GeForce RTX 2080 and 2080 Ti - An Overview Thus far
Lian Li Strimer Review - RGB 24 Pin Extension Cable
Raijintek Orcus 240 AIO cooler review
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X review
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX review
ASUS ROG SWIFT PG27UQ Monitor review
MSI B450i Gaming PLUS AC review
MSI Radeon RX 570 and 580 MECH 2 8G OC review
Preview: Unboxing Threadripper 2950X & 2990WX
Corsair SPEC Omega RGB review
NVIDIA PhysX effects in Hawken
One of the new games with PhysX support is Hawken, a free-to-play mech-based multiplayer shooter. NVIDIA created a video that shows off the game's PhysX capabilities. Developed using Unreal Engine 3, Hawken looks fantastic, putting players in the cockpits of lethal mechs, each with their own weapons, loadouts, and perks. Through kills and match victories, players will rank up and unlock new items for their mechs, opening up new tactical opportunities and new play styles. Being a free-to-play title, players also have the option of speeding progress along through the use of real money transactions, though these do not grant additional power or a competitive edge over players who progress through exclusively through the use of experience.
nVIDIA PhysX System Software 9.12.0213 download - 02/21/2012 04:25 PM
Download nVIDIA PhysX System Software 9.12.0213 Supports NVIDIA PhysX acceleration on all GeForce 8-series, 9-series, 100-series, 200-series, 300-series, 400-series, 500-series, and 600-series GPUs ...
NVIDIA posts fiscal Q3 2012 profit of $178.3 million - 11/14/2011 12:15 PM
NVIDIA reported its fiscal Q3 2012 results: -- Revenue increased 4.9 percent to $1.07 billion from $1.02 billion in the previous quarter.-- GAAP net income was $178.3 million, or $0.29 per diluted sh...
NVIDIA preps Kal-El+ for Windows 8 notebooks - 09/13/2011 10:03 AM
German tech site ComputerBase noticed that NVIDIA showed off a Tegra roadmap at the Citi Technology Conference. One slide reveals Kal-El+, an upcoming SoC designed for notebooks with the ARM edition o...
NVIDIA Project Denver to offer 8-core ARM and 256 CUDA cores? - 07/19/2011 10:59 AM
Some more information about NVIDIA's Project Denver chip surfaced by way of BSN:The information we have at hand is that Project Denver CPU core is looking to be very much aligned with T40, i.e. "...
NVIDIA PhysX 3.0 Announced - 06/08/2011 09:24 AM
NVIDIA announced it has finalized PhysX 3.0 PysX is the world
ricardonuno1980
Senior Member
Posts: 4407
Joined: 2006-03-15
Senior Member
Posts: 4407
Joined: 2006-03-15
#4514421 Posted on: 01/30/2013 05:32 PM
Is that this year's solitary hardware PhysX game then?
Looks good but I'm surely not the only one that feels like PhysX potential has been squandered by NVIDIA due to it not being fully supported by AMD cards (software, yes, but not hardware). As such there's little reason for developers to use it which is a shame as with better optimization and more support it would have been nice to have had as an extra in PC games not just one or two per year.Yes, this game has hardware PhysX (for NVIDIA users only).
Is that this year's solitary hardware PhysX game then?
Looks good but I'm surely not the only one that feels like PhysX potential has been squandered by NVIDIA due to it not being fully supported by AMD cards (software, yes, but not hardware). As such there's little reason for developers to use it which is a shame as with better optimization and more support it would have been nice to have had as an extra in PC games not just one or two per year.Yes, this game has hardware PhysX (for NVIDIA users only).
naike
Senior Member
Posts: 2021
Joined: 2009-08-02
Senior Member
Posts: 2021
Joined: 2009-08-02
#4514513 Posted on: 01/30/2013 07:01 PM
I don't care about PhysX.
Sure it looks awesome but I just don't like the idea that all this would be possible for all cards but just isn't.
It also holds games back in my opinion.
I don't care about PhysX.
Sure it looks awesome but I just don't like the idea that all this would be possible for all cards but just isn't.
It also holds games back in my opinion.
k1net1cs
Senior Member
Posts: 3783
Joined: 2010-11-14
Senior Member
Posts: 3783
Joined: 2010-11-14
#4514530 Posted on: 01/30/2013 07:13 PM
How and in what way?
It also holds games back in my opinion.
How and in what way?
naike
Senior Member
Posts: 2021
Joined: 2009-08-02
Senior Member
Posts: 2021
Joined: 2009-08-02
#4514556 Posted on: 01/30/2013 07:37 PM
Why bother when half of the people can't even use it, and some of those 50% or whatever won't have the card to enable them anyway.
How and in what way?
Why bother when half of the people can't even use it, and some of those 50% or whatever won't have the card to enable them anyway.
The Michael
Senior Member
Posts: 1456
Joined: 2011-02-17
Senior Member
Posts: 1456
Joined: 2011-02-17
#4514675 Posted on: 01/30/2013 09:25 PM
I've been using physx with my 5870 i had before, without any flaws at all.
So i don't see the problem here.
I've been using physx with my 5870 i had before, without any flaws at all.
