NVIDIA officially announces PhysX 5.0

Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Dec 20, 2019.

  1. Backstabak

    Backstabak Master Guru

    Messages:
    652
    Likes Received:
    259
    GPU:
    Gigabyte Rx 5700xt
    Sure, but it's far easier to market nice visuals. You can make posters, screenshots on websites, magazines or make nicely cut videos. Physics would be far better appreciated by anyone playing the game, when the sale has already occurred. And if you want to market it, you'd probably need to make a commented video showcasing how is your solution better. And I don't believe such video can have the same interest as some trailer with just nice visuals.

    Personally though, I would far more prefer better AI, than physics or visuals. Some modern games have embarrassing AI, e.g. there are memes about TES games, where you shoot an arrow in some guy's head, they start looking for you and then stop and say "must be the wind", while the arrow is still sticking from their left eye. But marketing AI is again far more difficult than nice visuals.
     
    Toadstool likes this.
  2. Silva

    Silva Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,248
    Likes Received:
    457
    GPU:
    Asus RX560 4G
    This demo looks like something made 10 years ago.
     
  3. Khronikos

    Khronikos Master Guru

    Messages:
    928
    Likes Received:
    116
    GPU:
    EVGA SC2 1080ti
    I think you partially underestimate how powerful a 4 core 8 thread CPU can be overclocked above 4GHz. They will still be fine for one more gen outside of the top games doing crazy stuff.

    We already see GPU bottlenecks on games at 4K lol. You think somehow the mainstream, which is 50% plus on 4 core, is suddenly going to change in 3-5 years lol? I think you overestimate how much money people have. Of course certain games will push things, and of course people will have to turn down settings a bit. But games will still run well on these CPUs. GPUs will be pushed to the max to get native 4K on the best games. We will be bottlenecked there for some time with the mainstream segment.
     
  4. Khronikos

    Khronikos Master Guru

    Messages:
    928
    Likes Received:
    116
    GPU:
    EVGA SC2 1080ti
    This is not even close to true. We'd see it now with games like RDR2 at 60FPS. I don't see hardly any issues, and I play that game on pretty much settings the PS5 will have.

    4 core 4 thread CPUs struggle a ton yes of course. But if you have 8 threads you will be fine for the gen. We are GPU bottlenecked at 4K people. You all need to adjust yourselves a bit instead of promoting random fear. An overclocked 4 core 8 thread CPU is just fine. All it takes is different load balancing to get around a few roadblocks for most scenarios.

    We don't have enough info on the new CPUs for the consoles. They will be decent, but don't go expecting god on a chip. It ain't gonna happen. Not while we are GPU bottlenecked at 4K and they don't want to lose billions on their new consoles.
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2019

  5. Prince Valiant

    Prince Valiant Master Guru

    Messages:
    709
    Likes Received:
    64
    GPU:
    EVGA GTX 1080 ti
    Nice to see something that matters is finally getting pushed again :D.
     
  6. Toadstool

    Toadstool Member Guru

    Messages:
    117
    Likes Received:
    44
    GPU:
    Vega 64
    For the most part I agree that visuals will trump physics for most people. Trying to market a game's physics is tough with still imagery, but we're also lucky enough to have easy access to video content, which can show off physics. I also think back to HL2 which was highly praised in large part due to it's physics and using it as a game mechanic and not just another aspect of eye candy.

    I think, in the end, VR will drive a push towards better physics. Visuals may be more desirable for games played on a monitor or TV, but physics will be key to making VR more immersive and engaging. Visuals obviously have a big role to play in that realm as well, but I think whether we realize it or not, being able to interact with a virtual world in a way that feels like objects have weight and interact with each other will be more important than the visual fidelity.
     
