AMD: ''Nvidia are full of sh*t and asshurt''

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for ronvalencia
ronvalencia

29612

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#101 ronvalencia
Member since 2008 • 29612 Posts

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="NFJSupreme"]

how is nvidia butthurt when physx is coming to PS4? If the really were in their feelings about the situation they wouldn't suppport the console at all. Also when Nvidia was saying the ps4 as of now was stronger than the 720 you cows were singing their praise. You guys were wetting your pants with excitement when they said PS4 would have physx. Now its screw nvidia, screw physx, blah blah blah. I don't get you mad cows. Y'all are about as emo as a preteen girl.

Bebi_vegeta

Havok Physics on PS4 runs on GPU.

PhysX has been available for non-NVIDIA CUDA hardware without GPU acceleration.

So physx is not available to AMD GPU card?

PhysX GPU runs on top of NVIDIA CUDA and Radeon HDs doesn't have full support for NVIDIA CUDA.

Avatar image for Bebi_vegeta
Bebi_vegeta

13558

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#102 Bebi_vegeta
Member since 2003 • 13558 Posts

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

Havok Physics on PS4 runs on GPU.

 

PhysX has been available for non-NVIDIA CUDA hardware without GPU acceleration.

 

ronvalencia

So physx is not available to AMD GPU card?

PhysX GPU runs on top of CUDA and Radeon HD doesn't have full support for CUDA.

So is that a yes or no ?

Avatar image for ronvalencia
ronvalencia

29612

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#103 ronvalencia
Member since 2008 • 29612 Posts

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

So physx is not available to AMD GPU card?

Bebi_vegeta

PhysX GPU runs on top of CUDA and Radeon HD doesn't have full support for CUDA.

So is that a yes or no ?

PhysX has been available for non-NVIDIA CUDA hardware without GPU acceleration.

Intel will be exploiting this market segment with Havok Physics GPU.

Avatar image for Bebi_vegeta
Bebi_vegeta

13558

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#104 Bebi_vegeta
Member since 2003 • 13558 Posts

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"] PhysX GPU runs on top of CUDA and Radeon HD doesn't have full support for CUDA.ronvalencia

So is that a yes or no ?

PhysX has been available for non-NVIDIA CUDA hardware without GPU acceleration.

 

So physx is not available to AMD GPU card?

Avatar image for clyde46
clyde46

49061

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#105 clyde46
Member since 2005 • 49061 Posts

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

So is that a yes or no ?

Bebi_vegeta

PhysX has been available for non-NVIDIA CUDA hardware without GPU acceleration.

 

So physx is not available to AMD GPU card?

Because he's dancing around the subject. No, you can't get PhysX to run natively on an AMD card.
Avatar image for deactivated-57d8401f17c55
deactivated-57d8401f17c55

7221

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

#106 deactivated-57d8401f17c55
Member since 2012 • 7221 Posts

Nvidia doesn't know how to make lower powered custom chips, they only know how to make enthusiast chips.

And even then, AMD is right up there with them besides ridiculous things like Titan, and AMD 7970 costs significantly less than 680.  Nvidia has also proven to be a pretty poor business partner for both MS and Sony.

Intel's the same thing as Nvidia for the CPU space. 

Avatar image for ronvalencia
ronvalencia

29612

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#107 ronvalencia
Member since 2008 • 29612 Posts

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

So is that a yes or no ?

Bebi_vegeta

PhysX has been available for non-NVIDIA CUDA hardware without GPU acceleration.

 

So physx is not available to AMD GPU card?

The answer is self explanatory.
Avatar image for ronvalencia
ronvalencia

29612

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#108 ronvalencia
Member since 2008 • 29612 Posts

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"] PhysX has been available for non-NVIDIA CUDA hardware without GPU acceleration.clyde46

So physx is not available to AMD GPU card?

Because he's dancing around the subject. No, you can't get PhysX to run natively on an AMD card.

I'm sure one can google the answer.

Again, PhysX has been available for non-NVIDIA CUDA hardware without GPU acceleration e.g. PhysX CPU.

Avatar image for Bebi_vegeta
Bebi_vegeta

13558

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#109 Bebi_vegeta
Member since 2003 • 13558 Posts

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"] PhysX has been available for non-NVIDIA CUDA hardware without GPU acceleration.clyde46

 

So physx is not available to AMD GPU card?

Because he's dancing around the subject. No, you can't get PhysX to run natively on an AMD card.

 

I know, I'm just waiting for him to admit it... I love fanboys.

Avatar image for Bebi_vegeta
Bebi_vegeta

13558

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#110 Bebi_vegeta
Member since 2003 • 13558 Posts

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"] PhysX has been available for non-NVIDIA CUDA hardware without GPU acceleration.ronvalencia

 

So physx is not available to AMD GPU card?

The answer is self explanatory.

So is that a yes or a no ?

Avatar image for ronvalencia
ronvalencia

29612

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#111 ronvalencia
Member since 2008 • 29612 Posts

[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

So physx is not available to AMD GPU card?

Bebi_vegeta

Because he's dancing around the subject. No, you can't get PhysX to run natively on an AMD card.

I know, I'm just waiting for him to admit it... I love fanboys.

I'm sure one can google the answer.

