Project CARS devs address AMD performance issues, AMD drivers to blame entirely, PhysX runs on CPU only, no GPU involvement whatsoever.

[AlwaysFSX]

physics engines made by game developers run on the gpu and its like saying why dont you use your cpu for graphics which you can but is going to be slow. the gpu is better at these types of applications

It's made for the CPU, why is this so hard to understand?

[Majestic]

One of the main reason why physx isn't being adopted widely is that is locked onto nvidia. Back when physx was with a third party company it seemed like it had a really bright future with more and more adoption from devs. But when nvidia purchased the company physx adoption seem to have hit a brick wall. 

 

Ooorr... they have a better alternative. You're just jumpin to conclusions, which is what brings me back to my ealier statement you were stabbing in the dark at this point.

[spartaman64]

It's made for the CPU, why is this so hard to understand?

physx works better on gpus because they are better at handling parallel work loads

Ooorr... they have a better alternative. You're just jumpin to conclusions, which is what brings me back to my ealier statement you were stabbing in the dark at this point.

not really because i really like physx particle effects and i think its better than what devs have came up with

[AlwaysFSX]

physx works better on gpus because they are better at handling parallel work loads

Wrong. PhysX. Holy fuck how many times do I have to say it?

[spartaman64]

Wrong. PhysX. Holy fuck how many times do I have to say it?

you are just repeating the name what point are you making

and a quote from nvidia "PhysX is optimized for hardware acceleration by massively parallel processors."

[AlwaysFSX]

you are just repeating the name what point are you making

and a quote from nvidia "PhysX is optimized for hardware acceleration by massively parallel processors."

Wrong. PhysX. Holy fuck how many times do I have to say it?

[spartaman64]

Wrong. PhysX. Holy fuck how many times do I have to say it?

if you could clarify on what you mean that would be great

[AlwaysFSX]

if you could clarify on what you mean that would be great

It's a physics engine, something like Havok. I've said it before.

[spartaman64]

It's a physics engine, something like Havok. I've said it before.

the difference is havok is designed for cpus and physx is designed for gpus

[AlwaysFSX]

the difference is havok is designed for cpus and physx is designed for gpus

Wrong. PhysX. Holy fuck how many times do I have to say it?

[zappian]

It's a physics engine, something like Havok. I've said it before.

 

There is only one Physx.

 

http://physxinfo.com/

 

I have no idea what you are talking about lol.

[AlwaysFSX]

There is only one Physx.

 

http://physxinfo.com/

 

I have no idea what you are talking about lol.

*facedesk* Here we go. There is PhysX that can be used for physics, runs fine on CPUS, and PhysX for all the fun particle and cloth effects, only meant for CUDA acceleration.

[Nineshadow]

One of the main reason why physx isn't being adopted widely is that is locked onto nvidia. Back when physx was with a third party company it seemed like it had a really bright future with more and more adoption from devs. But when nvidia purchased the company physx adoption seem to have hit a brick wall. 

PhysX isn't exactly locked onto Nvidia. It can run on any CPU out there, but for the graphical acceleration part, it requires CUDA.

AMD doesn't have CUDA, so it runs on the CPU which can't handle it as well as the GPU.

[spartaman64]

*facedesk* Here we go. There is PhysX that can be used for physics, runs fine on CPUS, and PhysX for all the fun particle and cloth effects, only meant for CUDA acceleration.

OK there we go but the particle and cloth effects are not there

[Majestic]

Holy fuck how many times do I have to say it?

 

About 3.14 more times.

[spartaman64]

PhysX isn't exactly locked onto Nvidia. It can run on any CPU out there, but for the graphical acceleration part, it requires CUDA.

AMD doesn't have CUDA, so it runs on the CPU which can't handle it as well as the GPU.

this is why we need a open standard where both amd and nvidia GPUs can do graphical acceleration

[AlwaysFSX]

OK there we go but the particle and cloth effects are not there

Now what are you going on about...

 

About 3.14 more times.

I swear there needs to be a test before someone is allowed to use the internet.

[Victorious Secret]

*facedesk* Here we go. There is PhysX that can be used for physics, runs fine on CPUS, and PhysX for all the fun particle and cloth effects, only meant for CUDA acceleration.

PhysX on the physics engine side is 100% compatible with any GPU, just like Havok. PhysX for your engine is just an alternative to Havok. 

PhysX for effects is GPU reliant and it bloody well isn't Nvidias problem if AMD doesn't want to license the tech that powers PhysX. 

 

this is why we need a open standard where both amd and nvidia GPUs can do graphical acceleration

 

CUDA exists. Intel happily paid. AMD is refusing to. NOT NVIDIAS PROBLEM. AMD wants to be cheap, that is their prerogative. 