So i don't see the problem here.
Redemption80
Senior Member
Posts: 18031
Joined: 2009-01-06
Senior Member
Posts: 18031
Joined: 2009-01-06
#4514723 Posted on: 01/30/2013 10:29 PM
Not overly impressed with add on GPU PhysX effects anymore, can't help feeling it looks tacked on and slightly distracting and over the top.
Waiting more for PhysX 3 games where the GPU enhances the engine, rather than trying to force modern features onto an old physics engine.
Not that i believe they shouldn't bother, 50% is actually alot when you consider that only 10% of gamers see any PC specific effects, and i doubt many would say there is no point creating high res textures would they?
Not overly impressed with add on GPU PhysX effects anymore, can't help feeling it looks tacked on and slightly distracting and over the top.
Waiting more for PhysX 3 games where the GPU enhances the engine, rather than trying to force modern features onto an old physics engine.
Not that i believe they shouldn't bother, 50% is actually alot when you consider that only 10% of gamers see any PC specific effects, and i doubt many would say there is no point creating high res textures would they?
thatguy91
Senior Member
Posts: 6651
Joined: 2010-08-27
Senior Member
Posts: 6651
Joined: 2010-08-27
#4514749 Posted on: 01/30/2013 11:10 PM
I've been using physx with my 5870 i had before, without any flaws at all.
So i don't see the problem here.
That's because the Physx ran on the CPU, not GPU. The Physx effects level may have been set lower.
Physx was deliberately designed to run poor on CPU to highlight the advantages of GPU Physx. This has been partially rectified with Physx 3 because Nvidia got caught out by using pure unoptimised code for CPU, but I doubt even with Physx 3 that it is highly optimised (SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4, AVX, AVX2, FMA3,
AVX2, FMA3 are upcoming instruction sets on the Haswell processors
Physx on GPU means you are taking GPU time away from actual graphics, so the benefits of GPU based Physx depends purely on how the game utilises the CPU. A properly designed game should realistically be GPU oriented, and in this case highly optimised CPU based Physx wouldn't be bad for performance.
But to answer the question why AMD doesn't have Physx, it is two-fold. AMD did have the chance, but they would have had to have the Nvidia logo on their boxes etc when sold... something very bad considering it is a direct competitor! The other reason is licencing costs, it would have cost AMD a lot of money just to support Physx.
The other point is Physx isn't the only option out there, it is just one of the more developed optioned. You also have OpenCL (cross platform) and Directcompute (Microsoft). I have a small suspicion that at least some level of physics processing will be available on the next gen Xbox using Directcompute, meaning that for Windows games Directcompute will be the future.
The closeness of the next gen Xbox to a PC could have both positive and negative effects. The positive effect would be, supposedly, that all Xbox games will be available on Windows. The negative effect will be direct ports, such that there really won't be any graphical improvement etc for the PC version. The latter would be very bad! but if the platforms are similar, it should make it easier for developers to make the PC version even better.
The reason why this is relevant is that if it is the case, basically no game developed for the next gen Xbox and ported will utilise Physx.
I've been using physx with my 5870 i had before, without any flaws at all.
So i don't see the problem here.
That's because the Physx ran on the CPU, not GPU. The Physx effects level may have been set lower.
Physx was deliberately designed to run poor on CPU to highlight the advantages of GPU Physx. This has been partially rectified with Physx 3 because Nvidia got caught out by using pure unoptimised code for CPU, but I doubt even with Physx 3 that it is highly optimised (SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4, AVX, AVX2, FMA3,
FMA4, XOP
) etc, since Physx 3 is only SSE2).
FMA4, XOP are AMD only on Bulldozer and later CPU's
AVX2, FMA3 are upcoming instruction sets on the Haswell processors
Physx on GPU means you are taking GPU time away from actual graphics, so the benefits of GPU based Physx depends purely on how the game utilises the CPU. A properly designed game should realistically be GPU oriented, and in this case highly optimised CPU based Physx wouldn't be bad for performance.
But to answer the question why AMD doesn't have Physx, it is two-fold. AMD did have the chance, but they would have had to have the Nvidia logo on their boxes etc when sold... something very bad considering it is a direct competitor! The other reason is licencing costs, it would have cost AMD a lot of money just to support Physx.
The other point is Physx isn't the only option out there, it is just one of the more developed optioned. You also have OpenCL (cross platform) and Directcompute (Microsoft). I have a small suspicion that at least some level of physics processing will be available on the next gen Xbox using Directcompute, meaning that for Windows games Directcompute will be the future.
The closeness of the next gen Xbox to a PC could have both positive and negative effects. The positive effect would be, supposedly, that all Xbox games will be available on Windows. The negative effect will be direct ports, such that there really won't be any graphical improvement etc for the PC version. The latter would be very bad! but if the platforms are similar, it should make it easier for developers to make the PC version even better.
The reason why this is relevant is that if it is the case, basically no game developed for the next gen Xbox and ported will utilise Physx.
Redemption80
Senior Member
Posts: 18031
Joined: 2009-01-06
Senior Member
Posts: 18031
Joined: 2009-01-06
#4514761 Posted on: 01/30/2013 11:25 PM
Not Nvidia as they never developed the PhysX, it was Ageia/NovodeX.
