hypothetical: nvidia in a console -> more physX titles?

[biostud]

What do you think would happen if nvidia had a physX capable GPU in one of the next generation consoles. Would it increase the number of physX PC titles and thus the request for nvidia cards?

[Granseth]

Originally Posted by biostud

What do you think would happen if nvidia had a physX capable GPU in one of the next generation consoles. Would it increase the number of physX PC titles and thus the request for nvidia cards?

Thats all depending on the price nVidia would take for using physX. The consolemakers doesn't like licensing.

[biostud]

Originally Posted by Granseth

Thats all depending on the price nVidia would take for using physX. The consolemakers doesn't like licensing.

Similar agreement that any GPU maker makes when they build a GPU for a console.

[lamedude]

PhysX is free on Windows yet you still have PC exclusive games using Havok so it would seem Nvidia would have to be the one paying.

[tviceman]

It's plausible, but from the sounds of Sony's dev kit, and the next xbox's all-but-confirmed specs, a 4th console would need to be created. Someone heavyweight like Valve would need to enter the hardware business to have any chance at a successful platform (and even then, it'd still be extremely difficult). Valve and Nvidia collaborated with it's steam linux beta, so it is plausible we could see a valve console with a steam wrapper around a linux OS, but again right now it's all just hypothetical talk. I do think that Valve is eventually going to have to enter some kind of hardware business if they want Steam to continue to stay successful.

[aka1nas]

All of the current consoles already run PhysX (the CPU vs GPU PhysX distinction is not as relevant to the consoles).

[Tuna-Fish]

Originally Posted by biostud

What do you think would happen if nvidia had a physX capable GPU in one of the next generation consoles. Would it increase the number of physX PC titles and thus the request for nvidia cards?

It probably would. However, there isn't. Unless something really dramatic happens now, the next gen consoles are all AMD.

I can only hope that means that there will be a competent OpenCL-based third-party physics library.

Originally Posted by aka1nas

All of the current consoles already run PhysX (the CPU vs GPU PhysX distinction is not as relevant to the consoles).

That's because you really don't want to put the physics on the GPU on either of them. In the next gen, you might.

[biostud]

Originally Posted by aka1nas

All of the current consoles already run PhysX (the CPU vs GPU PhysX distinction is not as relevant to the consoles).

AFAIK the PS3's GPU is not capable of running physX code, since it's a modded 7800GTX.

I know that many game engines uses physX to run the physics code on the CPU, but I was just wondering if we would see a more integrated use of physX in games, if one of the consoles had a physX capable GPU.

[Lonyo]

Developers would probably love to be able to have a choice to run physics on the GPU, since often they have to do careful balancing between CPU and GPU use, as well as RAM, so a system where there was a choice would be useful for them.

As far as NV/PhysX, it's pretty irrelevant I would think, since unless there is an NV GPU in BOTH consoles (Wii U doesn't count as it's trash), they would either be exclusives (which are less likely to even be ported to PC), or they would be cross platform, in which case they couldn't make use of the features unless both consoles had support.

However, something like OpenCL or similar might be usable on future GPUs in the next Xbox and Playstation no matter what GPU they have (assuming NV or AMD), in which case actual game-impacting physics might be used more in games, and also on PC ports of those games.

PhysX might be an idea, but NV in one of the two consoles is unlikely to have a real impact due to the way games are made.
Either: Single console exclusive, usually not on PC either
Or: On both consoles and maybe also PC.
In (1) you wouldn't benefit on PC since they wouldn't port.
In (2) you wouldn't benefit since the devs couldn't port and would have to make 2 different games.

If NV was in both consoles, there would be an incentive to use the GPU, if powerful enough for graphics and physics, to add physics to the game through PhysX which would then impact on PC ports of those games.

I'm ignoring the potential of "pretty graphics" physics because at the end of the day that's not the real appeal IMO.

[SirPauly]

The real appeal may be is to create a robust, flexible middleware tool set so developers will use the SDK. So, possibly if a developer uses PhysX for their physics for the console and decides to port their title to the PC -- one may make changes with the APEX Modules for CPU multi-core or GPU Physics for the PC, moving forward.

[Jovec]

If Nvidia really wanted to push hardware PhsyX, they could sell a dedicated PhsyX card at $50 that worked regardless of your GPU brand. The PhysX issues are still gameplay (can't have PhysX effecting gameplay unless everyone has it) and market share. But market share issue isn't simply Nvidia vs AMD, it's Nvidia high-end vs AMD and Nvidia low-mid. They PhysX market is much smaller than most think.

People blame AMD for holding up GP physics (I do) but Nvidia could have pushed for an open standard too and then marketed their cards on superior performance.

[SirPauly]

I think their PhysX plans are larger than some believe; it is even evangelized for mobile devices.

[Jovec]

Nv's PhysX "big plans" have been in the works for years.