Avatar image for Bebi_vegeta
Bebi_vegeta

13558

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#112 Bebi_vegeta
Member since 2003 • 13558 Posts

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="clyde46"] Because he's dancing around the subject. No, you can't get PhysX to run natively on an AMD card. ronvalencia

 

I know, I'm just waiting for him to admit it... I love fanboys.

I'm sure one can google the answer.

 

 

Oh wowwwwwwww!

Avatar image for ronvalencia
ronvalencia

29612

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#113 ronvalencia
Member since 2008 • 29612 Posts

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

So physx is not available to AMD GPU card?

Bebi_vegeta

The answer is self explanatory.

So is that a yes or a no ?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=NVIDIA%3A+No+plans+to+port+PhysX+to+OpenCL

Avatar image for faizan_faizan
faizan_faizan

7869

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#114 faizan_faizan
Member since 2009 • 7869 Posts

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"][QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

Lightmap GI (PS4's UE4 doesn't have SVO GI) vs RSM GI (AMD Leo's IP).

"Lightmaps give game levels a GI-look but since they are pre-computed, they only work on static objects." http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/articles/stunning-videos-show-unreal-engine-4s-next-gen-gtx-680-powered-real-time-graphics

 

Read http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-gdc-2013-unreal-engine-4

 

The key differentiating factor between last year's demo and this newer iteration is that the Sparse Voxel Octree Global Illumination (SVOGI) lighting system hasn't made the cut. Instead, Epic is aiming for very high quality static global illumination with indirect GI sampling for all moving objects, including characters.

"[SVOGI] was our prototype GI system that we used for Elemental last year. And our targets, given that we've had announced hardware from Sony, that's where we're going to be using Lightmass as our global illumination solution instead of SVOGI

 

 

The other dynamic GI system would be RSM based GI as used in Crytek's CryEngine 3 and AMD Leo IP (e.g. Dirt Showdown PC and Sleeping Dogs PC).

PS;

Sparse Voxel Octree (SVO) Global Illumination (Epic's Unreal Engine 4 PC edition).

Reflective Shadow Map (RSM) Global Illumination (AMD's Leo IP, Crytek's CryEngine3).

 

ronvalencia

Oh, You were talking about the PS4 version? Anyway, Reflective Shadow Maps shouldn't be used in next gen titles, Cone Tracing can still be achieved on the PS4, It's just that there was too much stuff going in Elemental (Fluid, APEX Destruction etc) Another thing with RSM is that I have never seen a game fully utilise it in real time, Crysis 3 only had 1 bounce from sun, So did Dirt Showdown. Games will still use baked lighting, Cone Tracing = Ultimate solution to fully dynamic lighting. I can't think of any advantage RSM has over lightmass/enlighten.

On non-NVIDIA hardware, NVIDIA's APEX destruction runs on the CPU (via PhysX CPU).

Sony and Epic shown a seperate UE4 demo that links with Havok Physics GpGPU.

Havok Physics GPU (AMD GCN) + Unreal Engine 4 demo on PS4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPnwmsTokso

A high resolution look at Havok Physics technology demonstrated at Sony's live event in New York. This demo shows a million particle real-time physics simulation running on the GPU of the Playstation 4.

From Hitman Absolution, it's GI has several light bounces. From http://blogs.amd.com/play/2012/11/20/hitman-absolution-in-depth/

To achieve this effect, the engine renders a Reflective Shadow Map (RSM) of the scene, taken from the point of view of a light source. Using GPU compute (DirectCompute language), it populates the RSM with a list of angles from which that light can reflect off an object, and then uses the RSM to compute severalbounces of that lighting across the objects in a scene.

Back on the PC...
Unity3D's voxel cone tracing download example. http://forum.unity3d.com/threads/166827-Voxel-Cone-Traced-Lighting-DX11-Contest

Unity3D is after Unreal Engine 4's bullet points.

UE4's SVO GI issues will affect PC GPUs equal or lower than Radeon HD "7860" (18 CUs) e.g. NVIDIA Geforce 650 TI/660 Non-Ti and AMD Radeon HD 7790/7850.


Surely RSM can do more than 1 light bounce.
RSM still can't be used for fully dynamic lighting, SVOGI, Again, Is the ultimate solution for fully dynamic lighting, CryTek wanted everything in real time, All the time, Even the lighting, But their LPV/RSM failed to do so.

I know that Unity3D also does voxel cone tracing and voxel lighting pass.

But then again, I was wrong that Voxel Cone tracing can be achieved on this gen of consoles.
And you still have to tell me any significant advantages RSM has over Lightmass/Enlighten.

 

Avatar image for ronvalencia
ronvalencia

29612

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#115 ronvalencia
Member since 2008 • 29612 Posts

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

I know, I'm just waiting for him to admit it... I love fanboys.

Bebi_vegeta

I'm sure one can google the answer.

You must be stupid.

Avatar image for Bebi_vegeta
Bebi_vegeta

13558

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#116 Bebi_vegeta
Member since 2003 • 13558 Posts

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"] The answer is self explanatory. ronvalencia

So is that a yes or a no ?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=NVIDIA%3A+No+plans+to+port+PhysX+to+OpenCL

 

Man, it must torment you...

Avatar image for Bebi_vegeta
Bebi_vegeta

13558

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#117 Bebi_vegeta
Member since 2003 • 13558 Posts

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"] I'm sure one can google the answer.ronvalencia

 

You must be stupid.

