SPS
Moderator
It runs on the CPU, so it doesn't come into it. Yes there are a few subsets of the physics engine that run on the GPU but they are hardly used.
Metro Exodus will support HairWorks, PhysX and RTX
- Thread starter WYP
- Start date
It runs on the CPU, so it doesn't come into it. Yes there are a few subsets of the physics engine that run on the GPU but they are hardly used.
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
SPS
Moderator
Physics engines still run multithreaded on the CPU but it's mainly that games have to query the physics world quite a lot, copying results to and from the GPU which is primarily doing the graphics workloads is not ideal for latency or alternatively stalling the GPU. That's not to say some games don't rely on pure GPU physics, but they tend to be smaller in scope and continue to render everything from the results of the physics. See the new indie game Claybook, primarily a GPU physics driven game that uses SDFs to raytrace render the whole scene, but it comes across more like a tech demo.
For general purpose physics engines Bullet/Havok/Box2D/PhysX/etc all run using the CPU primarily.
A developer at Nvidia actually got frustrated with people not knowing what PhysX is and posted this blog post, everyone should have a look.
http://www.codercorner.com/blog/?p=2013
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
Thank you very much for the information
AlienALX
Well-known member
I agree with a lot of what he has said. However, he doesn't seem to understand this one in the context it was meant.
“Raytracing is the new PhysX“: LOL
This is such a ridiculous statement…
OK so if we took that in the literal sense? yes, yes it is ridiculous. However, when I said it I meant it in the way that it is something that only one of the two GPU devs has (same as Physx) and is being used as a mechanism to make money, rather than improve games (like Physx) and so on. So right now I am not backing down from that statement.
And yes, I mean GPU based Physx that Nvidia bought up and tried to use as a bargaining chip to make you buy their GPUs rather than AMD's.
“Raytracing is the new PhysX“: LOL
This is such a ridiculous statement…
OK so if we took that in the literal sense? yes, yes it is ridiculous. However, when I said it I meant it in the way that it is something that only one of the two GPU devs has (same as Physx) and is being used as a mechanism to make money, rather than improve games (like Physx) and so on. So right now I am not backing down from that statement.
And yes, I mean GPU based Physx that Nvidia bought up and tried to use as a bargaining chip to make you buy their GPUs rather than AMD's.
AlienALX
Well-known member
I'm not their accountant, but I would hedge my bets more toward "yes". Did you see how much money they made last year?
They are already doing what they do best. Bad mouthing everything else and making it look inferior by basically making it feel like without RTX you are really missing something.
It all ends up going back to how I feel about RT. I do find it exciting, and I can't wait until it is viable for me. But, it is also being used as a method of selling and making money as well as being awesome. Which means it is split between two GPU manufacturers (ATM you can only have it on one and not the other) and so on. Which like Physx when it truly sings (GPU based Physx) is a shame because it really was good. However, it was bought up by Nvidia and then used as a tool to sell their GPUs.
Same as G-sync, Freesync, etc etc etc. They are all great but thwarted by the fact that they are not available to all. Even if you have a high end GPU you still need to make a choice. Which really sucks.
Sadly it is about money and not unifying technology to make things better for all.
TheF34RChannel
New member
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
Similar threads
