Nvidia releases PhysX 3.0

[Lord_Exodia]

Interesting news launched at E3. It seems nvidia has finished polishing it's version 3.0 PhysX complete re-write. And has officially launched it for end users and developers.

I thought this was a interesting article and wanted to share with you guys today. I found it at hardware canucks and I'm not sure if their links are still broken here but here is what It is to give credit where credit is due http://www.++++++++++++++++++++/news/video/e3-nvidia-releases-new-version-of-physx/

Here is a few bullet points from the article. I suggest you go read the short article even if the link doesn't work, simply go to the hardware canucks homepage and you should find it there under graphics card news from e3.

1. Larger Levels: Game levels are getting larger these days. That means they require more actors. In PhysX 3.0, developers can combine multiple actors into a single “aggregate”, which is managed as a single bounding-box entity in the broadphase stage of the collision pipeline. This reduces the computing load required to predict collisions between actors, and helps improve overall performance and memory efficiency of PhysX-3 relative to earlier versions.
   
2. Streaming: PhysX 3.0 enables efficient streaming of asset data into a simulation through a new feature,binary in-place serialization, which allows quick and memory-efficient insertion of actors into a scene. In addition, out-of-scene actor creation, which allows actors to be created outside the scene and stored rather than being created and destroyed on demand, provides developers with better asset management while minimizing troublesome compute load spikes.
   
3. More Effective Multithreading: The new Task Manager with managed thread pool allows games to take advantage of multi-core processors on all platforms, resulting in greatly increased performance and a much improved gaming experience.
   
4. Flexible and Powerful Tools: In addition to a highly optimized physics runtime, NVIDIA is releasing improved tools for artists that have been tailored to work within the developer’s asset production pipeline. A new release of PhysX Visual Debugger allows superior performance profiling, detailed memory analysis and improved visualization of all PhysX content across all major platforms.

Again credit goes to Hardware Canucks and author Sam_Reynolds

 

[pxc]

Those quazy quackers up north are bee seven for some reason.

http://www.rictechs.com/nvidia-releases-new-version-of-physx-1532261.html

I guess nvidia didn't take this opportunity to move to OpenCL.

Too bad MS has a console business to support. I'd love it if MS would really clean up the cruft in DX 12 and let PC hardware have the same low API overhead as consoles have.

 

[H-street]

does the rewrite mean mor effeciency for the cpu? last article i read was the one showing a purposefuly crippling on the cpu.

it says better multithreading, hopefully that is a step in the right direction

 

[pxc]

last article i read was the one showing a purposefuly crippling on the cpu.

Don't believe everything you read, especially written by people 1) unknowledgeable on the subject and 2) with an axe to grind.

David Kanter performed an excellent analysis of PhysX CPU performance here, which should have slapped down that bit of internets lore (but obviously didn't): http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT070510142143

Some game tests to show that's accurate: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-physx-hack-amd-radeon,2764-5.html

It's not so much crippled as it is CPU PhysX having to share CPU resources with other gaming/computing demands, and the way the it was written by Ageia before nvidia bought it with the CPU path based on legacy x87 FPU code. Even with that, major licensees had access to the source code and could have enabled SSE2 if they wanted to. IIRC, none did because it didn't make a big difference. nvidia was already apparently re-writing the old code when this "discovery" was made, and now we just need some PhysX 3.0 games and demos to test it.

tl;dr: PhysX 2.x did run as efficiently as it could on the CPU... at least while using it compiled with an x87 code path.

 

[Surly73]

Jumping to the conclusion that NV would cripple CPU performance to discourage the use of Intel and AMD GPUs is, IMO, a little ignorant and immature.

NV's strategy to "win" from PhysX would be to drive it's adoption by developers which will then result in consumers buying NV GPUs, not try to force consumers into using NV GPUs directly. The latter would be met very negatively while the former would be a pretty soft sell leaving the consumer to feel like they "chose" NV.

NV is going to want PhysX to run well for everyone but even better for NV GPU owners, and provide unique functionality to the developers that they believe will give them an edge. Purposely crippling it would be discovered in pretty short order, I think.

