Infernal Engine VELOCITY Physics Tornado PC Demo

[kllrnohj]

True, but times are hard and not everyone (myself included) has money to run to the store and drop a few hundred into their system...

Which is why CPU physics doesn't make any sense. Lets see, buy a ~$200 quad core for a mediocre physics improvement that is still stuck on rigid bodies, or a $50 GPU for a radical leap in physics that brings cloth, fluids, and deformable objects. Yup, real tough choice there.

 

[Mr. Bluntman]

Which is why CPU physics doesn't make any sense. Lets see, buy a ~$200 quad core for a mediocre physics improvement that is still stuck on rigid bodies, or a $50 GPU for a radical leap in physics that brings cloth, fluids, and deformable objects. Yup, real tough choice there.

But I do understand the developer's point of view, keeping the GPU doing what it does best, and that's running shaders and doing graphics.

 

[FrgMstr]

Which is why CPU physics doesn't make any sense. Lets see, buy a ~$200 quad core for a mediocre physics improvement that is still stuck on rigid bodies, or a $50 GPU for a radical leap in physics that brings cloth, fluids, and deformable objects. Yup, real tough choice there.

The problem with this right now is two-fold. (Using the Infernal Engine as the backbone specifically for this hypothetical.)

1. Almost all computers sold now days have some sort of multicore CPU already installed. There is no reason to have to buy ANYTHING.

2. So say you have a $50 GPU and it is stressed from rendering already, now you are pulling back in graphic quality to play the game or turn the physics off.

So your "CPU physics doesn't make any sense" statement is easily poked full of holes. The simple fact is all those benefits you are talking about are NOT being leveraged by gamedevs for years now, so they might as well not even exist at this time.

Yep, real tough choice. Start utilizing multicore CPUs that are mainstream now for physics that give a huge gaming install footprint or sit around and argue for a technology that no gamedevs with use. I am good with having really good CPU based physics right now.

 

[FrgMstr]

I THINK he was referring to buying a $50 gpu for physx alone, in addition to an existing graphics gpu.

This goes back to being OK for you and me, but the other 98% of the market that gamedevs want to buy their game doesn't get that.

 

[Modred189]

Plus the Vast majority of people who do not have mobos that support the second card...

 

[Brackle]

And 90% of the game market is using single and dual core computers, not $1400 3.2ghz Intel Core 2 Extreme Quad Core CPUs. 90% of the game market will tolerate a $50 addon card much quicker than they will a $400-500 platform upgrade, especially since that $50 will get them much, much better physics than the $400-500 CPU upgrade would.

Again, going back to the steam survey, twice as many people have a single core CPU than a quad core CPU. Hell, my dual core X2 is already the bottleneck in my system, and would not be able to handle physics in the demo while still handling the rest of the game's work load. The 4850 I have would be able to pick up some physics work without a dip in FPS at all. Go look at the survey, there is far more GPU power than CPU power. Hell, there are twice as many 8800 cards as quad cores.

Im sorry but you can get tri and quad core CPU's for alot cheaper then $1400.

Also, even IF you could buy a $50 add in GPU card for phyics, #1 alot of people dont have dual slot PCI-E mobos. Those are mostly for the SLI/Xfire people. and #2. Even if they could use there spare 8800gt or 8600gt, most peoples PSU's couldnt handle running 2 video cards (specially if its a dell/gayway and dont know much about power consumtion etc)

So going the CPU route means less money spent on upgrading certain parts of the PC.

Also that survey shows just how old of a PC can run the old CS.....and how many people still play it...But damn that $50 GPU/PPU will really help with CS and its phyics!!

 

[Elledan]

One quad-core CPU equals about the physics performance of 5% if not less of a GTX 285. What'd be the better investment?

 

[sphinx99]

Strange, to see the battle lines drawn between two sides, and here I am still thinking PhysX got it right.

