PhysX vs OpenCL

[Kuzma]

So I was having a debate with one of my buddies (Boxpossum) and he was saying he'd rather get a 770 versus an equivalently priced card (7970) for loads of Nvidia specific things such as PhysX. From a programmers point of view personally I'd rather program my physics engine using OpenCL and know that nvidia cards can run it maybe not the best but that they can actually run it and tha AMD cards can also run it and I won't have to program using PhysX knowing I will be pretty much saying f*** you amd users. I think with the use of AMD in the Xbone and PS4 means that a lot of developers will be primarily programming their stuff for AMD (right? I personally would) meaning the AMD card's OpenCL ability will be taken advantage of primarily making an AMD card a better (future-proof :/ kinda hate that word since it's not true) as excessive OpenCL would cause Nvidia to finally implement decent OpenCL in their cards because incase you don't know how it scales a 770 ~= a 7770 in terms of OpenCL performance which I find pretty attrocious.

[MzCatieB]

the OpenCL physics system is actually Havok which is scripting/programming based.

PhysX is hardware and driver based and is allot more refined.

Nvidia does support OpenCL up to the same standard as AMD.

 

as a games developer i would much rather use PhysX cause its allot cleaner and easy to work with, however the Havok system is simple just takes allot more time to pre-render everything and doesn't look as nice, but i always make variations in my work that supports both PhysX and Havok

[Kuzma]

the OpenCL physics system is actually Havok which is scripting/programming based.

PhysX is hardware and driver based and is allot more refined.

Nvidia does support OpenCL up to the same standard as AMD.

 

as a games developer i would much rather use PhysX cause its allot cleaner and easy to work with, however the Havok system is simple just takes allot more time to pre-render everything and doesn't look as nice, but i always make variations in my work that supports both PhysX and Havok

In compute tests done a 770 has been shown to perform similarly to a 7770. Havok was discontinued after it was bought by Intel if I recall correctly and what do you think of PhysX being phased out by the use of AMD hardware nearly everywhere but PC?

[MzCatieB]

no cause PhysX runs allot better than Havok.

also there are rumours going around that Nvidia might make PhysX available for AMD hardware cause it is an extremely refined allot more beautiful system that adds so much more in to a game 

 

 

also Havok is going extremely strong: http://www.havok.com/ just doesnt look as impressive

[Kuzma]

no cause PhysX runs allot better than Havok.

also there are rumours going around that Nvidia might make PhysX available for AMD hardware cause it is an extremely refined allot more beautiful system that adds so much more in to a game 

 

 

also Havok is going extremely strong: http://www.havok.com/ just doesnt look as impressive

That example of PhysX looks extremely unrealistic compared to things like Blender's openCL physics systems.

[SteepGnomeKing]

That example of PhysX looks extremely unrealistic compared to things like Blender's openCL physics systems.

 

If you look at the PhysX in Batman it is a bit better. Cloth effects really add to the game for when you hang an enemy upside down their coat reacts in a natural way and hangs down instead of it being a stiff object. Here is a link to a bunch of pictures with effects on vs off and the clothes picture I mentioned.

I prefer PhysX to havok physics any day. Way nicer more you can do with it. It is more than just flags blowing in the wind. It is realistic effects such as clothes and hair. Much nicer than TressFX for hair. Witcher 3 is useing PhysX for some things and the demo they showed off was fur on a wolf.

[Kuzma]

I see what you mean the Batman does look a lot better in my opinion but there are examples of similar things with Havok such as

, destruction and

 so the need to use PhysX for those isn't really there. For the cloth, destruction and multimaterials I personally prefer the AMD version but the PhysX hair is beautiful :wub:

[SteepGnomeKing]

I see what you mean the Batman does look a lot better in my opinion but there are examples of similar things with Havok such as

,

and

 so the need to use PhysX for those isn't really there. For the cloth, destruction and multimaterials I personally prefer the AMD version but the PhysX hair is beautiful :wub:

 

Haven't seen those before those are nice. Wonder how much CPU power that uses though. The only game I know I've played with Havok physics is Starcraft 2 and that has to be the most shitty optimized game ever made. Build a whole new game and with a new engine and it only runs on 1 core. 

[MzCatieB]

im working on a small game at the moment testing some some gameplay stuff, the best examples of APEX PhysX are the Samaritan demo, the Nvidia hair demo and most def the BatMan Demo cause of the smoke simulation. however a beautifull example is the UE4 work demo... the particles in that are insane:

 

Samaritan cloth demo:

 

Hair Demo:

 

Batman:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thCWFXVCH3A

 

UE4:

 

PhysX adds such levels of realism its boring when games dont have it :/

[YouRezz]

Any way as to my understanding PhysX can be run with system powered by AMD GPUs, it only offloads PhysX to the CPU instead of running it of the GPU. It doesent run as good as on nVidia but it still runs solidly

[qwertywarrior]

u know whats strange

justcause 2 didnt have Physx

instead it used cuda !!!

[MzCatieB]

u know whats strange

justcause 2 didnt have Physx

instead it used cuda !!!