 

[Lord_Exodia]

I hope they at least allow you to use a nvidia gpu as a dedicated physX card despite what card you use to game on in the near future. That is my main gripe but I'm glad the information in this thread seems to show a brighter future for physX. I believe if done correctly it could really impact the gaming experience. This is definitely a step in the right direction.

I like the facial animation I see in La Noire' but I'm hoping or more realistic hair and clothes soon along with environments that take damage and react as a real environment would. Perhaps physX will one day fill that gap.

 

[XacTactX]

P.S: I wonder how this will work with the PhysX patch. Maybe the developers will update the patch once so that it works with PhysX 3.0. Or maybe you can download and use standalone PhysX APIs without having to update the drivers. I don't use PhysX much, so don't know.

Jumping to the conclusion that NV would cripple CPU performance to discourage the use of Intel and AMD GPUs is, IMO, a little ignorant and immature.

NV's strategy to "win" from PhysX would be to drive it's adoption by developers which will then result in consumers buying NV GPUs, not try to force consumers into using NV GPUs directly. The latter would be met very negatively while the former would be a pretty soft sell leaving the consumer to feel like they "chose" NV.

NV is going to want PhysX to run well for everyone but even better for NV GPU owners, and provide unique functionality to the developers that they believe will give them an edge. Purposely crippling it would be discovered in pretty short order, I think.

nVIDIA disables all nVIDIA GPUs that could be used for PhysX any time it detects an AMD GPU. A 3rd-party patch restores the usage of a Radeon GPU. This patch has been functioning for almost two years now without any official support from nVIDIA. In fact, nVIDIA made a timebomb which would cause problems for those using the workaround. nVIDIA's choice in physics processing is to only allow its GPUs to be used, and to limit the competitiveness of AMD by artificially limiting the compatibility of multi-vendor setups to encourage of adoption of nVIDIA graphics relative to AMD graphics . This is a fact.

http://www.+++++.com/graphic-cards/17706-hybrid-physx-mod-v1-03-v1-04ff.html

+++++ = NGO HQ

 

[LAiN_OfTheWired]

Don't believe everything you read, especially written by people 1) unknowledgeable on the subject and 2) with an axe to grind.

David Kanter performed an excellent analysis of PhysX CPU performance here, which should have slapped down that bit of internets lore (but obviously didn't): http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT070510142143

This link seems to state otherwise. The 'analysis' page clearly states that nvidia left physx as single-threaded, left it to the game developers to make it multi-threaded (which some clearly didn't), and that it would be possible to compile it to run using SSE instructions for CPUs that would make it anywhere from 2-4x faster. This would indicate that with a dual-core CPU it could be as little as 2x faster and as much as 4x faster, while with a 6-core CPU that would be 10-20x faster. (that is, if I'm reading it right, which he seems to put it in decently plain english).

Don't get me wrong, I really don't care about physx. I tried it out with the physx trick to run an nvidia gpu and my ati gpus and it worked nicely. It's just that very few games make it really worthwhile (actually, only 2 or 3 that I know of) so to eat up an extra 120+ watts and make my system temps go up for that is just dumb. Until there's another nvidia gpu in my system, physx can suck it.

 

[pxc]

This link seems to state otherwise. The 'analysis' page clearly states that nvidia left physx as single-threaded

Read both links again. The vTune results of only one core were broken out for simplicity on RWT.

The latest pre-3.0 PhysX drivers already use multiple threads. Even with the old pre-Nvidia Ageia software, CPU PhysX would use at least 2 threads if available (i.e. > 1 logical core). I can dig up the old Cell Factor testing I posted here years ago that shows it.

I'm not trying to defend CPU PhysX performance. I've been critical of it in the past. There were performance problems with the code Nvidia purchased from Ageia and it has slowly improved with time, up to a point. The PhysX 3.0 update is finally available and there's not really any analysis of the performance yet (required for that: software and demos that link to the new version) to see if or how much the CPU path has improved. I don't expect miracles and arguably a majority of gamers with somewhat modern cards (see Steam hardware survey) wouldn't care about the CPU path anyways since they use Nvidia hardware which can run PhysX on the GPU even better.