 

hahahahaha!!!!

Avatar image for ronvalencia
ronvalencia

29612

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#118 ronvalencia
Member since 2008 • 29612 Posts


Surely RSM can do more than 1 light bounce.
RSM still can't be used for fully dynamic lighting, SVOGI, Again, Is the ultimate solution for fully dynamic lighting, CryTek wanted everything in real time, All the time, Even the lighting, But their LPV/RSM failed to do so.

I know that Unity3D also does voxel cone tracing and voxel lighting pass.

But then again, I was wrong that Voxel Cone tracing can be achieved on this gen of consoles.
And you still have to tell me any significant advantages RSM has over Lightmass/Enlighten.

faizan_faizan

Enlighten is a plugin for FB2 and UE3. Enlighten only handles indirect lighting and doesn't deal with the shadowing of direct lighting.

With no prior knowledge of visibility, Enlighten cannot handle geometry that is created procedurally at runtime.

Avatar image for faizan_faizan
faizan_faizan

7869

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#119 faizan_faizan
Member since 2009 • 7869 Posts

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"]


Surely RSM can do more than 1 light bounce.
RSM still can't be used for fully dynamic lighting, SVOGI, Again, Is the ultimate solution for fully dynamic lighting, CryTek wanted everything in real time, All the time, Even the lighting, But their LPV/RSM failed to do so.

I know that Unity3D also does voxel cone tracing and voxel lighting pass.

But then again, I was wrong that Voxel Cone tracing can be achieved on this gen of consoles.
And you still have to tell me any significant advantages RSM has over Lightmass/Enlighten.

ronvalencia

Enlighten is a plugin for FB2 and UE3. Enlighten only handles indirect lighting and doesn't deal with the shadowing of direct lighting.

With no prior knowledge of visibility, Enlighten cannot handle geometry that is created procedurally at runtime.


I thought Enlighten = Lightmass.
Avatar image for ronvalencia
ronvalencia

29612

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#120 ronvalencia
Member since 2008 • 29612 Posts

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"]


Surely RSM can do more than 1 light bounce.
RSM still can't be used for fully dynamic lighting, SVOGI, Again, Is the ultimate solution for fully dynamic lighting, CryTek wanted everything in real time, All the time, Even the lighting, But their LPV/RSM failed to do so.

I know that Unity3D also does voxel cone tracing and voxel lighting pass.

But then again, I was wrong that Voxel Cone tracing can be achieved on this gen of consoles.
And you still have to tell me any significant advantages RSM has over Lightmass/Enlighten.

faizan_faizan

Enlighten is a plugin for FB2 and UE3. Enlighten only handles indirect lighting and doesn't deal with the shadowing of direct lighting.

With no prior knowledge of visibility, Enlighten cannot handle geometry that is created procedurally at runtime.


I thought Enlighten = Lightmass.

Enlighten plugin is a Geomerics' product i.e. it's not part of Epic's IP.

Avatar image for tormentos
tormentos

33798

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#121 tormentos
Member since 2003 • 33798 Posts

how is nvidia butthurt when physx is coming to PS4?  If the really were in their feelings about the situation they wouldn't suppport the console at all.  Also when Nvidia was saying the ps4 as of now was stronger than the 720 you cows were singing their praise.  You guys were wetting your pants with excitement when they said PS4 would have physx.  Now its screw nvidia, screw physx, blah blah blah.  I don't get you mad cows.  Y'all are about as emo as a preteen girl.

NFJSupreme
I wasn't because unlike some here i actually saw what Nvidia try to do.. The chart Nvidia make wasn't to demonstrate how the PS4 was superior to the 720 that was a side effect,that chart was a shot at both the PS4 and 720 by Nvidia,actually claiming hey we have a GPU that is 3 times faster than the PS4 (which is a lie vs the PS4 by the way) but without actually saying hey our GPU will cost as much a as PS4+720 + xbox live and 1 game for each console. Nvidia is butthurt because no console run its over priced over hyped chips,if sony would have go with AMD since the start they would have landed something like the xenos or at least a X1900 considering the RSX is a gimped 7800GTX with higher clock,lower bandwidth and 7600 ROP count,and cost more than the xenos did,there is a reason MS abandon Nvidia and killed the xbox in 4 years. The PS4 getting Physx mean nothing since CPU support them,in fact Physx on PS3 did not run on the RSX,it ran on Cell so did havoc and so on. Hell i even complain on that same thread that they can't ad for sh**.. 1.84TF X 3 = 5.52 The Gforce Titan = 4.5 TF So in the end Nvidia math is as bad as their GPU prices.
Avatar image for clyde46
clyde46

49061

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#122 clyde46
Member since 2005 • 49061 Posts
[QUOTE="NFJSupreme"]

how is nvidia butthurt when physx is coming to PS4?  If the really were in their feelings about the situation they wouldn't suppport the console at all.  Also when Nvidia was saying the ps4 as of now was stronger than the 720 you cows were singing their praise.  You guys were wetting your pants with excitement when they said PS4 would have physx.  Now its screw nvidia, screw physx, blah blah blah.  I don't get you mad cows.  Y'all are about as emo as a preteen girl.