 

Though it has been submitted to no outside standards body, it is in fact completely free to download the specs and write CUDA apps, and even completely free to write a CUDA driver to allow your company’s hardware (CPU, GPU, whatever) to run apps written in the CUDA environment. 

 

Nvidia “owns” and controls the future of CUDA, so it’s not open in the “open source” definition, but it’s certainly free. Nvidia tells us it would be thrilled for ATI to develop a CUDA driver for their GPUs.

But what about PhysX? Nvidia claims they would be happy for ATI to adopt PhysX support on Radeons. To do so would require ATI to build a CUDA driver, with the benefit that of course other CUDA apps would run on Radeons as well. ATI would also be required to license PhysX in order to hardware accelerate it, of course, but Nvidia maintains that the licensing terms are extremely reasonable—it would work out to less than pennies per GPU shipped. 

I spoke with Roy Taylor, Nvidia’s VP of Content Business Development, and he says his phone hasn’t even rung to discuss the issue. “If Richard Huddy wants to call me up, that’s a call I’d love to take,” he said.

 

 

AMD are being stubborn idiots about not licensing CUDA when the door is wide open. 

 

PhysX isn't exactly locked onto Nvidia. It can run on any CPU out there, but for the graphical acceleration part, it requires CUDA.

AMD doesn't have CUDA, so it runs on the CPU which can't handle it as well as the GPU.

 

Exactly. AMD doesn't want to license out CUDA like Intel did, AMD can blame themselves for their own poor performance. 

 

 

 

Nvidia isn't hampering fuck all. Nvidia is willing to license out the tech to allow CUDA acceleration on Radeon GPUs. Intel paid up, they're going to employ it. AMD doesn't want to pay pennies per GPU to have equal footing, that is their problem. 

Don't act like AMD wouldn't do the same to Nvidia if they could. Everyone is just getting pissy that Nvidia got AMD over a barrel first. Welcome to corporations and the marketplace, nobody is your friend and no one gives a shit about the customers so long as you give them your money. That goes for all sides. So stop acting like AMD is some bloody saint in any of this. 

[spartaman64]

Now what are you going on about...

I swear there needs to be a test before someone is allowed to use the internet.

and users get a gimped version so we need a standard that works well on amd and nvidia gpus

[AlwaysFSX]

How does it feel, hitting your head against a wall? Fun, eh? 

How thick are some people. PhysX on the physics engine side is 100% compatible with any GPU, just like Havok. PhysX for your engine is just an alternative to Havok. 

PhysX for effects is GPU reliant and it bloody well isn't Nvidias problem if AMD doesn't want to license the tech that powers PhysX. 

 

 

CUDA exists. Intel happily paid. AMD is refusing to. NOT NVIDIAS PROBLEM. AMD wants to be cheap, that is their prerogative. 

 

 

AMD are being stubborn idiots about not licensing CUDA when the door is wide open. 

 

 

Exactly. AMD doesn't want to license out CUDA like Intel did, AMD can blame themselves for their own poor performance. 

And people will give Nvidia shit for not supporting Mantle.

 

and users get a gimped version so we need a standard that works well on amd and nvidia gpus

It doesn't use GPUs. Are you being dense on purpose? Serious question.

[zappian]

About 3.14 more times.

 

3.5 times should be enough.

[spartaman64]

And people will give Nvidia shit for not supporting Mantle.

 

It doesn't use GPUs. Are you being dense on purpose? Serious question.

parallel processors

[AlwaysFSX]

parallel processors

You don't understand how PhysX works. At all. So why do you mention something irrelevant?

[Victorious Secret]

And people will give Nvidia shit for not supporting Mantle.

 

It doesn't use GPUs. Are you being dense on purpose? Serious question.

 

To be fair, Intel and Nvidia asked to get a look at Mantle which was amusing since Intel and Nvidia were on the board of people working on DX12; AMD never gave them anything and lets be honest Mantle was stillborn. 

 

I can't imagine the dollars that AMD had to pay EA/DICE so that they would build Frostbite 3 to be Mantle compatible. 

[zappian]

parallel processors

 

Everyone know physx runs MUCH better on gpus.

This is incontestable.

 

From the nvidia page.

 

Will running PhysX on a GPU slow down gaming performance?

Running physics on the GPU is typically significantly faster than running physics on the CPU, so overall game performance is improved and frame rates can be much faster. However, adding physics can also impact performance in much the same way that anti-aliasing impacts performance. Gamers always enable AA modes if they can because AA makes the game look better. Gamers will similarly enable physics on their GPUs so long as frame rates remain playable. With AA enabled, running physics on a GPU will generally be much faster than running physics on a CPU when AA is enabled. PhysX running on a dedicated GPU allows offloading the PhysX processing from the GPU used for standard graphics rendering, resulting in an optimal usage of processing capabilities in a system.

 

http://www.geforce.com/hardware/technology/physx/faq