It's biggest boon has probably been customer retention. "I have an NV card. I bought a PhysX game. My next upgrade has to be NV so I can still play my PhysX game."

[SirPauly]

Most plans take many years to place them in position when a market may boon; it's called pro-active and vision!

[Siberian]

I hear they are working on getting it into engines so that any game made with that engine will have it.

[tviceman]

Originally Posted by Jovec

If Nvidia really wanted to push hardware PhsyX, they could sell a dedicated PhsyX card at $50 that worked regardless of your GPU brand. The PhysX issues are still gameplay (can't have PhysX effecting gameplay unless everyone has it) and market share. But market share issue isn't simply Nvidia vs AMD, it's Nvidia high-end vs AMD and Nvidia low-mid. They PhysX market is much smaller than most think.

People blame AMD for holding up GP physics (I do) but Nvidia could have pushed for an open standard too and then marketed their cards on superior performance.

Agreed. Many people (including me) said this over and over.

Originally Posted by Jovec

Nv's PhysX "big plans" have been in the works for years.

It's biggest boon has probably been customer retention. "I have an NV card. I bought a PhysX game. My next upgrade has to be NV so I can still play my PhysX game."

And it's working to a arguably noticeable degree ( say that three times fast).

[SirPauly]

But one can license Cuda and PhysX -- but playing devil's advocate; it would be nice if the PhysX middleware has a Cuda and OpenCL component for GPU Physics.

[Grooveriding]

I seriously doubt it. Consoles operate on pretty weak hardware and game developers focus heavily on optimizing and squeezing every thing they can out of the hardware.

Nvidia's GPU Physx is a bloated resource hog and completely goes against the idea of optimizing and using hardware resources efficiently. I doubt game developers would be interested in using bloatware like that, would just bog the game down and kill framerates.

The poor performance vs effects delivered is most likely the largest contributing factor to why there are only about four games for every year of GPU physx's existence. It's just not a good feature worth implementing. Nvidia has to pay to get developers to use it, that speaks volumes for its appeal(lack of) to game developers. Even Crytek, a heavily nvidia involved developer, will not use it and has their own implementation of physics in all their games.

[AnandThenMan]

Originally Posted by SirPauly

Most plans take many years to place them in position when a market may boon; it's called pro-active and vision!

No it's called marketing, and some fall for it splendidly, even to the point of faithfully championing a companies apparent virtues with absolutely no gain to themselves.

[SirPauly]

It is such marketing that AMD themselves were in quiet talks about it! Is it possible to move beyond petty and silly personal attacks?

[Kenmitch]

Originally Posted by Grooveriding

I seriously doubt it. Consoles operate on pretty weak hardware and game developers focus heavily on optimizing and squeezing every thing they can out of the hardware.

Nvidia's GPU Physx is a bloated resource hog and completely goes against the idea of optimizing and using hardware resources efficiently. I doubt game developers would be interested in using bloatware like that, would just bog the game down and kill framerates.

The poor performance vs effects delivered is most likely the largest contributing factor to why there are only about four games for every year of GPU physx's existence. It's just not a good feature worth implementing. Nvidia has to pay to get developers to use it, that speaks volumes for its appeal(lack of) to game developers. Even Crytek, a heavily nvidia involved developer, will not use it and has their own implementation of physics in all their games.

Yep....Pretty much kills all hope at this time.

[NIGELG]

Originally Posted by SirPauly

It is such marketing that AMD themselves were in quiet talks about it! Is it possible to move beyond petty and silly personal attacks?

But you always say the market decides!!!How does that not apply to gpu PhysX?

The market has decided on very few titles a year with GPU PhysX.Why is that?

[SirPauly]

It certainly does apply and the amount of content has been my constructive nit-pick! My other is a desire to see the GPU Physic component be ported to OpenCL some day!

[NIGELG]

Originally Posted by SirPauly

It certainly does apply and the amount of content has been my constructive nit-pick! My other is a desire to see the GPU Physic component be ported to OpenCL some day!

So don't you think that the market has decided that it's an epic fail or is too niche or expensive or not worth it??

Or are most people 'sheeple' who don't know a great feature if it slaps them in the face?

GPU pHYSx has had negligible market penetration so far if you check out the ratio of titles with GPU phyX to those without this so called great,innovative feature.

[AnandThenMan]

But through division and fragmentation may come innovation, the proactive nature gives us choices now that may some day become universal to all gamers, and a partridge in a pear tree.

Don't be hatin' SirPauly, you may not realize it, but you repeat the same marketing speak over and over again, I'm sure you can understand how some become tired of the same company message from you. BTW, I've shown PhysX titles to casual observers to see what they think, most either didn't notice it until I pointed it out, or said it looks odd or fake-ish. One of the comments was, "is it supposed to look like that?"