Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [NVIDIA]Microsoft going All-in on GPU computing
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[NVIDIA]Microsoft going All-in on GPU computing - Page 11

post #101 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z Overlord View Post
As long as this doesn't screw over ATi/AMD cards, I'm fine with this.
I'm afraid Microsoft's API will contain a massive part of CUDA's API and AMD will be screwed once again.


I've always wanted to know why if AMD has three times the SPs of nVIDIA cards, they still perform equally on DirectX... But suddenly when properly optimised and unbiased (I mean like CUDA api added on top of an OGL layer) OpenGL comes to play AMD simply destroys nVIDIA on their way.

And computing power numbers don't add.

If a HD5870 has twice the TFLOPS of a GTX480, why is the GTX480 still ahead in DX performance? Something I don't understand.
   
AGP bencher
(14 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen R7 1700 Gigabyte GA-AX370-Gaming 5 Sapphire HD 6950 2GiB 2x8GB KFA2 HOF DDR4-3600 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Crucial MX100 256GB Seagate 600 Series 240GB Seagate 7200.14 2TB Samsung F3 1TB 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
EKWB Supreme HF XSPC Rasa GPU EK XT360 EK 4.0 
OSMonitorMonitorKeyboard
W10 Pro LG IPS235 LG E2250V KUL ES-87 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
SF Leadex II 650W Lian Li PC-A05NB Logitech G9 Xonar DX 
AudioAudio
SMSL SA-S3+Technics CB-250 Sennheiser HD555 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
AMD A10-5700 Gigabyte F2A75M-HD2 G.SKILL Ares 2133 CL9 Hitachi 5K750 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Momentus .7 200GB Noctua NH-L9a Server 2012 R2 Standard AUO B156HW01 
PowerCaseOther
PicoPSU-80-WI-25V AIO Aluminium Handmade TP-Link Archer Something Something Wi-Fi AC 
CPUCPUCPUMotherboard
Core2Duo E6400 Core2Quad Q6600 Pentium Dual Core E5200 AsRock 4COREDUAL-SATA2 R2.0 
GraphicsRAMHard DriveOptical Drive
A dumpload of ancient AGP cards Kingston Value DDR2-667 CL4 2T @CL3 1T Seagate 160GB 7200.10 LG IDE DVD-ROM 
CoolingCoolingOSMonitor
Ghettomade CPU waterblock 49cc 2stroke engine copper radiator WinXP SP2 32bit ProView 17" 
PowerCase
Tacens Radix V 550W Ghetto aluminium bench 
  hide details  
Reply
   
AGP bencher
(14 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen R7 1700 Gigabyte GA-AX370-Gaming 5 Sapphire HD 6950 2GiB 2x8GB KFA2 HOF DDR4-3600 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Crucial MX100 256GB Seagate 600 Series 240GB Seagate 7200.14 2TB Samsung F3 1TB 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
EKWB Supreme HF XSPC Rasa GPU EK XT360 EK 4.0 
OSMonitorMonitorKeyboard
W10 Pro LG IPS235 LG E2250V KUL ES-87 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
SF Leadex II 650W Lian Li PC-A05NB Logitech G9 Xonar DX 
AudioAudio
SMSL SA-S3+Technics CB-250 Sennheiser HD555 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
AMD A10-5700 Gigabyte F2A75M-HD2 G.SKILL Ares 2133 CL9 Hitachi 5K750 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Momentus .7 200GB Noctua NH-L9a Server 2012 R2 Standard AUO B156HW01 
PowerCaseOther
PicoPSU-80-WI-25V AIO Aluminium Handmade TP-Link Archer Something Something Wi-Fi AC 
CPUCPUCPUMotherboard
Core2Duo E6400 Core2Quad Q6600 Pentium Dual Core E5200 AsRock 4COREDUAL-SATA2 R2.0 
GraphicsRAMHard DriveOptical Drive
A dumpload of ancient AGP cards Kingston Value DDR2-667 CL4 2T @CL3 1T Seagate 160GB 7200.10 LG IDE DVD-ROM 
CoolingCoolingOSMonitor
Ghettomade CPU waterblock 49cc 2stroke engine copper radiator WinXP SP2 32bit ProView 17" 
PowerCase
Tacens Radix V 550W Ghetto aluminium bench 
  hide details  
Reply
post #102 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by formula m View Post
I can see you don't grasp the difference between gpu physics and cpu physics, or how they relate to physx & marketing of physx.
You've made it quite clear that your inability to grasp the concept that one is simply ran on a CPU and the other on a GPU is at play here. No, PhysX doesn't use MMX or SSE as it's meant to be ran on GPU architecture. The difference is one performs far better at parallel processing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by formula m View Post
That demo I linked would take tri-sli to accomplish.
PhysX was doing the same thing back in 2005 with AGEIA. Way to finally catch up by maxing out an entire i7 920.

