Slashdot Mirror


Modders Get Nvidia's PhysX To Run On ATI Cards

stress_life writes "Following controversial allegations that Nvidia is cheating in 3DMark Vantage and Unreal Tournament 3 benchmarks, executives from Futuremark and Epic moved forward to clean any confusion. However, the game was not over — enthusiasts from Israel ported PhysX middleware to run on ATI Radeon cards, achieving remarkable performance. Owners of ATI Radeon cards will be able to play PhysX games as well, such as Ghost Recon 2 and already mentioned Unreal Tournament 3."

41 of 122 comments (clear)

  1. Also fun on AMD/ATI cards-- Raytracing by electrosoccertux · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Might also find this interesting-- AMD/ATI sure has been having a lot of fun lately.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Larrabee-Ray-Tracing,5769.html

    This latest round of cards from Nvidia and ATI seems to have been won by ATI as well. For $300 you can get the AMD 4870, on the performance of the $400 Nvidia 260, and sometimes as good (depending on the game) as the $600 280.

    1. Re:Also fun on AMD/ATI cards-- Raytracing by Clay+Pigeon+-TPF-VS- · · Score: 5, Informative

      Also the 48XX series ships with linux drivers.

      --
      Viral software licensing is not freedom, it is in fact GNU/Socialism.
    2. Re:Also fun on AMD/ATI cards-- Raytracing by legoman666 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Tom's hardware is crap. Try a decent review site: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3341

    3. Re:Also fun on AMD/ATI cards-- Raytracing by Endo13 · · Score: 4, Informative

      And the even worse news for NVidia is some preliminary numbers for the upcoming 4870 X2 would indicate it will completely blow away anything NVidia currently has on the market.

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    4. Re:Also fun on AMD/ATI cards-- Raytracing by sexconker · · Score: 2, Informative

      In terms of performance per $.

      NVidia is still king of the hill in raw performance.
      You just have to pay.

    5. Re:Also fun on AMD/ATI cards-- Raytracing by Endo13 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not any more. You haven't been keeping up too well with tech news eh? Read a few reviews and look at some benchmarks of the 4850 and 4870 cards. If it were just one or two review sites showing such favorable numbers for the new ATI cards, they might be suspect. It's not one or two. It's all of them.

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    6. Re:Also fun on AMD/ATI cards-- Raytracing by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And that performance is about 15-25% over my 8800GTS 320MB that I paid just over $200 for over a year ago.

      The latest round of cards came WAY too soon.

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    7. Re:Also fun on AMD/ATI cards-- Raytracing by Endo13 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, I did misread your comment. Nevertheless, most of my comment still stands. A 4870 in Crossfire performs significantly better than the X280 and the 9800 GX2 every benchmark I've seen except Crysis, and these cards also have the capability to be run in a quad Crossfire mode. Oh, and two of them sell for less than one of NVidia's top dogs.

      http://www.bjorn3d.com/read.php?cID=1301
      http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=581&type=expert
      http://techreport.com/articles.x/14990

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    8. Re:Also fun on AMD/ATI cards-- Raytracing by bill_kress · · Score: 2, Insightful

      $300? $400? $600? wtf!

      It's been a while since I bought a video card. I totally splurged and got a $90 card! Worked for the stupid game I was trying to play I guess, but now that game is lame and I'm out $90! I wouldn't do it again--$90 is a silly amount to spend to replace existing functionality.

      If I just wait a few years, any games I might still be interested in will be cheap and play on commodity hardware--and all I've lost is, well, nothing--actually gained a little extra time.

    9. Re:Also fun on AMD/ATI cards-- Raytracing by CastrTroy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, nobody plays those old games like Starcraft or Counter-Strike anymore.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    10. Re:Also fun on AMD/ATI cards-- Raytracing by shannara256 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem with playing 10-year-old games online is that, for the most part, the only people still playing 10-year-old games online are really, REALLY good at them. New games will have a wide variety of players in terms of skill, while old games tend to have just the hardcore players. If you're waiting for prices to fall to play a game, you'll have missed out on the time it takes to learn how to play the game, both in general and against other players of a similar skill level, and you'll lose every online game you play.