The last line is based on what though?
UE4 if anything like UE3 will likely be the most used engine on next gen consoles, so alot of next gen Xbox games will utilise PhysX, and that is just from one engine alone.
Not Nvidia as they never developed the PhysX, it was Ageia/NovodeX.
The last line is based on what though?
UE4 if anything like UE3 will likely be the most used engine on next gen consoles, so alot of next gen Xbox games will utilise PhysX, and that is just from one engine alone.
-Tj-
Senior Member
Posts: 15178
Joined: 2012-05-18
Senior Member
Posts: 15178
Joined: 2012-05-18
#4514773 Posted on: 01/30/2013 11:30 PM
I installed it and its kinda ok, but i didnt see any turbulence fx .. Only regular destruction fx.
About performance well its not so good, again lower gpu usage due to physx 2.8.4 inefficiency, especially in capture the point levels
I installed it and its kinda ok, but i didnt see any turbulence fx .. Only regular destruction fx.
About performance well its not so good, again lower gpu usage due to physx 2.8.4 inefficiency, especially in capture the point levels
ViperXtreme
Senior Member
Posts: 3085
Joined: 2003-01-24
Senior Member
Posts: 3085
Joined: 2003-01-24
#4514777 Posted on: 01/30/2013 11:34 PM
some of the effects are overly done just for the sake of showing it :\
some of the effects are overly done just for the sake of showing it :\
Redemption80
Senior Member
Posts: 18031
Joined: 2009-01-06
Senior Member
Posts: 18031
Joined: 2009-01-06
#4514782 Posted on: 01/30/2013 11:36 PM
That is what puts me off.
The best thing about GPU PhysX is that it can take advantage of a game that might not be that GPU heavy, but so far that has not been the case, in any game.
Assuming the fact that Cuda is essentially emulating a PPU is the reason, but i really thought this would of been sorted years ago.
ViperXtreme, i agree i think it would look better if it was toned down abit.
That is what puts me off.
The best thing about GPU PhysX is that it can take advantage of a game that might not be that GPU heavy, but so far that has not been the case, in any game.
Assuming the fact that Cuda is essentially emulating a PPU is the reason, but i really thought this would of been sorted years ago.
ViperXtreme, i agree i think it would look better if it was toned down abit.
-Tj-
Senior Member
Posts: 15178
Joined: 2012-05-18
Senior Member
Posts: 15178
Joined: 2012-05-18
#4514805 Posted on: 01/31/2013 12:13 AM
Yes.. Destruction particles looked ok, not overdone, but optimization is still not it.
Physx3 is also a bit questionable.
For example in Warframe (Scifi coop game) it uses apex turbulence, but again its not so groundbreaking like nvidia said it would be - multi core, sse2 and all that fancy talk (maybe its ~10-15% faster compared to physx2)
btw, Hawken started ok, avg. ~55-65fps (ultra setting, 1080p, gpu usage ~ 80-90%), but every respawn it went lower and lower to min ~ 30-40fps at end (gpu ~ 50-60%). Same thing in DM, although it wasn't so bad like in capture the points.
I guess its beta for a reason, o yeah its U3E dx9 game.
Yes.. Destruction particles looked ok, not overdone, but optimization is still not it.
Physx3 is also a bit questionable.
For example in Warframe (Scifi coop game) it uses apex turbulence, but again its not so groundbreaking like nvidia said it would be - multi core, sse2 and all that fancy talk (maybe its ~10-15% faster compared to physx2)
btw, Hawken started ok, avg. ~55-65fps (ultra setting, 1080p, gpu usage ~ 80-90%), but every respawn it went lower and lower to min ~ 30-40fps at end (gpu ~ 50-60%). Same thing in DM, although it wasn't so bad like in capture the points.
I guess its beta for a reason, o yeah its U3E dx9 game.
Cronik
Senior Member
Posts: 1079
Joined: 2009-12-29
Senior Member
Posts: 1079
Joined: 2009-12-29
#4514810 Posted on: 01/31/2013 12:20 AM
It's a gimmick..
some of the effects are overly done just for the sake of showing it :\
It's a gimmick..
Spets
Senior Member
Posts: 2957
Joined: 2011-05-10
Senior Member
Posts: 2957
Joined: 2011-05-10
#4514895 Posted on: 01/31/2013 02:20 AM
Makes the game look better, I like the real-time twirling with the particles on the energy collectors, although the embers could have been done better. Would of been nice to see sph fluids for oil leaks though.
Makes the game look better, I like the real-time twirling with the particles on the energy collectors, although the embers could have been done better. Would of been nice to see sph fluids for oil leaks though.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 15443
Joined: 2004-08-18
Is that this year's solitary hardware PhysX game then?
Looks good but I'm surely not the only one that feels like PhysX potential has been squandered by NVIDIA due to it not being fully supported by AMD cards (software, yes, but not hardware). As such there's little reason for developers to use it which is a shame as with better optimization and more support it would have been nice to have had as an extra in PC games not just one or two per year.