The demo you linked to is small fries compared to:
and

yet it only took one 570 card to run... Having to run dual socket CPUs so that you can play the game on one and run mediocre physics on the other just won't fly.


Quote:
Originally Posted by formula m View Post
Battlefield has physics all over the place. Every bullet is real & trash cans, cones, etc can be peppered with bullets and moved all over the map. The're real objects.
Way to state the obvious... Did it really take you this long to figure out Frostbite uses the Havok physics engine? How does this make it better than PhysX again?
Quote:
Originally Posted by formula m View Post
Havok has nothing to do with nvidia.. I don't see why u keep bringing it up
Because Havok is used in BC2? Are you that dense? Did you seriously just ask that?


Quote:
Originally Posted by formula m View Post
  • it is very hard for physx to do deformable & real object based physics.
  • any demo doing so required multiple video cards
Again, look up top at the video again...
Quote:
Originally Posted by formula m View Post
  • nvidia sticks with particle physics, like shuffling papper & waiving banners
You should know where to look again by now.




Quote:
Originally Posted by formula m View Post
you have no fundamental grasp on what a physical environement consist of
I think you just about summed up what your your response shows about you in that last part there.

Grow up and quit acting like someone just insulted your family. There's no reason to get personally offended by what one electronics company does. It's just the way it is. If Nvidia licensed the technology to AMD then it would be running on their GPUs as well.
post #103 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoopaScoopa View Post
You've made it quite clear that your inability to grasp the concept that one is simply ran on a CPU and the other on a GPU is at play here. No, PhysX doesn't use MMX or SSE as it's meant to be ran on GPU architecture. The difference is one performs far better at parallel processing.

PhysX was doing the same thing back in 2005 with AGEIA. Way to finally catch up by maxing out an entire i7 920.

The demo you linked to is small fries compared to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jl54WZtm0QE
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bojdpqi2l_o

yet it only took one 570 card to run... Having to run dual socket CPUs so that you can play the game on one and run mediocre physics on the other just won't fly.

Way to state the obvious... Did it really take you this long to figure out Frostbite uses the Havok physics engine? How does this make it better than PhysX again? Because Havok is used in BC2? Are you that dense? Did you seriously just ask that?

Again, look up top at the video again...
You should know where to look again by now. I think you just about summed up what your your response shows about you in that last part here.
Grow up and quit acting like someone just insulted your family. There's no reason to get personally offended by what one electronics company does. It's just the way it is. If Nvidia licensed the technology to AMD then it would be running on their GPUs as well.


I'm am not sure how regurgitating the same thing, rebuttals any points I've made. You've just re-posted the same videos.. .. for lulz?

Not sure if you even understand enough to debate this topic, otherwise you wouldn't have posted the same videos of particle physics (cloth, water, etc)

Do you not understand that nearly any scientist can use software for modeling such things & the video you showed is not remarkable in any sense in the scientific community. The power required for CFD is immense, that is why GPU are now being used in the scientific community, because they lower the cost (ie: spending $10k on a workstation), so your able to use a PC (& GPUs) to krunch those physics.

Nobody at that level uses "PhysX" for their work.. nobody. Those video are just showing you what Physx is capable of as an engine. Those videos do not represent/illustrate how powerful PhysX is, just that it can do fluid dynamics, if you throw enough hardware @ physx.. then, it can do things other than smoke, shuffling papaer & waving banners (in Batman).


Large scale particle physics (ur reposted videos) is a far cry from gaming and the use of such physics in gaming. All those video represent, is the ability of multiple video cards paralleled together to do particle physics. Which means ZERO in games and won't happen at any scale for the foreseeable future. Because, today particle physics are just a tool for research.

ie: particle physics irrelevant to this discussion and to gaming. (Thus, so is physx)



Again, Havok is not tied to Nvidia, so why do u keep using it for your defense...? So weird..

Though, I can point out the rather obvious fact: Name one physx game that does what any Battlefield game does. Name one PhysX game with deformable objects... or objects of any nature.. lol

There is no argument here, you THINK (due to marketing) you know what PhysX is, & you THINK that physx is special and powerful, it is not.

Don't believe me...? then again:

Quote:
Don't believe me(?).. name one physx game with deformable physics... heck, name one physx game with real objects... lol.

