PhysX Runs On RV670, Scores 22,000 CPU Marks in 3DMark Vantage

[imperialreign]

I like the idea that PhysX will run on all GPUs, this is what I have been saying from the beginning needs to happen for the technology to get use. It needs to be something that everyone can use and everyone will benefit from, or it won't get adopted.

As for the legality of this mod, I doubt it is legal, and I'm sure nVidia will put a stop to it, which sucks. I know it sucks that ATi would need to pay nVidia fees to use the technology, but it is only fair. NVidia put out a huge chunk of change to buy Ageia, why should ATi get the benefit of that for free? ATi should just buy the rights to use PhysX and be done with it.

I agree as well, and I'm sure even if this mod wer legal, or open source by any means, I'm sure there's some kind of needle-hole that nVidia can squirm through and put a stop to it.

Besides, I can't forsee ATI being willing to pay for, nor support, CUDA or PhsyX at the moment, considering how closely AMD have been working with Havok recently (for a reference: http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=62755&highlight=havok), and I'm sure a joint collaboration with ATI and Havok is not too much further off, either. The red camp knows they've got their hand in the candy dish being able to work with Havok, they're not going to fudge that up.

 

[Rurouni Strife]

My only question with GPU physics is if it will work well IN GAME. Vantage isn't a game, so those scores can only matter so much. Remember, the PPU's from Ageia worked well but they would drop the frame rates. I wonder if GPU physics will slow down a system if it runs on only 1 GPU systems.

 

[AphexDreamer]

Lol I googled for PhysX driver for ATI GPU's and got nothing like two day ago, but here it does exists, I knew something like this was bound to happen. Why must they limit our hardware. How can we expect to get the good stuff when they are not even letting us use our current stuff to the max.

 

[WarEagleAU]

I could have sworn ATI was working on making a 2nd or 3rd gpu on their mobos or intel mobos work as Physics cards.

 

[ShadowFold]

I could have sworn ATI was working on making a 2nd or 3rd gpu on their mobos or intel mobos work as Physics cards.

That was back in the X1000 days when they had single core cpu's that couldnt do physics.

Anyways, this is what I waiting for. Im gonna get a 4850 cause PhysX was the only thing I wanted that the 9800GTX had..

 

[wolf2009]

Anyways, this is what I waiting for. Im gonna get a 4850 cause PhysX was the only thing I wanted that the 9800GTX had..

i have the same thoughts too, i was also leaning toward nvidia coz of physx and cuda. but now ati has a better chance with me, although cuda and video encoding is still with nvidia .

 

[AphexDreamer]

Anyone know if this driver is available to the public yet and if it would work with all ATI Graphics cards.

 

[Scrizz]

heh i'm getting a HD4850 tomorrow!

 

[imperialreign]

I could have sworn ATI was working on making a 2nd or 3rd gpu on their mobos or intel mobos work as Physics cards.

we could end up seeing that with AMD's multi-core CPUs; with AMD working with Havok, it's possible they could optimize in such a way that one-core of the processor would dedicate solely to physics processing like Intel had done already.


My real point of curioisity, though, if AMD enables some form of physics processing on their GPUs - how much would that affect performance on their cards? I mean, it seems that nVidia's latest hardware is kinda designed around being able to extend this capability without interfering with video rendering, but I don't think ATI's GPUs are - I mean, they're supposedly still superb for doing that kind of work, but I'm not sure the GPU would be able to render video at the same time

 

[PrudentPrincess]

Physics (havok, PhysX) is not BS. It's just in it's infancy at the moment.
Just think what an RPG would be like if you could blow a dam and flood a town that was downstream. Or the inverse, you build a dam and create a lake upstream.
The possibilities are endless.
At the moment it is just being used for a little eye candy, but that will change.

Wow. That sounds like fun. (not) Although I don't know why you would need any specific physics engine to do that. It sounds like you could accomplish the same task with greater efficiency with a simple cutscene. Do you really give a f*** about it being generated in real time? I mean that's like wanting a game where each individual drop of rain slides down a surface based on speed, weight, texture, etc. What does it get you? Bragging rights I suppose. The point that I was trying to make is that what we're seeing now through generic physics engines (generic as in pre-written for multiple applications to use) is not impressive, its expected. Just like getting support for those engines through the hardware you would normally need to run a game. What I don't like is that now we're going to see graphics card companies competing over physics when it should be left to the game developers to make a good game where gameplay and playability out-weigh the visuals.

 

[vojc]

Wow. That sounds like fun. (not) Although I don't know why you would need any specific physics engine to do that. It sounds like you could accomplish the same task with greater efficiency with a simple cutscene. Do you really give a f*** about it being generated in real time? I mean that's like wanting a game where each individual drop of rain slides down a surface based on speed, weight, texture, etc. What does it get you? Bragging rights I suppose. The point that I was trying to make is that what we're seeing now through generic physics engines (generic as in pre-written for multiple applications to use) is not impressive, its expected. Just like getting support for those engines through the hardware you would normally need to run a game. What I don't like is that now we're going to see graphics card companies competing over physics when it should be left to the game developers to make a good game where gameplay and playability out-weigh the visuals.

i agree

 

[Voyager]

Excellent, way to go where is the link for download

 

[adrianx]

so... WTF for me is like dejavu...

yesterday I write that...: http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?p=856989#post856989

so if is true the physics can be run on/by non-nvidia(ageia) cards.