But some people are expecting very unrealistic performance out of a CPU that also has to run other code at the same time as PhysX in a game. Comparing a micro benchmark like a Havok physics demo running full-bore on 8 threads to see what a CPU is capable of is not the same as the performance you can expect running an actual game.

 

[sirmonkey1985]

P.S: I wonder how this will work with the PhysX patch. Maybe the developers will update the patch once so that it works with PhysX 3.0. Or maybe you can download and use standalone PhysX APIs without having to update the drivers. I don't use PhysX much, so don't know.

the AMD+Nvidia block is driver level. you can use an old nvidia driver + new physX update/API with the older driver version. you just manually update physX from nvidia's website.

 

[Quake]

I don't even see the relevance for Physx. If they want mass adoption, they'll have to abandon the idea of having a second GPU is the best thing and focus the performance on general CPU usage.

If I was a game developer, I'd rather license havok than Physx for my games.

 

[Ryan711]

I don't even see the relevance for Physx. If they want mass adoption, they'll have to abandon the idea of having a second GPU is the best thing and focus the performance on general CPU usage.

If I was a game developer, I'd rather license havok than Physx for my games.

If you want crappy physics, then fine, but for now, GPUs are by far the best thing to simulate physics. Maybe when we start seeing 24 and 32 core cpus, it will be able to keep up with cpus. Even using the same GPU is not ideal because it's doing graphical work. It's easier to add a second GPU than it is to add a second CPU.

So actually, GPU is actually the best thing to simulate physics. The problem is two pronged: Consoles are dominating the industry, and people are too cheap to add a dedicated physics card.

 

[Godmachine]

If you want crappy physics, then fine, but for now, GPUs are by far the best thing to simulate physics. Maybe when we start seeing 24 and 32 core cpus, it will be able to keep up with cpus. Even using the same GPU is not ideal because it's doing graphical work. It's easier to add a second GPU than it is to add a second CPU.

So actually, GPU is actually the best thing to simulate physics. The problem is two pronged: Consoles are dominating the industry, and people are too cheap to add a dedicated physics card.

Claiming people are too cheap is being dismissive of the fact that most people can barely afford a new PC at this current moment. Money is tight across the board , even the hardcore gamer who is vital part of the upgrade cycle is taking a break due to the crunch we're all feeling in some way (some more than others). And while a 50-75 dollar card may not seem like much , it can be when the budget is over what most gamers even hardcore ones can afford. Some of us are lucky and run SLi or have left over cards that can take over new duties.

There isn't one really good showcase game where Physx alters the gameplay experience in such a way that without the game suffers greatly in turn. That's the biggest problem with it , developers don't wanna pay license fee's and devote resources to writing the proper code when they can just off load it to the CPU faster and cheaper. We all know GPU's are great at physics , that's not the rub.

Give me a game where it really matters and I'll be on board. Until then its Nvidia's attempt at another revenue stream. I'd also like to see some benchmarks of these improvements Nvidia has rendered.

 

[pxc]

Ryan711: Intel's 48 core SCCC was on Ars today http://arstechnica.com/business/new...e-of-the-clouds-future-according-to-intel.ars

Give me a game where it really matters and I'll be on board. Until then its Nvidia's attempt at another revenue stream. I'd also like to see some benchmarks of these improvements Nvidia has rendered.

Gameplay physics are risky because it limits the potential audience. Without a large enough audience to also run the same core physics on the CPU, there's little incentive to go in that direction. Effects physics can look pretty nice and enhance visual appeal. Who knows when this will change...

Anyways I has the PhysX SDK 3.0.1 now and will play around with it in the next couple of days. If I have anything interesting, I may compare performance between 2.8 and 3.0 CPU paths.

 

[Quake]

There isn't one really good showcase game where Physx alters the gameplay experience in such a way that without the game suffers greatly in turn. That's the biggest problem with it , developers don't wanna pay license fee's and devote resources to writing the proper code when they can just off load it to the CPU faster and cheaper. We all know GPU's are great at physics , that's not the rub.