tormentos
I wasn't because unlike some here i actually saw what Nvidia try to do.. The chart Nvidia make wasn't to demonstrate how the PS4 was superior to the 720 that was a side effect,that chart was a shot at both the PS4 and 720 by Nvidia,actually claiming hey we have a GPU that is 3 times faster than the PS4 (which is a lie vs the PS4 by the way) but without actually saying hey our GPU will cost as much a as PS4+720 + xbox live and 1 game for each console. Nvidia is butthurt because no console run its over priced over hyped chips,if sony would have go with AMD since the start they would have landed something like the xenos or at least a X1900 considering the RSX is a gimped 7800GTX with higher clock,lower bandwidth and 7600 ROP count,and cost more than the xenos did,there is a reason MS abandon Nvidia and killed the xbox in 4 years. The PS4 getting Physx mean nothing since CPU support them,in fact Physx on PS3 did not run on the RSX,it ran on Cell so did havoc and so on. Hell i even complain on that same thread that they can't ad for sh**.. 1.84TF X 3 = 5.52 The Gforce Titan = 4.5 TF So in the end Nvidia math is as bad as their GPU prices.

Face it, you are just butthurt.
Avatar image for ronvalencia
ronvalencia

29612

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#123 ronvalencia
Member since 2008 • 29612 Posts

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

So is that a yes or a no ?

Bebi_vegeta

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=NVIDIA%3A+No+plans+to+port+PhysX+to+OpenCL

Man, it must torment you...

PhysX GPU runs on top of NVIDIA CUDA and Radeon HDs doesn't have full support(1) for NVIDIA CUDA.

1. http://code.google.com/p/gpuocelot/wiki/AMDBackend 3rd party PTX to AMD IL translator project.

Avatar image for Bebi_vegeta
Bebi_vegeta

13558

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#124 Bebi_vegeta
Member since 2003 • 13558 Posts

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=NVIDIA%3A+No+plans+to+port+PhysX+to+OpenCL

ronvalencia

 

Man, it must torment you...

PhysX GPU runs on top of NVIDIA CUDA and Radeon HDs doesn't have full support for NVIDIA CUDA.

So physx is not available to AMD GPU card?

So is that a yes or a no ?

Avatar image for faizan_faizan
faizan_faizan

7869

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#125 faizan_faizan
Member since 2009 • 7869 Posts

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"]

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

Enlighten is a plugin for FB2 and UE3. Enlighten only handles indirect lighting and doesn't deal with the shadowing of direct lighting.

With no prior knowledge of visibility, Enlighten cannot handle geometry that is created procedurally at runtime.

ronvalencia


I thought Enlighten = Lightmass.

Enlighten plugin is a Geomerics' product i.e. it's not part of Epic's IP.

 


I know that, But what I'm asking is, Lightmass = Enlighten, I thought that Lightmass internally is actually Enlighten with just it's name changed.

Also, Can you answer this question now? And you still have to tell me any significant advantages RSM has over Lightmass.

Avatar image for faizan_faizan
faizan_faizan

7869

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#126 faizan_faizan
Member since 2009 • 7869 Posts

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

 

Man, it must torment you...

Bebi_vegeta

PhysX GPU runs on top of NVIDIA CUDA and Radeon HDs doesn't have full support for NVIDIA CUDA.

So is that a yes or a no ?

No.
Avatar image for Bebi_vegeta
Bebi_vegeta

13558

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#127 Bebi_vegeta
Member since 2003 • 13558 Posts

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"] PhysX GPU runs on top of NVIDIA CUDA and Radeon HDs doesn't have full support for NVIDIA CUDA. faizan_faizan

So is that a yes or a no ?

No.

OK thanks. Would be awesome if Ron can answer the same... but then again... it's not easy for a Fanboy.

Avatar image for tormentos
tormentos

33798

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#128 tormentos
Member since 2003 • 33798 Posts
[QUOTE="SKaREO"][QUOTE="ronvalencia"][QUOTE="SKaREO"]nVidia isn't desperate enough to make a video card that's affordable for console peasants. That means they are angry? LOL sure, okay. AMD seems to be a bit butthurt that PC gamers won't buy their budget bin hardware.

NVIDIA doesn't have a high performance CPU for PS4. Per clock, Intel Atom rivals ARM Cortex A15 let alone AMD Bobcat.

The GTX690 is unrivaled by any other video card available today. AMD makes budget hardware with bad driver support. Thanks for coming out.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-7990-devil13-7970-x2,3329-7.html Such fanboys.. The 7990 actually beat the 690GTX in several games...And is $100 cheaper.. Not only that 2 7970 on Cross fire also beat the $690 and they cost $200 less than the 690GTX.. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131483&Tpk=7990%20amd&IsVirtualParent=1 http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Order=BESTMATCH&N=100006662&isNodeId=1&Description=690gtx&x=0&y=0 People like you are greatly miss inform and not i am not an AMD fanboy like Ron.
Avatar image for ShadowriverUB
ShadowriverUB

5515

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#129 ShadowriverUB
Member since 2009 • 5515 Posts

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

 

Man, it must torment you...

Bebi_vegeta

PhysX GPU runs on top of NVIDIA CUDA and Radeon HDs doesn't have full support for NVIDIA CUDA.

So physx is not available to AMD GPU card?

So is that a yes or a no ?