 

[btarunr]

Wow. That sounds like fun. (not) Although I don't know why you would need any specific physics engine to do that. It sounds like you could accomplish the same task with greater efficiency with a simple cutscene. Do you really give a f*** about it being generated in real time? I mean that's like wanting a game where each individual drop of rain slides down a surface based on speed, weight, texture, etc. What does it get you? Bragging rights I suppose. The point that I was trying to make is that what we're seeing now through generic physics engines (generic as in pre-written for multiple applications to use) is not impressive, its expected. Just like getting support for those engines through the hardware you would normally need to run a game. What I don't like is that now we're going to see graphics card companies competing over physics when it should be left to the game developers to make a good game where gameplay and playability out-weigh the visuals.

I think he means that physics acceleration is explicitly required for certain games to "be as awesome as it is". Some games are impossible without it. Half Life 2 series uses Havoc. Look how its gameplay elements were enhanced with it. Better example is Portal. Games require physics to process rag-doll effects (you wouldn't want all killed enemies to fall down like they did in Wolfenstein 3D (1992) ? That you have an Apache chopper flying over you and under air-flow of its propeller, grass remain stiff as long green match-sticks? Or that even when a 1 tonne hippo falls into water, you only have a ripple in the form of a dynamic texture created in the water and no epic-splash? Physics has become a visual element as important as shading.

 

[PrudentPrincess]

I think he means that physics acceleration is explicitly required for certain games to "be as awesome as it is". Some games are impossible without it. Half Life 2 series uses Havoc. Look how its gameplay elements were enhanced with it. Better example is Portal. Games require physics to process rag-doll effects (you wouldn't want all killed enemies to fall down like they did in Wolfenstein 3D (1992) ? That you have an Apache chopper flying over you and under air-flow of its propeller, grass remain stiff as long green match-sticks? Or that even when a 1 tonne hippo falls into water, you only have a ripple in the form of a dynamic texture created in the water and no epic-splash? Physics has become a visual element as important as shading.

I get what you're saying, I guess his example was just a poor one. Physics are important to gameplay and visuals, but I was addressing the fact that games that have used these technologies didn't really need them to be fun. I was just worried that some games would forget about gameplay and focus all their energy on visuals. (Warmonger is a good example of what might happen, although it isn't a commercial game)

 

[OBR]

It was a joke!

Well... well... sadly, the HD 4800 family won't be supported, because AMD thinks NGOHQ.com is not worthy enough to borrow review samples (definitely a bad idea). Anyway, expect to see some cool demo video in several days-weeks. Rememebr, it takes a lot of time and work to make CUDA compatible enough with Radeon to get it to fully work without any issues.

and you are stupid ... this will NEVER works ...

 

[btarunr]

Obviously after ATI refused to supply a sample, he'd become a lone ranger, or an industrial laughing stock....AMD refused to give him a sample for a reason, being they don't want to get into trouble with NV at this point. NGO reverse engineered the drivers, and NVIDIA's EULA clearly prohibits that.

 

[mab1376]

does it work on the RV770?

 

[jtleon]

Ditto..& More

In all reality, who gives a flaming f*** about being able to shoot a cloth and have it rip accurately?.....We should have been able to see "Physx" effects in the first place, it shouldn't be something that needs to be enabled by some random driver to work.

True Indeed. As an intense multiplayer gamer (FEAR for example), I find that I must turn off all of the ridiculous effect eye candy - otherwise I am at a distinct disadvantage versus my opponents. That cloud of smoke, or flying debri, is simply blocking my view of the enemy - who may or may not be seeing the same obstruction of view, depending upon their settings. Truth be told, the novelty of realistic physics effects wears off after the 100th time. Physical effects should offer value to the game play - not just spectacle - for example the explosion must offer damage to my opponent who walks nearby, rather than just eye candy. This physics value must be coded into the game at the developer level (ex. recorded in the hitbox), and cannot be offered by a hardware driver. If Physx can offer a bridge to the developer to help them use meaningful physical effects in games - more power to 'em!
Regards,
jtleon

 

[btarunr]

Compare Half Life 2 to Counter Strike: Source. What's the primary difference? That while HL2 involved you picking up objects, interacting with them (apart from visual enhancements due to physics), CS:S was more of a no-BS multi-player game. That game did use Havoc, but its effects were greatly minimised to make the player focus on the gameplay. In HL2, you can halt at a place and spend hours figuring out what to do, but in CS:S, the game's over in minutes. In CS:S, there's nothing beyond maybe shooting sand to send up a minor puff of dust or shooting a barrel to displace it, and the usual rag-doll effects. If a game developer under-implements or poorly-implements physics, then it's the developer and not the physics API to blame.

 

[erocker]

Well... well... sadly, the HD 4800 family won't be supported, because AMD thinks NGOHQ.com is not worthy enough to borrow review samples (definitely a bad idea). Anyway, expect to see some cool demo video in several days-weeks. Rememebr, it takes a lot of time and work to make CUDA compatible enough with Radeon to get it to fully work without any issues.

and you are stupid ... this will NEVER works ...

No, no joke. They used a HD3850 card for physics. The "driver" is supposed to be available this weekend.

 

[substance90]

Too bad the guy will get himself sued, before he even thinks about doing this to the HD48xx driver.. It would have been another reason for me to go with a 48xx instead a GTX2xx.

 

[PrudentPrincess]

Too bad the guy will get himself sued, before he even thinks about doing this to the HD48xx driver.. It would have been another reason for me to go with a 48xx instead a GTX2xx.

Someone will take his place.

 

[substance90]

Let`s hope so.

 

[KainXS]

I see alot of people dissing this guy everywhere and he is doing something illegal, BUT if this mod really takes off when its released and I'm sure it will, even though its illegal, I think more companies will pick up intense physics in games,

I mean, who on this forum who has a 38XX card and knows about this mod ISN'T GOING TO USE IT.

WHO

exactly,