Please use the CWR2 CBT to help us provide a better experience.
oh I see. Now I Understend
This obviously wasn't meant for the 'simulating everything' argument, was merely going at the core of PhysX = Lag ( Lower FPS? ) and the overhead.
Last edited by Sethos; Apr 23 2012 at 06:40.
My game is running 60FPS ( Vsync locked of course ) 95% of the time but Zargabad seems to be very CPU bound, a map I really play a lot.
I currently have a second GTX 680 4GB for an upcoming build so I'll go SLI, meaning my upcoming CPU will probably be under the most pressure from here on out. So any additional CPU cycles used by PhysX will cost me FPS in the long run.¨
Also, has it been mentioned if it's possible to offload the CPU bound PhysX calculations to Nvidia's CUDA or does it need specific instructions before that will process it?
Last edited by Sethos; Apr 23 2012 at 06:57.
SLI should do the trick I would think, but who knows how physx will affect the CPU or performance, imo I think it will be marginal.
But as I said, GPU overhead in my case will be huge but the VBS engine is also very reliant on CPU power. So I'm naturally concerned over anything that will tap into additional CPU cycles such as PhysX.
I just remember in this or the previous thread, that the entire discussion was based off PhysX in ArmA would first be Nvidia proprietary, then concerns that CPU PhysX for AMD users would be a severe performance hog, then a mod / developer mentioned it'd be strictly CPU PhysX and everyone sighed in relief. Now I'm just curious whether it IS 'strictly CPU' or you can offload these PhysX calls to the CUDA cores with Nvidia, as the CUDA cores are there for the taking in the first place and not being used. Sure the impact would most likely be marginal ( 5FPS plus minus? ) but as a performance hungry man, 3-5FPS lost is a travesty :P
However reading up on VBS2 updates, it mentioned CUDA could be used - So I'm just looking for some clarification on ArmA 3 - Strictly CPU or optional CUDA.
It will be interesting to see if Physx turns into a driver vs. driver race, I think it's a safe bet to buy Nvidia but i'm totally biased :P As for CUDA cores I know very little about them, I should read up.
Thing is, for some weird reason, ppl are mixing up the game phisics engine with additional physics controlled effects like cloth and particle simulation. AFAIK, for A3, nvidia physx will handle ONLY the ragdolls even though it will be implemented at the core, meaning that the world could behave a bit more real to life (no more 2000 ton tank in order not to skid and so forth).
That said, I would expect a better performance out of current generation hardware. Remember what was the norm back in the day A2 was released and what it is today, for both CPU and GPUs. Might also have something to do with going a notch up towards DX11 (especially when it comes down to the ratio of pretty gfx vs rendering performance).
For rendering via CPU, afaik the only rendering element bound to CPU (and hdd access speed) are the draw calls -> viewdistance.
Maybe is me hoping for the best regarding RVX engine in A3...
Last edited by PuFu; Apr 23 2012 at 09:13.