  7. mbk1969

    mbk1969 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,849
    Likes Received:
    6,803
    GPU:
    GF RTX 2070 Super
    To hell destructible surfaces. Give me natural boobs physics!
     
    fantaskarsef and Undying like this.
  8. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    5,387
    Likes Received:
    1,941
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    Well, it is going to fade into obscurity again if Nvidia continues to lock it to their platform. Otherwise, I'd rather go for something like Havok or Bullet.
    Nvidia could also benefit if they would more easily allow for a GPU dedicated to CUDA/PhysX. I haven't attempted this in a long time in Windows (in Linux it's not that hard, but, there aren't many PhysX-enabled games for Linux) but doing so would make it an easy way for Nvidia to get rid of some of their old excess Pascal stock.

    What I think would be REALLY cool and a hot seller for Nvidia is a M.2 CUDA card. Some people (like myself) don't care about having M.2 storage or networking, but, 4x PCIe lanes is plenty for whatever GPU you could fit on a 22x80mm card. Of course, you could always use a M.2 to PCIe riser, but, that's not quite the same thing as having something purpose-built.
     
  9. Astyanax

    Astyanax Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,985
    Likes Received:
    2,666
    GPU:
    GTX 1080ti
    its not locked to nvidia's platform and never has been.
     
  10. Denial

    Denial Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    13,085
    Likes Received:
    2,532
    GPU:
    EVGA 1080Ti
    PhysX is the default physics system in Unreal/Unity - the features here and the SDK are all CPU PhysX libraries. They aren't vendor locked and the source is available (although it's definitely not open like AMD is).

    As for the GPU libraries - yeah but w/e.. I think the industry realizes that outside of particle sims GPUs are bad for physics. 90% of games are shader performance limited and with 8+ cores becoming more mainstream and FEM type physics also becoming the new "bling" - CPU physics is where everyone is aiming again.
     

  11. ObscureangelPT

    ObscureangelPT Master Guru

    Messages:
    545
    Likes Received:
    64
    GPU:
    Zotac GTX 1650 Supe
    The mindshare of nvidia is huge.
    We still see people in here, in a g33k website where people usually realizes what they say, talking about PhysX like it is 2006.

    PhysX is used in most games today, all the cloth effects, wind and rigid body physics and simple particles, and ALL, I mean ALL, run at the CPU not at the GPU.
    PhysX GPU is pretty much dead, aside from Metro Exodus, in 2 years it wasn't released a single game using it
    And nobody even talked about PhysX on Metro, only talked about RayTracing.
    I'm soched when I see somebody asking for a secondary GPU just for PhysX, lol in 2019.

    There are though GPU Particle effects in a lot of games nowadays, like in the latest DOOM which interact with the environment and even your weapon.

    PhysX5 will be processed by the CPU, and this technique called FEM is already used in BeamNG and also Wreckfest.
    AMD also shared their FEM libraries on GPUOpen Initiative, unity and unreal will surely implement either their own verstion or AMD version or PhysX5 for the developers to use.
    But it is a CPU thing and it is highly multithreaded according to AMD which makes sense since we have CPUs nowadays able of providing >144FPS and more cores than games can mostly use effectivelly.

    @Denial Exactly
     
  12. Astyanax

    Astyanax Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,985
    Likes Received:
    2,666
    GPU:
    GTX 1080ti
    https://www.dsogaming.com/news/nvid...u-accelerated-effects-on-amds-graphics-cards/

    what about the gpu libraries?
    AMD had the opportunity to develop a translation layer for cl<>physx since 3.x
     
  13. jbscotchman

    jbscotchman Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,748
    Likes Received:
    3,523
    GPU:
    MSI 1660 Ti Ventus
    Yes it was. Batman Arkham series, Mafia 2, Mirror's Edge, and a few others I can't remember from that period were all about pushing Nvidia Physx.
     
  14. Astyanax

    Astyanax Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,985
    Likes Received:
    2,666
    GPU:
    GTX 1080ti
    Offers for support was made to AMD and they rejected it.

    So no, never has been "locked to", AMD just never made the effort to adopt it.
     
  15. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    10,852
    Likes Received:
    2,778
    GPU:
    5700XT+AW@240Hz
    Sorry, I have to strongly disagree. You make absurd point.

