Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Software News › [Fud] ATI physics to stick to CPU
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[Fud] ATI physics to stick to CPU

post #1 of 36
Thread Starter 
Quote:
ATI physics to stick to CPU Print E-mail
Written by Fuad Abazovic
Thursday, 03 July 2008 09:37

Image

No GPU acceleration for Havoc, for now

Nvidia is trying to convince to world that PhysX is the best way of doing in game physics but it still has to make this physics approach much more attractive than today.

PhysX needs much wider game support and once Nvidia convince the world that there is much sense to accelerate physics on a GPU, the world will follow.


Havoc is currently the dominant way of doing physics. It has support for 300 games, and growing, but it can only be accelerated on a CPU. ATI supports Havoc but for the time being ATI doesn’t run Havoc on its GPUs but rather optimises its code to run Havoc faster on Intel and AMD CPUs.

Common sense is telling us that running Havoc on a GPU should be much faster as Shaders are independent pipelines or cores and you have quite a lot of them on a modern GPU.

For the time being ATI says that it plans to accelerate Havoc on a CPU while for the time being ATI says that it will investigate if it makes sense to run Physics on a GPU and that it will do it when it makes sense.This probably has a lot to do with a fact that Intel who owns Havoc, but doesn't really have a GPU to run physics on.

To spice up this already complicated story, sources close to Nvidia believe that Havoc will only be accelerated on Larrabee graphic parts and that ATI will never get a license to do Havoc physics on its GPUs. We cannot confirm or deny this claim but it sounds like a good conspiracy theory.
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?op...=8263&Itemid=1

Nvidia can't seem to catch a break these days...
My System
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD 8350 @4GHz GIGABYTE GA-970A-UD3 AM3+ eVGA 980Ti SC+ w/ACX  8GB G.Skill DDR31600 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Samsung 830 256GB WD 640GB Black Samsung F3 1TB ASUS BC-08B1ST BD-R/DVDRW 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Swiftech H220-X w/Gentle Typhoon's Win7 Home Premium 64-bit HannsG 28" Widescreen LCD 1920x1200 ABS M1 
PowerCaseMouse
Seasonic X650 Modular CM690 II Basic Logitech G400s 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD 8350 @4GHz GIGABYTE GA-970A-UD3 AM3+ eVGA 980Ti SC+ w/ACX  8GB G.Skill DDR31600 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Samsung 830 256GB WD 640GB Black Samsung F3 1TB ASUS BC-08B1ST BD-R/DVDRW 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Swiftech H220-X w/Gentle Typhoon's Win7 Home Premium 64-bit HannsG 28" Widescreen LCD 1920x1200 ABS M1 
PowerCaseMouse
Seasonic X650 Modular CM690 II Basic Logitech G400s 
  hide details  
Reply
post #2 of 36
This does make sense. Yes from what I understand GPU accelerated physics are awesome as there are many more calculations per second performed on a GPU comapred to a CPU due to architecture differences and a GPU is much more geared up towards Physics processing.

HOWEVER

You then have to ask yourself if there are any games that even come close to using the sheer power of GPU physics. I am not aware of a game that even scratches the surface of ''Extreme physics'' Dont say Crysis because I dont consider that ''Extreme phyiscs''

So perhaps the CPU to optimize the physics for now is the best way to go as there is nothing out to fully harness the GPU physics processing power and CPU should be more than enough for now. Not only that but it means ATI does not need to spend lots of cash on R&D for this.

I think personally keeping it on CPU for now is a sensible move.
post #3 of 36
tushay!
hardware has a tendancy to go MILES ahead of what is actualy required for todays needs...

not a bad thing BUT theres future proofing and then there is future PROOFING!

PS - I am getting quotes to have an airlock and anti graviti system installed in my car at weekend - just incase i go to the moon in it!
DMan v3.0
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-3470 ASUS P8P67 LE Radeon R9 280 Kinston PC3 10600 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Western Digital Samsung Samsung Samsung 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Sony DVDRW Windows 7 Professional (64)  21 Inch Montor A Wireless One 
PowerMouseMouse PadAudio
780w HyperV? A Wireless One Wooden Yes 
  hide details  
Reply
DMan v3.0
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-3470 ASUS P8P67 LE Radeon R9 280 Kinston PC3 10600 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Western Digital Samsung Samsung Samsung 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Sony DVDRW Windows 7 Professional (64)  21 Inch Montor A Wireless One 
PowerMouseMouse PadAudio
780w HyperV? A Wireless One Wooden Yes 
  hide details  
Reply
post #4 of 36
Why do it on a GPU? A lot of the work the CPU does while gaming is physics... if you take that, you're just unnecessarily loading the GPU.

