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 13

post #121 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by videoman5;13883883 
This+APUs=nVidia's dead in the mainstream PC department. Their only future is with Tegra based devices and maybe Tesla/Quadro boards.

Say what?

I thought Nvidia cards were really good for GPU acceleration with all those CUDA cores
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
I7 920 @ 4.3Ghz Asus P6X58D Premium Zotac GTX 480 6GB CORSAIR XMS3 7-7-7-20 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2X Vertex LE 100GB SSDs/RAID-0 & 2TB Barracuda XT Samsung SH-S243D 24x DVD-Writer Windows 7 LG Flatron W2242TQ & LG Flatron W1942TQ 
PowerCase
Corsair TX750W Cooler Master Haf 932 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
I7 920 @ 4.3Ghz Asus P6X58D Premium Zotac GTX 480 6GB CORSAIR XMS3 7-7-7-20 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2X Vertex LE 100GB SSDs/RAID-0 & 2TB Barracuda XT Samsung SH-S243D 24x DVD-Writer Windows 7 LG Flatron W2242TQ & LG Flatron W1942TQ 
PowerCase
Corsair TX750W Cooler Master Haf 932 
  hide details  
Reply
post #122 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Domino View Post
Which has well over 10x the processing power. Wow, what an accomplishment that PhysX can do on a 9800GT.

Sure takes a lot more processing power then a 9800GT to handle the PhysX in Mafia 2. Which are as a basic as Havok back in 2004 on the source engine. Valve had full fledged liquid physics coded for the engine...all CPU based. Didn't make it in the release of HL2.
A 9800GT handles the PhysX in Mafia 2 perfectly fine. What are you talking about? And just because the game developer chose to only put in a tiny or poor amount of PhysX, that isn't a representation of the full capabilities of what PhysX can do. The problem of course, is only one GPU company can run it, so developers choose to invest time in something else more important than some extra eye candy that only half of their customers will be able to see. Limited physics from Havok and co. give more benefit to all of their customers.
post #123 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by ct03 View Post
Oh, that's hilarious. You need multiple video cards? Do you know why this is such a strange thing to say? Because PhysX does not feature GPU-acceleration for rigid bodies. Rigid bodies are always calculated on the CPU, just like in other engines.

Multiple video cards, eh?
Lol... and why do u think that is..? (Other than multi-player)

You have solidified my over-all argument, that any real object can easily be handled by a modern cpu, instead of having to buy a seperate video card and off-load the calculation on it... when 2 idle cores can handle the work.

Because of the prominance & proliferation of dual/tripple/quad/octa cores, nvidia had no chance at competing with cpu physics, so they changed their "physx" business model to "particle physics" to attempt to sell more video cards.

Have u been even reading the thread?
post #124 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoopaScoopa View Post

.. And just because the game developer chose to only put in a tiny or poor amount of PhysX, that isn't a representation of the full capabilities of what PhysX can do. The problem of course, is only one GPU company can run it, so developers choose to invest time in something else more important than some extra eye candy that only half of their customers will be able to see. Limited physics from Havok and co. give more benefit to all of their customers.
You're right... it is not the limit of what PhysX can do.. but it is the limit of what physx can do on a typical computer, without additional hardware. Physx can do a lot more if you power it with enough hardware.

But that is not the point...


Lastly, these developers are limited to how much PhysX they can use, because very few people will buy an extra video card to have a few games with superficial physics. So they try to have just enough so the game itself isn't suffering too much on a single card.

Open standards and APUs are the future. What library you use will be ambiguoius.
post #125 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by formula m View Post
any real object can easily be handled by a modern cpu,
Of course it can. I never said anything to the contrary.

Quote:
Because of the prominance & proliferation of dual/tripple/quad/octa cores, nvidia had no chance at competing with cpu physics, so they changed their "physx" business model to "particle physics" to attempt to sell more video cards.
If you're happy with rigid body physics and don't ever want to see clothing, fluid or hair simulation in games, then CPU engines are all you need.
Faulting PhysX for doing things that other game physics engines don't do is ridiculous. It's added value, what's wrong with that?
post #126 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by ct03 View Post
Of course it can. I never said anything to the contrary.


If you're happy with rigid body physics and don't ever want to see clothing, fluid or hair simulation in games, then CPU engines are all you need.
Faulting PhysX for doing things that other game physics engines don't do is ridiculous. It's added value, what's wrong with that?
Sorry, u have the wrong guy. I am not advocating how bad physx is, only how great it is not...!
post #127 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by darthjoe229 View Post
I'm curious why this took so long O.o graphics cards have been in a state like this for a while, and people haven't been taking anywhere close to full advantage of what they can do with parallel processing. yay acceleration!

Good question; why rendering software have not adopted GPU rendering is beyond me. What could take 1 hour with CPU rendering could probably be accomplished in a minute on a powerful GPU.
post #128 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by darthjoe229 View Post
I'm curious why this took so long O.o graphics cards have been in a state like this for a while, and people haven't been taking anywhere close to full advantage of what they can do with parallel processing. yay acceleration!
because of patents
Webcrawler
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 3570k ASRock Z75 Pro3 Sapphire 7870 XT Boost Corsair Vengeance, DDR3 1600Mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveOSMonitor
SpinPoint F1 1TB 64GB M4 SSD Windows 8.1 SyncMaster P2050 
MonitorKeyboardPowerMouse
Dell U2312HM Sidewinder X4 Be Quiet! Pure Power CM L8 430w Zowie FK 
AudioAudio
Xonar DG Sennheiser HD 555 
  hide details  
Reply
Webcrawler
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 3570k ASRock Z75 Pro3 Sapphire 7870 XT Boost Corsair Vengeance, DDR3 1600Mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveOSMonitor
SpinPoint F1 1TB 64GB M4 SSD Windows 8.1 SyncMaster P2050 
MonitorKeyboardPowerMouse
Dell U2312HM Sidewinder X4 Be Quiet! Pure Power CM L8 430w Zowie FK 
AudioAudio
Xonar DG Sennheiser HD 555 
  hide details  
Reply
post #129 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by formula m View Post
Sorry, u have the wrong guy. I am not advocating how bad physx is, only how great it is not...!
BTW, you seemed to be looking for games that utilize PhysX and here's a current example:


Quote:



Here is a new PhysX benchmark (available since around 2 weeks!) derived from an upcoming online game called Mars. This benchmark features NVIDIA APEX for all PhysX based effects (destruction, clothes, particles, fluids) and is based on the Unreal Engine 3
http://www.geeks3d.com/20110623/test...ark/#more-7928
post #130 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoopaScoopa View Post
A 9800GT handles the PhysX in Mafia 2 perfectly fine. What are you talking about? And just because the game developer chose to only put in a tiny or poor amount of PhysX, that isn't a representation of the full capabilities of what PhysX can do. The problem of course, is only one GPU company can run it, so developers choose to invest time in something else more important than some extra eye candy that only half of their customers will be able to see. Limited physics from Havok and co. give more benefit to all of their customers.
What are you talking about? Did you do any research?



You need at least a GTX 460 to power physX without a bottleneck on Mafia 2. Which is even many times more powerful then a 9800GT.
Edited by Domino - 7/5/11 at 1:44pm
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