I still believe the PPU will become a fixture in desktop and gaming systems in the future. I believe that it will be a MMO game whose environment is PPU-driven that will bring it into the mainstream.

 

[Elledan]

Strange, to see the battle lines drawn between two sides, and here I am still thinking PhysX got it right.

I still believe the PPU will become a fixture in desktop and gaming systems in the future. I believe that it will be a MMO game whose environment is PPU-driven that will bring it into the mainstream.

You can bet that the next generation of game consoles will join the HW-accelerated physics world too. The PS3 with the Cell processor already has the unexpected advantage of being capable of processing physics about on-par with a GPU, making the cross-platform game a bit lop-sided, with the PS3 capable of completely crushing the X360 physics-wise. I doubt MSFT won't take the hint there

 

[kllrnohj]

Im sorry but you can get tri and quad core CPU's for alot cheaper then $1400.

Yes, but that was the CPU they used for the demo.

Also, even IF you could buy a $50 add in GPU card for phyics, #1 alot of people dont have dual slot PCI-E mobos. Those are mostly for the SLI/Xfire people. and #2. Even if they could use there spare 8800gt or 8600gt, most peoples PSU's couldnt handle running 2 video cards (specially if its a dell/gayway and dont know much about power consumtion etc)

They don't have dual slot PCI-E x16 mobos, but no reason they couldn't have a x1 card for low end GPUs, which are also low on power requirements. The bandwidth need for high res textures won't be there.

So going the CPU route means less money spent on upgrading certain parts of the PC.

Not really. Quad core CPUs aren't exactly easy on the power either, so your PSU comment is null.

Also that survey shows just how old of a PC can run the old CS.....and how many people still play it...But damn that $50 GPU/PPU will really help with CS and its phyics!!

Because the only game played on Steam is CS, right?

 

[kllrnohj]

You can bet that the next generation of game consoles will join the HW-accelerated physics world too. The PS3 with the Cell processor already has the unexpected advantage of being capable of processing physics about on-par with a GPU, making the cross-platform game a bit lop-sided, with the PS3 capable of completely crushing the X360 physics-wise. I doubt MSFT won't take the hint there

The Cell is what, 250 gflops, give or take? Still far below that of cheap video cards (4850 is 1TFLOP ), but it is much higher than that of a PC CPU, so it falls somewhere in the middle.

 

[Elledan]

The Cell is what, 250 gflops, give or take? Still far below that of cheap video cards (4850 is 1TFLOP ), but it is much higher than that of a PC CPU, so it falls somewhere in the middle.

True, there's a reason why Sony decided to make nVidia cram in a GPU after all during development of the PS3 instead of using the Cell processor for GPU tasks as well

 

[kllrnohj]

True, there's a reason why Sony decided to make nVidia cram in a GPU after all during development of the PS3 instead of using the Cell processor for GPU tasks as well

Oops, sorry, the Cell is 204 GFLOPS, not 250. The RSX is also ~200 GLOPS.

And since it was mentioned earlier, the XBox 360's CPU is 115 GFLOPS, but the Xenos is 240 GFLOPS.

Compare that to the measly ~40 GFLOPS that the QX9770 pumps out, and its obvious why PC CPUs suck at physics.

Now granted, FLOPS isn't everything, but physics does deal heavily with floating point performance.

 

[Brackle]

Yes, but that was the CPU they used for the demo.



They don't have dual slot PCI-E x16 mobos, but no reason they couldn't have a x1 card for low end GPUs, which are also low on power requirements. The bandwidth need for high res textures won't be there.



Not really. Quad core CPUs aren't exactly easy on the power either, so your PSU comment is null.



Because the only game played on Steam is CS, right?

Well looking at this link http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/16796/12

A quad core CPU (Q8200) using about 3 watts more then a dual core CPU (E8600).

