Graphic Cards nVIDIA PhysX vs DX11 physics
- Thread starter fragpic
- Start date
Happy Singh
Adept
I think Physx is different from Direct X(Correct Me if i am wrong) if so then no comparison between them
fragpic
Adept
^^|Aman| said:
DX11 has a new api which allows it to use the gpu to get physics
i.e DX11 has it own physics engine.This is open source so all the developers can make use of it and it also runs on all gpu's irrespective of the architecture
so even ati cards will be able to do physics
Happy Singh
Adept
chaitu.genius said:
oooo i See then a ATI user can play full PhysX based games like Warmonger? on DX11 card...
Happy Singh
Adept
^^Ohhh that's bad news because like Warmonger there are lots of games which need full physX support but they don't have DX11
NinByChoice
Skilled
chaitu.genius said:
chaitu.genius said:
DX11 is open source?! Srsly WTF?
|Aman| said:
Not happening unless ATI releases PhysX drivers for their platform. DX11 doesnt support PhysX. It merely offers an alternative API to PhysX. Warmonger uses PhysX and not DX11 Physics.
Happy Singh
Adept
Then what so special in DX11 about PhysX my ATI 4890 can also run all PhysX games like Batman Arkham Asylum.....but not the Warmonger
Happy Singh
Adept
^Ok thanks for that dual gpu setup in a single PC but there is no ATI card which can run Warmonger properly
what is there in games like Warmonger?
they runs like we are using any entry level card at full setting with 19XX resolution in crysis
what is there in games like Warmonger?they runs like we are using any entry level card at full setting with 19XX resolution in crysis
@ nikrusty:
Well, we are yet to see how powerful the physics functions are on the Dx11 API. But if it can deliver the goodies, then nothing like it. Just having one powerful board to perform both functions -- 3d render and Phsysics render would be manna from heaven. nVidia is really playing bad tactics this is what I feel. I am not hitting here at their cards. Those are good, no doubt about that. But their business practices are really bad. They have SLI (and ATI has XfireX), which at times make sense. Resolutions > = to FULL HD, utilize this architecture pretty well. But what the heck is Aegia Physx. Why do users have to install a 2nd to fully utilize this. When Physics initially started to come out in games, cards could render it nice. Then nVidia comes out with this logic to implement in on a secondary GPU -- and too theirs only. Else their software will disable it. How lame and pathetic. Using this path, they are forcing users to buy more nVidia hardware --- thus increase sales.
As it is one GPU costs a bomb (including the PSU), and now for Physics nVidia wants us to mount another one. Yea, I should not be saying this, since I run XfireX, but my reasons for that were different. Processor cores can at this time utilize the Aegia Physics. But it takes a straight hit on the FPS cause, they processor is more engaged now doing heavy calculations, and managing the overall system. I doubt CPUs will really be able to render 3D -- above is a classic example, we give the CPU physics to calculate and it starts to stutter. Imagine full 3D. We should understand the intrinsic difference between the CPU and GPU. I wrote a mine treatise on this, the difference and it is this:
It might be possible in the future, but as of now the GPU is better equipped to do graphic rendering. The CPU is the central brain of the computer, and is managing everything. The CPU infact send the 3D data to the GPU. When it does this, it offloads a major task to the GPU.
The GPU is good at this, because the core is designed in a different manner. It is not a 'manager'. It is a HUGE calculation engine, which is extremelly data hungry ---> power hungery. Cause...Basically a lot of mathematical calculations are done to convert from one format to another. This can be off loaded to the GPU core. The GPU core is efficient at doing this, cause it can calculate to really small decimal places. Light vertex numbers are done using this. So the GPU is really good at number calculations.
They have the architecture of 'stream processors'. This is the SIMD (single instruction multiple data) logic that the GPU uses. So multiple data points are applied a single instruction set in one go, very quickly. And these are all put in a pipeline -- which is the pixel pipeline. So imagine a pipe full of data which needs to have floating point calculations done on it. The data comes out of the pipe to the GPU and the calculation is done. Now there are multiple pipes like this which feed data to the GPU, which does the stream processing. GPUs are rated with the number of pixel pipelines available to the GPU.This enables the GPU to quickly and efficiently process data. Perfect for 3D rendering or format transformation.
