Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [TH]Physics Drivers Outrage
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[TH]Physics Drivers Outrage - Page 2

post #11 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by mechtech View Post
I still think physics should be run on the CPU...

Most games heavily use 1 core, and the other core (or other 3 for those with quads) are relatively unused.

GPUs are almost always running at 100% utilization in modern games, so shouldn't we be running physics on the CPU?

If intel would get around to doing something with Havok, then that wouldn't be a question.

Since that hasn't happened, than of course this makes nVidia cards better. BTW, I am under the impression that Parallel processing is better for physics, correct? Which is why they work better on GPU's than CPU's.
post #12 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussianGrimmReaper View Post
The difference is that NVidia has the monetary power to bribe devs not to use DX10.1. ATI can't do the same thing to PhysX. So I consider that unfair.
Who said big company competition is fair?
Thudd
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom II 720 x3 MSI 790FX-GD70 Radeon 6770 OCZ 6GB (3 x 2GB) DDR3 1600 
Optical DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Samsung Blue Ray Eater SO MANY FANS Windows 7 x64 SP1(Do not go gentle) Acer AL2216W 1680x1050 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
Cheap 32" LED TV 50" Samsung Plasma Garbage OCZ 700W M#OCZGXS700 
CaseMouseMouse Pad
Thudd MX518(Rage, rage against the dying of the light) Leather desktop 
  hide details  
Reply
Thudd
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom II 720 x3 MSI 790FX-GD70 Radeon 6770 OCZ 6GB (3 x 2GB) DDR3 1600 
Optical DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Samsung Blue Ray Eater SO MANY FANS Windows 7 x64 SP1(Do not go gentle) Acer AL2216W 1680x1050 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
Cheap 32" LED TV 50" Samsung Plasma Garbage OCZ 700W M#OCZGXS700 
CaseMouseMouse Pad
Thudd MX518(Rage, rage against the dying of the light) Leather desktop 
  hide details  
Reply
post #13 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Porthios View Post
I haven't done it on my computer, but I have friends who have the hardware to offload physics processing from the CPU.

Look, I don't know what we're arguing about here. If you don't know that FPS can go up once you offload physics processing from the CPU to the GPU or PPU, then you are delusional.
It really depends on the resolution. At 1600x1200(4:3 20"?) your CPU isn't doing that much work, whether it's on your GPU or CPU, frame rates won't change. It's a different story once you get down below 1280x1024. Also once you go above 1920x1200, you need the CPU to keep up with the GPU, which is when PhysX and Havok become useful if implemented on the GPU.
Quote:
Originally Posted by majin death View Post
Who said big company competition is fair?
It's not. And NVidia will feel the sting once SC2 comes out... plastered with pro ATI ads, Havok, and maybe (crosses fingers) DX10.1.

If you don't like what I say read my sig.
post #14 of 77
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mechtech View Post
I still think physics should be run on the CPU...

Most games heavily use 1 core, and the other core (or other 3 for those with quads) are relatively unused.

GPUs are almost always running at 100% utilization in modern games, so shouldn't we be running physics on the CPU?
Only problem is that even if you dedicate an entire CPU core to physics processing, GPUs (even a fraction of their power) amounts to more physics processing power. And, looking at Valve's recent CPU study, most people that use Steam still only use 1 core CPUs. The survey is like 6 months old, but you get the point. However, almost everyone who uses Steam has a discrete graphics card of some sort.
Metal Case
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 920 ASUS GeForce GTX285 1GB 6GB Corsair 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
500GB Vista Ultimate 64-bit Asus 24" 850W 
  hide details  
Reply
Metal Case
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 920 ASUS GeForce GTX285 1GB 6GB Corsair 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
500GB Vista Ultimate 64-bit Asus 24" 850W 
  hide details  
Reply
post #15 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Porthios View Post
Only problem is that even if you dedicate an entire CPU core to physics processing, GPUs (even a fraction of their power) amounts to more physics processing power. And, looking at Valve's recent CPU study, most people that use Steam still only use 1 core CPUs. The survey is like 6 months old, but you get the point. However, almost everyone who uses Steam has a discrete graphics card of some sort.
There's something... That makes a lot of sense.
post #16 of 77
nVidia is using PhysX as means to shift work from the CPU to the GPU and trying to make the CPU seem unnecessary. nVidia has already declared the CPU "obsolete" in a statement a couple weeks ago, and is trying to make that a reality via GPU applications such as PhysX and CUDA. Of course AMD is against GPU physics acceleration, they want their CPUs to do it! Wouldn't make any sense for AMD to make their own product useless, now would it?
Runs Doom
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
4000+ Brisbane Biostar T-Force 550 SE Asus HD 4850 512MB Corsair 2GB DDR2-675 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
80GB WD Win 7 x64 Beta 20.1" NEC lulz edition Rosewill 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Xclio Goodpower 500W Aspire X-plorer GE Deluxe Optical Mouse Stock gateway @ 6"x6" 
  hide details  
Reply
Runs Doom
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
4000+ Brisbane Biostar T-Force 550 SE Asus HD 4850 512MB Corsair 2GB DDR2-675 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
80GB WD Win 7 x64 Beta 20.1" NEC lulz edition Rosewill 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Xclio Goodpower 500W Aspire X-plorer GE Deluxe Optical Mouse Stock gateway @ 6"x6" 
  hide details  
Reply
post #17 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by logo199 View Post
Nvidia has physics process on the graphics card, ATi does not, there for nVidia has high scores. A bit unfair for ATi/AMD but we would all be just as outraged if Dx10.1 was giving AMD an edge while leaving nVidia out in the cold.
It's completely different, actually. DX10.1 actually makes the rendering faster and gives higher framerates. If you use PhysX via CUDA, some of the GPU power is used to render stuff, and some is being used for PhysX calculations. Vantage tests them both separately so the PhysX test really represents performance if it's not heavily involved with rendering and the 3d test(s) represent performance when it isn't doing PhysX calculations. In that sense it artificially inflates the score beyond the benefit you can actually expect in game.

