You NEVER use physx or run ANY graphical programs on a CPU EVER! they weren't made for such complex calculations on the other hand gpu's can just about do it all but for now CPU is important but just wait in a few years gpu will be the main processing unit just u wait... And btw if you're going to respond to me have a half decest reason why, thanks
Most people like yourself don't understand the point of this video. It proves a point that Physics engines could run just as well on CPUs as they do on GPUs. Does PhysX run well? No. PhysX wasn't programmed to take advantage of a CPU. Think of all the other physics engines in use today. Cryengine has some of the best physics, and it's all done on the CPU. This is more of an experiment that average consumers won't understand.
@Containforum ha thats funny I dont think you know how cores work and how each system gpu and cpu algorithms work, cpu really only does basic tasks with medium and even some high clocks, cpu's architecture weren't made to do extreme complex mathematical equations as gpu's as gpu's main task is such... hope u know items x58 platform has been there for decades... do some research maybe you'll learn something and you sound like the average consumer.
I do know how they work. I've done plenty of research in micro processor architectures an such. The proof is in the pudding. Are there physics engines working on CPUs? Yes. Are those engines better than PhysX? Yes. PhysX is just used as a marketing tool. GPUs have an advantage in situation were you need parallel computing such as in graphics rendering. But physics calculations work well on both.
@Containforum yeah i agree physX is just marketing you can do the exact even better simulation of intense/advanced motions using an amd gfx but I just wanted to say that a processor, the way their system works is mainly to get data though the system and respond to many mathematical equations because computers using the CPU many decades ago were for simple calculations" fist computers were calculators thats why they were made" but gfx takes those mathematical equations to the next level....
CPU architecture is always changing. X86-64 or just X86 in general have always been computer processors. But they always improve aswell. The key difference here is that GPUs are only good at rendering graphics because that's a highly parallel task. A CPU has for example 6 cores but a GPU would have 500+. The CPU cores are more advanced but the GPU specializes in graphics. So only the components necissary for graphics are present.
@Containforum ... and use newer and more advanced technology to better cope with 3d objects and rendering I know processor can do the same but gfx card use different architecture same as equations to make certain processes faster and more efficient. Btw I saw your other vids really good and you look like you really know about computers :D
Further more a CPU may only do a few physics calculations are once, but it does them fast enough so it quickly moves onto the next work load. A GPU however will calculate them slower but will do more at once. They'll end up finishing at pretty much the same time.
Havok engine works by splitting the physics into the actual physical simulation and physics rendering (Drawing). The CPU will handle the physical simulation whilst the GPU will render and integrate with the GFX.
im pretty sure my games run smoother when physx is on cpu rather than gpu because the gpu is already at 100% doing the graphics and my cpu has room to spare.
Nor would a GPU be if you ran this many sources of physx on a gpu. The thing is this is a concept. That CPUs can run physx very well if only they had implemented multicore support into one source. Running multiple sources of PhysX is like running more than one instance of your game. Either way, this is a proof of concept. Further evidence is the physics other games are CPU based and yet are often better than PhysX (Crysis), because they support multi cores
This is a CPU demonstration. AMD/Nvidia GPU configs have been around for a while now. Check my other vids. As I believe I was the first to make a video tutorial on it.
It's quite uselsss now though. No new games are using PhysX. It's slowly fading away.
with min fps at 1 I can't see its working fine. Maybe when 8 core 4.5GHz are out, you should test it and see how well its going. Only when there is min at least 25-30 fps and average at least 30fps we can say with confidence that a cpu can run without problem
I run Mafia 2 with hight settings +physix on max settings on AMD Phenom II X6 with 4 GB RAM and HD4850 1GB. 35 fps. 1280x1024. This fps in test. FPS in game better when in test.
Btw! if you play a game using the cpu as physx offload, the game will lagg as hell as the 5 cores are fully/almost fully stressed which leaves only one core to feed the gpu with graphic information therefore lagg...
In this video the PhysX is running on 5 out of 6 cores of the CPU. It runs better than the 8800GT however the only way to get it to use 5 cores is to have essentially more than 1 physX instance running within the same program. It won't ever be used as this work around is not supported by Nvidia.
@IgotGreens101 For single card set ups no... GTX 500 series are lot better than HD 6000, only loyal AMD fanboys say otherwise. Always look for the best card, don't mind if the card has Nvidia or AMD logo... It's kinda sad some people buy the card just cause it's AMD or Nvidia :P Being loyal for whether it's Intel, Nvidia or AMD is just stupid. At this moment Intel + Nvidia platform is the way to go. Next year maybe AMD platform would be way to go... stop being stupid fanboys people...
