1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Ati Havok on physx games, is it possible?

Discussion in 'Videocards - AMD Radeon Drivers Section' started by Legendary_Agent, Jan 18, 2009.

  1. Legendary_Agent

    Legendary_Agent Master Guru

    Messages:
    888
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Asus HD7970 DirectCU II
    hey, im quite fed up with all that nvidia physx crap on games like mirror's edge... im forced to turn it off else my hd4870 will freeze like hell in that game, any ideas how can i run those effects on an ati card? theres this havok thing going around but theres no much talk about it... so anyone has a clue?
    Thanks in advance.
     
  2. HaZe303

    HaZe303 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,943
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Asus Strix 1080 Ti
    Havok is software based physics that most games(those that dont use physx) use. Im afraid if the gamedeveloper has chosen physx for physics, there is no way of using havok. But ATI is getting there own open source "physX", but the question is when and how good it will be?
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2009
  3. Anarion

    Anarion Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    13,518
    Likes Received:
    308
    GPU:
    GeForce GTX 1070
    Unless ATI plans adding CUDA support there's no way you can run PhysX or any other software that uses CUDA.

    As the guy above said Havok is CPU only physics engine and at this time there's no such thing as GPU accelerated Havok physics engine.
     
  4. Legendary_Agent

    Legendary_Agent Master Guru

    Messages:
    888
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Asus HD7970 DirectCU II
    ok guys thx alot for clearing that up as usual xD
    shame i wanted all that effects in mirrors edge but not to be forced to buy a nvidia card just for them cause im pretty happy with mine...

    PS: i can run with it on but its pretty darn slow.
     

  5. RejZoR

    RejZoR Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,211
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Sapphire HD4870 Silent
    Seriously, it's time to boycott NVIDIA. This whole PhysX thing is not improving games, it's downgrading them. I havent seen so crappy glass effects for almost a decade.
    The most basic physics effects that can be calculated on a friggin single core 2GHz AthlonXP is too advanced for 3,75GHz dual core CPU. Give me a freakin break NVIDIA and your stupid PhysX. I hope AMD never goes this way and never really releases Havok accelerated physics. It will make things even worse than they already are.
    I just hope Havok will be OpenCL powered so it will work on all graphic cards and that it'll drive off PhysX from the gaming scene. At that point, physics will actually evolve somewhere. But with this whole NVIDIA exclusive PhysX thing were going backwards...
    Besides, PhysX is intentionally totally unoptimized for CPU just so it runs like total crap on anything thats not NVIDIA brand hardware.
    I've seen it and now, no one can convience me otherwise.
     
  6. sykozis

    sykozis Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    21,020
    Likes Received:
    668
    GPU:
    MSI RX5700
    AMD/ATI has no control over Havok as Intel owns rights to it. Intel has to make Havok OpenCL compatible, else it won't be. AMD/ATI has been working on ways to run Havok through their StreamSDK. nVidia wants to control the graphics market and will do whatever they see fit to get control. nVidia won't allow PhysX to be compatible with OpenCL, because that would take control of PhysX away from them....would also allow for ATI to develop a GPU capable of running PhysX as well as high-end nVidia cards do. nVidia doesn't like competition....competition scares them. nVidia also wants to forget the days when they had the slowest GPU's on the market. Intel has plans to make Havok OpenCL compatible so that it can be GPU accelerated....thus making a viable replacement for PhysX, as developers can give ALL consumers the same experience. Of course...having Havok be OpenCL compatible doesn't mean developers will back off from PhysX as nVidia pays them to use it to give them an advantage over ATI.
     
  7. Pura.

    Pura. Active Member

    Messages:
    74
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    EVGA 780ti
    Wow wow guys slow down

    if you download the latest patch for mirrors edge you can run physX without problems....

    i have a 4870 x2 with Catalyst A.1 OFF i get 40-60 fps .... with PhysX ON (and yes its working normal, my friend has a nvidia card and yap its the same )

    The patch for mirrors edge is : 1.01 in changelog u can see that they fixed the issue with physX .....

    @ rajzor

    yap your right... physX is really damn **** ... i mean in games like mirror's edge you really see how crap it is.... you get a few more birds...and stuff like that.... Games like crysis & co. have far more better physics then all games that support physX (and you dont need any extra hardware or smth. like that ) its just big ****....
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2009
  8. Rich_Guy

    Rich_Guy Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    12,265
    Likes Received:
    433
    GPU:
    MSI 2070S X-Trio
    If you have an Xfire board, and Win 7 installed, then you can just use a Nvidia card alongside your 4870 to do the PhysX.
     
  9. HaZe303

    HaZe303 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,943
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Asus Strix 1080 Ti
    Why Win7? I thought it was possible in Vista/XP as well? Or tell me otherwise?

    Ps. I agree totally with Rejzor and sykozis, physx is crap and Nvidia should go to hell for forcing people/gamers this sh*t on them...
     
  10. foxX

    foxX Member Guru

    Messages:
    115
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Sapphire Radeon 290 Tri-X
    Oh come on :D.

