How PhysX runs on Nvidia and AMD (ATI) systems - Page 2

nathanebht · 2011-07-16, 08:13 PM

In another thread on this topic, Atranox had a good post.

Originally Posted by Atranox

Do not confuse the PhysX engine with GPU-accelerated PhysX.

GPU-acceleration on PhysX requires an NVIDIA card for decent performance and full effects, while the engine itself does not as it runs exclusively on the CPU regardless of video card brand. Based on SOE's description, it sounds like the physics engine itself i being used, not the GPU-acceleration.

Video card brand will most likely not matter.

Goku · 2011-07-16, 08:15 PM

Originally Posted by nathanebht

In another thread on this topic, Atranox had a good post.

He already mentioned that in this thread. I updated the OP reflecting what he said.

Lunarchild · 2011-07-16, 08:54 PM

Originally Posted by Zulthus

There is no "poor" choice in having either a AMD or Nvidia card. They both work fine and it's a matter of personal opinion.

While it is a matter of preference, opinion has little to do with it. AMD ATI cards are better at doing a lot of simple of operations, while NVidia specialize in doing more complex, but overall less work.

This in the end means that ATI handles high poly models better, while NVidia will handle complex shaders better. And THAT is the difference between the two. Other brands can pretty much be disregarded, as they don't come anywhere near ATI and NVidia.

This in the end means that it depends on what the game in question is optimized for as to which runs better.

BorisBlade · 2011-07-16, 11:18 PM

Originally Posted by Zulthus

There is no "poor" choice in having either a AMD or Nvidia card. They both work fine and it's a matter of personal opinion.

I used to be an AMD fanboy and all but one of my previous cards were ATI (AMD), but this generation Nvidia wins hands down, its not even close. The AMD cards cap out on fps early, and lose bad when you start turnin up the settings. Esp with DX11, tesselation among other things is pathetic on the AMD cards. You dont see AMD winnin any of the benchmarks when you compare cards unless you start goin for the dual chip cards and even those do poorly in high end DX11 tests. And when you then add in the lack of PhysX its just flat out over for AMD.

Now i wont be an Nvidia fanboy or anything, these things change with each generation. I'm learnin to just adapt to the reality of whats available and currently Nvidia is the superior choice hands down.

Zulthus · 2011-07-17, 02:21 AM

Originally Posted by BorisBlade

I used to be an AMD fanboy and all but one of my previous cards were ATI (AMD), but this generation Nvidia wins hands down, its not even close. The AMD cards cap out on fps early, and lose bad when you start turnin up the settings. Esp with DX11, tesselation among other things is pathetic on the AMD cards. You dont see AMD winnin any of the benchmarks when you compare cards unless you start goin for the dual chip cards and even those do poorly in high end DX11 tests. And when you then add in the lack of PhysX its just flat out over for AMD.

Now i wont be an Nvidia fanboy or anything, these things change with each generation. I'm learnin to just adapt to the reality of whats available and currently Nvidia is the superior choice hands down.

I personally don't 'care' too much about which card I have either, but I'm really at a loss at why you think AMD is so bad. I run the HD5870 and I can run any modern game on the market atm at max settings. Not crossfired, but a single card. I realize that Nvidia has extremely good GPUs, but I'm trying to say that from my personal results that it doesn't seem to matter at this point if you get an AMD or Nvidia GPU.

Bags · 2011-07-17, 02:23 AM

I buy Nvidia cards and the only reason I can come up with as to why I prefer them over AMD is that their logo is green.

/shrug

Just hope my GTX 460 will be enough to run PS2 well.

Vancha · 2011-07-17, 02:53 AM

Originally Posted by BorisBlade

I used to be an AMD fanboy and all but one of my previous cards were ATI (AMD), but this generation Nvidia wins hands down, its not even close. The AMD cards cap out on fps early, and lose bad when you start turnin up the settings. Esp with DX11, tesselation among other things is pathetic on the AMD cards. You dont see AMD winnin any of the benchmarks when you compare cards unless you start goin for the dual chip cards and even those do poorly in high end DX11 tests. And when you then add in the lack of PhysX its just flat out over for AMD.

Now i wont be an Nvidia fanboy or anything, these things change with each generation. I'm learnin to just adapt to the reality of whats available and currently Nvidia is the superior choice hands down.

Not so. Lets compare the 6850/70 to 560ti, 6950/70 to 570 and 6990 to 580.

At 1280x1024, both companies are about equal in regards to power efficiency and value...at anything higher, AMD win by far on performance per dollar and performance per watt (though those with 1024x728 will want to go with Nvidia).

When it comes to DX11 games it seems to depend on the game. I just went through a bunch of reviews comparing 6950s to 570s. In Metro 2033 and AVP, the 6950 equals 570, while on Lost Planet 2 a 560ti will beat out a 6970.