@notrouserwalkthrough If you are getting whole new parts, I suggest you wait a bit until new Intel Sandy Bridge motherboards get back to market. Their price/performance ratio is the best at the moment, and yes, you'll do fine with quad core for gaming. These new Sandy Bridges are way faster than 1090t, but yeah 1090t is a good CPU dont get me wrong on that, but if you're getting all new parts get Sandy Bridge (i5 2500k or i7 2600k) i5 2500k will be more than enough for gaming, and nicely priced.
@notrouserwalkthrough and to answer your question: "What is PhysX?" It's a feature ONLY in Nvidia cards, that some games like Mafia 2 supports. It makes the physical effects more realistic, but it does have impact on the performance, of course. Best thing would be just google it or search from youtube "Nvidia PhysX" or just "physx mafia 2" for example, and you'll see what kind of feature it is. Also I'm not a fanboy, but I recommend Nvidia card. GTX 560 Ti or GTX 570, depends what's your budget
@notrouserwalkthrough They don't have yet. I heard they are going to make their own version, but I don't think it will be supported on too many games yet cause it's a new feature. Only reason you want to buy an ATi card is if you play on for example 3 monitors, because only single ATi card can run multiple monitors, for Nvidia you need 2 cards for that. They both do have their own issues and own advantages, but on these cards which are out at the moment, Nvidia is clearly a winner for my needs.
@notrouserwalkthrough Also ATi cards scale better on Crossfire mode than NVIDIA cards on SLI. So basically for me, if you are going to play on 1 monitor get Nvidia, if you're going for multiple monitors go ATi. If you're going for dual or more cards set up get ATi, cause they scale better from what I've seen. But if you want PhysX and CUDA, get Nvidia... And also Nvidia drivers tend to be better than ATi's and now they have solved their fan noise probs aswel.
@SpineShank7 Why get so butt-hurt from my comment? Did you write this song? Do you listen to this song in your car on the way to work? My point is that this song is so bad I had a hard time following what the video wanted to inform me about. This song is like John Tesh's Dubstep. Second of all, country blows.
Run it on your 9500 with 5 emitters then you'll see that the 6 core is faster. Even though the dev behind Fluid mark got PhysX to work with more than one core it still doesn't support all six cores working on one emiiter. You need to have an induvidual emitter for each core. So the only way to compare them is to test with 5 emitters. I've tested this on both a 8800GT and the 6 core CPU. They both score exactly the same.
Heh, PhysX is crippled because it using ancient x87 instruction set. David Kanter over at RealWorldTech goes in-depth on how poorly PhysX runs on CPUs and says that if PhysX used the latest SSE instruction sets, it would run pretty close to nvidia GPUs running physx.
@RtFusion dude u cant compare a 12 cpu vs 1 gpu because even if phsyx run on sse4a a cpu can make parallel procesing that why bedsides nvidia already works in cuda x86 but have the same problem a simply example its badaboom i can convert a complete dvd to my ipod with hd quality in about 15min u try that in a cpu....
@RtFusion well now i saw the aritcle but u realize that a lock like they put in the lastest driver that if u have a primarily radeon gpu cant use physx even with a nvidia dedicated gpu and bedsides some games use physx need at least 2 cores (the newest need 4) and no all have a 12 cores cpu at the moment i prefer spend 60dls in a cheap vga for physx instead of a 2000dlls in a cpu.... the modern cpu only can make 8 cycles so for me Nsist on Nvidia
@testdirver Well, people have and are currently running systems with the a Radion card as the primary adapter and an nVidia card as a PhysX card fine with special tools from NGOHQ. You can grab it form their forums,
@RtFusion i know that also u can enable almost all the mobos crossfire for running in sli but these r mods and not r official support by ati (for me always r going to b Ati hahahaha) or nvidia
@Containforum in other words nvidia have severely screwed up physx's usability for developers, if it was open software that devs could use on multiple cpu's and multiple different gpus we'd ahve more than a handful of games by now that used it. Which is why havok is still more widely used (despite being owned by intel now, they knew not to make it closed software)
@Containforum I really doubt they crippled anything, the software has to be programmed differently to be able to use more than one core and that is no easy task. CPUs are for general use while "GPU"s are more oriented to specific purposes and they have very different architectures. Physx is the product they develop for their own hardware. You should be glad that they added support for CPU not complaining about it. It would be time, resource and money consuming focusing even more in CPU support.
They did. They disabled it from working on CPUs. Game developers always use their own physics engines anyway. Crytek games for example have some of the best physics engines which run 100% on CPU. GPU does graphics. Physics can run on CPU and GPU. And honestly the CPU is mostly better at that.
