How PhysX runs on Nvidia and AMD (ATI) systems

[Kietharr]

Originally Posted by artifice

Nvidia sent Sony a check to gimp ATI cards.

Not really, they just wanted a leg up in making sure they hold their spot as the most powerful high performance cards. PhysX 3.0 is improving CPU performance which is basically improving ATI cards while offering nothing to Nvidia users.

Nvidia really can't use physX to gimp ATI cards because a lot of PC gamers use ATI (also both Nintendo and Microsoft use ATI hardware in their consoles), so if their system isn't going to work well on both game developers will simply avoid adopting it which defeats the entire purpose of them buying the technology in the first place.

[artifice]

Originally Posted by Kietharr

Not really, they just wanted a leg up in making sure they hold their spot as the most powerful high performance cards. PhysX 3.0 is improving CPU performance which is basically improving ATI cards while offering nothing to Nvidia users.

Nvidia really can't use physX to gimp ATI cards because a lot of PC gamers use ATI (also both Nintendo and Microsoft use ATI hardware in their consoles), so if their system isn't going to work well on both game developers will simply avoid adopting it which defeats the entire purpose of them buying the technology in the first place.

Nvidia has been notorious for intentionally gimping CPU processing for their PhysX engine and intentionally deactivating PhysX when someone uses an ATI card.

There are alternative physics engines that are better than PhysX like Lagoa Multiphysics.

[Atranox]

FYI - there is a lot of misinformation in this thread.

Your benchmarks apply to GPU-accelerated PhysX, not the PhysX engine or PhysX processing. GPU-accelerated PhysX is an exceptionally rare feature that has been used by less than 20 PC games. Such games include Mirror's Edge, Mafia II, and Metro 2033. Planetside 2 will almost certainly not be using this type of PhysX.

With GPU-accelerated PhysX, it can only run effectively on the GPU. This can run on NVIDIA cards, but not on AMD or Intel cards. If you do not have an NVIDIA card and you enable this type of PhysX, then it attempts to run on the CPU, which is extraordinarily inefficient as your benchmarks show.

Again, this is not likely to be something that you need to worry about.

Based on SOE's description of what PhysX is being used it - it sounds like PhysX is being used as the physics engine, not for the accelerated GPU effects. The actual engine does not run on the GPU, so it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever whether or not you have an NVIDIA or an AMD card. Many games utilize this engine, such as Company of Heroes, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, etc.

While not confirmed, I'm almost entirely sure that this is the form of PhysX that PS2 would be utilizing. Your GPU brand will likely not provide any form of visual or performance advantage nor disadvantage. Both companies are great and are extremely even right now in terms of pricing, performance, value, drivers, market share, etc.

Unless GPU-accelerate PhysX is being used (very unlikely), then you will not need an NVIDIA card for the best performance or effects.

[Princess Frosty]

Originally Posted by Atranox

FYI - there is a lot of misinformation in this thread.

Your benchmarks apply to GPU-accelerated PhysX, not the PhysX engine or PhysX processing. GPU-accelerated PhysX is an exceptionally rare feature that has been used by less than 20 PC games. Such games include Mirror's Edge, Mafia II, and Metro 2033. Planetside 2 will almost certainly not be using this type of PhysX.

Exactly, this is worth noting. PhysX can do regular physics processing of rigid bodies, basic ballistics and things like this with relative ease, you don't need a very fast PC to process these types of physics effects since they're not very complicated calculations.

There's a newer set of special effects which include things like pseudo-cloth and pseudo-liquid physics which are too complex for the CPU to deal with in real time rendering and can be passed off to the GPU for calculation, Planetside 2 will probably not use these effects.

These effects are really just that, they're graphical effects designed to increase eye candy and like most other graphics effects they can be turned off, much like you could turn off grass in Planetside 1. They're not actually relevant to the game logic, for example getting submerged in pseudo-liquid is not going to drown you, and a flag made out of pseudo-cloth is not going to block the line of sight of AI.

[BorisBlade]

Not being super techy on the coding, is it possible to have a toggle to allow for GPU physX? Would rather not be grouped with those who poorly chose AMD. My system can run the stuff, would like to get the performance advantage of doin so.

[Zulthus]

Originally Posted by BorisBlade

Would rather not be grouped with those who poorly chose AMD.