  2. Could someone explain what these do. by goombah99 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Sure I grock the term "PPU" and can maybe even imagine it's got some fast elastic particle simmulations.

    But what "physics" is really there. What's the interface look like.

    Is it real physics? Would it be good for say simmulating chemical dynamics with quantum or classical force fields? COuld I use it to model the hydrodynamics of a sail boat cutting through the water?

    What about applied math or engineering physics like say the propagation and attenuation of sound in a turbulent atmoshere or concert hall.

    What about a piece of rope falling, a flag in the wind, or a ball and spring model?

    Just what does this do and how does the interface look?

    if possible compare it to CUDA since I know what that does.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Could someone explain what these do. by dotancohen · · Score: 4, Funny

      if possible compare it to CUDA since I know what that does.

      You see, it's like a car... It takes instructions and makes something of it... like how a car takes steering and brakes and get you from point A to point B.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    2. Re:Could someone explain what these do. by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 5, Informative

      The interface is a freely available SDK (for some uses). The physics is basically Newtonian mechanics (more in a moment). Physics for games are, first and foremost, an exercise in collision detection. The physics is simple. Determining collisions in a series of finite-length steps is the hard part.

      Why I say that the physics is basically Newtonian mechanics, there is spring technology, although all spring technology in finite step simulations has errors (if you are not carefully, the springs increase in oscillation over time, instead of damping.) Chemical dynamics and quantum force fields are out. Classical force fields are included. The force fields operate based on propogation (distance, distance-squared, etc.) and other parameters.

      The fluid/solid interaction is still being worked on, and fluids and cloth benefit most from hardware acceleration. Fluids use a number of points with mutual attraction/repulsion properties.

      No sound properties.

      Rope is emulated as a series of sticks with ball joints at the end, a flag as a series of springs with forces at points (cloth simulation is esentially a thing of springs), and the ball and spring, yes.

      You left out an important question, which is the rigidity of objects other than cloth/fluids. The ball that deforms as it bounces. Currently, that's in the SDK, but I've not played with it yet.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    3. Re:Could someone explain what these do. by MachDelta · · Score: 5, Informative

      Um... it IS CUDA. Or rather, its an extension for CUDA.

      From what I understand, nVidia took the PhysX engine they bought from Ageia and ported it to their own language (CUDA) so that it would run on their graphics cards, so people didn't have to shell out for a second $300 "Physics Processing Unit", thus boosting nVidia's GPU sales.

      And now someones ported it to ATI.

      *Nelson Laugh*

    4. Re:Could someone explain what these do. by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 4, Informative

      The PhysX system doesn't really care about heat or energy. It primarily concerns itself with force and momentum. That, as I understand it, is the principle difference between Newtonian and LaGrangian mechanics.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    5. Re:Could someone explain what these do. by moosesocks · · Score: 4, Informative

      Nope. Not quite :-)

      Lagrangian Mechanics gives you a lot more flexibility in terms of your coordinate system, and tends to be much better for solving systems with many interacting forces. It's essentially a mathematical re-formulation of Netwonian Mechanics.. The underlying laws are all the same, but the math used to arrive at a solution is quite different.

      Of course, this is all for solving problems analytically. Computers most likely do things differently.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    6. Re:Could someone explain what these do. by DittoBox · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sure I grock the term "PPU"

      Naw man. That's the sound lasers make: pew pew pew

      --
      Good. Cheap. Fast. Pick Two.
    7. Re:Could someone explain what these do. by pdbaby · · Score: 4, Funny

      The physics is basically Newtonian mechanics (more in a moment)

      Was that accidental or is that the worst physics joke ever? :-P if intentional allow me to present you with a medal!

      --
      Global symbol "$deity" requires explicit package name at line 2. - If only $scripture started "use strict;"
    8. Re:Could someone explain what these do. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      The Internet.

    9. Re:Could someone explain what these do. by azaris · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This thread is so full of misinformation I don't know where to start.

