Search code examples
gpugame-physicsphysics-enginebulletphysicsphysx

How fast is PhysX on GPU compared to physics engines on CPU?


I have an application that is written to use the Bullet physics engine. I am running it on an Intel i7 2600K CPU with 8 cores. The application has to process millions of chunks of physics work, each of which can be done independently. It currently runs with 8 processes, each process working through its quota of the total independently. In summary, this work has a lot of easy parallelism.

Assuming that I can acquire the best NVIDIA consumer graphics card (say Titan), what is the ballpark improvement in the physics engine performance I can see by switching from Bullet on CPU to Physx on GPU? That is, approximately how much faster will this application run if rewritten for Physx?

I found a few papers that compare the result quality between Bullet and Physx, but could not find anything about the performance comparison.


Solution

  • I found this, it's not a comparison against any specific CPU physics engine but one hopes they are comparing like with like and running PhysX on the CPU.

    So it's rather unspecific and from a FAQ by the makers of PhysX so take with a pinch of salt.

    From here:

    Running PhysX on a mid-to-high-end GeForce GPU will enable 10-20 times more effects and visual fidelity than physics running on a high-end CPU.