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 14

post #131 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Domino View Post
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.
Even the new Alice game requires a dedicated GTX 460. A single 580 @ 1080p is not enough for that game with PhysX. PhysX takes a lot of GPU resources. This shrinks the market because not many people will spend another $130 or so on a PhysX card.
post #132 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoopaScoopa View Post
BTW, you seemed to be looking for games that utilize PhysX and here's a current example:
Nope!

You, yourself was telling us how great PhysX is...

It is nothing special & that is what people are trying to tell you. It is because of the marketing that PhysX became "special" ..!

Nobody needs gimmicks to do this stuff... it is all being done by every other physics lib.

Gratz for showing up.
post #133 of 151
Hi. I believe I can bring something to this discussion;

There is truth in what formula-m is saying, current GPUs are very strong at doing parallel computations while CPUs fare better with single-threaded problems.

The kind of physics that is of interest in games (a single object interacting with its environment) is very un-parallelisable because of the way models currently work. How do you compute, on the fly, the destruction of an object which is stored as a giant blob of triangles.. There is work done is this area and tesselation might bring us closer to it, but for the moment this kind of workload is inherently CPU-friendly... Which brings me to the next point,

There needs to be more reseach done on voxel rendering techniques !!!!!

If you can store the environment as basically "sand" that you can move around and punch through, then we are going to see amazing physics effect. IMO, I don't see this happening with current polygon rendering.

For (real, game-targeted) example, see Atomontage on youtube.

Phil
power hog
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD 965 @ 3.8 (the 965 is a bad overclocker) msi 890fxa-gd70 GTX 460 x2 [SLI] 8GB DDR3 
MonitorPowerCase
24" Samsung Corsair TX750 RAVEN RV02 
  hide details  
Reply
power hog
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD 965 @ 3.8 (the 965 is a bad overclocker) msi 890fxa-gd70 GTX 460 x2 [SLI] 8GB DDR3 
MonitorPowerCase
24" Samsung Corsair TX750 RAVEN RV02 
  hide details  
Reply
post #134 of 151
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overscore View Post
Hi. I believe I can bring something to this discussion;

There is truth in what formula-m is saying, current GPUs are very strong at doing parallel computations while CPUs fare better with single-threaded problems.

The kind of physics that is of interest in games (a single object interacting with its environment) is very un-parallelisable because of the way models currently work. How do you compute, on the fly, the destruction of an object which is stored as a giant blob of triangles.. There is work done is this area and tesselation might bring us closer to it, but for the moment this kind of workload is inherently CPU-friendly... Which brings me to the next point,

There needs to be more reseach done on voxel rendering techniques !!!!!

If you can store the environment as basically "sand" that you can move around and punch through, then we are going to see amazing physics effect. IMO, I don't see this happening with current polygon rendering.

For (real, game-targeted) example, see Atomontage on youtube.

Phil
Interesting i will check this out.

Edit: i will post the video link here for others to see


Thanks
Black Dragon
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7 2600k @ 4.3 GHZ ASRock Z68 Extreme3 Gen3 (PCI-E 3.0, USB 3.0, B... EVGA GTX 580 1.5 GB GDDR5 G.SKILL Ripjaws X ( 4 x 2GB) @ 1866 MHZ 8-9-8-2... 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
OCZ Vertex 3 MAX IOPS 120 GB Firmware 2.21 Noctua NH-D14 Windows 8.1 X64 Alienware Optx AW2310 (1920 x 1080p) 120 HZ 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Comfort Curve Keyboard 2000 Corsair AX850 PLUS GOLD Certified Silverstone FT02B-W Razer Deathadder 3500 DPi 
Mouse Pad
Steel Series QCK+ 
  hide details  
Reply
Black Dragon
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7 2600k @ 4.3 GHZ ASRock Z68 Extreme3 Gen3 (PCI-E 3.0, USB 3.0, B... EVGA GTX 580 1.5 GB GDDR5 G.SKILL Ripjaws X ( 4 x 2GB) @ 1866 MHZ 8-9-8-2... 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
OCZ Vertex 3 MAX IOPS 120 GB Firmware 2.21 Noctua NH-D14 Windows 8.1 X64 Alienware Optx AW2310 (1920 x 1080p) 120 HZ 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Comfort Curve Keyboard 2000 Corsair AX850 PLUS GOLD Certified Silverstone FT02B-W Razer Deathadder 3500 DPi 
Mouse Pad
Steel Series QCK+ 
  hide details  
Reply
post #135 of 151
Notice that none of these physics particles simulation demos feature full-blown polygon models. All you ever see are "particles", which you can describe mathematically very easily (think of the input variable as time and the output is position and velocity..). Well, apparently Atomontage can work with both, the truck can leave tire traces in the ground etc.

It is precisely because GPUs kick major ass at particle systems that we need to move from stinky polygons to ray rendering/voxels.

<joke>heck, minecraft's done it</joke>
Edited by Overscore - 7/5/11 at 3:54pm
power hog
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD 965 @ 3.8 (the 965 is a bad overclocker) msi 890fxa-gd70 GTX 460 x2 [SLI] 8GB DDR3 
MonitorPowerCase
24" Samsung Corsair TX750 RAVEN RV02 
  hide details  
Reply
power hog
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD 965 @ 3.8 (the 965 is a bad overclocker) msi 890fxa-gd70 GTX 460 x2 [SLI] 8GB DDR3 
MonitorPowerCase
24" Samsung Corsair TX750 RAVEN RV02 
  hide details  
Reply
post #136 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by formula m View Post
Nope!

You, yourself was telling us how great PhysX is...

It is nothing special

it is all being done by every other physics lib.
PhysX is great. It's just expensive.

