Lords of the Fallen and NVIDIA GameWorks Tech Video

#4947533

Nurmi

2014-10-29 09:46

Guess I'm not going to be able to play this game.

#4947552

Keesberenburg

2014-10-29 10:33

Guess I'm not going to be able to play this game.

BS, you can use cpu physx. And gameworks is good for AMD gpu's cause better performance. http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/watch_dogs_vga_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,5.html

#4947610

Lane

2014-10-29 12:28

BS, you can use cpu physx. And gameworks is good for AMD gpu's cause better performance. http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/watch_dogs_vga_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,5.html

Watchdogs is not using PhysX, In fact, it dont even reallly use what is called gamework: ... the "Nvidia" addition was HBAO+ ( similar to HDAO+ used on AMD gpu ), and TXAA ( aliasing, not available on AMD GPU's ). HBAO+ and TXAA are some feature you can find on gamework library, but are totally invidual of it. PhysX on CPU is still a no go ( it make stall the gpu allocated threads on the cpu and still never been used multithreaded, even if it could be ). If it was x86 based this will be better, but it is not even use a x86-64 instruction sets anway. (x87 old instructions sets, not anymore present on actual CPU ( replaced by SSE instructions. )

#4947623

Keesberenburg

2014-10-29 12:45

Physx by cpu is good with physx sdk 3.2.1 like in metro redux. Multi core physx with no (little) performance drops. I hope for flex physx on amd gpu's in future, but physx SDK 3.2.1 used in those new games works very good.

#4947629

Spets

2014-10-29 13:00

Watchdogs is not using PhysX, In fact, it dont even reallly use what is called gamework: ... the "Nvidia" addition was HBAO+ ( similar to HDAO+ used on AMD gpu ), and TXAA ( aliasing, not available on AMD GPU's ). HBAO+ and TXAA are some feature you can find on gamework library, but are totally invidual of it. PhysX on CPU is still a no go ( it make stall the gpu allocated threads on the cpu and still never been used multithreaded, even if it could be ). If it was x86 based this will be better, but it is not even use a x86-64 instruction sets anway. (x87 old instructions sets, not anymore present on actual CPU ( replaced by SSE instructions. )

PhysX no longer uses x87 instructions since 3.0 and is multithreaded (since 2.8.4), your argument is outdated.

#4947635

Lane

2014-10-29 13:10

PhysX no longer uses x87 instructions since 3.0 and is multithreaded (since 2.8.4), your argument is outdated.

They have move to SSE this was right ( but in game not the good way ) . And no, so far PhysX have never been used multithreaded by developpers ( on game ), who was my point.

#4947639

Keesberenburg

2014-10-29 13:14

WHat instructions it use ? And no, so far PhysX have never been used multithreaded by developpers ( on game ), who was my point.

http://physxinfo.com/news/9044/updated-physx-sdk-3-2-1-is-released/ This 1 use multi core by cpu in new games. x64 bit physx I test is and i see it on the cpu usage

#4947640

Lane

2014-10-29 13:15

http://physxinfo.com/news/9044/updated-physx-sdk-3-2-1-is-released/ This 1 use multi core by cpu in new games. I test is and i see it on the cpu usage

For what i have seen reported by review sites, this was not the case when analyzed threads by threads. ( use GPUperf or any analyzer of calls ). I will watch if things have gone better lately, but some months ago, this was not good.

#4947644

Keesberenburg

2014-10-29 13:18

For what i have seen reported by review sites, this was not the case when analyze threads by threads.

BS or you just trolling In my case it use al the 8 cores wen i enable cpu physx. Zeker van tweakers?

#4947651

Lane

2014-10-29 13:22

BS or you just trolling

Trolling PhysX ? its still a no go on CPU .. not the way it is implemented, it is a bit better than before, but still not good.

#4947654

Keesberenburg

2014-10-29 13:25

Trolling PhysX ? its still a no go on CPU .. not the way it is implemented, it is a bit better than before, but still not good.

Its so good that you dont have any performance lose, its much better and not a little bit better. What do you think of DST powered by AMD?

#4947659

Lane

2014-10-29 13:30

Its so good that you dont have any performance lose, its much better and not a little bit better. What do you think of DST powered by AMD?

I need to put my information about PhysX a bit up to date.. Still, i really doubt about the non performance lost. Anyway when remember the borlderland 2 physX analysis .. let see if it is better with the presequel if i can find a benchmark http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Borderlands-2-PhysX-Performance-and-PhysX-Comparison-GTX-680-and-HD-7970/GPU-

#4947677

Spets

2014-10-29 13:56

Borderlands is on PhysX 2.x SDK. Fallen is based on 3.x

#4947683

Lane

2014-10-29 14:02

Borderlands is on PhysX 2.x SDK. Fallen is based on 3.x

Will be interessant to test then, because so far i dont find much benchmark with physX 3.0

#4947688

Spets

2014-10-29 14:08

You want to argue the performance of 3.x by finding an analysis of 2.x? That doesn't make sense.

#4947689

Keesberenburg

2014-10-29 14:08

Will be interessant to test then, because so far i dont find much benchmark with physX 3.0

http://physxinfo.com/news/11297/the-evolution-of-physx-sdk-performance-wise/ http://physxinfo.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/peel_article2.png Boom beter than bullet :infinity:

#4947705

Lane

2014-10-29 14:24

http://physxinfo.com/news/11297/the-evolution-of-physx-sdk-performance-wise/ http://physxinfo.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/peel_article2.png Boom beter than bullet :infinity:

I mean in games comparaison, PhysX / CUDA / C++ softwares are way more optimzed.... For professional tools i have find plenty of benchmarks. I was think ( by error maybe ), than presequl and MetroReduxx use the last one.

#4947710

-Tj-

2014-10-29 14:33

http://physxinfo.com/news/11297/the-evolution-of-physx-sdk-performance-wise/ http://physxinfo.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/peel_article2.png Boom beter than bullet :infinity:

Bullet is how old? Yeah nvidia took only 2-3years to catch up and use its collisions technique, amazing :P Ps on gpu while bullet can do that fine @ cpu. Anyhow, Im more interested in Physx Flex bundled with U4E.. 🤓

#4948191

Zogrim

2014-10-30 01:06

PhysX on CPU is still a no go

Nah, it is running pretty smooth on i7 CPU with all the particles, cloth and destruction on the scene. http://i.imgur.com/ZVQ8RAH.jpg http://i.imgur.com/I1BI7ar.jpg

Bullet is how old?

Bullet 2.81 was released ~ 6 months before publication of those tests. So it was quite new. And even PhysX 2.8.4, that is ~ 2 years old, beats Bullet in many cases (you can notice that if you'll read the article, not the first page). P.S. All purely on CPU, those benchmarks do not include features that can be GPU accelerated.

#4948199

Noisiv

2014-10-30 01:20

So......... how many games so far with this wonderful demo called Bullet Tj? Really interested in seeing PhysX 3 performance on CPU (read AMD) Lane is right - contrary to many benchmarks flying around, with 2.x CPU PhysX is still a no go, even with SSE. Which pretty much destroys famous Kanter's "Nvidia purposely hobbles PhysX on CPU" rant