No, but it does not mean you can't do something similar on any other GPU, bah if not corporate issues nvidia could make CUDA work on any other GPU. Anyway i think OpenCL is better as it's open and it will work on any other GPU (if drivers supports it), developers don't need to care about what GPU hardware has
Avatar image for ronvalencia
ronvalencia

29612

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#130 ronvalencia
Member since 2008 • 29612 Posts

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

Man, it must torment you...

Bebi_vegeta

PhysX GPU runs on top of NVIDIA CUDA and Radeon HDs doesn't have full support for NVIDIA CUDA.

So physx is not available to AMD GPU card?

So is that a yes or a no ?

PhysX GPU runs on top of NVIDIA CUDA and Radeon HDs doesn't have full support for NVIDIA CUDA.

Avatar image for tormentos
tormentos

33798

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#131 tormentos
Member since 2003 • 33798 Posts
[QUOTE="clyde46"] Face it, you are just butthurt.

Na i just pointed Nvidias butthurt ass.. No one want to dance with them and the biggest consensus out there since the thread popped on Neogaf was that butthurt Nvidia.. Why didn't they make this much sh** when the PS3 was launch the 8800GTX was out and stronger to.? Oh wait the RSX is made by Nvidia... They are the ones who stand by the 2TF claim on the PS3..:lol:
Avatar image for Bebi_vegeta
Bebi_vegeta

13558

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#132 Bebi_vegeta
Member since 2003 • 13558 Posts

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"] PhysX GPU runs on top of NVIDIA CUDA and Radeon HDs doesn't have full support for NVIDIA CUDA. ronvalencia

So physx is not available to AMD GPU card?

So is that a yes or a no ?

PhysX GPU runs on top of NVIDIA CUDA and Radeon HDs doesn't have full support for NVIDIA CUDA.

So no ? Or should I look on google ?

Avatar image for Bebi_vegeta
Bebi_vegeta

13558

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#133 Bebi_vegeta
Member since 2003 • 13558 Posts

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"] PhysX GPU runs on top of NVIDIA CUDA and Radeon HDs doesn't have full support for NVIDIA CUDA. ShadowriverUB

So physx is not available to AMD GPU card?

So is that a yes or a no ?

No, but it does not mean you can't do something similar on any other GPU, bah if not corporate issues nvidia could make CUDA work on any other GPU. Anyway i think OpenCL is better as it's open and it will work on any other GPU (if drivers supports it), developers don't need to care about what GPU hardware has

Well I was just asking about PhysX. I do agree it's to bad not every GPU can just use it... would be awesome on AMD GPU cards.

Avatar image for faizan_faizan
faizan_faizan

7869

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#134 faizan_faizan
Member since 2009 • 7869 Posts
[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"] PhysX GPU runs on top of NVIDIA CUDA and Radeon HDs doesn't have full support for NVIDIA CUDA. ShadowriverUB

So physx is not available to AMD GPU card?

So is that a yes or a no ?

No, but it does not mean you can't do something similar on any other GPU, bah if not corporate issues nvidia could make CUDA work on any other GPU. Anyway i think OpenCL is better as it's open and it will work on any other GPU (if drivers supports it), developers don't need to care about what GPU hardware has

There are things that PhysX is doing what other physics engines can not. Like Fluids or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgWur7HaIks or Millions of Particles.
Avatar image for ShadowriverUB
ShadowriverUB

5515

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#135 ShadowriverUB
Member since 2009 • 5515 Posts

[QUOTE="ShadowriverUB"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

So physx is not available to AMD GPU card?

So is that a yes or a no ?

Bebi_vegeta

No, but it does not mean you can't do something similar on any other GPU, bah if not corporate issues nvidia could make CUDA work on any other GPU. Anyway i think OpenCL is better as it's open and it will work on any other GPU (if drivers supports it), developers don't need to care about what GPU hardware has

Well I was just asking about PhysX. I do agree it's to bad not every GPU can just use it... would be awesome on AMD GPU cards.

Well there still thinks like Havok and game developers can always run something on there own via OpenCL :p
Avatar image for faizan_faizan
faizan_faizan

7869

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#136 faizan_faizan
Member since 2009 • 7869 Posts

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"]


Surely RSM can do more than 1 light bounce.
RSM still can't be used for fully dynamic lighting, SVOGI, Again, Is the ultimate solution for fully dynamic lighting, CryTek wanted everything in real time, All the time, Even the lighting, But their LPV/RSM failed to do so.

I know that Unity3D also does voxel cone tracing and voxel lighting pass.

But then again, I was wrong that Voxel Cone tracing can be achieved on this gen of consoles.
And you still have to tell me any significant advantages RSM has over Lightmass/Enlighten.

ronvalencia

Enlighten is a plugin for FB2 and UE3. Enlighten only handles indirect lighting and doesn't deal with the shadowing of direct lighting.

With no prior knowledge of visibility, Enlighten cannot handle geometry that is created procedurally at runtime.

I didn't fully comprehend this statement at first, Now I did, And realised my reading comprehension sucks.
Avatar image for ShadowriverUB
ShadowriverUB

5515

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#137 ShadowriverUB
Member since 2009 • 5515 Posts
[QUOTE="ShadowriverUB"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

So physx is not available to AMD GPU card?

