What games actually use the multi-threaded SSE supported PhysX 3.0?

Ah, so you are talking about CUDA PhysX ?

Well, it is different matter as GPU code is often mixed between version and uses components that reside outside the SDK (like APEX), and I don't think that GPU usage is a proper measurement for its effectivenes.

However, from my personal gaming experience, if you compare similar effect in 2.8 and 3.x games, let's say Turbulence in Hawken and Warframe; Warframe, a PhysX 3 based game, runs much smoother.

Are you waiting for a game that will allows you to run GPU PhysX effects with perfect performance without NV GPU at all or something ?
Heh.

As for PlanetSide 2, I asked one engineer, who was working on the integration, about the lack of CPU particle effects, and he replied that at the time it was a directive from SOE - to save as many CPU cycles as possible for other needs.

CPU impact debris and other non-turbulence particles may be added in the future, but not right now.

 

It was an example, but its a pattern happening in almost any HW physx game - instead of speeding up it crawls gpu with all the cycles and then gpu usage drops; Alice2, both Batmans, Cryostasis, Borderlands, Mafia2, UT3 physx maps

Yeah that's what i meant with physx3 & Warframe, it got a small speedup in the code, but still it could be a lot better... Its a good start though, I see physx3 is already at 3.2.4

 

I love PhysX. No one else said it yet and I felt it should be pointed out.

 

Good for you. I hate it. Can't think of any one contribution to PC Gaming that I hate more than PhysX. Yup, nothing.

 

Good for you

Now get an AMD processor and graphics card, and love of open-tech, and then lets see if you still love PhysX

 

It's not about open or not. It's about ruining gaming industry.

If game which is capable to do physX via CPU runs between 60 and 90fps without it on single thread.
And then with physX it very weirdly uses same thread and fps goes between 12 and 25 in physX scenes, then it's obviously bad programming or intention.
(And I do not think nVidia have so terribly incompetent programmers.)

Thing wasn't, isn't and probably will not be like this:
Main game thread on it's thread. +3 separate physX threads... NO impact on performance.

Honestly, My i5 @4.4 GHz can do fluidmark with maximum numbers of projectors and 20000 particles @120fps (physX iterations per second).
That is 2.4M physX operations per second. It can probably do bit more, since I limit fps to 120 which affects calculations too since I use for proper real world testing sync. of render/physX.

Replicable everywhere.

I wonder which game uses such number of particles and still lives. Alice: Madness Returns on max uses about 4000 and have terrible performance.

Some telling that CPU does not have compute power to do it?
For real, what is impact on fps on gtx cards?
If physX impact was 30% of fps, then it still does not mean 30% of gpu processing power (cycles) got dedicated to physX, because GPU have to render that additional stuff on those scenes.

Many games have increased CPU usage with physX ON, because some stuff is simply done via CPU... But utilization is quite different on systems with AMD cards.

nVidia should have never bought Ageia. Tech should have died and leave space to some universal backbone.
I definitely don't like some things about AMD, but that is nothing compared to physX.
It's main reason why I have AMD card. To support company which is much more likely to propagate technologies everyone will benefit from.

And don't take me wrong I was all hype about physX from it's start, it just didn't live to it's promises and became utter disappointment.

 

The few games I recall that had decent physics (with PhysX API) without requiring an NVIDIA graphics card are Clive Barker's Jericho, Overlord 2, Borderlands (1 and 2) and Metro 2033. That's not a very good list, because you will see better physics in nearly any game that uses Havok. Hell, the old Painkiller from 2004 seems to do better in terms of performance and visual effect than what PhysX does today in most games....

 

true +1

 

I'm with you bud.

 

pfft, nvidia fanboys

 

Meh

 

Hehehe...I like PhysX as well, but the overhead is too great. Performance suffers greatly, and it's no longer one of the things that sways me towards Nvidia.

I mean, if I wanted good FPS, I'd need to run a dedicated PhysX card. Why? For those couple of games where it might be worth it?

That's in addition to its being tacked on unrealistically. It just screams fake most of the time.

 

I couldn't care less either way...

 

The fact still stands that even for people with Titans or 470'ies most of the actual PhysX calculations are done on the CPU since only very specific physics calculations fit the GPU CUDA/stream processor structure, like APEX. And even then (with APEX on) most Geforce users will have to disable to to get useful frame rates (Mafia 2 anybody?).

It's marketing, nothing else. GPU computing is useful for very specific problems while a physics engine contains so many different parts that must work together (ie. send/receive data to/from each physics module).

It's a non-discussion. PhysX is one of several physics engines that is used and mostly dependent on backroom deals and TWIMBP-programs etc. since it will give advantages to both nVidia and the game maker/publisher.

The problem is that PhysX is proprietary and hinders true development to more advanced brand independent physics engines since nVidia is locking the door for open alternatives (like Bullet which supports OpenCL/Directcompute and works on both nVidia and AMD cards). Since nVidia make deals with the big publishers the other P-engine developers can't sell their engines in quantities that allow them to grow and replace PhysX.

 

I also like physX. Especially on BATMAN Series. I Played BATMAN ARKHAM CITY with physX GTX560 and without Physx HD 7850. I think I prefer With HIGH physx better, it makes the game a lot more sophisticated . Just like batman needs to be.

Remind that BATMAN ARKHAM CITY can play in CPU physx but the FPS is horrible with my core i5 2500k.

 

PS4 uses AMD APU, Which demonstrates Physx Demo. Is there any chance that the next gen of AMD GPU somehow manage to process GPU Physx? What do you people think about this?

 

If you mean that techdemo with blue particles dropping on ancient ruins, then it was not physX it was just general physics simulation via havok which you can do via OpenCL/Direct Compute on regular GPU.

 

Hopefully OpenCL based Physics engines take off:
http://bulletphysics.org/wordpress/

 

Lets bring this thread back to life! I cast raise necro thread!

Lets add Warhammer 40K: Eternal Crusade to the list of games PhysX is crippling, which is funny considering its supposed to be a "Replacement" for Planetside 2, a game where the devs finally took out PhysX GPU acceleration because all it did through the PhysX 2.X engine was cause the game to crash.

 

And lucky Planetside 2 is using PhysX 3.2.0.1, but it still taken out the GPU PhysX, as it is broken now, after doing too much OMFG to it.
They also can't catch up the newest version of PhysX too, which solved many bug that facing by using the vehicle(Flash etc) in Planetside 2, if my memory is not falling me.

Anyways, for PhysX 3, they are using AVX now(which is why planetside 2 is having hotter CPU than other games), so it is a improved version of SSE.