 :| CUDA is what PhysX runs on with an Nvidia GPU :|

[qwertywarrior]

 :| CUDA is what PhysX runs on with an Nvidia GPU :|

but why did they call it cuda rather than physx in the game

[MzCatieB]

but why did they call it cuda rather than physx in the game

might just utilise the CUDA a little more... or they set it up so it doesn't run anything on the CPU... thats 1 of the awesome things about CUDA it can be used instead of your CPU for calculate things

[loganryan99]

the OpenCL physics system is actually Havok which is scripting/programming based.

The fact that you said that worries me. OpenCL is a standard, which graphics card manufacturers create their own implementation of. (Just like OpenGL.) Saying the OpenCL physics system is Havok is saying that the OpenGL graphics system is the Source Engine.

 

OpenCL is mainly used as a way to offload tasks onto the GPU, and can be used by any developer for any purpose.

Bullet Physics takes advantage of OpenCL, and it's definitely not the same as Havok.

 

Another thing to add - Just because NVidia puts out videos of what PhysX can do doesn't mean that the AMD cards aren't capable the same exact thing. It means that NVidia created a proprietary API only available on their cards, and that they obviously aren't going to support AMD. In the end, PhysX and OpenCL are COMPLETELY different things!

 

Since you made the comparison anyways:

Havok is clearly capable of the same things as PhysX.

[MzCatieB]

The fact that you said that worries me. OpenCL is a standard, which graphics card manufacturers create their own implementation of. (Just like OpenGL.) Saying the OpenCL physics system is Havok is saying that the OpenGL graphics system is the Source Engine.

 

OpenCL is mainly used as a way to offload tasks onto the GPU, and can be used by any developer for any purpose.

Bullet Physics takes advantage of OpenCL, and it's definitely not the same as Havok.

 

Another thing to add - Just because NVidia puts out videos of what PhysX can do doesn't mean that the AMD cards aren't capable the same exact thing. It means that NVidia created a proprietary API only available on their cards, and that they obviously aren't going to support AMD. In the end, PhysX and OpenCL are COMPLETELY different things!

yes OpenCL is a graphics tool like DirectX, PhysX is a simulation engine that utilised CUDA / CPU and Havok is a refined programming based simulation engine that utilises OpenCL.

between PhysX and OpenCL PhysX is allot more attractive and has less impact on the graphics card (Fore what it gives you), Havok/OpenCL is now considered the standard but isnt as visual impressive.

[Genecidalic]

no cause PhysX runs allot better than Havok.

also there are rumours going around that Nvidia might make PhysX available for AMD hardware cause it is an extremely refined allot more beautiful system that adds so much more in to a game 

 

 

also Havok is going extremely strong: http://www.havok.com/ just doesnt look as impressive

I feel like those particle effects take away from the immersion. To me when i see effects like stomping around i want to see the dent in the ground. If there are particles like what they are showing i want to see where they came from otherwise it feels like things are coming out of no where. Which takes away the immersion

[loganryan99]

yes OpenCL is a graphics tool like DirectX, PhysX is a simulation engine that utilised CUDA / CPU and Havok is a refined programming based simulation engine that utilises OpenCL.

between PhysX and OpenCL PhysX is allot more attractive and has less impact on the graphics card (Fore what it gives you), Havok/OpenCL is now considered the standard but isnt as visual impressive.

No, OpenCL is not a graphics tool. You continue to compare PhysX and OpenCL when they are two different things!

OpenCL is an API that can be used for way more than just games or graphics. All OpenCL lets you do is off-load processes onto the graphics card. Havok and OpenCL are both NOT a graphics system, so saying they aren't as "graphically impressive" makes no sense.

 

"PhysX is a lot more attractive and has less impact on the graphics card" - again, impossible statement as they are not the same thing.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenCL

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhysX

 

Another thing to add is, NVidia is obviously not going to tell you that other cards are capable of the same thing. They are cherry-picking individual features that PhysX has that a game without it obviously doesn't have. The "with/without" PhysX is only marketing because they're honestly not going to try and optimize the game without PhysX.

[MzCatieB]

No, OpenCL is not a graphics tool. You continue to compare PhysX and OpenCL when they are two different things!

OpenCL is an API that can be used for way more than just games or graphics. All OpenCL lets you do is off-load processes onto the graphics card. Havok and OpenCL are both NOT a graphics system, so saying they aren't as "graphically impressive" makes no sense.

 

"PhysX is a lot more attractive and has less impact on the graphics card" - again, impossible statement as they are not the same thing.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenCL

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhysX

 

Another thing to add is, NVidia is obviously not going to tell you that other cards are capable of the same thing. They are cherry-picking individual features that PhysX has that a game without it obviously doesn't have. The "with/without" PhysX is only marketing because they're honestly not going to try and optimize the game without PhysX.

 

read what the title said, it is about simulations in games not different graphics rendering systems for computers.

 

PhysX vs OpenCL

OpenCL and DirectX are graphics tools used for streamlining shaders and 3d space through the graphics card... it offloads it from the CPU to the GPU.

PhysX is an Nvidia software which utilises CUDA to streamline complex simulations, it can use either the CPU or the GPU

Havok is software dedicated, created for computer games to pre render/ simulate simulations in games.

