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


:: Back to news index ::

Next 3DMark will not use PhysX ?

with 8 comments

According to Golem.de upcoming 3DMark 2011 benchmark won’t rely on PhysX integration, but use some in-house physics engine, based on DX 11 Compute Shaders.

Several Futuremark products like 3D mark 06 and Shattered Horizon game are using PhysX SDK, but only 3DMark Vantage features GPU/PPU accelerated physics, which can affect final CPU score.

From our opinion, this is natural change – solution, that brings substantial benefits to one of the GPU manufacturers, can hardly fit into unbiased benchmark, which 3DMark claims to be.

Written by Zogrim

September 20th, 2010 at 5:20 pm

Posted in PhysX Middleware

Tagged with ,

8 Responses to 'Next 3DMark will not use PhysX ?'

Subscribe to comments with RSS

  1. I wonder if PhysX 3.0 will move to DirectCompute or OpenCL. Maybe OpenCL since NVIDIA seems to have traditionally been a big supporter of Linux/OpenGL.

    But if PhysX has a games focus, then DirectCompute would make more sense to me given its integration with D3D.

    Maybe they will even design it so it can run with either(not sure how difficult it is to either port or translate kernels though).

    Also it will be interesting to see how they apply what they have learned about physics workloads to there hardware/driver and if it gives any advantage over AMD which seems less proactive in the physics arena.

      

    David Black

    20 Sep 10 at 6:54 pm

  2. I doubt it will ever move to anything except CUDA. See:
    - They weren’t improving much of it since Ageia times, and porting would require some serious efforts. Which also at the end would open doors to every other compute-capable GPU from competition.
    - They already made many moves which spoke their attitude to masses. They want to protect PhysX exclusivity no matter what imo.

    Although, it’s interesting what would they do when PhysX become an easy task for a regular multi-core CPU… Perhaps this would actually lead them to real changes.

      

    GenL

    20 Sep 10 at 7:15 pm

  3. I guess it depends how confident in there hardware superiority they are:-)

    If they thought they could easily use a general API but still be much better than the competition, it would make sense since they would (probably) gain market share for the SDK(more so in the long run).

      

    David Black

    20 Sep 10 at 7:40 pm

  4. David Black
    I wonder if PhysX 3.0 will move to DirectCompute or OpenCL
    Who knows, maybe as an option ?
    But, afaik, in any case SDK 3.0 is more focused on consoles than on GPU/PC.

    GenL
    PhysX SDK development/GPU PhysX games are both consuming a lot of resources, so to revert them (and earn some money) Nvidia need to keep PhysX as CUDA exclusive.

    In the future, if/when content will be added to games fluently (by scaling APEX effects from consoles) and intensive SDK devepment will end (SDK 3.0 will be released) – than they may think about OpenCL/DX11 port, cause that will increase adoption of hardware PhysX.

    Of course, this is how it should work in healthy way, no guarantee fatgreediness will not blind Nvidia =)

      

    Zogrim

    20 Sep 10 at 7:45 pm

  5. PhysX SDK development/GPU PhysX games are both consuming a lot of resources
    But it doesn’t make much sense, you said that using SDK to add physics effects is easier option for developer before. So it is supposed to consume less resources and time than physics engine development, isn’t it?

      

    GenL

    21 Sep 10 at 1:38 pm

  6. GenL
    So it is supposed to consume less resources and time than physics engine development, isn’t it?
    Of course using complete SDK is easier than creating you own, and I didn’t say opposite. In this case you don’t need to develop physics engine to have possibility even to start creating content.

    How many non-PhysX games with GPU physics you can name ? Based on DX10, shaders like Havok FX, other “open standarts” ?
    Easy content creation – that’s what does matters, not open vs proprietary stuff, in this case.

    Why do you think Ageia started APEX project ? You know its purpose ?
    It’s purpose is to fit into game’s workflow on consoles – for regular content creation, and than give ability to scale effects for GPU just by adjusting few parametrs.

    But without it, it is still like in Mirror’s Edge.. “We’ve added dynamic flags through all levels, but lightmaps were already baked, so we’ve manually placed lights for everyone of them and tweaked the simulation, then we’ve added a custom forcefields so players can tear banners with gunfire..” and it is consuming resources, yes.

      

    Zogrim

    21 Sep 10 at 2:24 pm

  7. Do you know when new 3DMark will be released?

      

    mareknr

    21 Sep 10 at 3:33 pm

  8. Here is our nfl 2016-2017 regular season cheap Darren Sproles
    jerseys & cheack more details at nfl 2016-2017 regular season cheap Ronald Darby jerseys

      


Leave a Reply

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