There is no "poor" choice in having either a AMD or Nvidia card. They both work fine and it's a matter of personal opinion.

[Lunarchild]

Originally Posted by Zulthus

There is no "poor" choice in having either a AMD or Nvidia card. They both work fine and it's a matter of personal opinion.

While it is a matter of preference, opinion has little to do with it. AMD ATI cards are better at doing a lot of simple of operations, while NVidia specialize in doing more complex, but overall less work.

This in the end means that ATI handles high poly models better, while NVidia will handle complex shaders better. And THAT is the difference between the two. Other brands can pretty much be disregarded, as they don't come anywhere near ATI and NVidia.

This in the end means that it depends on what the game in question is optimized for as to which runs better.

[BorisBlade]

Originally Posted by Zulthus

There is no "poor" choice in having either a AMD or Nvidia card. They both work fine and it's a matter of personal opinion.

I used to be an AMD fanboy and all but one of my previous cards were ATI (AMD), but this generation Nvidia wins hands down, its not even close. The AMD cards cap out on fps early, and lose bad when you start turnin up the settings. Esp with DX11, tesselation among other things is pathetic on the AMD cards. You dont see AMD winnin any of the benchmarks when you compare cards unless you start goin for the dual chip cards and even those do poorly in high end DX11 tests. And when you then add in the lack of PhysX its just flat out over for AMD.

Now i wont be an Nvidia fanboy or anything, these things change with each generation. I'm learnin to just adapt to the reality of whats available and currently Nvidia is the superior choice hands down.

[Zulthus]

Originally Posted by BorisBlade

I used to be an AMD fanboy and all but one of my previous cards were ATI (AMD), but this generation Nvidia wins hands down, its not even close. The AMD cards cap out on fps early, and lose bad when you start turnin up the settings. Esp with DX11, tesselation among other things is pathetic on the AMD cards. You dont see AMD winnin any of the benchmarks when you compare cards unless you start goin for the dual chip cards and even those do poorly in high end DX11 tests. And when you then add in the lack of PhysX its just flat out over for AMD.

Now i wont be an Nvidia fanboy or anything, these things change with each generation. I'm learnin to just adapt to the reality of whats available and currently Nvidia is the superior choice hands down.

I personally don't 'care' too much about which card I have either, but I'm really at a loss at why you think AMD is so bad. I run the HD5870 and I can run any modern game on the market atm at max settings. Not crossfired, but a single card. I realize that Nvidia has extremely good GPUs, but I'm trying to say that from my personal results that it doesn't seem to matter at this point if you get an AMD or Nvidia GPU.

[Vancha]

Originally Posted by BorisBlade

I used to be an AMD fanboy and all but one of my previous cards were ATI (AMD), but this generation Nvidia wins hands down, its not even close. The AMD cards cap out on fps early, and lose bad when you start turnin up the settings. Esp with DX11, tesselation among other things is pathetic on the AMD cards. You dont see AMD winnin any of the benchmarks when you compare cards unless you start goin for the dual chip cards and even those do poorly in high end DX11 tests. And when you then add in the lack of PhysX its just flat out over for AMD.

Now i wont be an Nvidia fanboy or anything, these things change with each generation. I'm learnin to just adapt to the reality of whats available and currently Nvidia is the superior choice hands down.

Not so. Lets compare the 6850/70 to 560ti, 6950/70 to 570 and 6990 to 580.

At 1280x1024, both companies are about equal in regards to power efficiency and value...at anything higher, AMD win by far on performance per dollar and performance per watt (though those with 1024x728 will want to go with Nvidia).

When it comes to DX11 games it seems to depend on the game. I just went through a bunch of reviews comparing 6950s to 570s. In Metro 2033 and AVP, the 6950 equals 570, while on Lost Planet 2 a 560ti will beat out a 6970.

So for anyone with a strict budget, they'd probably get more out of an AMD card, unless they were specifically planning on playing a game AMD cards fail with, which brings us to PS2...


I suggest we wait until beta before advising people on their purchasing choices. We could end up in a situation where 560s are beating 6970s, or we could end up with equivalent cards being pretty much equal. It would seem a bit silly for SOE to tell people their game will run on 5 year old rigs and then at release have people discover "oh, but that's only for Nvidia cards", so I'm guessing it's more likely to be the latter scenario, but who knows?

