Since the game is going to use PhysX....

[Chronic]

Bad news for AMD users am I right?


CPU based PhysX is unoptimized...

[Sverr]

AMD equipped machines will just have to run all the PhysX calculations on the CPU, instead of the GPU. As long as the CPU is decent, amd users won't be out of luck.

More information here (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=36608)

[Hyperz]

I'm fairly sure there wont be any GPU accelerated physics in the game. Things like ragdolls, vehicle physics and handling is virtually never done on the GPU. It's only things like tons of debris particles, volumetric smoke, fluids etc that are well suited for being GPU accelerated. And I've seen none of those so far. Conclusion: I'm 99% sure that it's CPU PhysX only, whether you have an nVidia card or not.

Also consider this: would they be willing to lock out the majority of their target audience for certain features? Considering they choose to stick with DX9 to increase the potential player base I think it's fair to assume the answer is no.

[megamold]

like it really makes a difference if you go AMD or intel

both have good cpu's
both work perfectly fine

[MockZero2]

You know that makes a lot of sense and I could be wrong but, I seem to remember them saying they had a guy come in from Nvidia. HE was there to help with the physics in there flight mechanics or something along those lines. That still doesn't mean it is relying on the GPU just because an Nvidia guy paid a visit but I wouldn't count it out entirely

[Electrofreak]

It doesn't make a difference, really. NVIDIA is helping them out just so their logo makes it onto the final product and Higby can give them plugs like when he talked about their test units running 670s.

As for PhysX itself, the CPU (AMD or Intel) is capable of handling those calculations and usually does anyhow. The reality is that few games will ever bring a modern CPU to its knees (GPU is another matter entirely) and so it doesn't really make a big difference.

Think of it this way; if using PhysX "screwed" the AMD players, it would mean significantly less players in PS2 and less income for SOE. They're not going to let that happen.

[MockZero2]

Well it look like one of our PSU peoples spelled this out pretty well already.

http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=36608

[ringring]

You know that makes a lot of sense and I could be wrong but, I seem to remember them saying they had a guy come in from Nvidia. HE was there to help with the physics in there flight mechanics or something along those lines. That still doesn't mean it is relying on the GPU just because an Nvidia guy paid a visit but I wouldn't count it out entirely

John Ratcliffe, some may have heard of him as he was an original Planetside developer.

http://jratcliffscarab.blogspot.co.uk/2007/08/planetside-screenshots.html

[EVILoHOMER]

CPU-Based PhysX summary

To summarize the headlines of the last few months and summarize the test results, we can conclude the following:

The CPU-based PhysX mode mostly uses only the older x87 instruction set instead of SSE2.
Testing other compilations in the Bullet benchmark shows only a maximum performance increase of 10% to 20% when using SSE2.
The optimization performance gains would thus only be marginal in a purely single-core application.
Contrary to many reports, CPU-based PhysX supports multi-threading.
There are scenarios in which PhysX is better on the CPU than the GPU.
A game like Metro 2033 shows that CPU-based PhysX could be quite competitive.

Then why is the performance picture so dreary right now?

With CPU-based PhysX, the game developers are largely responsible for fixing thread allocation and management, while GPU-based PhysX handles this automatically.
This is a time and money issue for the game developers.
The current situation is also architected to help promote GPU-based PhysX over CPU-based PhysX.
With SSE2 optimizations and good threading management for the CPU, modern quad-core processors would be highly competitive compared to GPU PhysX. Predictably, Nvidia’s interest in this is lackluster.




Basically it's down to SOE to make it run smoothly on the CPU, Nvidia wont be helping them. The reason why we don't see it supported with other games is because most of them are Console ports where they've slapped Physx on and just used what Nvidia has given them. They don't invest time and money to make it run smoothly on the CPU like SOE will be doing. I also think SOE are using Physx as their core Physics engine instead of Havok or whatever, so it's not like your PC will be trying to run two physic systems at the same time. Id on't think they'll be doing all that flashy stuff you see in Batman or Mafia 2 with it either.

[Goku]

Here is the tweet from Higby on PhysX

https://mobile.twitter.com/mhigby/status/160525716885209088

@planetside2 Tech question for those of us building PCs soon: Will PhysX be software or hardware based? Will we benefit from Nvidia cards?

Higby's response:
@dmaix @planetside2 when pushing the bounds of the PhysX system, Nvidia hardware will make it run faster. Normal situations, not much diff.

This is why I thought its GPU based for some parts anyway.