PhysX is a gimmick used as a marketing scheme, nothing more.
@Containforum There are many physics engines, you are right about that and many of them run fast on CPU but that is at cost of precision since precision requires much more CPU power, GPUs are better for physics because of the nature of their architecture. That's why game graphics need a graphic card, or else we would be using the CPU for everything. The question we should focus is not CPU support of physx but an alternative that would use openCL that would run on everything.
@dannyskater Please do not think I am trying to bash your knowledge with all I said, I am learning parallel computation this semester on college and I can't believe they would develop the CPU support with parallel processing and turn it off after that. Understand that making software that has that capability is not piece of cake, it would be very demanding. I believe they simply did not bother with it which is not much better of course. But it makes sense since it is just compatibly support.
@Containforum I just made a response of my self -.- I feel like an idiot, anyway search openCL, that is the best alternative for developing physics engines since it would make use of all the potential of both CPUs and GPUs despite their differences ,architecture benefits. Be cool, peace.
@Warlock247 i read somewhere that physicx ran better on some older tech cpus and that nvidia made it so it would run better on a gpu than on a cpu they even claimed that a cpu could do this better when physicx was optimaliezed for the present cpu tech
lol lots of people dont know that physics x is "bad" written by nvidia so it will only run good on a gpu of them but it could run even better on a modern cpu but not whit the base like that but it runs verry good on an older kind of cpu's
All games do, but they do not support multi core PhysX. Nvidia restricted PhysX to use only one CPU core. However the developer of Fluidmark managed to unlcok this. Though not perfect, so when using multicore physx more physX emmiters must be used. He was unable to get all the cores to work on one emitter as the PhysX on a GPU would work.
A dual core CPU can run this just as nicely. As I mentioned the person who managed to get this to work hasn't done a perfect job. For example when using GPU PhysX you would have 1 emmiter and all the GPU cores would work on that. However when you use the CPU it adds another emitter, thus increasing work load also. CPUs can run physX along with AI and anything else within a game. Developers do use the CPU for Physics. Only games that have PhysX use the GPU. Crysis for example runs on 2 cores.
Fluidmark is not an indicator of acceptable framerates. In games there's a lot more going on than just physics.
It surprises me time and time again how people question the validity of GPGPU and how graphics processors are much faster at these kinds of calculations than CPUs.
You may not think so but I get roughly the same frame rates in Fluid as with PhysX games. Mirrors edge gets the same frame rates for example with a dedicated PhysX card. Ofcourse testing on the CPU is only for proof of concept. I did say multicore support for PhysX probably won't be implemented in games.
I'm not at all trying to question the speed of GPU acceleration. GPU PhysX clearly has a greater performance but the CPU is also acceptable. Even with less than 6 cores.
The pointt is, the 6 core can actually run PhysX with acceptable framerates. The reason wy it looks choppy in the video is that I set PhysX to use all 6 cores, that means fraps needs to take some juice aswell. Honestly it works pretty good with 6 cores. And if you didn't know, usually PhysX in software mode (CPU) only uses 1 core which is why performance is horrible.
@Containforum -Fraps says it all then , I don't know why some body doesn't invent something that runs better , You could try ashampoo core optimizer , assign fraps to one core and gpu physxs test to the other 5 , I don't know if it would make a difference
you have a six core cpu.... and a single 8800gt??
ViskiKokaKola 2 days ago
@ViskiKokaKola
5870 broke at the time. So I had to use the 8800GT. I now have a 6970.
Containforum 2 days ago
@Containforum that's a good pair then id guess :)
ViskiKokaKola 2 days ago
Why is poo coming out the ground?
TheSheow 6 days ago
You NEVER use physx or run ANY graphical programs on a CPU EVER! they weren't made for such complex calculations on the other hand gpu's can just about do it all but for now CPU is important but just wait in a few years gpu will be the main processing unit just u wait... And btw if you're going to respond to me have a half decest reason why, thanks
PwrXenon 2 weeks ago
@PwrXenon
Most people like yourself don't understand the point of this video. It proves a point that Physics engines could run just as well on CPUs as they do on GPUs. Does PhysX run well? No. PhysX wasn't programmed to take advantage of a CPU. Think of all the other physics engines in use today. Cryengine has some of the best physics, and it's all done on the CPU. This is more of an experiment that average consumers won't understand.
Containforum 2 weeks ago
@Containforum ha thats funny I dont think you know how cores work and how each system gpu and cpu algorithms work, cpu really only does basic tasks with medium and even some high clocks, cpu's architecture weren't made to do extreme complex mathematical equations as gpu's as gpu's main task is such... hope u know items x58 platform has been there for decades... do some research maybe you'll learn something and you sound like the average consumer.