    Tell me one game those effects actually make a difference. There's even that old title - Cell Factor iirc, almost nobody plays it despite its gamplay consisting completely of Physx doing its stuff.
    Some raindrops, snowflakes, or ponds with water (which already are on CPU in games like Bioshock) and that's all it need be about. Ragdoll is long since implemented on CPU. So is nice glass.
     

  11. Iarwain

    Iarwain Banned

    Messages:
    3,048
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    4890 990//1120
    I agree and disagree. I agree on the point that it has become more like a gimmick and less like an actual physics acceleration. I disagree with you saying that you hope AMD never does anything like this. And the reason I do is because I would like to see advanced, GPU (or similar) accelerated physics in the future. I just don't want it to be gimmicky.
     
  12. RejZoR

    RejZoR Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,211
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Sapphire HD4870 Silent
    Yes, i hope AMD never does anything likem NVIDIA did, being completelly centric on one vendor. Thats just plain bad. Propertiary technologies never worked and never will.
    I'd rather have CPU based Havok physics (Max Payne 2 and Half-Life 2 style) in all games like we used to and not this crippled pile of crap served to us by NVIDIA.

    We also invented new name for PhysX on some other forum :D

    PhysX - Hardware Accelerated Bull**** (TM) :D
     
  13. ShivanSpS

    ShivanSpS Member Guru

    Messages:
    145
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    EVGA GT240
    I going to ask you a question, what is Physx other than a program that runs on GPU under CUDA or under CPU in software mode?

    Whats avoid a "x person" to RE it and make streamSDK version of it? i think nothing, just is illegal.
     
  14. charliehamster

    charliehamster Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,173
    Likes Received:
    6
    GPU:
    PNY GTX-1070
    What you fail to mention is that the Physx are cpu bound for ATI users which means anyone with anything less than a triple core cpu will find the game unplayable at certain times.
     
  15. Si7777

    Si7777 Member

    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    ATI Radeon 4870 X2
    To answer your question, mixing Radeon and Geforce works on XP and Windows 7 , but BUT NOT Vista, due to the way Vista will not let multiple display drivers coexist.
     

  16. AXS

    AXS Master Guru

    Messages:
    245
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    HD 4800 UPCC
    Wrong - and PhysX chips were not developed by nVida, they just bought the PhysX deal and add it to their cards. PhysX chip do offer Hardware Accelerations. ATi cards are capable on working with PhysX at software level, but you get a crappy performance on Physics emulated by PhysX and renderd by software. That's were Hardware Acceleration makes a difference (about 5X times or more the performance of PhysX rendered at software level with an ATi card).

    I agree it's marketing, cause games using PhysX didn't get to a revolutionary point on nVidia cards. Same Physics emulation can be done with Havok, as shown in Star Wars: The Force Unleashed. Havok + Euphoria engine, does have an interesting approach:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJ51hx3wGgI
     
  17. fez

    fez Master Guru

    Messages:
    208
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Club3D Radeon 7870 2gb
    ur ati card doesn't freeze, ur CPU is chocking. Because since you don't have physx accelerated gfx card, it will do physics calculations on your CPU.
     
  18. sykozis

    sykozis Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    21,020
    Likes Received:
    668
    GPU:
    MSI RX5700
    PhysX was initially an attempt at hardware accelerated PhysX through the use of a dedicated physics processing unit (PPU). It was a nice idea at launch, as it wasn't dependent on any 1 specific manufacturer's GPU, but rather an Agiea PPU. Of course, this had limitations in implementation and for people in my position....left them with no way of running hardware accelerated PhysX. I have no slots to put a PPU in because I use all 3 accessible slots already. This is where it became nice to see nVidia pickup PhysX because it allows people in my position to run GPU accelerated physics.

    Wow...someone agrees with my view of PhysX =D

    Intel has 2 very appealing routes here. As you stated in another thread, CPU optimization would be a good thing. With Core i7 supporting HyperThreading again, Intel could use that to their advantage with Havok. Intel can also adapt Havok to OpenCL. This would give them a nice advantage.
     
  19. fez

    fez Master Guru

    Messages:
    208
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Club3D Radeon 7870 2gb
    physiX is crap, OpenCL is the future....just because it's open source.
     
  20. RejZoR

    RejZoR Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,211
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Sapphire HD4870 Silent
    @AXS
    Of course PhysX offers 5x times the performance if it's completely unoptimized for CPU.
    Otherwise it would probably be just 2x faster. I've seen so many idiotic PhysX stuff that Havok was rendering on single core AthlonXP 3200+ far better than PhysX,, so no one will convience me that PhysX is always better. It's better only if NVIDIA wants to show it that way. Take old Max Payne 2 as great example with Havok engine. Ragdolls, debris and objects flying around all with physical properties look faaaaaaaaar better than any PhysX i've seen. Sure it looks great when you see it first but no real world usage like Havok on plain ol' CPU. And this won't move anywhere for years as long as NVIDIA keeps it as their own propertiary technology. Just look how great support was with Havok and they never had any special exclusives. It just works as long as you have a CPU in your box.
     

Share This Page