[Hyperz]

You know that makes a lot of sense and I could be wrong but, I seem to remember them saying they had a guy come in from Nvidia. HE was there to help with the physics in there flight mechanics or something along those lines. That still doesn't mean it is relying on the GPU just because an Nvidia guy paid a visit but I wouldn't count it out entirely

That's normal and doesn't have anything to do with the type of PhysX used. They just assist in implementing their tech into the game engine. Also keep in mind that GPU Physics only runs on nVidia cards. It's a vendor-lockin gimmick. Hence why "normal" physics calculation are never done using GPU PhysX as it would mean that the game would not run AT ALL on anything but nV hardware. That's why titles that do support GPU Physics only adds useless effects that don't have any impact on the actual gameplay.

[Electrofreak]

In short, if you absolutely positively gotta get the best frame rate possible when 300 aircraft explode simultaneously in the sky, having an NVIDIA card will hook you up with a few extra FPS.

Otherwise, no big difference.

[Hyperz]

Here is the tweet from Higby on PhysX

https://mobile.twitter.com/mhigby/status/160525716885209088

@planetside2 Tech question for those of us building PCs soon: Will PhysX be software or hardware based? Will we benefit from Nvidia cards?

Higby's response:
@dmaix @planetside2 when pushing the bounds of the PhysX system, Nvidia hardware will make it run faster. Normal situations, not much diff.

This is why I thought its GPU based for some parts anyway.

That's PR, nothing more nothing less. GPU vendor has no impact on performance if it's run on the CPU. Most game devs get payed by nV for using their proprietary software. Hence why the developers advertise nV in those cases, like the one above. It's part of the TWIMTBP program.

[Top Sgt]

In short, if you absolutely positively gotta get the best frame rate possible when 300 aircraft explode simultaneously in the sky, having an NVIDIA card will hook you up with a few extra FPS.

Otherwise, no big difference.

pretty much this right here ^

[Hyperz]

pretty much this right here ^

That would have nothing to do with GPU PhysX though. So until we have benchmarks there's no way of knowing. Take Metro 2033 for example. It's a TWIMTBP title that has PhysX as well, yet AMD cards are the best choice for that game.

I'd advice anyone who is looking to upgrade for PS2 to wait till the beta goes live and some (independent) benches come online before doing so. And don't drink the PR kool-aid :D.

[Rbstr]

The PhysX predominently used in a game from a gameplay standpoint is almost same thing as Havok. It'll run about the same with an nVidia or AMD card, it's no big deal.

It's the eye candy that's going to get substantial benefits with a nVidia card. Particle effects and things that you can likely turn down or off.

I'd advice anyone who is looking to upgrade for PS2 to wait till the beta goes live and some (independent) benches come online before doing so. And don't drink the PR kool-aid :D.
Eh, if you're going for a reasonably budgeted upgrade you're going to end up with a GTX670 anyway. AMD simply doesn't compete with that right now.

[wasdie]

CPU based PhysX isn't terribly optimized. For basic physics it's absolutely fine. It's just a mess when you try to do mass physics calculations or calculations on water or particles. All of those elements that make no real difference in the game.

[kertvon]

I do recall that during the fan faire 2011 forgelight demo, when the Nvidia spokesman got up to speak, he did say the physX would run on other hardware, but that it would "scale" better with Nvidia. When he said that, the first thing that I thought of was GPU graphics options that aren't available on AMD cards, rather than the entire physX implementation being limited to GPU only. It has been a while since I have seen that in a game, but I do recall a few games having ultra/hardcore/etc settings for specific GPUs that weren't available on competitor options. Not quite sure that is the case though.

Considering the physX engine is handling flight and vehicle mechanics I think it is safe to assume that it is mainly CPU based and maybe there is some GPU "glitter" for Nvidia users.

As has been said, while Nvidia physX is a great platform, Nvidia being pushed as much as it is lends more to marketing and partnership than it does locking in a specific GPU manufacturer. Considering most of us(myself included) on the forums have, since the knowledge of the physX engine, considered upgrading/switching GPU I would say the marketing has worked.

I almost wonder if the silence on CPU/GPU physX is a sales tactic... throw out just enough info to get people to buy up the Nvidia GPUs before saying, "You can run the game on a pentium III and intel integrated graphics!" lol.

[Kayos]

It's the eye candy that's going to get substantial benefits with a nVidia card. Particle effects and things that you can likely turn down or off.


If you believe what someone said that PS2 is only using DirectX 9 than most of those new particle effects (that you see in games running higher directx version) won't be there anyway.

[EVILoHOMER]

Well Benchmarks show CPU based Physx can run as good as it on a single Nvidia GPU, only difference is when you have a second Nvidia card and dedicate it to Physx then you'll be getting a big boost. It's restricted software wise by Nvidia and if SOE do a good job then CPU physx will run as good as a single Nvidia GPU system.

That said I have an 670SLI system so not bothered all that much, I'd rather take it away from the CPU and put it to the GPU.