PwrXenon 2 weeks ago
@PwrXenon
I do know how they work. I've done plenty of research in micro processor architectures an such. The proof is in the pudding. Are there physics engines working on CPUs? Yes. Are those engines better than PhysX? Yes. PhysX is just used as a marketing tool. GPUs have an advantage in situation were you need parallel computing such as in graphics rendering. But physics calculations work well on both.
Containforum 2 weeks ago
@Containforum yeah i agree physX is just marketing you can do the exact even better simulation of intense/advanced motions using an amd gfx but I just wanted to say that a processor, the way their system works is mainly to get data though the system and respond to many mathematical equations because computers using the CPU many decades ago were for simple calculations" fist computers were calculators thats why they were made" but gfx takes those mathematical equations to the next level....
PwrXenon 2 weeks ago
@PwrXenon
CPU architecture is always changing. X86-64 or just X86 in general have always been computer processors. But they always improve aswell. The key difference here is that GPUs are only good at rendering graphics because that's a highly parallel task. A CPU has for example 6 cores but a GPU would have 500+. The CPU cores are more advanced but the GPU specializes in graphics. So only the components necissary for graphics are present.
Containforum 2 weeks ago
@Containforum ... and use newer and more advanced technology to better cope with 3d objects and rendering I know processor can do the same but gfx card use different architecture same as equations to make certain processes faster and more efficient. Btw I saw your other vids really good and you look like you really know about computers :D
PwrXenon 2 weeks ago
@PwrXenon
Further more a CPU may only do a few physics calculations are once, but it does them fast enough so it quickly moves onto the next work load. A GPU however will calculate them slower but will do more at once. They'll end up finishing at pretty much the same time.
Havok engine works by splitting the physics into the actual physical simulation and physics rendering (Drawing). The CPU will handle the physical simulation whilst the GPU will render and integrate with the GFX.
Containforum 2 weeks ago
hmmm i have a 2 cores and its run smoothly its not big deal
MrHANO09 3 weeks ago
im pretty sure my games run smoother when physx is on cpu rather than gpu because the gpu is already at 100% doing the graphics and my cpu has room to spare.
danthemanzizle 1 month ago
Whats the songs name? :)
kantaification 1 month ago
Except with amd you get crappy bus speeds and l2...
MrTpengineer 1 month ago
What is PhysX don,t think i am ...... IS it use for tow or Three Graphic card driver which we use in same time please ans me??
MrHANO09 1 month ago
@MrHANO09 i have no idea what the fukc you just said
FruityLoopsification 1 month ago
what about thoose small laggs, its not a stable performance
merenvagyokakacsa 2 months ago
@merenvagyokakacsa
Nor would a GPU be if you ran this many sources of physx on a gpu. The thing is this is a concept. That CPUs can run physx very well if only they had implemented multicore support into one source. Running multiple sources of PhysX is like running more than one instance of your game. Either way, this is a proof of concept. Further evidence is the physics other games are CPU based and yet are often better than PhysX (Crysis), because they support multi cores
Containforum 2 months ago 2
What are you recording with?
psnatvman14 2 months ago
@psnatvman14
Fraps.
Containforum 2 months ago
@Containforum what! how do your record your desktop with fraps
Cqub3 4 weeks ago
Sandybridge would do this better.
tenchidbz 3 months ago
@tenchidbz do you mean the sandybridge E? the new i7?
abgersaurus 1 month ago
i need dual core cpu :D
ItsReal2000 4 months ago
Quad FTW
LemonVX 5 months ago
close your programs first (like Premiere) so it'll be fair
SmokeWeedBrothers 7 months ago
no
TitanaMaster 7 months ago
PhysX? Well, I won't rage on you... some just don't know.
meforgodforall 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What name is music ??
Malikened 7 months ago
What name music ??
Malikened 7 months ago
If you want to keep using Nvidia, switch to a GTX 580 or GTX 590, and also don't forget to pick up an Aegia Physics Processing Unit
Amaroqdricaldari 8 months ago
@Amaroqdricaldari
If you buy a new Nvidia card then buying an Ageia physics card is daft. It will decrease performance.
Containforum 8 months ago
@Containforum I did not know that. I guess I can remove "Physics Processing Unit" from my shopping list for my new gaming rig.
Amaroqdricaldari 8 months ago
@Amaroqdricaldari
Yes, those units are no longer supported and an Nvidia card by itself works much better.
Containforum 8 months ago
@Containforum You can use a physx card still, to see the benefit you need a card from the same series. Like a GTX 580 with a GT 540.
