > Hardware News
[Ninjalane] PhysX performance tests - PhysX not going to die

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)