bit-tech revists PhysX in UT3 - bit-tech.net Forums

CardJoe · 18th Jan 2008, 12:24

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2008/01...ts_ut3_physx/1

When we first looked at the PhysX features in UT3, we were a bit non-plussed. It turns out though that our hardware was a little glitchy, so we're having a little revisit.

Zurechial · 18th Jan 2008, 12:27

That's fair enough.

Still can't see myself buying a PhysX card any time soon, though - There's just no appeal.

cjoyce1980 · 18th Jan 2008, 12:54

not sure why this isn't apart of a card, like a sub-processor. I would by a HD3870 with PhysX, but not just a PhysX card

TreeDude · 18th Jan 2008, 13:04

Shouldn't need to be part of a graphics card. We have quad-core processors. Just take 1 core and dedicate it to physics. Problem solved. If you have a dual core you should be able to decide if the game uses both cores or 1 core and you get the advance physics processed on the other. Physics cards should be dead already.

E.E.L. Ambiense · 18th Jan 2008, 14:23

I would buy a card, but the price would have to hit a sweet spot in order to do so. It's just not economically feasible to do so at this current moment.

Jamie · 18th Jan 2008, 14:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by TreeDude

Shouldn't need to be part of a graphics card. We have quad-core processors. Just take 1 core and dedicate it to physics. Problem solved. If you have a dual core you should be able to decide if the game uses both cores or 1 core and you get the advance physics processed on the other. Physics cards should be dead already.

A CPU is a generic data processing machine. It is designed to work on many sizes and types of data. The PPU in a PhysX card would be designed for a particular purpose and as such be much better at that job. If your argument were to be correct we wouldn't need a graphics card. Just dedicate one of the CPU cores to graphics. The same counter argument stands -- a GPU is specifically designed to do a job which is much faster than any CPU at doing the same job.

shadeygrey · 19th Jan 2008, 17:12

One core on a CPU for graphics? maybe one for PPU? two for everything else? Wouldnt be suprised if we had these chips in 12 months (thinking Nehalem)

mrplow · 19th Jan 2008, 18:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jamie

A CPU is a generic data processing machine. It is designed to work on many sizes and types of data. The PPU in a PhysX card would be designed for a particular purpose and as such be much better at that job. If your argument were to be correct we wouldn't need a graphics card. Just dedicate one of the CPU cores to graphics. The same counter argument stands -- a GPU is specifically designed to do a job which is much faster than any CPU at doing the same job.

Well, a processor just does sums, right? There is no difference at base level between drawing a person and working out where his shot off arm will fly, it's just maths in the end. Piling only physics calculations into a processor will give only physics 'answers'. That's why a 'physics processor' can do so many sums so quickly, because it has nothing else to do*

If a processor is fast enough that it can have a redundant core while playing a game, then that core could do the physics calculations. Indeed, if the thing was hugely powerful, you could have a core dedicated to graphics processing. It's the same deal as putting graphics or physics processors on the PCI-E bus. Put them inside the CPU package and you eliminate that bus so potentially it's much faster, but I guess that's probably a way off.

I'm pretty surprised they are still clinging to this product and trying to get us to buy them. Back in the day when I ran a 386, we got a co-processor to help with the sums in CAD and I'll be honest it flew.

Now, with CPUs as fast as they are and graphics card as ridiculously powerful, I think trying to re-light the co-processor market (which this effectively is) seems like madness.

* admittedly the data might be arranged and delivered in a more favourable manner by some other technical wizardry and little magic chips, but that'd be doable inside a cpu if someone really wanted to.

Tim S · 19th Jan 2008, 18:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by shadeygrey

One core on a CPU for graphics? maybe one for PPU? two for everything else? Wouldnt be suprised if we had these chips in 12 months (thinking Nehalem)

Well, Intel's got Larrabee coming at some point in the future (it's probably less than 12-18 months away, max)... that's a many core architecture using IA and I wouldn't be surprised if, given Intel's acquisition of Havok, Intel started using some of those cores for physics. After all, Intel has already demoed vortices and other physics in Alan Wake using a first-gen quad-core chip. By the time that game ships, the physics will be pretty damn fast on whatever the fastest Intel processor is then.

Welcome to the forums.

Tyinsar · 20th Jan 2008, 05:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrplow

...I'm pretty surprised they are still clinging to this product and trying to get us to buy them. Back in the day when I ran a 386, we got a co-processor to help with the sums in CAD and I'll be honest it flew.

Now, with CPUs as fast as they are and graphics card as ridiculously powerful, I think trying to re-light the co-processor market (which this effectively is) seems like madness.

I'm with Jamie on this. Those co-processors didn't go away at all - they just got integrated. You'll notice that sometimes CPU benchmarks are broken up into ALU & FPU scores. (Read the links provided if you doubt.)

