I've created 4 different popular scenarios how NVIDIA Physx is being used by gamers of the world:ġ. You should have an idea what those are by now: any weather effects, explosion debris, fire, cold, dust, smoke, interacting small 3D objects like vegetation, gibs, fragments of material. The purpose of this benchmark is to find out if NVIDIA Physx middleware helps to improve performance in terms of FPS in games, which use any particle physics effects.įor this test i have selected only those games, in which i can clearly see the usage of particle physics being rendered on the screen. Once in a while a random thread or video pops in the internet displaying how NVIDIA Physx algorythm runs a certain game with random video cards, but that is it. They own a physics API, support OpenCL their own CUDA (of course) and they even have already released tools to work with DX Compute (and they are the only ones at this point in time).This time around i've decided to check something, that has got little popularity and variety in the internet: NVIDIA Physx performance evaluation for gaming. They will have PhysX ported to OpenCL eventually too, but that's going to take a while, since OpenCL is still fairly new and with the introduction of DX Compute, we'll really need to see what happens and what gets adopted the most, by developers. In fact, they chair the group that is behind its development.
You also forget to mention that NVIDIA supports OpenCL as much as any other company.
Not to mention that Intel will eventually have their own discrete GPU, which makes things even worse for AMD in this front, even more so if their CPUs continue to be lacking when compared to Intel's. The fact that nothing, I repeat, NOTHING has come out, except a video or two, regarding OpenCL + Havok for AMD GPU physics, is a clear indication of this. However, I do think that AMD made a poor choice of partner with all this, because Intel has no desire to let AMD use Havok and have their GPUs trounce Intel CPUs, with physics calculations. AMD with it's stonewalling, Nv, with it's disallowing PhysX to run on a Nv card if an AMD card is also present, and apparently also gimping CPU PhysX to run on only one core to better showcase their GPU physics.Īnd I don't disagree with most of what you said. This ain't politics, this ain't red or green, this is business. If you control the standard you control the market.
They would be stupid to help PhysX or CUDA become the standard. Sit back, wait for open cl, and hope the majority physics middle ware players jump on board. But, since they also make CPU's, and all of the current, widely used, physics implementations have a CPU fall back, their choice in the matter becomes an easy one to make. They had one in the works til Intel bought out their partner. On the other side you have AMD, they don't want to permanently play second fiddle so they are stonewalling looking for another solution. And if they did ignore those built in advantages and did not tailor PhysX to their hardware or their hardware to PhysX, I would call them nuts. If you think that is not a huge built in advantage, or that Nv would not exploit it, your nuts. They control PhysX, they know what is coming next for it at every stage of the game. Nv would not have to do anything to overtly cripple AMD cards while still maintaining a lead. But given that GPU physics is supported by the underlying instruction set of CUDA, anyone that wants to use it, either licenses the tech or just be happy with CPU physics that ALL physics APIs support. No one is being blocked from using PhysX. x86 instructions != CUDA and ANY physics API defaults to the CPU anyway. If you want GPU physics go ask them how their efforts on that front are doing.Īs for the last part of your "comment", what you suggest is kind of hilarious, because you are comparing apples to oranges (not surprising).
#Do i need nvidia physx even though i have a amd gpu drivers
NVIDIA must somehow hack into ATI's drivers on their own, in order to be able to guarantee proper functionality with its GPU doing physics computations and ATI doesn't really need to do anything to reap the benefits of GPU accelerated physics.Does that make sense to you ?.Of course it doesĪs for the "proper channels" nonsense, PhysX is open for license to ANYONE that wants to use it. You didn't put much thought into that answer did you ?
0 kommentar(er)