LLOYD19851012 5 months ago
@Amaroqdricaldari physx is not built on to the cards and its better then a dedicated physx card
BassPounderX 7 months ago
Comment removed
Amaroqdricaldari 8 months ago
Comment removed
Amaroqdricaldari 8 months ago
I really think you should of closed all those other programs before running it.
SOF006 8 months ago
OH MY GAWWDD! THAT WUZ AWESOME, NEGRA!
GMGvanS 9 months ago
LOL, anyone else got tricked by msn (notification icon) in the video? i tought, hey someone msg me lolol!
26psyside 9 months ago
i can top this one ;)
jeenormus 9 months ago
@jeenormus
This is a CPU demonstration. AMD/Nvidia GPU configs have been around for a while now. Check my other vids. As I believe I was the first to make a video tutorial on it.
It's quite uselsss now though. No new games are using PhysX. It's slowly fading away.
Containforum 9 months ago
nice music
stroggwars 10 months ago
@stroggwars the only computer benchmarking demo without using gay music
taejamhaha 4 months ago
with min fps at 1 I can't see its working fine. Maybe when 8 core 4.5GHz are out, you should test it and see how well its going. Only when there is min at least 25-30 fps and average at least 30fps we can say with confidence that a cpu can run without problem
crackerworld 10 months ago
Pissing on shitballs; that's all I see.
pigbeenis 10 months ago
@pigbeenis hahah that's a good one but yeah would be awesome if we could use malty core cpus for PhysX
midnit19 9 months ago
that looks nasty like spoiled milk being tossed at bricks but anyways of corse a 6 core can run physX
BassPounderX 10 months ago
I run Mafia 2 with hight settings +physix on max settings on AMD Phenom II X6 with 4 GB RAM and HD4850 1GB. 35 fps. 1280x1024. This fps in test. FPS in game better when in test.
rcfarsh 10 months ago
Btw! if you play a game using the cpu as physx offload, the game will lagg as hell as the 5 cores are fully/almost fully stressed which leaves only one core to feed the gpu with graphic information therefore lagg...
Cursecut3r 11 months ago
Of course alot of amd/ati fanboys who wants physX but not a nvidia card... lol
Cursecut3r 11 months ago
i have i7 and gtx hate me cuz i have better pc
igrowweedfromaseed 11 months ago
AMD processor + geforce video card = epic win
pufixas 11 months ago
why is shit being spewn out of the ground?
resdudeornardude 11 months ago
um to answer the title YES......its not the CPU that allows you to run physX its your GPU....... but anyways everyone should just get ATI
IgotGreens101 1 year ago 15
@IgotGreens101
In this video the PhysX is running on 5 out of 6 cores of the CPU. It runs better than the 8800GT however the only way to get it to use 5 cores is to have essentially more than 1 physX instance running within the same program. It won't ever be used as this work around is not supported by Nvidia.
Containforum 1 year ago
@IgotGreens101 ha nvidia is the best. cost more but is better. ohh by the way i got a gtx 480.
190jaiden 1 year ago
@IgotGreens101 For single card set ups no... GTX 500 series are lot better than HD 6000, only loyal AMD fanboys say otherwise. Always look for the best card, don't mind if the card has Nvidia or AMD logo... It's kinda sad some people buy the card just cause it's AMD or Nvidia :P Being loyal for whether it's Intel, Nvidia or AMD is just stupid. At this moment Intel + Nvidia platform is the way to go. Next year maybe AMD platform would be way to go... stop being stupid fanboys people...
Dex1n 11 months ago
@IgotGreens101 Fanboy-dom aside, you can run physX on your cpu.
mratomix 3 months ago
@IgotGreens101 check world benchmarks before you say get an overheating ATI card.
superbad1982 1 month ago
Nvidia it is then, thanks again man
notrouserwalkthrough 1 year ago
So would i be better to use a quad-core for gaming rather than a six-core? i'm new to pc gaming, what exactly is physx?
notrouserwalkthrough 1 year ago
@notrouserwalkthrough If you are getting whole new parts, I suggest you wait a bit until new Intel Sandy Bridge motherboards get back to market. Their price/performance ratio is the best at the moment, and yes, you'll do fine with quad core for gaming. These new Sandy Bridges are way faster than 1090t, but yeah 1090t is a good CPU dont get me wrong on that, but if you're getting all new parts get Sandy Bridge (i5 2500k or i7 2600k) i5 2500k will be more than enough for gaming, and nicely priced.