So is that a yes or a no ?

faizan_faizan
No, but it does not mean you can't do something similar on any other GPU, bah if not corporate issues nvidia could make CUDA work on any other GPU. Anyway i think OpenCL is better as it's open and it will work on any other GPU (if drivers supports it), developers don't need to care about what GPU hardware has

There are things that PhysX is doing what other physics engines can not. Like Fluids or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgWur7HaIks or Millions of Particles.

Can't do as they didn't been programmed to does not mean it can't be recreated on other platfroms
Avatar image for tormentos
tormentos

33798

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#138 tormentos
Member since 2003 • 33798 Posts

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

So physx is not available to AMD GPU card?

So is that a yes or a no ?

Bebi_vegeta

PhysX GPU runs on top of NVIDIA CUDA and Radeon HDs doesn't have full support for NVIDIA CUDA.

So no ? Or should I look on google ?

I may regret this since Ron actually quote me allot to talk about something i did not say...but never the less.. We were able to enable PhysX on all graphics cards by editing the WillowEngine.ini and setting the PhysX level to 2. As far as we could tell the Radeon HD 7970 and GeForce GTX 680 look the same with PhysX set to high but admittedly we have not played a great deal of the game and ave only use a few guns. However the cloth effects and rock debris effects from shooting stuff with the Gearbox Rifle look the same. Furthermore all PhysX effects are offloaded to the CPU when using an AMD graphics card so depending on your processor the performance will vary quite a lot. As we were using the Core i7-3960X the hit wasnt nearly as significant as you will experience with a lesser processor. So yeah Physx can run on AMD GPU by just editing the WillowEngine.ini... http://www.techspot.com/review/577-borderlands-2-performance/page5.html And the result may shock you..:lol ^^^^^^ ""With PhysX set to high, the GTX 680 became 19% slower at 1920x1200, averaging just 60fps instead of 74fps. Surprisingly, the HD 7970 did slightly better dropping 15% from 72fps to 61fps, and as far as we could tell, the PhysX effects looked identical on both brand of cards. When using cards such as the GTX 560, we were still able to achieve playable performance with PhysX set to high despite a 17% dip in frame rate. The HD 6870 took a similar hit dropping 18% from 51fps to just 42fps, but this is probably a worthwhile tradeoff for many gamers."" :lol: Ron you ow me...
Avatar image for ronvalencia
ronvalencia

29612

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#139 ronvalencia
Member since 2008 • 29612 Posts

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"]
I thought Enlighten = Lightmass.faizan_faizan

Enlighten plugin is a Geomerics' product i.e. it's not part of Epic's IP.


I know that, But what I'm asking is, Lightmass = Enlighten, I thought that Lightmass internally is actually Enlighten with just it's name changed.

Also, Can you answer this question now? And you still have to tell me any significant advantages RSM has over Lightmass.

Epic's Lightmass (static GI) solution from http://udn.epicgames.com/Three/Lightmass.html

Crytek's GI solution from http://www.crytek.com/cryengine/presentations&page=1

Avatar image for clyde46
clyde46

49061

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#140 clyde46
Member since 2005 • 49061 Posts
[QUOTE="tormentos"][QUOTE="clyde46"] Face it, you are just butthurt.

Na i just pointed Nvidias butthurt ass.. No one want to dance with them and the biggest consensus out there since the thread popped on Neogaf was that butthurt Nvidia.. Why didn't they make this much sh** when the PS3 was launch the 8800GTX was out and stronger to.? Oh wait the RSX is made by Nvidia... They are the ones who stand by the 2TF claim on the PS3..:lol:

Yet, Nvidia are ahead in the GPU wars.
Avatar image for Bebi_vegeta
Bebi_vegeta

13558

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#141 Bebi_vegeta
Member since 2003 • 13558 Posts

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

PhysX GPU runs on top of NVIDIA CUDA and Radeon HDs doesn't have full support for NVIDIA CUDA.

tormentos

So no ? Or should I look on google ?

I may regret this since Ron actually quote me allot to talk about something i did not say...but never the less.. We were able to enable PhysX on all graphics cards by editing the WillowEngine.ini and setting the PhysX level to 2. As far as we could tell the Radeon HD 7970 and GeForce GTX 680 look the same with PhysX set to high but admittedly we have not played a great deal of the game and ave only use a few guns. However the cloth effects and rock debris effects from shooting stuff with the Gearbox Rifle look the same. Furthermore all PhysX effects are offloaded to the CPU when using an AMD graphics card so depending on your processor the performance will vary quite a lot. As we were using the Core i7-3960X the hit wasnt nearly as significant as you will experience with a lesser processor. So yeah Physx can run on AMD GPU by just editing the WillowEngine.ini... http://www.techspot.com/review/577-borderlands-2-performance/page5.html And the result may shock you..:lol ^^^^^^ ""With PhysX set to high, the GTX 680 became 19% slower at 1920x1200, averaging just 60fps instead of 74fps. Surprisingly, the HD 7970 did slightly better dropping 15% from 72fps to 61fps, and as far as we could tell, the PhysX effects looked identical on both brand of cards. When using cards such as the GTX 560, we were still able to achieve playable performance with PhysX set to high despite a 17% dip in frame rate. The HD 6870 took a similar hit dropping 18% from 51fps to just 42fps, but this is probably a worthwhile tradeoff for many gamers."" :lol: Ron you ow me...

