By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC - Rise of physics, and demise of PhysX?

HoloDust on 28 September 2012
Narishma said:
HoloDust said:

Point was that if all next-gen consoles are using AMD's GPUs, developers will start using solutions that can run on those GPUs, and PhysX in current state does not - whether is Havok or Bullet or something completely different that way we'll see games that can run same GPU physics no matter if it's AMD or nVIdia card - thus making "physics enhanced visuals" something that is norm, and not exception. And don't get me wrong - I'd sure be glad to see nVidia being influenced by this to make OpenCL version - after all, PhysX is really good physics solution.


Nvidia already has PhysX versions for all current-gen consoles, even though the 360 and Wii have AMD GPUs. I don't see why they wouldn't port it to next-gen consoles, regardless of what GPUs they use.

I know it does, I somehow doubt it's GPU accelarated on any of platforms, but I might be wrong. Point again being that with all 3 consoles having AMD Open CL capable GPUs developers can use same GPU accelarated physics engine on all platforms - which will hopefully mean either nVidia making OpenCL version, or developers using another engine. Thus making "physics enhanced visuals" default, not exception...



Around the Network
HoloDust on 28 September 2012
fillet said:
HoloDust said:
fillet said:
OP....

You're about 5 years late to the party.


Sorry, not sure what you mean by that.

Point was that if all next-gen consoles are using AMD's GPUs, developers will start using solutions that can run on those GPUs, and PhysX in current state does not - whether is Havok or Bullet or something completely different that way we'll see games that can run same GPU physics no matter if it's AMD or nVIdia card - thus making "physics enhanced visuals" something that is norm, and not exception. And don't get me wrong - I'd sure be glad to see nVidia being influenced by this to make OpenCL version - after all, PhysX is really good physics solution.


Sorry but that's just not true.

PhysX is not a really good physics solution, it's simply an industry (somewhat) adopted one. As already mentioned, PhysX can technically run on non-nvidia hardware, it's just that nvidia own the licensing and SDK for it's implementation.

It could very well be included on a hardware level on the next gen consoles even if powered by AMDATI hardware - that is completely besides the point and it simply comes down to if Microsoft or Nintendo will cough up the cash to allow this. On the PC it's different since the cards you buy are made by AMDATI and thus they will not be selling the rights to AMDATI for their direct use.

Would suggest you research a little on what PhysX actually is - and isn't.

Well, if I remember corectly, somebody wrote wrapper for ATI cards, but nVidia killed it legaly or something like that - I do admit that I don't know lot about technical details of PhysX, or how hard it is to make non-cuda versions...I have on the other hand read that nVidia is looking into making OpenCL version, and AMD/ATI's comment on the matter was somewhere in the line of "our card will run whatever software if it's OpenCL"...

But I was not trying to make this about PhysX, I know that AMD is pushing Bullet....my point was that developers will maybe have more reason to decide on using something that is already built to run on AMDs GPUs...thus, potentialy, getting us out of this "PhysX only" PC limbo.



fillet on 28 September 2012

Sorry yeah I see what you mean, was quite condesending in my post just then.

My apologies for that.



HoloDust on 29 September 2012

Hm, maybe I was wrong that having ATI GPU in all 3 consoles would help developers mainstream physics (rumored WiiU GPU vs rumored 720's performance equivalent GPUs):

7700 (7.86x) http://www.clbenchmark.com/compare.jsp?config_0=12513567&config_1=11973318
7970m (10.1x) http://www.clbenchmark.com/compare.jsp?config_0=12513567&config_1=12713835

Does anyone know how SPH Fluid Simulation translates to performance of other physics based tasks?



selnor on 30 September 2012
HoloDust said:
Hm, maybe I was wrong that having ATI GPU in all 3 consoles would help developers mainstream physics (rumored WiiU GPU vs rumored 720's performance equivalent GPUs):

7700 (7.86x) http://www.clbenchmark.com/compare.jsp?config_0=12513567&config_1=11973318
7970m (10.1x) http://www.clbenchmark.com/compare.jsp?config_0=12513567&config_1=12713835

Does anyone know how SPH Fluid Simulation translates to performance of other physics based tasks?


WTF??????????????????????????????

Wii U has been widely rumoured to have a 5 series GPU. Not a 7 series ( which is actually impossible considering when Wii U went into development. )

There has been 1 rumour that it may use a 6 series. But Wii U has never been expected to use a 7 series. Thats the 2013 nextbox and PS4.



Around the Network
Squilliam on 30 September 2012
selnor said:
HoloDust said:
Hm, maybe I was wrong that having ATI GPU in all 3 consoles would help developers mainstream physics (rumored WiiU GPU vs rumored 720's performance equivalent GPUs):

7700 (7.86x) http://www.clbenchmark.com/compare.jsp?config_0=12513567&config_1=11973318
7970m (10.1x) http://www.clbenchmark.com/compare.jsp?config_0=12513567&config_1=12713835

Does anyone know how SPH Fluid Simulation translates to performance of other physics based tasks?


WTF??????????????????????????????

Wii U has been widely rumoured to have a 5 series GPU. Not a 7 series ( which is actually impossible considering when Wii U went into development. )

There has been 1 rumour that it may use a 6 series. But Wii U has never been expected to use a 7 series. Thats the 2013 nextbox and PS4.

Actually 4xxx series. It's easier to take a 55nm GPU and port it to IBM's 45nm design process than it would be to take a 40nm GPU and backport it to 45nm.



Tease.

HoloDust on 30 September 2012
selnor said:
HoloDust said:
Hm, maybe I was wrong that having ATI GPU in all 3 consoles would help developers mainstream physics (rumored WiiU GPU vs rumored 720's performance equivalent GPUs):

7700 (7.86x) http://www.clbenchmark.com/compare.jsp?config_0=12513567&config_1=11973318
7970m (10.1x) http://www.clbenchmark.com/compare.jsp?config_0=12513567&config_1=12713835

Does anyone know how SPH Fluid Simulation translates to performance of other physics based tasks?


WTF??????????????????????????????

Wii U has been widely rumoured to have a 5 series GPU. Not a 7 series ( which is actually impossible considering when Wii U went into development. )

There has been 1 rumour that it may use a 6 series. But Wii U has never been expected to use a 7 series. Thats the 2013 nextbox and PS4.

e6760 is 6xxx series GPU based on Turks core - latest rumor is that's the GPU inside WiiU (though that rumour was around since beginning of 2012)

2 links are comparison against some of the potential performance equivalents for 720/PS4 (7970m level being more in line with actual rumours)

Comparison is made just for the sake of SPH Fluid Simulation, cause we were talking here about physics, and my opinion is that physics enhanced visuals will become norm in next-gen (like Borderlands 2 with PhysX enabled)