EXACTLY! It's all about the economics.

Take Mafia II for example. Already, the game is taking is using 100% of my GTX 460. If I enable Physics, the performance suffersr. If physx uses the CPU, then the performance is worse, meaning only the TRUE hardcore can experience that physics goodness.

But these days, we're traversing hard times, and if I was a developper, I would want the majority of people to experience my art, not just a few minority.

 

[Quake]

So actually, GPU is actually the best thing to simulate physics. The problem is two pronged: Consoles are dominating the industry, and people are too cheap to add a dedicated physics card.

Think about it this way. A good computers is already hundreds more than a console, then if you want to experience physics, you must buy a new video card.
Your power supply can't handle it? buy a new one.

Btw, according to some research, Nvidia is purposly limiting the CPU performance, forcing them to buy video cards for a better performance.
http://realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT070510142143&p=1

 

[tangoseal]

I still think universal systems like Havok are going to be remain better and more spread across a diverse array of gaming hardware.

 

[BlueStorm]

Think about it this way. A good computers is already hundreds more than a console, then if you want to experience physics, you must buy a new video card.
Your power supply can't handle it? buy a new one.

Btw, according to some research, Nvidia is purposly limiting the CPU performance, forcing them to buy video cards for a better performance.
http://realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT070510142143&p=1

That's incorrect. It doesn't require a second GPU at all. I don't know where you got that idea. I can run max settings in Mafia 2 at the same time as max GPU PhysX.

Since you seem to like doing research so much, maybe you should research upwards a few posts? http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1037381332&postcount=4

I don't even see the relevance for Physx. If they want mass adoption, they'll have to abandon the idea of having a second GPU is the best thing and focus the performance on general CPU usage.

If I was a game developer, I'd rather license havok than Physx for my games.

Don't be so sure... Havok licenses are not free. Maybe you should become a game developer so you can speak on the subject with more evidence and fact.

I still think universal systems like Havok are going to be remain better and more spread across a diverse array of gaming hardware.

What's not universal about CPU PhysX? Is it somehow less "universal" than CPU Havok? NVIDIA simply has an *extra* option for physics.. it's not *JUST* GPU physics.

EXACTLY! It's all about the economics.

Take Mafia II for example. Already, the game is taking is using 100% of my GTX 460. If I enable Physics, the performance suffersr. If physx uses the CPU, then the performance is worse, meaning only the TRUE hardcore can experience that physics goodness.

But these days, we're traversing hard times, and if I was a developper, I would want the majority of people to experience my art, not just a few minority.

I ran the game on a single GTX 480 just fine with max PhysX. That's why it exists. For the same reason that you can't always run max graphics settings with a GTX 460, you can't always run max PhysX settings with a GTX 460. How is this a new concept at all?

If you "want the majority of people to experience your art", how exactly do you suggest a dev does that? CPU Havok? Is that somehow better than CPU PhysX? Also, why don't you apply that same principle to graphics? By that logic, guys who aren't running the highest texture detail or shader quality because of lower performance GPUs aren't "experiencing your art".

I don't know where you got this notion that PhysX is either GPU PhysX or nothing. It can do all the same CPU physics tricks that Havok can *AND MORE*. Plenty (most) of PhysX games use *JUST* the CPU path and that's it...

So tired of seeing all this misinformation from guys who clearly haven't even bothered to google around and do a tiny bit of research before posting...

 

[PRIME1]

I still think universal systems like Havok are going to be remain better and more spread across a diverse array of gaming hardware.

How is Havok universal? I does not run on any GPUs

 

[Brackle]

How is Havok universal? I does not run on any GPUs

Exactly, IF you have a CPU in your computer (which you do) it works on the CPU. (doesnt matter which kind of CPU either, works on intel/amd)

After seeing BF3 trailers......you can see why Physx is overrated. I mean Havok looks perfectly fine watching the building fall down in front of you

 

[Brackle]

If you want crappy physics, then fine, but for now, GPUs are by far the best thing to simulate physics. Maybe when we start seeing 24 and 32 core cpus, it will be able to keep up with cpus. Even using the same GPU is not ideal because it's doing graphical work. It's easier to add a second GPU than it is to add a second CPU.

