Lords of the Fallen and NVIDIA GameWorks Tech Video

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

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PhysX no longer uses x87 instructions since 3.0 and is multithreaded (since 2.8.4), your argument is outdated.

#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

#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?

#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?

#4947677

Spets

2014-10-29 13:56

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

#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:

#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.. 🤓

#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

#4948226

-Tj-

2014-10-30 02:07

Rage engine is the only worth mentioning, just like U3E by physx.

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.

I once tested Bullet sdk and made a video, now I see its already 4 years old.. It ran in cpu mode @ q9450 3.6ghz http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-GTRr6OrLE anyway does it matter? physx3 is late to the party that's all, at least they fixed it and yes took long, guess they also waited for u4e with flex injection.

#4948243

Denial

2014-10-30 03:02

Rage engine is the only worth mentioning, just like U3E by physx. I once tested Bullet sdk and made a video, now I see its already 4 years old.. It ran in cpu mode @ q9450 3.6ghz http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-GTRr6OrLE anyway does it matter? physx3 is late to the party that's all, at least they fixed it and yes took long, guess they also waited for u4e with flex injection.

Lol you made this video? This pretty much proves you're the hunter. I clearly remember him posting this and saying he made it. Not to mention the youtube account is "TheDigitalHunter" lol... http://forums.guru3d.com/showpost.php?p=3818977&postcount=49 Also while PhysX maybe behind in some stuff it's definitely ahead in library size. They have tons of default effects built for like every single scenario. Tim Sweeney had a good UE4 post about it -- it's basically the sole reason they went with it instead of coming up with their own.

#4948253

Noisiv

2014-10-30 03:27

anyway does it matter? physx3 is late to the party that's all, at least they fixed it and yes took long, guess they also waited for u4e with flex injection.

PhysX integrated in UE, the most prevalent engine BY FAR, but it's late to the party?? WTH that makes zero sense. And don't make us laugh with Bullet. PhysX, as badly handled as it was by Nvidia, its still light years ahead of everything else. Bullet does not even get a mention lol The main difference being, you can't just make something new and expect devs will use it (Bullet). You have to make them, one way or another, kinda like AMD is doing with Mantle, and Nvidia with PhysX or with Gameworks lately. btw the best use of destro physics ingame is still: [spoiler] Diablo 3 modified havok I think [/spoiler]

#4948255

-Tj-

2014-10-30 03:32

^ Find another bait. :P @Denial, And? all is good. I just said physx took long to optimize properly unlike bullet, guess it was too much.. //I wont say anything else. Not worth it. Just this, new physx flex looks good, cant wait for some games using it.:)

#4948270

Noisiv

2014-10-30 04:21

^ Find another bait. :P @Denial, And? all is good. I just said physx took long to optimize properly unlike bullet, guess it was too much.. //I wont say anything else. Not worth it. Just this, new physx flex looks good, cant wait for some games using it.:)

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-5u5mC3xlRuQ/UxYcuobTXuI/AAAAAAACRIQ/S9vGTrJwsYI/w480-h361/gif-samba.gif

#4948543

-Tj-

2014-10-30 14:17

I played quite a few hardware physx 2.8 games and all ran inefficient, Bullet up or down. Personally I would rather play all those hw physx 2 games "the way they were meant to be played" not with stutters, slowdowns and what not. Like I said, good that they finally rewrote the whole thing and yes its very late.