[Trafalgar]

*looks up the GTX 670* ... PCI Express 3.0? What? Damnit technology, stop speeding ahead of me.

I'm still using the GTX 460 and I think that is pretty good. It tends to be difficult to drop the framerate below max (I've only done it with DX:HR by maxing all the settings, STO by turning settings above ultra, and Skyrim just maxes out one CPU core and trololos - the GPU fan goes at 30-40% speed, the GPU is not stressed at all, it may or may not run at max framerate but even if it's below max the GPU does not try harder, and Skyrim just goes AH CANNAE BE EFFICIENT KEPTIN because it's too dumb to do any better).

Oh, and Shores of Hazeron, but that was just ridiculous, and it almost always ran at 10-15 fps unless sitting in space immediately after a server reboot with no spaceships in the solar system, and not on the same server as any busy systems, because server busyness decreased client framerate somehow (Maybe the networking was blocking? I would tend to not expect Haxus to be quite that naive though, but you never know - he did manage to completely overlook security and never fully corrected his attitude about it).

... That was a bit of a tangent. I'm not that fond of PhysX personally, either, but that's because it's too limited. Of course it's probably completely fine for Planetside 2, as long as we don't need to leave the planet and fly to another one, or have the planet be round, rotating, and orbiting a sun, etc. (Of course it would be easier to make the sun orbit the planet and the planet be perfectly still, if everyone was staying on the planet, but that way lies madness - and what happens if you leave the planet? Any other planet is moving relative to it as well.)

[Electrofreak]

*looks up the GTX 670* ... PCI Express 3.0? What? Damnit technology, stop speeding ahead of me.

Are there even any games that can saturate the bus of a PCI Express 2.0? I doubt it. Rbstr would probably know, he's been keeping up on this stuff better than I have.

[Hyperz]

Eh, if you're going for a reasonably budgeted upgrade you're going to end up with a GTX670 anyway. AMD simply doesn't compete with that right now.

I guess that depends on where you live. Here the 670 and the 7970 are priced about the same with the 7970 having higher availability and is faster. I also read that they will introduce speed bumped versions of the existing cards at the same price (7750/7770 +100 mhz and 7970 ghz edition +150 mhz).

If you want the best bang for buck with a GPU upgrade for PS2 there's really only one reasonable thing to do and that is to wait and see. You can only benefit from doing that :).

[Rbstr]

Hyperz you should say where "here" is :)

But yeah, obviously with a price cut the 7970 can become a decent buy. Right now it costs $470ish. The GTX670 is only $400 and is faster in tons of situations. It's a no brainer over the 7970 in the US, at least [IMO, as well].

As far as PCIe3.0 even the new cards that have it that are in a PCIe3.0 motherboard don't run at the spec, it's not in drivers yet. They are backward compatible with 2.0

[Reborn]

It just really mean the nvidea drivers are probably gonna give great performance boost to this game since the engineers seem to be pretty involved

[Vancha]

So the conclusion we can draw from this is the same as usual?

"Wait and see."

[Ailos]

It's not that GPU PhysX can't run on an AMD card, it's that NVidia's PhysX engine isn't optimized for it - it IS optimized for the CUDA cores, which power NVidia's cards. AMD employ the more generic "Streaming Processors" which fulfil pretty much the same function (I mean, Our Folding@home project can put both, NVidia and ATI GPUs to use (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=42759)). The difference: the instruction set. Just like x87 differs from SSE2, the instruction sets for CUDA are different from AMD's stream processors, so it just doesn't work, and the drivers of both companies disable it just to save you the grief. Of course, NVidia decides to play the cuthroat game here by also disabling GPU-accelerated PhysX if the driver detects that it's not the primary display, but there are ways you can still get around that.

So what are you missing by not having GPU-assisted PhysX? Sand flying in your eyes after an explosion. That's all. All ragdolls, collisions, and ballistics have to be processed in your CPU simply because CUDA is too dumb to do those calculations fast enough.

[Notser]

SHOCKING, a game that runs better with a Nvidia card. Play the beta, decide if the game runs smoothly for you and buy the most recent card that fits your budget if it doesn't.

[ThirtyK]

Are they going to have Entering/Exiting animations?

[Khorneholio]

Are they going to have Entering/Exiting animations?

No. We almost universally asked for them but they said it would push the release back a ton if they took the time to add them.

[Tarconus]

So my amd proc is going to be fine, since I have a 560 ti?

[Mechzz]

So my amd proc is going to be fine, since I have a 560 ti?

My understanding via T-Ray is that even people with AMD/Radeon setups don't need to worry. I took that to mean that it is the CPU-based physx they are using, or at the very least they've not been daft enough to make the game so Nvidia-dependent that lots of gamers won't be able to play it at acceptable frame rates.