So actually, GPU is actually the best thing to simulate physics. The problem is two pronged: Consoles are dominating the industry, and people are too cheap to add a dedicated physics card.

Guess you didnt see BF3 videos with Havok physics running on the CPU then?

 

[pxc]

I know this comes up all the time, but physics usually run on the CPU on PCs. That covers everything from basic physics written by the 'casual game'-type developer to expensive middleware like Havok. Trying to simulate too much CPU physics with any middleware, including Havok, will choke a processor or bottleneck a game. Not everyone has a 6 core CPU overcl0ckzored to 4GHz. It doesn't matter if you saw a CPU physics demo that pegged 8 Core i7 threads, that type of physics is unsuitable for a game right now for a number of reasons.

BF3 has somewhat high recommended specs: quad core Intel or AMD CPU. It's not shocking to see that anymore and future games with similar recommended specs will hopefully also use that additional performance to improve physics.

Or maybe Intel and Nvidia will finally enable GPU physics for all video cards capable of running it. lol, probably not (for Intel, at least not until IB is released with GPGPU capable graphics).

 

[PRIME1]

Exactly, IF you have a CPU in your computer (which you do) it works on the CPU. (doesnt matter which kind of CPU either, works on intel/amd)

After seeing BF3 trailers......you can see why Physx is overrated. I mean Havok looks perfectly fine watching the building fall down in front of you

So your complaint is that GPU Physx does not work on any CPU OK.

You do realize that the non-GPU Physx works on any CPU just like Havok.

As for BF3 trailer that looks more like a canned sequence other than actual physics.

Either way it's good to see Physx continue to be a success. Hopefully more games will use it so they don't look so scripted.

 

[TheBuzzer]

BF3 i think have real physics yet also have canned ones too.

 

[MavericK]

BF3 i think have real physics yet also have canned ones too.

Yeah, I watched an interview with DICE and there was a video playing where a building got shot by a tank or something and started to crumble, and they said it was all real-time physics. So I'm betting on mostly real-time (hopefully anyway).

 

[Godmachine]

EXACTLY! It's all about the economics.

Take Mafia II for example. Already, the game is taking is using 100% of my GTX 460. If I enable Physics, the performance suffersr. If physx uses the CPU, then the performance is worse, meaning only the TRUE hardcore can experience that physics goodness.

But these days, we're traversing hard times, and if I was a developper, I would want the majority of people to experience my art, not just a few minority.

http://www.geforce.com/#/News/articles/physx-in-alice-madness-returns Watch the video at the bottom.

That game is suppose to have quite a nice difference with Physx in play versus without. But after watching the video it again shows whats wrong with the API as a whole. It adds gushy fluid in one boss fight and tiles being smashed in another. It doesn't show it being an actual vital part of game play. This is what ends up leaving me just saying "Well Batman did the same exact thing ... a YEAR ago".

I wish Nvidia would either higher a gaming company to make say a indie style game that FULLY shows the potential of employing Physx in game and how it can really open up new forms of game play (which I feel it could). Yet year after year we get the same "ooo look at the shiny gushy water and smoke effects ...and tiles breaking apart".

 

[dderidex]

This is what ends up leaving me just saying "Well Batman did the same exact thing ... a YEAR ago".
...
Yet year after year we get the same "ooo look at the shiny gushy water and smoke effects ...and tiles breaking apart".

Yeah, but you gotta admit...it DOES make the game look better. The game world feels more immersive, interacts in a more "real"-feeling way, etc.

Isn't that the whole point of GPUs? Isn't that why we always upgrade - to increase screen resolution, turn on the anti-aliasing and texture filtering, enable advanced in-game graphics options, etc...all in an effort to add effects to make it "look more real"?

So...GPU physics (in 'Batman', 'Alice', etc) is...well, it's doing pretty much EXACTLY THAT. So what's wrong with that?