It does all this, renders the 3D polygon image, and renders them on the screen. So if you have 1400 x 900 resolution monitor and are getting 60FPS, the GPU is actually rendering a screen full of 1260000 pixels x 60 times a second.
We have now to see how many games actually adopt Physics and of this selected group, how many actually opt for Dx11 or Aegia Physics. nVidia is trying to play controlling daddy here, which is not good at all.
Well, we are yet to see how powerful the physics functions are on the Dx11 API. But if it can deliver the goodies, then nothing like it. Just having one powerful board to perform both functions -- 3d render and Phsysics render would be manna from heaven. nVidia is really playing bad tactics this is what I feel. I am not hitting here at their cards. Those are good, no doubt about that. But their business practices are really bad. They have SLI (and ATI has XfireX), which at times make sense. Resolutions > = to FULL HD, utilize this architecture pretty well. But what the heck is Aegia Physx. Why do users have to install a 2nd to fully utilize this. When Physics initially started to come out in games, cards could render it nice. Then nVidia comes out with this logic to implement in on a secondary GPU -- and too theirs only. Else their software will disable it. How lame and pathetic. Using this path, they are forcing users to buy more nVidia hardware --- thus increase sales.
As it is one GPU costs a bomb (including the PSU), and now for Physics nVidia wants us to mount another one. Yea, I should not be saying this, since I run XfireX, but my reasons for that were different. Processor cores can at this time utilize the Aegia Physics. But it takes a straight hit on the FPS cause, they processor is more engaged now doing heavy calculations, and managing the overall system. I doubt CPUs will really be able to render 3D -- above is a classic example, we give the CPU physics to calculate and it starts to stutter. Imagine full 3D. We should understand the intrinsic difference between the CPU and GPU. I wrote a mine treatise on this, the difference and it is this:
It might be possible in the future, but as of now the GPU is better equipped to do graphic rendering. The CPU is the central brain of the computer, and is managing everything. The CPU infact send the 3D data to the GPU. When it does this, it offloads a major task to the GPU.
The GPU is good at this, because the core is designed in a different manner. It is not a 'manager'. It is a HUGE calculation engine, which is extremelly data hungry ---> power hungery. Cause...Basically a lot of mathematical calculations are done to convert from one format to another. This can be off loaded to the GPU core. The GPU core is efficient at doing this, cause it can calculate to really small decimal places. Light vertex numbers are done using this. So the GPU is really good at number calculations.
They have the architecture of 'stream processors'. This is the SIMD (single instruction multiple data) logic that the GPU uses. So multiple data points are applied a single instruction set in one go, very quickly. And these are all put in a pipeline -- which is the pixel pipeline. So imagine a pipe full of data which needs to have floating point calculations done on it. The data comes out of the pipe to the GPU and the calculation is done. Now there are multiple pipes like this which feed data to the GPU, which does the stream processing. GPUs are rated with the number of pixel pipelines available to the GPU.This enables the GPU to quickly and efficiently process data. Perfect for 3D rendering or format transformation.
It does all this, renders the 3D polygon image, and renders them on the screen. So if you have 1400 x 900 resolution monitor and are getting 60FPS, the GPU is actually rendering a screen full of 1260000 pixels x 60 times a second.
We have now to see how many games actually adopt Physics and of this selected group, how many actually opt for Dx11 or Aegia Physics. nVidia is trying to play controlling daddy here, which is not good at all.
Raghunandan said:
Second that. None of the DX 11 parts are Open Source. The only Open Source physics engine I am aware of is Bullet . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_(software)
It appeared in many games. One game that I comes to my mind off the bat is timeshift. Amazing physics. Plus, company of heroes also utilized the engine. It was acquired by Intel in 2007 and has since been licensed to developers who can tweak it using C/C++ binary files.
Heres a link that shows how many games have utilized this beautiful engine:
Havok - pc
Heres a link that shows how many games have utilized this beautiful engine:
Havok - pc