Cupboard · 20th Jan 2008, 17:25

Interesting that your PPU had failed, its not like you have use it that much. I would be furious if my graphics card died after 1-2 years of light use (that said, my motherboard did

)

metarinka · 21st Jan 2008, 02:31

jamie is 100% right, I'm not a fan of add-in hardware based physics solutions, but that doesn't mean a General purpose processing would be nearly efficient at the calculations that a dedicated hardware solution would be. It's the same for graphics cards, with dedicated hardware, drivers and algorithmns for the specific task. you also must remember that a physx card is running an optimized physics engine designed to work well with those cards. there really is no competition

the same goes for sound cards and graphics cards. Yes general purpose CPU's are speeding up and having increasing cores, however a dedicated hardware solution that is meant to specifically handle a certain type of calculation can be more focused and optimized as opposed to a CPU which has to handle everything imaginable.

cloudew · 28th Jun 2008, 11:01

Regards sound cards, the amount of parallel computations needed for that task are far fewer than realtime lighting & physics interactions. So the same does not apply to sound cards to the same extent.

18th Jan 2008, 12:24	#1
CardJoe Player Character bit-tech Staff Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 7,940	bit-tech revists PhysX in UT3 http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2008/01...ts_ut3_physx/1 When we first looked at the PhysX features in UT3, we were a bit non-plussed. It turns out though that our hardware was a little glitchy, so we're having a little revisit. __________________ this is joe's non-bit-tech blog

18th Jan 2008, 12:27	#2
Zurechial Elitist Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Ireland Posts: 878	That's fair enough. Still can't see myself buying a PhysX card any time soon, though - There's just no appeal. __________________ www.valyr.net Core i7 920 @ 4GHz <-> 8800GTS 512 @ 785/1946/1990 <-> GA-EX58-UD5 <-> 3GB Dominator 1600 <-> Xonar D1

18th Jan 2008, 14:23	#5
E.E.L. Ambiense Acrylic Heretic Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Malabar, FL Posts: 2,721	I would buy a card, but the price would have to hit a sweet spot in order to do so. It's just not economically feasible to do so at this current moment. __________________ Latest Builds: "Movie Sign!" • CheckMate - MotM May '09 ~~Nominee~~ Loser! • BluBawx I • Lumière Noire - MotM Apr. '08 ~~Nominee~~ Loser! • Razzle Dazzle • CMC Field Server • "Building Better Worlds" - MotM Feb. '08 ~~Nominee~~ Loser! • Biohazard • MicroSuperFly

20th Jan 2008, 17:25	#11
Cupboard I'm not a modder. Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Bury St Edmunds/Durham Uni Posts: 1,840	Interesting that your PPU had failed, its not like you have use it that much. I would be furious if my graphics card died after 1-2 years of light use (that said, my motherboard did ) __________________ i7 920, 8800GTS 512, 6GB Corsair all in an Intel DX58SO; 3*320GB RAID5; CM Stacker Samsung Q45.

21st Jan 2008, 02:31	#12
metarinka I am a Dremel Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Michigan Posts: 1,619	jamie is 100% right, I'm not a fan of add-in hardware based physics solutions, but that doesn't mean a General purpose processing would be nearly efficient at the calculations that a dedicated hardware solution would be. It's the same for graphics cards, with dedicated hardware, drivers and algorithmns for the specific task. you also must remember that a physx card is running an optimized physics engine designed to work well with those cards. there really is no competition the same goes for sound cards and graphics cards. Yes general purpose CPU's are speeding up and having increasing cores, however a dedicated hardware solution that is meant to specifically handle a certain type of calculation can be more focused and optimized as opposed to a CPU which has to handle everything imaginable. __________________ project: Orbitoid project: Orbitoid discussion Project: Angry-9 the WWII radio

18th Jan 2008, 12:54	#3
cjoyce1980 Supermodder Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: UK Posts: 343	not sure why this isn't apart of a card, like a sub-processor. I would by a HD3870 with PhysX, but not just a PhysX card

18th Jan 2008, 13:04	#4
TreeDude Multimodder Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 238	Shouldn't need to be part of a graphics card. We have quad-core processors. Just take 1 core and dedicate it to physics. Problem solved. If you have a dual core you should be able to decide if the game uses both cores or 1 core and you get the advance physics processed on the other. Physics cards should be dead already.

19th Jan 2008, 17:12	#7
shadeygrey What's a Dremel? Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 3	One core on a CPU for graphics? maybe one for PPU? two for everything else? Wouldnt be suprised if we had these chips in 12 months (thinking Nehalem)

28th Jun 2008, 11:01	#13
cloudew What's a Dremel? Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 4	Regards sound cards, the amount of parallel computations needed for that task are far fewer than realtime lighting & physics interactions. So the same does not apply to sound cards to the same extent.