Recent content by instantcoffee

This one was an answer to me I think. I'm not opposed to AMD offering support for Havok AND PhysX. IF PhysX gets ported to OpenCL, AMD will automatically gain support for PhysX as Nvidia does with Havok. I am opposed to the current strategy of running PhysX off CUDA. Nvidia says they might...

I disagree about that. The only thing I am marketing is my opinions. I'm not marketing ATI/AMD/Nvidia or Intel. What I am interested in, is their products. Chizow is an "independent (or not)" PR agent for Nvidia. His world is about Nvidia vs. ATI, Intel vs. AMD, while mine is about their...

Here's another example with combined Havok/euphoria for a starwars game: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bKphYfUk-M

The advantage is a continous hardware optimizaton for the API for the years to come. With major support. Optimizations for everyone. Not everything is good to throw at the GPU, since the GPU has other tasks then to calculate the physics. For us consumers, its better with Havok that has been...

AMD strategy is dedicated hardware support on CPU for Havok API in addition to GPU, not PhysX API. The advantages is obvious to developers. As for when they will support GPU accelerated physics engine, when is now. Havok had a better offer then Nvidia obviously. AMD didn't block support for...

This seems to become a long post, mainly to avoid multiposting and to make it clear what I am answering. I clearified this statement with Virge above by adding to it so it would be even more clear. That you choose to use the first version as a answer to any on my posts, makes me not wanting...

That is within your rights. :)

For what reason should Intel choose yet another standard, when Larrabee will support OpenGL?: http://anandtech.com/cpuchipse...howdoc.aspx?i=3367&p=1 Havok FX was announced both by ATI and Nvidia. It got cancelled after Intels purchase and never became available to developers. It did...

LOL! I think we might have different option of what qualifies as answers to a question. :beer: In first question, I asked for your opinion of how PhysX will be as an alternative to Havok. You answered: Ask someone else. Second question I asked for your opinion of how you think Intel...

I thought it was clear already. By open standard, I am talking about OpenCL. "Open standard based alternative Havok" might be clearer if you prefer that. As oposed to the closed propritary CUDA. As by "extremely flaky", I am guessing that you refer to Havok FX which where to accelerate...

Cheers! No, I'm not that impressed with CUDA. Neither with ATI stream to be fair. They have hardware limitations and that slows developement for end users. I'm more impressed with the developement of OpenCL and its hardware independency. You speak of PhysX as it was developed in CUDA...

I know what CUDA is and does. That you out of my posts believe I don't, makes me think you don't know what it is and does. Havok FX was put on ice by Intel, but never abandoned as you can see now. AMD/ATI would never implement CUDA and CUDA based PhysX to their hardware. They use Brook+...

I think PhysX will die too. Game developers wants to reach everyone to sell their games. If Havok becomes universally supported, then that would be a better choice. Havok has always earned their money by selling licenses as middleware, not to sell hardware. I think Havok would, unlike PhysX...

I doubt Microsoft is going to put any hardware physics into DX11: http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/n...ng-Deal-With-Microsoft Havok FX was going to be supported on both ATI and Nvidia cards earlier, not only ATI as you say. This still might be the case. ATI have mentioned in all their press...

1. It was not ment as an example of "refer to your OEM", but that the 7950GX2 didn't benifit from the existing SLI support and needed to get its own in a newer driver release. Since SLI support was already there for two 7800GTX cards, it should have been enabled for the 7950GX2 if it was...