So for anyone with a strict budget, they'd probably get more out of an AMD card, unless they were specifically planning on playing a game AMD cards fail with, which brings us to PS2...

I suggest we wait until beta before advising people on their purchasing choices. We could end up in a situation where 560s are beating 6970s, or we could end up with equivalent cards being pretty much equal. It would seem a bit silly for SOE to tell people their game will run on 5 year old rigs and then at release have people discover "oh, but that's only for Nvidia cards", so I'm guessing it's more likely to be the latter scenario, but who knows?

Goku · 2011-07-17, 06:29 AM

Vancha why are you using so low resolutions? Anything 1680x1050 to 1920x1200 in mainstream these days.

Vancha · 2011-07-17, 08:38 AM

Three reasons.

1: That's where the seesaw between the two brands tips.

2: People may be upgrading their GPU but continue using an older monitor.

3: I use 1280x1024.

Lunarchild · 2011-07-17, 08:45 AM

As I noted above, raw performance is not everything. So your whole point is moot ^^

Also I use 1920x1080x120 + 1920x1200x59

Goku · 2011-07-17, 08:54 AM

Get off those old resolutions. I cannot understand how you guys can stand playing on those. The added viewing in games is easily worth the upgrade.

Right now anything above a GTX 550 Ti or 5770 is complete overkill for 1280x1024 and under. My 4670 was more then playable at that resolution.

Lunar what are you using to have 120 screens??

I actually may grab a ASUS VG236HE that is 23 inches, 1920x1080, and most of all 120Hz. I really want to see if there is a difference. If I get it from Best Buy and don't care for it I can just return it for free

.

Infektion · 2011-07-17, 09:01 AM

Originally Posted by Bags

I buy Nvidia cards and the only reason I can come up with as to why I prefer them over AMD is that their logo is green.

/shrug

Just hope my GTX 460 will be enough to run PS2 well.

I hope it is too, that's my cheap upgrade from an HD4850 512MB. For 150+"rebate" it's a good deal. Specially since I hardly Play pc games anymore. I'm also hoping my e8400 @ 3.5Ghz is ok, I'll push it to 4.1Ghz again, but I was running abit high vcore.

Goku · 2011-07-17, 09:13 AM

Push it and if it dies you have a excuse to upgrade

. Did you end up getting that GTX 460, 465, or something entirely different?

Atranox · 2011-07-17, 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by Goku

That is a few areas I did not realize. Though when people think PhysX I bet most people think about the GPU accelerated one. I will go through the OP and update as needed shortly. If I take out what is mentioned about PS2 using the accelerated type will the post be correct for the most part?

You do seem knowledgeable on the subject I will say. Do you know anything more in the relation with PhysX 3.0 GPU accelerated PhysX running on CPUs? With what I got from SOE it sounded like it would favor Nvidia cards, but AMD would take a hit.

EDIT: Updated OP as to your concerns Atranox. Please let me know if I should change anything. I want this to be close to accurate as possible.

The post does seem to be rather accurate. Honestly, it's really difficult to formulate any opinions until we're sure of how SOE will be implementing PhysX.

I would think that using the GPU-accelerated PhysX would be extremely disappointing and a poor business decision. A few years ago...probably not, as NVIDIA had about 70% of the share. Since AMD's 5000 series, they've regained a lot and it's something like 55%/45% now as far as GPU market share goes. I really can't see SOE excluding half of their player base. Most game developers that have used PhysX on the GPU recently basically were paid off by NVIDIA.

Another point to consider is that GPU-accererated PhysX has a very large hit on performance, even for NVIDIA users. Being, an MMO, I really can't fathom SOE implementing such a gigantic resource hog. On the contrast, the PhysX engine is very nice and results in some great performance and effects.

In terms of PhysX 3.0, it has been released to developers - but not much is known about it yet. Most of the information has come from NVIDIA's marketing team, so it's difficult to accept any of it as fact. The biggest change is, as you mentioned, it should run better on the CPU if necessary. It's tough to say though, because NVIDIA has worked very hard to prevent PhysX from being useful on system that don't have an NVIDIA card. Honestly, many consider PhysX is in a pretty bad spot right now, and I really don't know how long it will maintain relevancy. It just isn't a good business decision for game developers to use effects that only half of the consumer base can utilize (especially when there are other comparable engines/effects).

nathanebht · 2011-07-17, 01:04 PM

Your Nvidia / AMD stats are off Atranox. Its 59% Nvidia to 33% AMD. http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

Using AMD myself, still does excellent in games while at the same time sending very nice HDMI 7.1 sound to my receiver.

Vancha, if your running 1280 x 1024, I'd suggest a new monitor the next time your in the market. Whatever your PC buying budget is, split it in half. Half goes to the monitor and half the PC. You'll have the LCD for much longer than you keep that PC.