PHYSX NEWS PHYSX SDK
PROJECTS TABLE
GPU PHYSX
GAMES INFO
PHYSX
ARTICLES
PHYSX WIKI FORUM
РУССКИЙ ENGLISH


:: Back to news index ::

PhysX running on 16 CPU cores in FluidMark

with 7 comments

We wrote previuosly about upcoming new version of FluidMark, that is going to include Multi-Core CPU PhysX support.

Recently, with help of David Legrand from PCinpact.com, Jerome “JeGX” Guinot was able to test new FluidMark 1.2 on setup with 16 CPU cores. (click to view full image)

And as you may see, CPU PhysX simulation with 48 000 fluid particles is 100 % utilizing all 16 Cores. Amazing work :)

New FluidMark is going to be available soon enough, after JeGx will catch and kill remaing bugs.

Update: JeGX is participating in “What Would You Do With 48 Cores ?” contest by AMD with new FluidMark (which already support up to 64 CPU cores). That’s going to be interesting  ;)

Source: PCinpact | Geeks3D

Written by Zogrim

March 4th, 2010 at 2:22 pm

Posted in PhysX Tools

Tagged with , ,

7 Responses to 'PhysX running on 16 CPU cores in FluidMark'

Subscribe to comments with RSS

  1. lol, 16CPU Cores run fluidmark worst then one GPU core ? … wow
    how u say – amazing work ! xD

      

    MicrO

    4 Mar 10 at 3:57 pm

  2. MicrO
    What ? I don’t see point in your post – explain

      

    Zogrim

    4 Mar 10 at 4:25 pm

  3. I’m interesting in difference between CPU@PhysX and GPU@PhysX performance. New Fluid Mark can provide many answers on credibility of using GPU for PhysX computing.

      

    mareknr

    4 Mar 10 at 8:01 pm

  4. Zogrim – my english is bad … :D sorry man
    mareknr can translate it
    ,,lol, na 16CPU jede fluidmark hůř než na jednom GPU čipu ? … wow
    jak jsi říkal – skvělá práce

      

    MicrO

    4 Mar 10 at 9:49 pm

  5. MicroO
    I understand what you’re saying – I’m asking why you’re thinking that 16 CPU cores are slower than GPU ?
    If you trying to compare new Fluidmark with GPU PhysX results in current one (1.1), take a look at number of particles firstly.

      

    Zogrim

    4 Mar 10 at 10:13 pm

  6. i think GPU is faster ( more FPS ) ..if FPS on picture is rendering by CPU, not by GT220

      

    MicrO

    4 Mar 10 at 10:40 pm

  7. Quite a curious act this , i’v blamed the opposing side vast amounts of times , finding custom edits for each app to be capable of utilizing more than a instance of 25% / 1core cpu utilization. what bothers me the most is that i done vast amounts of research concerning this topic , iv even spoken to the editor of guru 3d about this and funny i blamed Nvidia , now i see they arnt to blame . it’s the programmers , but out of a curious perspective , why would the programmers limit us ? ? hence the usage of physX , any game using this addressing particle AI has a limitation , odd don’t you think ? but i’v read the email various times , and curious m id like to quote why say that vantage has the ability of addressing 12 threads ? if he then says test the cpu yourself with a dedicated physX card and CPU of your choice ? does this not defeat the object ? second , sure it can address 12 threads , but correct me , a single hd 4870 has 10 units ? now before you ask why i use a different none physX card as an example , think , if the card has 10 threads , then th opposing nvidia card has 10 threads ? oke , when you use a dedicated physX card you get full physX out of the threads odd because why address all the 3d cards core threads / units , but only one of the cpu ? as soon as software mode is enabled the threads only detect 1 ,, sorry something seems odd .. sorry if i make no sense , i might even be wrong , but hey , thats my opinion. :)

      

    Tweak-Venetica

    9 Mar 10 at 3:37 pm


Leave a Reply

*
Copyright © 2009-2014. PhysXInfo.com | About PhysXInfo.com project | Privacy Policy
PhysX is trademark of NVIDIA Corporation