That point aside, I don't really find the PhysX test to be particularly unfair. Futuremark was trying to create a forward-looking benchmark, and they obviously foresee an increasing usage of physics acceleration in game, and I see nothing wrong with including a benchmark for that. The only time it should even become a problem is if ATI releases a Havok engine for their GPUs and Futuremark refuses to use that in exclusive favor of PhysX. This isn't currently the situation and I don't think Futuremark is showing any bias towards Nvidia. At the same time, I don't think Nvidia is using any underhanded, cheap tricks to boost their Vantage scores. They implemented PhysX and all this really does is shows it off. I've tried to look at every different viewpoint of this issue and I really cannot find any reason to suspect deception or cheating on behalf of any of the involved parties. I guess I just don't see why anyone would care about Vantage scores *that* much, people just need to chill out because in the end it really doesn't matter that much.

I'm also of the opinion that Futuremark should consider adding a DX10.1 feature test (Nvidia does implement some of the DX10.1 features, just not full compliance). Some would claim that this would unfairly favor ATI, but as I said earlier, this is an entirely different kind of test. Unlike the physics test where both companies have a competing API (albeit one of them is not fully implemented yet, which is why I see nothing wrong with Vantage atm), only ATI has chose to include DX10.1 support. Through Assassin's Creed, it's already been proven that DX10.1 can offer a performance benefit that is not unsubstantial as well as a slight boost in image quality. If the intent of Vantage is to be forward looking, the possibility that AC will not be the only game to ever use DX10.1 is something they have to consider, especially now that we at least have a glimpse of the benefits DX10.1 has to offer.

One thing I forgot to mention is that the interview with AMD on techreport about their strategy on Stream Computing indicated that ATI is going to push more for the OpenCL standard for doing GPGPU-type implementations which would allow the same code to run on both Nvidia and ATI cards without the use of any proprietary or semi-proprietary APIs. If that's really the direction that GPU physics is headed, then this becomes even less of an issue. It's really nothing more than people using non-default settings to compare 3dmark06 scores, and it's being blown incredibly out of proportion.
Edited by darkcloud89 - 6/25/08 at 8:42pm
post #18 of 77
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussianGrimmReaper View Post
It's not. And NVidia will feel the sting once SC2 comes out... plastered with pro ATI ads, Havok, and maybe (crosses fingers) DX10.1.

If you don't like what I say read my sig.
Please elaborate on SC2 chips. This is the first I've heard of them.
Metal Case
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 920 ASUS GeForce GTX285 1GB 6GB Corsair 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
500GB Vista Ultimate 64-bit Asus 24" 850W 
  hide details  
Reply
Metal Case
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 920 ASUS GeForce GTX285 1GB 6GB Corsair 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
500GB Vista Ultimate 64-bit Asus 24" 850W 
  hide details  
Reply
post #19 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Porthios View Post
Please elaborate on SC2 chips. This is the first I've heard of them.
http://www.overclock.net/hardware-ne...-blizzard.html

Yes, I know it's Fudzilla, but Blizzard announced long ago during one of their demos of SC2 that they were using the Havok engine. ATI and Intel are already in the process of implementing Havok. Now take into account the MILLIONS of Blizzard fans. 90% of Korea will be buying ATI cards after SC2 is released and they see the ATI/AMD symbols slapped all over. IF DX10.1 is implemented, the HD4870 will outperform the GTX 280 for half the price(In SC2 because of DX10.1!) Remember the article that some ATI rep released telling it's AIBs to assume 50% market share by Q3? Yeah, it's gonna happen.
post #20 of 77
lol yeah but ever body messes up sometimes
Viperware x 2
(14 items)
 
   
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4770 Asus SaberTooth Mark S EVGA GTX 980 SC Corsair Vengeance DDR3 8GBs 
Optical DriveOSMonitorMonitor
LG Optical drive Windows 8.1 Dell u2414h Dell u2414h 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
corsair k70 EVGA 1000 G2 corsair 750D Corsair M65 
Mouse PadAudio
steel series game pad LG sound bar 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6600 Go @ 3.8GHz Rocksolid ASUS P5E eVGA GTX 285 4 Gb Corsair XMS2 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
750 GB Hiatachi 7200 RPM 32MB cache Drive.. Win7 Ultx64/Ubuntu 10.04 Samsumg 26'' 
PowerCaseMouse
PC Power and cooling 750 watt Cooler Master Cosmos S Kone 
  hide details  
Reply
Viperware x 2
(14 items)
 
   
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4770 Asus SaberTooth Mark S EVGA GTX 980 SC Corsair Vengeance DDR3 8GBs 
Optical DriveOSMonitorMonitor
LG Optical drive Windows 8.1 Dell u2414h Dell u2414h 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
corsair k70 EVGA 1000 G2 corsair 750D Corsair M65 
Mouse PadAudio
steel series game pad LG sound bar 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6600 Go @ 3.8GHz Rocksolid ASUS P5E eVGA GTX 285 4 Gb Corsair XMS2 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
750 GB Hiatachi 7200 RPM 32MB cache Drive.. Win7 Ultx64/Ubuntu 10.04 Samsumg 26'' 
PowerCaseMouse
PC Power and cooling 750 watt Cooler Master Cosmos S Kone 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [TH]Physics Drivers Outrage