Scientific particle simulation on $1200 gpus, is far different than a gaming environment. That is the reality of the situation, so you can go on drinking Nvidia's coolaid, which you've ignorantly have bought into, or open your eyes and have a does of reality & be a tad more objectionable in your thinking process.

To me, you seem like a script kiddy.. reading off a script, unable to even form a reasonable argument, or rebuttal. (ie: nvidia shill)



Lastly, it doesn't matter what DICE uses.. it far superior to any TWIMTBP "PhysX" game! <--- fact!
post #104 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by yourma2000 View Post
planks of wood are bouncing around like rubber, I found the Havok cloth demo and Bullet physic's plank demo were much more impressive
The PHYSICS under the hood are identical for all engines. Why? Because they obey the laws of physics. If something bounces around like rubber, it just means that either the substeps have been set too low or that material properties like mass or elasticity have been set wrong. All engines should produce the same result if material properties and environment settings are identical.

The main difference between the physics libraries are performance and feature set. As far as CPU performance is concerned, they're all pretty similar. And they all have standard features like rigid bodies, soft bodies and cloth.

What puts Physx a step ahead of the competition is GPU support for areas in which extreme parallelization is key when requiring realtime performance: Fluid dynamics, cloth simulation, heavy particle simulations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by formula m View Post
ie: particle physics irrelevant to this discussion and to gaming. (Thus, so is physx)
Particle physics are irrelevant? They're precisely what currently sets Physx apart from the other engines. Tearable cloth like in Batman or water simulation like in Cryostasis has not been done in non-Physx games.
post #105 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by ct03 View Post
Particle physics are irrelevant? They're precisely what currently sets Physx apart from the other engines. Tearable cloth like in Batman or water simulation like in Cryostasis has not been done in non-Physx games.

Yes, irrelevant at this time.

Games companies only feature particle physics in very few instances throughout the game. Usually right in the players face to be quite notable (ie: marketing). But never throughout the game, because it is only "featuring" the type of physics, not the full breadth of it.

You couldn't cut up those banners (ad nausem) into smaller pieces.. or they didn't blow away as they got lighter.

That is why PhysX has been marketed and the EXACT same reason the Dev's didn't just add typical shader smoke to the game. But added smoke, via PhysX to the game..? Nvidia sheepishly hides how limited their physx is.

The comparison would've been Nvidia's physx smoke, compared to tradition shader smoke, etc.

Nobody would be complaining if Nvidia was showcasing "physx smoke" as it swirls around you & party members as you quickly pass through it, and/or the particle's react to it's environment. But to have one level, with pulled back textures, etc and feaure a heavily fogged & smoky themepark single player walk through... and perhaps feature it? (The fooled alot of people, same people who don't understand open standards.)

If it does not react every & each time with your environment, then it is just eye candy & superficial to gameplay (ie: a gimmick, or ruse for marketing)

It is the whole idea behind Batman AA. We've some really good looking steam, fog & mist before Batman. Why did the developers choose that, for one of the piecemeal solution (places) where they can put in Physx to showcase it.




Games where you have real world physics, are all that matter at the moment. Trash cans, vehicles, building, swords, helmets, boulder lobbing, trajectories, deformable objects, object themselves << flying, levitating, etc..

But not that is far down the road. With the APU, we'll be able to see player's capes wavering behind them as they're running, etc.. under DX11 and Tess.. so the need to spend precious resources on simulating them when the physx version is just as inert. A simulation, but not interactive with the environment = gimmick
Edited by formula m - 6/26/11 at 12:26pm
post #106 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by formula m View Post
particle physics irrelevant to gaming

There is no argument here,

Wow.....




Guess it just goes to show that any kid can come on OCN and write whatever nonsense they want pretending to even remotely understand the basics of a physics engine...

As others have said, that's exactly what separates it from CPU based physics engines like Havok and Bullet. It doesn't take $1200 of GPUs to run either. A simple 570 was enough to showcase some of the more advanced particle physics in those videos. If Havok ever gains OpenCL support and runs on GPUs it'll certainly make it harder for anyone to rationalize using PhysX but at the moment, x86 based physics engines are only able to produce minute amounts of physics(as seen in BC2 for example) due to the load on the CPU. You keep trying to bring up that CPUs will continue getting more powerful making this point invalid in a few years. While this may be true, so will GPUs and at a much faster rate have you. As long as you're running off of the CPU, it's always going to be behind what PhysX can do.
Edited by PoopaScoopa - 6/26/11 at 3:24pm
post #107 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by formula m View Post
then it is just eye candy & superficial to gameplay (ie: a gimmick, or ruse for marketing)
And what's wrong with that? Almost everything you see in a game is eye candy and superficial to the gameplay.