    Someone who goes for 4K screen and adequate GPU will not have problem to add extra $200 for proper CPU. Want to make point? Base it on something remotely real. And yes, I have seen 4C/8T CPUs at 4.8GHz stutter. They get fully utilized and all background processes for OS, drivers are screwed...
     

  16. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    10,852
    Likes Received:
    2,778
    GPU:
    5700XT+AW@240Hz
    Yeah, it was always fault of dumb game developer who could not properly thread x87 code for software code path. So they gave up eventually.

    But from practical standpoint, users with nVidia's GPU got extra features.
     
    jbscotchman and -Tj- like this.
  17. Denial

    Denial Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    13,085
    Likes Received:
    2,532
    GPU:
    EVGA 1080Ti
    They can't on consoles and no one is going to take the time to rewrite GPU PhysX for AMD when a huge % of player base wouldn't take advantage. Honestly no one is going to take the time regardless because GPU PhysX is pretty useless - hence why it's basically in nothing.
     
  18. illrigger

    illrigger Master Guru

    Messages:
    232
    Likes Received:
    69
    GPU:
    Gigabyte RTX 3080
    There have been reviews published (Hardware Unboxed, Gamer's Nexus) showing that some games are already getting CPU bound at 6 cores at all resolutions (including 4k), and we are just getting started. 4C/8T is on the cusp of being inadequate, because 6C/12T is now the standard for entry level gaming PCs, and that's the target that AAA games will be aiming at. Clock speeds are important, but they cannot replace the power of having multiple threads doing the load; after all, a 5GHz CPU is only 20% faster than a 4GHz one (all other things being equal), but 8 cores has 100% more compute power than 4 cores when fully utilized - which a lot of games today are capable of doing.

    The days of developers needing to put in thousands of man-hours to support more cores are gone, since now the game engines themselves give them the tools they need, and the same goes for physics simulation. The support for unlimited cores is already here, developers just need to organize their code to work with that function in the engine to use it.

    As for PhysX shown in the demo, the cool thing there is the realistic cloth simulation. The Unreal demos are great looking, but they are permanent solid object manipulation, which, along with flowing liquids, are the least compute heavy thing you can do with physics engines. Cloth and hair physics are REALLY taxing on a CPU/GPU - the objects keep interacting and shift constantly based on movement and the environment .This is why it's only done in the most basic way in games, without accounting for collisions. When you throw 2 or more cloth sims on top of one another, things get super heavy compute-wise - things like putting two or more physics-based cloth objects so they react to one another will absolutely crush any CPU available right now - it's up there with raytracing as far as compute goes. If nVidia has managed to get Tensor cores to accellerate that process to realtime, then the difference in games will be far more apparent than just blowing up a wall or reflecting the sky into a puddle.

    Think about how armor looks on characters in games - the chest pieces deform as the body moves, rather than being static and moving around the body underneath because the physics to do that movement is far too compute heavy to do in real time. Think how a human body is soft and can bend when interacted with by another object - imagine being able to render in real time the way your skin on your arm moves when you grab it with your hand, how the waistband of your pants pushes into your belly, or how your shirt rests over your pants and moves in relation to them as you move. This stuff takes minutes per frame on the simplest scale with the CPUs and GPUs we have today, and so the game devs have to fudge things, and those shortcuts create an uncanny valley effect. If they have gotten even the most basic versions of that stuff to real time rendering, that will be the biggest game improvement that we have seen in a long time.
     
  19. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    5,387
    Likes Received:
    1,941
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    Keep in mind I'm referring to hardware-accelerated PhysX, which is typically what the particle effects depend on.
    GPUs are great for physics, the problem is they barely have the resources to render a scene as-is. So add complex equations on an already overloaded pipeline and it's bound to slow things down.
     
  20. illrigger

    illrigger Master Guru

    Messages:
    232
    Likes Received:
    69
    GPU:
    Gigabyte RTX 3080
    That's what RTX is for - separating functions that are specialized away from general compute cores. For example, the Tensor cores in an RTX GPU are sitting idle when playing a game. If they have optimized PhysX to use them instead of standard cores, they tap into extra performance without giving up anything else.
     

Share This Page