Dex1n 1 year ago
@Dex1n Thanks man
notrouserwalkthrough 1 year ago
@notrouserwalkthrough and to answer your question: "What is PhysX?" It's a feature ONLY in Nvidia cards, that some games like Mafia 2 supports. It makes the physical effects more realistic, but it does have impact on the performance, of course. Best thing would be just google it or search from youtube "Nvidia PhysX" or just "physx mafia 2" for example, and you'll see what kind of feature it is. Also I'm not a fanboy, but I recommend Nvidia card. GTX 560 Ti or GTX 570, depends what's your budget
Dex1n 1 year ago
@Dex1n Thanks for your help, so ati cards don't have there own version of physx?
notrouserwalkthrough 1 year ago
@notrouserwalkthrough They don't have yet. I heard they are going to make their own version, but I don't think it will be supported on too many games yet cause it's a new feature. Only reason you want to buy an ATi card is if you play on for example 3 monitors, because only single ATi card can run multiple monitors, for Nvidia you need 2 cards for that. They both do have their own issues and own advantages, but on these cards which are out at the moment, Nvidia is clearly a winner for my needs.
Dex1n 1 year ago
@notrouserwalkthrough Also ATi cards scale better on Crossfire mode than NVIDIA cards on SLI. So basically for me, if you are going to play on 1 monitor get Nvidia, if you're going for multiple monitors go ATi. If you're going for dual or more cards set up get ATi, cause they scale better from what I've seen. But if you want PhysX and CUDA, get Nvidia... And also Nvidia drivers tend to be better than ATi's and now they have solved their fan noise probs aswel.
Dex1n 1 year ago
@Dex1n i got the gtx 480. its plays metro 2033 pretty good. but i cant get a gtx 560, 570, 580. :( im only 14.
190jaiden 1 year ago
Comment removed
190jaiden 1 year ago
Who came up with the idea of the cracked earth taking a piddle onto balls?
unbrokenjack 1 year ago
Video card: BOTTLENECK
PokePackOpener14 1 year ago
interesting. but it doesn't really matters that mutch sinse physX is pretty mutch dead now, or actually, it does in terms of selling videocards.
adolf512 1 year ago
of all the songs in the world...
you pick this?
I'd rather listen to 3 rocks being shook in a box.
christwagon1980 1 year ago
@christwagon1980 You can go back to your country music and keep your useless opinions to yourself.
SpineShank7 1 year ago
@SpineShank7 Why get so butt-hurt from my comment? Did you write this song? Do you listen to this song in your car on the way to work? My point is that this song is so bad I had a hard time following what the video wanted to inform me about. This song is like John Tesh's Dubstep. Second of all, country blows.
christwagon1980 1 year ago
you should not run the benchmark tests while you screen recording, this causes inaccurate results.
inventorOz84 1 year ago
@inventorOz84
Exactly!
Sssagaman 1 year ago
that its so slow with a 9500 u get about of twice of fps than u 6 cores cpu lol
testdirver 1 year ago
@testdirver
Run it on your 9500 with 5 emitters then you'll see that the 6 core is faster. Even though the dev behind Fluid mark got PhysX to work with more than one core it still doesn't support all six cores working on one emiiter. You need to have an induvidual emitter for each core. So the only way to compare them is to test with 5 emitters. I've tested this on both a 8800GT and the 6 core CPU. They both score exactly the same.
Containforum 1 year ago
Heh, PhysX is crippled because it using ancient x87 instruction set. David Kanter over at RealWorldTech goes in-depth on how poorly PhysX runs on CPUs and says that if PhysX used the latest SSE instruction sets, it would run pretty close to nvidia GPUs running physx.
RtFusion 1 year ago
@RtFusion dude u cant compare a 12 cpu vs 1 gpu because even if phsyx run on sse4a a cpu can make parallel procesing that why bedsides nvidia already works in cuda x86 but have the same problem a simply example its badaboom i can convert a complete dvd to my ipod with hd quality in about 15min u try that in a cpu....
testdirver 1 year ago
@testdirver Have you bothered even looking for the article on Real World Tech? I was only referring to PhysX, not encoding/decoding media.
RtFusion 1 year ago
@RtFusion well now i saw the aritcle but u realize that a lock like they put in the lastest driver that if u have a primarily radeon gpu cant use physx even with a nvidia dedicated gpu and bedsides some games use physx need at least 2 cores (the newest need 4) and no all have a 12 cores cpu at the moment i prefer spend 60dls in a cheap vga for physx instead of a 2000dlls in a cpu.... the modern cpu only can make 8 cycles so for me Nsist on Nvidia
testdirver 1 year ago
@testdirver Well, people have and are currently running systems with the a Radion card as the primary adapter and an nVidia card as a PhysX card fine with special tools from NGOHQ. You can grab it form their forums,
thread title is Hybrid PhysX mod v1.03 / v1.04ff
RtFusion 1 year ago
@RtFusion i know that also u can enable almost all the mobos crossfire for running in sli but these r mods and not r official support by ati (for me always r going to b Ati hahahaha) or nvidia
testdirver 1 year ago
PhysX Is programmed to run well only with Nvidia if I am not mistaken
lamiac2411 1 year ago
so you are telling us that your cpu is faster than your gpu
Warlock247 1 year ago
@Warlock247
Nope. Just that PhysX has the capability of running on a decent CPU. Nvidia just crippled PhysX to only use 1 core when in CPU mode.