 

i was correcting the original question as OpenCL is not designed for SIMULATING physics unlike PhysX, Havok is designed to utilise OpenCL in such a way to display simulations for computers.

if you wish to go in depth OpenCL is designed for Linux, Mac OS and Windows, it was originally created to run the desktop user interface to allow more people to interact with computers easier, this was due to people not understanding computers had difficulty having to run things from the DOS.

as of early 2000 Microsoft developed DirectX which is a graphicly refined version of OpenCL and is ONLY usable on the Windows operating system unlike OpenCL.

 

From a games design perspective:

as from my perspective being a games design and developer using DirectX is allot easier compared to OpenCL and is less buggy, PhysX is cleaner and faster to work with but given that not 100% of hardware currently can utilise it Havok is the other option.

 

also "PhysX is a lot more attractive and has less impact on the graphics card" is only part of what i said, in future please Quote the entire thing and read everything that is placed, what i said was "between PhysX and OpenCL Physics is allot more attractive and has less impact on the graphics card (Fore what it gives you)" this is true considering that the graphics which PhysX enabled graphics cards of today can run much greater events compared to what was even capable 3 years ago on the most high end cards.

[KaareKanin]

No.

If you look past the semantics I think you might find what @Pixxie_Payne was explaining was the havok/physx comparison, which is what pixxie compared in the first place.

[loganryan99]

read what the title said, it is about simulations in games not different graphics rendering systems for computers.

 

PhysX vs OpenCL

OpenCL and DirectX are graphics tools used for streamlining shaders and 3d space through the graphics card... it offloads it from the CPU to the GPU.

PhysX is an Nvidia software which utilises CUDA to streamline complex simulations, it can use either the CPU or the GPU

Havok is software dedicated, created for computer games to pre render/ simulate simulations in games.

 

i was correcting the original question as OpenCL is not designed for SIMULATING physics unlike PhysX, Havok is designed to utilise OpenCL in such a way to display simulations for computers.

if you wish to go in depth OpenCL is designed for Linux, Mac OS and Windows, it was originally created to run the desktop user interface to allow more people to interact with computers easier, this was due to people not understanding computers had difficulty having to run things from the DOS.

as of early 2000 Microsoft developed DirectX which is a graphicly refined version of OpenCL and is ONLY usable on the Windows operating system unlike OpenCL.

 

From a games design perspective:

as from my perspective being a games design and developer using DirectX is allot easier compared to OpenCL and is less buggy, PhysX is cleaner and faster to work with but given that not 100% of hardware currently can utilise it Havok is the other option.

 

also "PhysX is a lot more attractive and has less impact on the graphics card" is only part of what i said, in future please Quote the entire thing and read everything that is placed, what i said was "between PhysX and OpenCL Physics is allot more attractive and has less impact on the graphics card (Fore what it gives you)" this is true considering that the graphics which PhysX enabled graphics cards of today can run much greater events compared to what was even capable 3 years ago on the most high end cards.

 

I am not saying you're wrong, I am just trying to clarify with the people seeking advice that OpenCL is not designed specifically for graphics, and that it is not a physics engine and cannot be compared to PhysX directly. I can see that you are trying to generalize all OpenCL-based physics solutions and compare them to PhysX which, in most cases, PhysX will turn out more appealing.

 

My point: OpenCL isn't a graphics or a physics solution. A better question would be "PhysX vs. Havok".

[loganryan99]

If you look past the semantics I think you might find what @Pixxie_Payne was explaining was the havok/physx comparison, which is what pixxie compared in the first place.

 

I totally agree that games that use PhysX tend to look better than games with havok (even though neither have anything to do with graphics), but what I was trying to explain is the difference between PhysX and OpenCL, because some of the things that were said could have been misleading about what OpenCL actually is. In some cases he also compared OpenCL to DirectX.

 

My point is to make sure people know that OpenCL is not a physics or a graphics solution, and that it is not comparable in it's self to PhysX or DirectX, which in the explanation Pixxie gave that wasn't made clear. 

[Kuzma]

My main point for this thread was, do you think more developers won't bother with PhysX since a large portion of what it can do can be done in OpenCL Physics engines such as Havok (I say engines because Havok isn't the only OpenCL physics engine in the world) , run on two types of hardware and therefore not be dividing their target audience making them more money and therefore leading to the death of PhysX maybe slowly but the eventual death of it.

[DaftBehemoth]

Any way as to my understanding PhysX can be run with system powered by AMD GPUs, it only offloads PhysX to the CPU instead of running it of the GPU. It doesent run as good as on nVidia but it still runs solidly

While that's true, it does NOT run solidly. The performance hit is so massive that games become unplayable. And I mean even something like Mafia 2 on my old crossfire 6970's. You just have to turn off the feature if you have AMD cards. It's not worth the 90% performance drops in nasty areas. PhysX is one of the many reasons I decided to trade up for some SLI 670's

[MzCatieB]

can i just say this about people saying "it only offloads PhysX to the CPU instead of running it of the GPU" have most likely never had an Nvidia card or set up there PhysX incorrectly, as there are 3 options to choose from, (1 is auto select however)