[Goku]

That is a few areas I did not realize. Though when people think PhysX I bet most people think about the GPU accelerated one. I will go through the OP and update as needed shortly. If I take out what is mentioned about PS2 using the accelerated type will the post be correct for the most part?

You do seem knowledgeable on the subject I will say. Do you know anything more in the relation with PhysX 3.0 GPU accelerated PhysX running on CPUs? With what I got from SOE it sounded like it would favor Nvidia cards, but AMD would take a hit.

EDIT: Updated OP as to your concerns Atranox. Please let me know if I should change anything. I want this to be close to accurate as possible.

[Atranox]

Originally Posted by Goku

That is a few areas I did not realize. Though when people think PhysX I bet most people think about the GPU accelerated one. I will go through the OP and update as needed shortly. If I take out what is mentioned about PS2 using the accelerated type will the post be correct for the most part?

You do seem knowledgeable on the subject I will say. Do you know anything more in the relation with PhysX 3.0 GPU accelerated PhysX running on CPUs? With what I got from SOE it sounded like it would favor Nvidia cards, but AMD would take a hit.

EDIT: Updated OP as to your concerns Atranox. Please let me know if I should change anything. I want this to be close to accurate as possible.

The post does seem to be rather accurate. Honestly, it's really difficult to formulate any opinions until we're sure of how SOE will be implementing PhysX.

I would think that using the GPU-accelerated PhysX would be extremely disappointing and a poor business decision. A few years ago...probably not, as NVIDIA had about 70% of the share. Since AMD's 5000 series, they've regained a lot and it's something like 55%/45% now as far as GPU market share goes. I really can't see SOE excluding half of their player base. Most game developers that have used PhysX on the GPU recently basically were paid off by NVIDIA.

Another point to consider is that GPU-accererated PhysX has a very large hit on performance, even for NVIDIA users. Being, an MMO, I really can't fathom SOE implementing such a gigantic resource hog. On the contrast, the PhysX engine is very nice and results in some great performance and effects.

In terms of PhysX 3.0, it has been released to developers - but not much is known about it yet. Most of the information has come from NVIDIA's marketing team, so it's difficult to accept any of it as fact. The biggest change is, as you mentioned, it should run better on the CPU if necessary. It's tough to say though, because NVIDIA has worked very hard to prevent PhysX from being useful on system that don't have an NVIDIA card. Honestly, many consider PhysX is in a pretty bad spot right now, and I really don't know how long it will maintain relevancy. It just isn't a good business decision for game developers to use effects that only half of the consumer base can utilize (especially when there are other comparable engines/effects).

[EVILoHOMER]

Contrary to some headlines, the Nvidia PhysX SDK actually offers multi-core support for CPUs. When used correctly, it even comes dangerously close to the performance of a single-card, GPU-based solution. Despite this, however, there's still a catch. PhysX automatically handles thread distribution, moving the load away from the CPU and onto the GPU when a compatible graphics card is active. Game developers need to shift some of the load back to the CPU.


The effort and expenditure required to implement coding changes obviously works as a deterrent. We still think that developers should be honest and openly admit this, though. Studying certain games (with a certain logo in the credits) begs the question of whether this additional expense was spared for commercial or marketing reasons. On one hand, Nvidia has a duty to developers, helping them integrate compelling effects that gamers will be able to enjoy that might not have made it into the game otherwise. On the other hand, Nvidia wants to prevent (and with good reason) prejudices from getting out of hand. According to Nvidia, SDK 3.0 already offers these capabilities, so we look forward to seeing developers implement them.

[nathanebht]

In another thread on this topic, Atranox had a good post.

Originally Posted by Atranox

Do not confuse the PhysX engine with GPU-accelerated PhysX.

GPU-acceleration on PhysX requires an NVIDIA card for decent performance and full effects, while the engine itself does not as it runs exclusively on the CPU regardless of video card brand. Based on SOE's description, it sounds like the physics engine itself i being used, not the GPU-acceleration.

Video card brand will most likely not matter.

[Goku]

Originally Posted by nathanebht

In another thread on this topic, Atranox had a good post.

He already mentioned that in this thread. I updated the OP reflecting what he said.