Containforum 1 year ago
@Containforum in other words nvidia have severely screwed up physx's usability for developers, if it was open software that devs could use on multiple cpu's and multiple different gpus we'd ahve more than a handful of games by now that used it. Which is why havok is still more widely used (despite being owned by intel now, they knew not to make it closed software)
calumknight1984 1 year ago
@Containforum I really doubt they crippled anything, the software has to be programmed differently to be able to use more than one core and that is no easy task. CPUs are for general use while "GPU"s are more oriented to specific purposes and they have very different architectures. Physx is the product they develop for their own hardware. You should be glad that they added support for CPU not complaining about it. It would be time, resource and money consuming focusing even more in CPU support.
dannyskater 11 months ago
@dannyskater
They did. They disabled it from working on CPUs. Game developers always use their own physics engines anyway. Crytek games for example have some of the best physics engines which run 100% on CPU. GPU does graphics. Physics can run on CPU and GPU. And honestly the CPU is mostly better at that.
PhysX is a gimmick used as a marketing scheme, nothing more.
Containforum 11 months ago
@Containforum There are many physics engines, you are right about that and many of them run fast on CPU but that is at cost of precision since precision requires much more CPU power, GPUs are better for physics because of the nature of their architecture. That's why game graphics need a graphic card, or else we would be using the CPU for everything. The question we should focus is not CPU support of physx but an alternative that would use openCL that would run on everything.
dannyskater 11 months ago
@dannyskater Please do not think I am trying to bash your knowledge with all I said, I am learning parallel computation this semester on college and I can't believe they would develop the CPU support with parallel processing and turn it off after that. Understand that making software that has that capability is not piece of cake, it would be very demanding. I believe they simply did not bother with it which is not much better of course. But it makes sense since it is just compatibly support.
dannyskater 11 months ago
@Containforum I just made a response of my self -.- I feel like an idiot, anyway search openCL, that is the best alternative for developing physics engines since it would make use of all the potential of both CPUs and GPUs despite their differences ,architecture benefits. Be cool, peace.
dannyskater 11 months ago
@Warlock247 i read somewhere that physicx ran better on some older tech cpus and that nvidia made it so it would run better on a gpu than on a cpu they even claimed that a cpu could do this better when physicx was optimaliezed for the present cpu tech
themassau 1 year ago
i would buy and nvida 460 if it would run with my ati no hassle
utubeb14 1 year ago
@utubeb14 there was one driver that accidenticly turned of the nvidia only setups so you could do grafix whit ati and physicx whit nvidia card
themassau 1 year ago
Well I wonder if nvidia will have problems when the APU comes out, as I think it will have enough power to do physx.
ramfery23 1 year ago
lol lots of people dont know that physics x is "bad" written by nvidia so it will only run good on a gpu of them but it could run even better on a modern cpu but not whit the base like that but it runs verry good on an older kind of cpu's
themassau 1 year ago
The fastest AMD 4 core CPU (3,9 Ghz) is better than the slowest 6 core (2,8 Ghz) for CPU Physx?
Fuckjadmeg 1 year ago
PhysX is crap, ive seen comparisons of games that run with physx and those that run without, and the difference is minimal
dproffessa 1 year ago
Go for AMD Radeon and dont fuck yourself!
bogdan1748 1 year ago 44
@bogdan1748 Nvidia 4 the win! AMD just fucks with drivers!
elklazor 5 months ago
holy crap dude!
realflow100 1 year ago
do its crap?
XboxPainmax 1 year ago
get ati :)
TheWindowsHack 1 year ago 4
@TheWindowsHack
I had a 5870, which unfortunately died. I did send it back. I'm now waiting for the 6000 series to arrive.
Containforum 1 year ago 17
@Containforum Change you're PSU or ur 6000 series will die too , i had Radeon HD 3850 for 5 years now and its working good with Corsair 750W psu
gazzxr 10 months ago
@gazzxr
My PSU is fine. The GPU was at fault. There were many 5000 series cards with faults like that.
Containforum 10 months ago
@Containforum now let me guess
you're waiting for the 7000 series to arrive
PCGamerOfToday 5 months ago
@PCGamerOfToday
Nope, I have a 6970, and I'm happy with it.