      Newtonian mechanics (no matter if you dress it up as Lagrangian or Hamiltonian mechanics) is basically just solving a second order ODE with constraints. Depending on how you set up the constraints and discretize the system, you end up solving a linear system of equations on each time step. Oh, and forget analytical solutions. There are like a handful of mechanical systems that you can solve analytically (called integrable), the rest can be shown to be impossible.

      This is the approach used in real mechanics simulations. Guess what, it's too expensive for real-time computer games. That's when you get creative and start bending the rules in such a way that the physics is no longer strictly correct, but the methods work incrementally in such a way that from the state of the system at the previous time step you compute the state at the next time step, update the forces, and then maybe do some correction steps. No linear systems of equations to solve, much faster algorithms, but not strictly physical.

      Then you have a whole world of elastic bodies and fluid simulations that I haven't even touched on. Again there the operating principle is: "Cut corners to make it fast but not too unrealistic".

  3. Probable Patent Infringement by Grond · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My guess is that nVidia will put a stop to this pretty quickly. PhysX is covered by at least a couple of patents. There may be others pending or that were assigned to nVidia.

    I don't know if PhysX is covered by patent protection in Israel, but it's possible. In any event, don't count on official PhysX support from ATI any time soon.

    1. Re:Probable Patent Infringement by Yvan256 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Great, so here's yet another technology that will get split into many different versions by different companies...

      Why can't these guys sit together and discuss things to come up with, say OpenPhysX? (think OpenGL)

    2. Re:Probable Patent Infringement by EvilIdler · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Another vote for OpenPL. It only makes sense. You feed the coordinates from OpenGL to OpenPL. OpenPL returns a new velocity and position for the objects. Maybe toss in mesh deformation because of impact. All handled by the same tightly integrated processor for speed. I want it, and I want it yesterday :)

    3. Re:Probable Patent Infringement by sexconker · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The API is free and open and AMD (ATi) is free to implement it if they wish.
      They simply haven't done so.

    4. Re:Probable Patent Infringement by MachDelta · · Score: 2, Informative

      They haven't done so because they're subscribers to PhysX's competition - Havok.

      AMD / ATI / Havok
      vs
      Intel / nVidia / PhysX
      Pick your side!

      (Ok so it doesn't quite work like that but dividing battle lines evenly makes it less confusing than it really is)

    5. Re:Probable Patent Infringement by Shados · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Except that if I understand well, Havok == Intel since they purchased it... so ATI is between a rock and a hard place :)

    6. Re:Probable Patent Infringement by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 5, Informative

      Close, but off...

      AMD/ATI vs. Intel/Havok vs. nVidia/PhysX. At least, Intel licensed code from Havok. Intel wants physics on the CPU, nVidia on the GPU, and AMD/ATI just wants to be able to use both.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    7. Re:Probable Patent Infringement by TheDarkCloud · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, Intel and nVidia are at odds at the moment, so that isnt necessarily true. Theyre just stuck making chipsets for Intel since AMD now has proprietary rights over ATI, and produces it's own chipsets (well, not really, but LICENSES companies to make AMD/ATI boards).

    8. Re:Probable Patent Infringement by DeathCarrot · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's pretty much what a physics engine does, and there are already a number of open source physics libraries out there (ODE and Bullet are the most well supported as far as I know, the former has been used in a few big budget commercial titles). Someone just needs to port the back-end to CUDA and off we go... Easier said than done, I reckon.

      I recall hearing chatter about CUDA bindings for Bullet but I'm not sure if anything came of that.

    9. Re:Probable Patent Infringement by mrchaotica · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It already exists, and is called the Open Dynamics Engine. It'd be nice if somebody made a version reimplemented on top of CUDA or CTM, though.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  4. Not That Big a Deal by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is hardly the big deal that Nvidia makes it out to be. Physics doesn't come for free on either card. It takes away substantial resources from the GPU's major function of rendering frames. Frankly I don't care how beautiful the physics are when the frame rate is 9.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:Not That Big a Deal by Endo13 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, the amazing part of the whole deal here is that benchmarks show almost no decrease in framerate with PhysX turned on. So yeah, it's kind of a big deal.