Do you NEED characters to have walk animations? No, the gameplay wouldn't change if they floated along the ground.
Do you NEED characters to cast realtime shadows? No, just eye candy.
Do you NEED color? No, just eye candy.
Do you NEED 1080p? No, just eye candy.
Do you NEED anti-aliasing? No, just eye candy.
Do you NEED texture filtering? No, just eye candy.
post #108 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by ct03 View Post
And what's wrong with that? Almost everything you see in a game is eye candy and superficial to the gameplay.

Do you NEED characters to have walk animations? No, the gameplay wouldn't change if they floated along the ground.
Do you NEED characters to cast realtime shadows? No, just eye candy.
Do you NEED color? No, just eye candy.
Do you NEED 1080p? No, just eye candy.
Do you NEED anti-aliasing? No, just eye candy.
Do you NEED texture filtering? No, just eye candy.
Fans of Wizardry, The Bard's Tale, Gold Box D&D, Final Fantasy 1-6, Zelda 1 & 3, Ultima, Wasteland, Fallout, NES Shadowrun, SEGA Shadowrun, Civilization, and more would agree that you don't need eye candy to make a great game.

Mechanics that are unbalanced (like most FtP MMOs) or too simple (like Mass Effect) can't be fixed with better graphics, but the entertainment value of an already good game can be increased with superior graphics (like Morrowind high-res mods, or Neverwinter Nights 2 v. NWN1).
post #109 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoopaScoopa View Post
Wow.....



Guess it just goes to show that any kid can come on OCN and write whatever nonsense they want pretending to even remotely understand the basics of a physics engine...

As others have said, that's exactly what separates it from CPU based physics engines like Havok and Bullet. It doesn't take $1200 of GPUs to run either. A simple 570 was enough to showcase some of the more advanced particle physics in those videos. If Havok ever gains OpenCL support and runs on GPUs it'll certainly make it harder for anyone to rationalize using PhysX but at the moment, x86 based physics engines are only able to produce minute amounts of physics(as seen in BC2 for example) due to the load on the CPU. You keep trying to bring up that CPUs will continue getting more powerful making this point invalid in a few years. While this may be true, so will GPUs and at a much faster rate have you. As long as you're running off of the CPU, it's always going to be behind what PhysX can do.




Sorry, it seems you are unable to grasp simple concepts.

Your argument is about PC physics, specifically nvidia physx... not scientific simulation using physx. They are two utterly different premises and outcomes.

One.. u actually have to have a game running, the other you don't. Additionally, you cannot have those "physx" simulations within any game, because of the exact reason I mentioned in my previous post.. it isn't possible to showcase more than 1 or 2, simulations without the game coming to it knees.



Secondly, are you actually trying to say that those videos you linked are suppose to illustrate how much better Physx is that Havok, etc..? Because I have never mentioned Havok, nor does it matter because Havok & other engines can do the same. Which brings up a good point, are you actually trying to suggest, that another physics library cannot do particle physics..?

I need to know.. because then I'll understand the gist of ur ignorance and more able to educate you. As you cannot possible understand how grid physics (in ur videos) is basically cheating @ computational fluid dynamics. Meaning, the resolution of the physic in those vidz are weak sauce. The accuracy is not impressive at all & such a simulation would serve no purpose at all in industry.

There are much better nVidia videos, of some powerful CFD & such with nVidia hardware, but those aren't ur focus, nor proves your point.


There are also Havok doing the particle physics too. U should look those up, since ur so interested in Havok & Bullet, etc.



edit:
IMO, drinking too much from one coolaid fountain, will leave you jaded... here, have a sip of something different.


.
Edited by formula m - 6/27/11 at 4:39pm
post #110 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by ct03 View Post
And what's wrong with that? Almost everything you see in a game is eye candy and superficial to the gameplay.

Do you NEED characters to have walk animations? No, the gameplay wouldn't change if they floated along the ground.
Do you NEED characters to cast realtime shadows? No, just eye candy.
Do you NEED color? No, just eye candy.
Do you NEED 1080p? No, just eye candy.
Do you NEED anti-aliasing? No, just eye candy.
Do you NEED texture filtering? No, just eye candy.

I have never said there was anything wrong with physx being a gimmick, only that physx is one. Oddly, it is those who find fault with themselves, who struggle with these facts.

Unwilling to admit they've been marketized..!



I'm no going to rebuttal ur points, sadly they are insignificant... as you have foolishly taken them out of contex. I am specifically talking about gameplay, not graphics!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [NVIDIA]Microsoft going All-in on GPU computing