Unfortunately "other physics libs" that run on x86 can't produce physics that is anywhere near the level of PhysX. But since it costs extra money for end users, developers are better spent using their time working on minimal amounts of physics that can be ran off the CPU. Hopefully one of the "other" physics libraries ports over to OpenCL for their sake.

You claim that PhysX can't do object based physics and particle physics is irrelevant to gaming. Those statements just show how out of touch you are.
The destructible objects in Alice when she's stomping on the chessboard are amazing. I can only wish BC2/BF3 had that level of physics in it.


Edited by PoopaScoopa - 7/5/11 at 7:48pm
post #137 of 151
It'll be interesting to see how readily adopted this is. No matter how/where parallel computations are done, careful thought that is much different than the standard programming model needs to be put into the application in order to control the flow of data. Especially when considering GPU computing, this is not an incredibly easy leap for a lot of developers, since the learning curve can be rough when talking about maximizing 4 cores of a cpu versus maximizing the hundreds of cores of a gpu. No doubt that this is the way of the future in personal computing however, as die shrinks can only physically go so far.
Lappy 3001
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i3-560 @ 3.85 GHz ASRock H55M-LE PNY XLR8 GTX 460 4G Corsair XMS3 DDR3 @ 1600 MHz 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Windows 7 / Ubuntu Samsun SyncMaster 226bw 22" Corsair CX600 Cooler Master HAF 932 
  hide details  
Reply
Lappy 3001
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i3-560 @ 3.85 GHz ASRock H55M-LE PNY XLR8 GTX 460 4G Corsair XMS3 DDR3 @ 1600 MHz 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Windows 7 / Ubuntu Samsun SyncMaster 226bw 22" Corsair CX600 Cooler Master HAF 932 
  hide details  
Reply
post #138 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoopaScoopa View Post
PhysX is great. It's just expensive.

Unfortunately "other physics libs" that run on x86 can't produce physics that is anywhere near the level of PhysX. But since it costs extra money for end users, developers are better spent using their time working on minimal amounts of physics that can be ran off the CPU. Hopefully one of the "other" physics libraries ports over to OpenCL for their sake.

You claim that PhysX can't do object based physics and particle physics is irrelevant to gaming. Those statements just show how out of touch you are.
The destructible objects in Alice when she's stomping on the chessboard are amazing. I can only wish BC2/BF3 had that level of physics in it.
Yes... simply amazing!

How many Alice's was there..? How many chess pieces..?

The level of physics is scripted by the vastness of the environement. Particle physics are irrelevent today... in 2 years after object based physics deepens, then we will see superficial fluid dynamics get more involved. Such as hair, cloth & water.

Right now, all of them can be animated to look real without any physics. There is no need to krush a system, because the granularity of a characters hair isn't falling around the branch she just duct's under....

Why does anything other than objects need to be real. They are for show...

I bet you couldn't tell the difference between physx hair & a simple shader simulation of hair flowing. Specially when all that power is required to ONLY make it look realistic... not to interact with anything. IE: over-engineered animation.
Edited by formula m - 7/5/11 at 7:13pm
post #139 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by formula m View Post
Yes... simply amazing!

How many Alice's was there..? How many chess pieces..?

The level of physics is scripted by the vastness of the environement. Particle physics are irrelevent today... in 2 years after object based physics deepens, then we will see superficial fluid dynamics get more involved. Such as hair, cloth & water.

Right now, all of them can be animated to look real without any physics. There is no need to krush a system, because the granularity of a characters hair isn't falling around the branch she just duct's under....

Why does anything other than objects need to be real. They are for show...

I bet you couldn't tell the difference between physx hair & a simple shader simulation of hair flowing. Specially when all that power is required to ONLY make it look realistic... not to interact with anything. IE: over-engineered animation.
Trying to claim that eye-candy is irrelevant to gaming is like trying to say Crysis' graphics had nothing to do with why people played the game. I'm sorry but visualizations are extremely important. I think we've moved beyond simple hair simulations by now. Just because it can finally do a shader simulation of hair after all these years doesn't mean it's any where near what PhysX is doing today.

You obviously don't mind console graphics where as most people here would not agree. You might as well claim that high levels of AA and Eyefinity/Surround gaming are a "gimmick" too. Just because you can't afford to experience it doesn't mean others don't want it. If Nvidia licensed PhysX over to AMD you wouldn't be trying to call it a "gimmick" any more. There's no physics engine today that can achieve similar visualizations as PhysX currently produces.
post #140 of 151
That Atomontage engine is really something. The guys a genius that created it. I just got done reading on some more of the technical aspects on his website. The first voxel engine demo I seen was that Unlimited Detail and was impressed, but I dont think its really gotton anywhere since then its not even close to this engines level of potential. Back around when Half Life 2 came out I remember thinking about rendering like that instead of polygons but at that time I had no idea there was something like it "voxel rendering" it just makes so much more sense.

This needs to get more industry attention, and funding asap.

Thanks Overscore.
My System
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Xeon E5506  Intel DX58SO Evga GTX 460 1GB 8gb Ramaxel 12800u  
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
x2 Western Digital 500 RAID0 Stock Intel Windows 10 x64 Vizio  
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
HP Seasonic 650 Lian Li V1200 Microsoft Comfort Mouse 
Audio
Realtek 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Xeon E5506  Intel DX58SO Evga GTX 460 1GB 8gb Ramaxel 12800u  
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
x2 Western Digital 500 RAID0 Stock Intel Windows 10 x64 Vizio  
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
HP Seasonic 650 Lian Li V1200 Microsoft Comfort Mouse 
Audio
Realtek 
  hide details  
Reply
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