So is the GPU doing the work or the CPU ? Cause I want to know if PhysX is possible running on AMD gpu... like how Nvidia does it.

Avatar image for ronvalencia
ronvalencia

29612

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#142 ronvalencia
Member since 2008 • 29612 Posts

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

PhysX GPU runs on top of NVIDIA CUDA and Radeon HDs doesn't have full support for NVIDIA CUDA.

tormentos

So no ? Or should I look on google ?

I may regret this since Ron actually quote me allot to talk about something i did not say...but never the less.. We were able to enable PhysX on all graphics cards by editing the WillowEngine.ini and setting the PhysX level to 2. As far as we could tell the Radeon HD 7970 and GeForce GTX 680 look the same with PhysX set to high but admittedly we have not played a great deal of the game and ave only use a few guns. However the cloth effects and rock debris effects from shooting stuff with the Gearbox Rifle look the same. Furthermore all PhysX effects are offloaded to the CPU when using an AMD graphics card so depending on your processor the performance will vary quite a lot. As we were using the Core i7-3960X the hit wasnt nearly as significant as you will experience with a lesser processor. So yeah Physx can run on AMD GPU by just editing the WillowEngine.ini... http://www.techspot.com/review/577-borderlands-2-performance/page5.html And the result may shock you..:lol ^^^^^^ ""With PhysX set to high, the GTX 680 became 19% slower at 1920x1200, averaging just 60fps instead of 74fps. Surprisingly, the HD 7970 did slightly better dropping 15% from 72fps to 61fps, and as far as we could tell, the PhysX effects looked identical on both brand of cards. When using cards such as the GTX 560, we were still able to achieve playable performance with PhysX set to high despite a 17% dip in frame rate. The HD 6870 took a similar hit dropping 18% from 51fps to just 42fps, but this is probably a worthwhile tradeoff for many gamers."" :lol: Ron you ow me...

I did state PhysX can run on the CPU.

Also, I have posted the following link multiple times.

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Borderlands-2-PhysX-Performance-and-PhysX-Comparison-GTX-680-and-HD-7970/GPU-

UPDATE: I did finally get an answer from Gearbox about the slow downs we were seeing on the AMD results. Apparently when larger collections of PhysX simulations are running on the CPU, those threads can take quite a bit longer than they would when running on the GPU. As a result, the CPU (and rest of the game engine code) becomes "blocked" waiting for a single thread to finish, which results in the lower CPU utilization we saw on the AMD results as well as the lower overall performance. Because PhysX is an NVIDIA engine, even if Gearbox chose to they likely couldn't add in additional multi-threaded capabilities to the PhysX code path so the slow down here is likely to stay.

Avatar image for tormentos
tormentos

33798

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#143 tormentos
Member since 2003 • 33798 Posts
[QUOTE="clyde46"] Yet, Nvidia are ahead in the GPU wars.

Yes and nvidia also sell GPU for Cell phones tables and integrated GPU,so is not that big of a win either way.. But how does that change the fact that their GPU are over priced.? And over hyped .? I remember when the original xbox specs were announce the xbox was introduce as a 300 million polygon console,then the GPU was downgrade clock wise and the end results were 125 million... Nvidia always over sell,the xbox PS3 and now the Titan are a testament to that.
Avatar image for 6matt6
6matt6

9726

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#144 6matt6
Member since 2005 • 9726 Posts
Nvidia has been posting record profits and AMD is hemorrhaging money. Butthurt?MFDOOM1983
I know right? I say this as someone who hasn't brought an Nvidia product for 5 years. They have nothing to be butthurt over.
Avatar image for Bebi_vegeta
Bebi_vegeta

13558

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#145 Bebi_vegeta
Member since 2003 • 13558 Posts

[QUOTE="clyde46"] Yet, Nvidia are ahead in the GPU wars. tormentos
Yes and nvidia also sell GPU for Cell phones tables and integrated GPU,so is not that big of a win either way.. But how does that change the fact that their GPU are over priced.? And over hyped .? I remember when the original xbox specs were announce the xbox was introduce as a 300 million polygon console,then the GPU was downgrade clock wise and the end results were 125 million... Nvidia always over sell,the xbox PS3 and now the Titan are a testament to that.

 

Pretty much every hardware is like that.

Avatar image for tormentos
tormentos

33798

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#146 tormentos
Member since 2003 • 33798 Posts
[QUOTE="tormentos"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

So no ? Or should I look on google ?

ronvalencia
I may regret this since Ron actually quote me allot to talk about something i did not say...but never the less.. We were able to enable PhysX on all graphics cards by editing the WillowEngine.ini and setting the PhysX level to 2. As far as we could tell the Radeon HD 7970 and GeForce GTX 680 look the same with PhysX set to high but admittedly we have not played a great deal of the game and ave only use a few guns. However the cloth effects and rock debris effects from shooting stuff with the Gearbox Rifle look the same. Furthermore all PhysX effects are offloaded to the CPU when using an AMD graphics card so depending on your processor the performance will vary quite a lot. As we were using the Core i7-3960X the hit wasnt nearly as significant as you will experience with a lesser processor. So yeah Physx can run on AMD GPU by just editing the WillowEngine.ini... http://www.techspot.com/review/577-borderlands-2-performance/page5.html And the result may shock you..:lol ^^^^^^ ""With PhysX set to high, the GTX 680 became 19% slower at 1920x1200, averaging just 60fps instead of 74fps. Surprisingly, the HD 7970 did slightly better dropping 15% from 72fps to 61fps, and as far as we could tell, the PhysX effects looked identical on both brand of cards. When using cards such as the GTX 560, we were still able to achieve playable performance with PhysX set to high despite a 17% dip in frame rate. The HD 6870 took a similar hit dropping 18% from 51fps to just 42fps, but this is probably a worthwhile tradeoff for many gamers."" :lol: Ron you ow me...