Containforum 5 months ago
@TheWindowsHack For some reason, that sounded like a fanboy.
FOGoticus 1 year ago
@TheWindowsHack what a joke
metzgermeisterfuchs 1 year ago
Mafia 2 Allows the use of Phyxs on a CPU
Timmieisblack 1 year ago
@Timmieisblack
All games do, but they do not support multi core PhysX. Nvidia restricted PhysX to use only one CPU core. However the developer of Fluidmark managed to unlcok this. Though not perfect, so when using multicore physx more physX emmiters must be used. He was unable to get all the cores to work on one emitter as the PhysX on a GPU would work.
Containforum 1 year ago
@Containforum Is it possible to have PhysX run on more then one CPU? Or is nVidia being greedy, and want people to buy there video cards?
Timmieisblack 1 year ago
@Timmieisblack
As I said, only 1 CPU core is used by PhysX in CPU mode. The only PhysX app to use more than 1 core is Fluid Mark.
Nvidia want you to buy their Geforce cards.
Containforum 1 year ago
@Containforum HEY would fluid mark run at all with an ati radeon card without any nvidia support or cards or drivers?
realflow100 1 year ago
@Containforum I read somewhere, that nVidia was gonna make a new version of the SDK. It will have full SSE and multi-core support.
FRURMELLL 1 year ago
are the 6 cores good for gaming to?
leet2222 1 year ago
@leet2222
You won't notice it in games yet. Only when games begin to support 6 cores.
Containforum 1 year ago
@Containforum so lets say if games support 6 cores
then the amd phenom II x6 1090t wins from i7 920 right?
leet2222 1 year ago
@leet2222
Yes, that's correct.
Containforum 1 year ago
I'm not convinced that even a 6-core is fast enough to go far beyond basic physics when AI and other game code needs to be executed as well.
Have you seen fluid dynamics like in Batman or Dark Void in games which use Havok or other CPU physics engines?
You may be right that it's possible, but it does beg the question why no game designer makes use of these effects on CPUs.
cildni 1 year ago
A dual core CPU can run this just as nicely. As I mentioned the person who managed to get this to work hasn't done a perfect job. For example when using GPU PhysX you would have 1 emmiter and all the GPU cores would work on that. However when you use the CPU it adds another emitter, thus increasing work load also. CPUs can run physX along with AI and anything else within a game. Developers do use the CPU for Physics. Only games that have PhysX use the GPU. Crysis for example runs on 2 cores.
Containforum 1 year ago
Fluidmark is not an indicator of acceptable framerates. In games there's a lot more going on than just physics.
It surprises me time and time again how people question the validity of GPGPU and how graphics processors are much faster at these kinds of calculations than CPUs.
cildni 1 year ago
@cildni
You may not think so but I get roughly the same frame rates in Fluid as with PhysX games. Mirrors edge gets the same frame rates for example with a dedicated PhysX card. Ofcourse testing on the CPU is only for proof of concept. I did say multicore support for PhysX probably won't be implemented in games.
I'm not at all trying to question the speed of GPU acceleration. GPU PhysX clearly has a greater performance but the CPU is also acceptable. Even with less than 6 cores.
Containforum 1 year ago
Yeah, a 6 core can run PhysX, but the performance doesn't compare. So what's the point exactly?
cildni 1 year ago
@cildni
The pointt is, the 6 core can actually run PhysX with acceptable framerates. The reason wy it looks choppy in the video is that I set PhysX to use all 6 cores, that means fraps needs to take some juice aswell. Honestly it works pretty good with 6 cores. And if you didn't know, usually PhysX in software mode (CPU) only uses 1 core which is why performance is horrible.
Containforum 1 year ago
Not bad for the performance in physx for 6 cores :]
frenchfriesidiot 1 year ago
why are you running a sixcore along side a 8800gt 512mb ?
dont you have a 5870?
snipesre 1 year ago
@snipesre
My 5870 died.
Containforum 1 year ago
Shit for real dont you have a warranty
snipesre 1 year ago
@snipesre
I've already sent it back and, got a refund. I won't be buying another card until Southern Islands are released as I'm not playing any games ATM.
Containforum 1 year ago
Seemed kind of laggy....
mrjamesb56 1 year ago
@mrjamesb56
Doesn't work as fast as GPU and I was also running fraps which also strained the CPU.
Containforum 1 year ago
@Containforum -Fraps says it all then , I don't know why some body doesn't invent something that runs better , You could try ashampoo core optimizer , assign fraps to one core and gpu physxs test to the other 5 , I don't know if it would make a difference
mrjamesb56 1 year ago