|
HappySqurriel said: I remember seeing a demo of PhysX running entirely on the GPU (with the Geforce 8800 IIRC) that took up (something like) 20% of the GPU and was able to do far more than was possible with the CPU on that PC. Of course that would reduce what can be done on the GPU but, being that the GPU's AMD makes that are 40nm, have 480 stream processors, and are based on the TURKS core (the rumours about the Wii U GPU) are about 2.5 to 4 times the power of the XBox 360 GPU it should be able to run physics, display graphics to both screens, and probably have some moderate graphical enhancements over the XBox 360. |
There are a lot of articles with comparison about that subject... physics in GPU or CPU? You know if you translate a PhysX code to run on CPU using the SSE intruction the perfomance is near the code running in GPU? NVidia just hide this and put the code on CPU to run over x87 that is about 2x less performance than SSE... so with that nVidia can show the PhysX on GPU is way better.
That a good article to read: http://www.realworldtech.com/physx87/
The article is dated (2010) the PhysX on GPU is better today but the CPU is better too... how is better for physics? I don't know and there are cons and pros in both cases.
Another issue with nVidia PhysX is when the GPU can't do the work it uses the CPU... so the physics not run exclusive in the GPU, the code uses the CPU at least 20% of the CPU is used to help the physics in GPU.
Anyway the best phisics API in the market is the Havok yet... they tried to create the Havok FX to run on GPU but the project is cancelled for unknown reason.