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    2. Re:Not That Big a Deal by Racemaniac · · Score: 3, Funny

      so basically, the games hardly use any physics?

    3. Re:Not That Big a Deal by timeOday · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe the amount of physics that would overwhelm the CPU (which can also kill framerate, BTW) is hardly lifting a finger for the GPU. It's certainly not impossible; GPUs do blow away CPUs for some calculations, which is why we have GPUs in the first place.

    4. Re:Not That Big a Deal by ichigo+2.0 · · Score: 2, Informative

      That depends. Unless a game is amazingly well optimized for a specific card, it will not be able to use 100% of the resources. If running physics on the GPU lets it use those untapped resources then it can only be a good thing.

  5. It will happen by ConanG · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I suspect they'll license it to ATi.

    The nVidia people are probably well aware that hogging PhysX to themselves is a stupid idea. Game makers aren't going to go out of their way to support it unless it can be reasonably expected that most gamers will be able to use it. It's a dead fish unless ATi can use it. That doesn't mean they'll just hand it over.

    1. Re:It will happen by DRobson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The nVidia people are probably well aware that hogging PhysX to themselves is a stupid idea. Game makers aren't going to go out of their way to support it unless it can be reasonably expected that most gamers will be able to use it.

      Contrast with all the vendor specific OpenGL extensions that were used by developers...

  6. "Controversial allegations": Stop right there! by Keith+Russell · · Score: 3, Informative

    So this whole thing was kicked off by a column on the Inquirer? The same people who brought us the Rydermark "scandal"? The Inq has shown a blatant and consistent anti-Nvidia bias over the years, so why give this any credence?

    Besides, the first question that popped into my head is one that is being asked a lot of places, but not answered: If accelerating PhysX on Nvidia's GPU hardware is cheating, wouldn't accelerating PhysX on Ageia's PPU hardware be considered cheating, too? Call me cynical, but I think AMD knows the answer to that, and would rather you didn't mention it, thank you very much.

    --
    This sig intentionally left blank.
  7. Approximation for gaming purpose by DrYak · · Score: 5, Informative

    Is it real physics? Would it be good for say simmulating chemical dynamics with quantum or classical force fields? COuld I use it to model the hydrodynamics of a sail boat cutting through the water?

    No. Most physics middleware provide a simplified model (collision detection, rigid body physics, etc...) which is great for visual gimmicks in games, but is too much an approximation to be used in research. You would need other engines which are optimized to do accurate physics modelling - Gromacs comes as an example.

    Now about the hardware behind this : Ageia's PPU could in theory be used to accelerate research calculation. The problem is the lack of a proper API. This processor has only PhysX as available API which is specialized for gaming oriented physics. The SieveC compiler is supposed to be able to generate parallel programs for the PPU but hasn't been released publicly.

    Whereas, even if the GPU port of PhysX is only oriented for gaming-specific applications, ATI Radeon card also expose the much more general purpose API "Brook+" (the usage of which is already demonstrated in Folding@Home) and nVidia card have CUDA that you know.
    Unlike PhysX, those API expose generic numerical methods and can be used to calculate applications as diverse as you mention. Including calculating the game-specific Ageia PhysX.

    PhysX is to CUDA what, for example, Gromacs could be compared to Fortan. The first is a specific engine which is optimised to solve some very specific problems, the second is a general purpose language that can be used to crunch numbers.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  8. What will ATI do? by Last_Available_Usern · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Obviously they can't incorporate this into their drivers, but one has to wonder how much they'll look the other way on this. Do they have any legal obligation to stop users from exploiting this (ie. modify their drivers to prevent such mods)? You can be sure they would go out of their way to stop something like that from happening in the other direction.

    Relevant original phrase: All's fair in love and war.

    Relevant original phrase with 21st century spin: All's fair in love and war so long as you don't knowingly infringe on existing copyrights or patents.