It's not like the CPU can't do it in realtime, unlike 3D graphics.
Akiyama Mio
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
E6420 @ stock, 0.98v Asus P5N-E SLI Gainward GTX 460 1GB @ 800/1600/1900 2x2GB Kingston @ 800MHz 5-5-5-15 2T 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
WD 250GB, 320GB SATA/3, 16MB Cache, Seagate 1TB LG GSA-H62N 18x SATA Ubuntu 9.10 x86 & Win7 x86 Asus VW222U 
KeyboardPowerCase
Logitech Classic Corsair 650HX NZXT Apollo Black 
  hide details  
Reply
Akiyama Mio
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
E6420 @ stock, 0.98v Asus P5N-E SLI Gainward GTX 460 1GB @ 800/1600/1900 2x2GB Kingston @ 800MHz 5-5-5-15 2T 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
WD 250GB, 320GB SATA/3, 16MB Cache, Seagate 1TB LG GSA-H62N 18x SATA Ubuntu 9.10 x86 & Win7 x86 Asus VW222U 
KeyboardPowerCase
Logitech Classic Corsair 650HX NZXT Apollo Black 
  hide details  
Reply
post #5 of 36
Why not off load it to the CPU? Quad core proc's need something to keep them busy no?
ElRigTheRig
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6600 G0 @ 2.4 GHz Asus Maximus Formula Asus EN8800GT 512MB 4GB G.Skill DDR2-1000 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
1.858TB (3x JBOD) HP 16x DVD Burner Vista Ultimate x64 SP2 24" FPD2485 Gateway LCD 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Razer Lycosa Ultra X3 1000w Antec P182 Logitech G5 
Mouse Pad
Razer Xact Mat 
  hide details  
Reply
ElRigTheRig
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6600 G0 @ 2.4 GHz Asus Maximus Formula Asus EN8800GT 512MB 4GB G.Skill DDR2-1000 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
1.858TB (3x JBOD) HP 16x DVD Burner Vista Ultimate x64 SP2 24" FPD2485 Gateway LCD 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Razer Lycosa Ultra X3 1000w Antec P182 Logitech G5 
Mouse Pad
Razer Xact Mat 
  hide details  
Reply
post #6 of 36
in the end its nvidia trying to justify getting the maximum amount of money out of our wallets!

"look at these graphics...brilliant ...the best....BUT...you are gona have to sped ££££££££"
DMan v3.0
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-3470 ASUS P8P67 LE Radeon R9 280 Kinston PC3 10600 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Western Digital Samsung Samsung Samsung 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Sony DVDRW Windows 7 Professional (64)  21 Inch Montor A Wireless One 
PowerMouseMouse PadAudio
780w HyperV? A Wireless One Wooden Yes 
  hide details  
Reply
DMan v3.0
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-3470 ASUS P8P67 LE Radeon R9 280 Kinston PC3 10600 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Western Digital Samsung Samsung Samsung 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Sony DVDRW Windows 7 Professional (64)  21 Inch Montor A Wireless One 
PowerMouseMouse PadAudio
780w HyperV? A Wireless One Wooden Yes 
  hide details  
Reply
post #7 of 36
Like I said. CPU's of today..especially the Quads are more than capable of processing the Physics in games today and in the future. I can say the future because you are not going to find many developers out there that are going to spend LOTS on just the Physics side of things and even though I can see phyics developing quickly I am not sure it will develope to the point where GPU processing is a must.
post #8 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by ENTERPRISE View Post
Like I said. CPU's of today..especially the Quads are more than capable of processing the Physics in games today and in the future. I can say the future because you are not going to find many developers out there that are going to spend LOTS on just the Physics side of things and even though I can see phyics developing quickly I am not sure it will develope to the point where GPU processing is a must.
I agree. CPUs are more than capable for the work at hand. Also you have to realize that should you run physics on a GPU it would have to take processing power away from the rendering of the scene.

nVidia is clinging to GPU physics because without it there wouldn't be much incentive to buy one of their cards now that ATI's 4800s are out.
post #9 of 36
Why doesn't ATI just support CUDA and PhysX? It would finally make it a viable option to build games around it, and it would definitely hurt intel.
Fermi
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 920 Asus Rampage II Gene BFG GTX280 OCX 12GB DDR3 1600 
OSPower
Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Corsair VX550 
  hide details  
Reply
Fermi
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 920 Asus Rampage II Gene BFG GTX280 OCX 12GB DDR3 1600 
OSPower
Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Corsair VX550 
  hide details  
Reply
post #10 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by ENTERPRISE View Post
Like I said. CPU's of today..especially the Quads are more than capable of processing the Physics in games today and in the future.
I hope you don't mean that they are just as powerful as GPU physics would be, because they're not even close.
Fermi
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 920 Asus Rampage II Gene BFG GTX280 OCX 12GB DDR3 1600 
OSPower
Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Corsair VX550 
  hide details  
Reply
Fermi
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 920 Asus Rampage II Gene BFG GTX280 OCX 12GB DDR3 1600 
OSPower
Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Corsair VX550 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Software News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Software News › [Fud] ATI physics to stick to CPU