I even see 9 tri/quad core CPU's even using less power then a X2 6400+.

so I think your idea of quadcores not being easy on the power is moot as well. since they use the same about as Dual core CPU's.

and Yes Majority of people on Steam play CS on old pc's. Thats how its been for ages now...so Steams Survey CANNOT be relied on. I mean you can still play CS 1.6 on a Athlon 3200+ and Radeon 9700pro....Which alot of people do who cannot afford new pc's

 

[Deleted member 133315]

WTF Nice

 

[kllrnohj]

Well looking at this link http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/16796/12

A quad core CPU (Q8200) using about 3 watts more then a dual core CPU (E8600).

Its also clocked 1 ghz higher (2.33ghz for quad, 3.33ghz for dual). The QX9770 (which is 3.2ghz, still 45nm) uses 56w more power than the dual core and is still clocked lower.

So good job on that comparison

I even see 9 tri/quad core CPU's even using less power then a X2 6400+.

Not only different generations, but even different processes.

so I think your idea of quadcores not being easy on the power is moot as well. since they use the same about as Dual core CPU's.

Answer me this, how is taking a dual core and sticking two of them together suddenly using the same amount of power as one by itself? Does the mere process of putting two of them close together suddenly cause them to use half the power?

Of course it doesn't. Quad cores always use more power than dual cores of the same generation and process and clock speeds.

and Yes Majority of people on Steam play CS on old pc's. Thats how its been for ages now...so Steams Survey CANNOT be relied on. I mean you can still play CS 1.6 on a Athlon 3200+ and Radeon 9700pro....Which alot of people do who cannot afford new pc's

No, they don't. The number one most played game on Steam is CS:S. CS is number 2. Regardless, the game that they are playing is irrelevant in relation to their hardware. Hell, my 4850 has been used to play everything from Starcraft to Crysis. The game played doesn't determine the hardware playing it. So the steam survey CAN be relied upon, unless you can find a larger survey.

You are also making it glaringly obvious that you have never bothered to look at the steam survey, as the majority are *NOT* using old PCs. 3/4ths of the people are playing with a dual core or higher. Hell, 1/4th of the people have a DX10 GPU.

But FYI, there are currently 1.2 million people logged onto steam - only 41,000 are playing CS.

 

[Brackle]

Its also clocked 1 ghz higher (2.33ghz for quad, 3.33ghz for dual). The QX9770 (which is 3.2ghz, still 45nm) uses 56w more power than the dual core and is still clocked lower.

So good job on that comparison



Not only different generations, but even different processes.



Answer me this, how is taking a dual core and sticking two of them together suddenly using the same amount of power as one by itself? Does the mere process of putting two of them close together suddenly cause them to use half the power?

Of course it doesn't. Quad cores always use more power than dual cores of the same generation and process and clock speeds.



No, they don't. The number one most played game on Steam is CS:S. CS is number 2. Regardless, the game that they are playing is irrelevant in relation to their hardware. Hell, my 4850 has been used to play everything from Starcraft to Crysis. The game played doesn't determine the hardware playing it. So the steam survey CAN be relied upon, unless you can find a larger survey.

You are also making it glaringly obvious that you have never bothered to look at the steam survey, as the majority are *NOT* using old PCs. 3/4ths of the people are playing with a dual core or higher. Hell, 1/4th of the people have a DX10 GPU.

But FYI, there are currently 1.2 million people logged onto steam - only 41,000 are playing CS.

So now its all about Generations of CPU's?....does it really matter? a quad core is quad core, there will be extra's cores that can be used for physics. specially over any Generations of dual core. It does not matter how old it is. If they can take advantage of the extra cores on ANY quad core CPU for phyics it will be better. If even Generation A is the same power and Generation B. Etc Etc.


And about the steam thing, who gives a rats ass. All your claims are not valid, and you continue to argue.

Either way I have put you on ignore, you love to argue and Always have to have the last word.

Good luck with your forum trollin

 

[Mangudai]

Link in the original post doesn't work

 

[Modred189]

That's because it's from almost 5 months ago.