I did state PhysX can run on the CPU.

That post actually is in your favor,Physx run on AMD GPU and actually run better on the 7970 than on the 680GTX on Borderland 2 ,taking a smaller hit than the 680GTX did.. http://www.techspot.com/review/577-borderlands-2-performance/page5.html Read the article ron AMD GPU do run Physx.
Avatar image for Bebi_vegeta
Bebi_vegeta

13558

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#147 Bebi_vegeta
Member since 2003 • 13558 Posts

[QUOTE="MFDOOM1983"]Nvidia has been posting record profits and AMD is hemorrhaging money. Butthurt?6matt6
I know right? I say this as someone who hasn't brought an Nvidia product for 5 years. They have nothing to be butthurt over.

Is AMD losing money on the GPU or CPU departement ? Or heck both ?

Avatar image for ronvalencia
ronvalencia

29612

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#148 ronvalencia
Member since 2008 • 29612 Posts

[QUOTE="ShadowriverUB"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

So physx is not available to AMD GPU card?

So is that a yes or a no ?

faizan_faizan

No, but it does not mean you can't do something similar on any other GPU, bah if not corporate issues nvidia could make CUDA work on any other GPU. Anyway i think OpenCL is better as it's open and it will work on any other GPU (if drivers supports it), developers don't need to care about what GPU hardware has

There are things that PhysX is doing what other physics engines can not. Like Fluids or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgWur7HaIks or Millions of Particles.

For PS4 era games, Intel has removed that advantage.

Havok Physics GPU (AMD GCN) demo on PS4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPnwmsTokso

A high resolution look at Havok Physics technology demonstrated at Sony's live event in New York. This demo shows a million particle real-time physics simulation running on the GPU of the Playstation 4.

Avatar image for ShadowriverUB
ShadowriverUB

5515

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#149 ShadowriverUB
Member since 2009 • 5515 Posts

[QUOTE="tormentos"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

So no ? Or should I look on google ?

Bebi_vegeta

I may regret this since Ron actually quote me allot to talk about something i did not say...but never the less.. We were able to enable PhysX on all graphics cards by editing the WillowEngine.ini and setting the PhysX level to 2. As far as we could tell the Radeon HD 7970 and GeForce GTX 680 look the same with PhysX set to high but admittedly we have not played a great deal of the game and ave only use a few guns. However the cloth effects and rock debris effects from shooting stuff with the Gearbox Rifle look the same. Furthermore all PhysX effects are offloaded to the CPU when using an AMD graphics card so depending on your processor the performance will vary quite a lot. As we were using the Core i7-3960X the hit wasnt nearly as significant as you will experience with a lesser processor. So yeah Physx can run on AMD GPU by just editing the WillowEngine.ini... http://www.techspot.com/review/577-borderlands-2-performance/page5.html And the result may shock you..:lol ^^^^^^ ""With PhysX set to high, the GTX 680 became 19% slower at 1920x1200, averaging just 60fps instead of 74fps. Surprisingly, the HD 7970 did slightly better dropping 15% from 72fps to 61fps, and as far as we could tell, the PhysX effects looked identical on both brand of cards. When using cards such as the GTX 560, we were still able to achieve playable performance with PhysX set to high despite a 17% dip in frame rate. The HD 6870 took a similar hit dropping 18% from 51fps to just 42fps, but this is probably a worthwhile tradeoff for many gamers."" :lol: Ron you ow me...

So is the GPU doing the work or the CPU ? Cause I want to know if PhysX is possible running on AMD gpu... like how Nvidia does it.

Both, CUDA and aspecially OpenCL goal is to utilize both CPU and GPU and any other programmable processing unit that software any access to, to execute computing processes writen in single code, insted of making specialised code for specific kind of hardware. Even CUDA name tells you thet: ".Compute Unified Device Architecture"
Avatar image for deactivated-57d8401f17c55
deactivated-57d8401f17c55

7221

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

#150 deactivated-57d8401f17c55
Member since 2012 • 7221 Posts

[QUOTE="clyde46"] Yet, Nvidia are ahead in the GPU wars. tormentos
Yes and nvidia also sell GPU for Cell phones tables and integrated GPU,so is not that big of a win either way.. But how does that change the fact that their GPU are over priced.? And over hyped .? I remember when the original xbox specs were announce the xbox was introduce as a 300 million polygon console,then the GPU was downgrade clock wise and the end results were 125 million... Nvidia always over sell,the xbox PS3 and now the Titan are a testament to that.

Actually the original Xbox had the absolute top of the line GPU from Nvidia at the time.  The only "downgrade" was a single digit clockspeed reduction, might have been less than 5mhz, can't remember.

The Xbox was the only console that could ever have such a GPU though because it was so huge...