AMD V Nvidia by Richard Huddy

[Will Robinson]

This is an interesting interview.
http://www.kitguru.net/components/g...e-constant-smell-of-burning-bridges-says-amd/

 

[Idontcare]

Huddy says that you can have too much of a good thing, although at KitGuru we're not entirely sure if that applies to sun tan lotion models or gold bullion bars or genie wishes

I've read kitguru articles before and never really been impressed. This one is different and delivers a lighter-side that I can really appreciate, along with oodles of information (albeit one-sided) from somebody who has some skin in the game.

I also really enjoyed Huddy's candor in discussing the Batman AA debacle.

I hope a comparably authoritative Nvidia employee responds to kitguru's interview request so we get to read the other side of the story as well. It is their opportunity to be open and frank about what happened, or they could opt to cower in silence (or worse, send a non-authoritative employee out to speak about it).

 

[Grooveriding]

Interesting.

The most interesting thing in there I didn't know was nvidia paid Crytek $2 million to have the rights to Crysis 2 and put their logo in there etc.

That could be good or bad. Bad if they manage to pollute Crysis 2 with gpu physx, good if they just stick to making it render faster on their hardware. The last thing what is expected to be the next gpu killing game needs is a bloated feature like gpu physx driving its performance into the ground.

Hopefully they don't get their physx in there. Crytek did really well with their own physics implementation in the first Crysis, hope they stick to that with the second.

 

[bryanW1995]

they didn't pay $2 million for nothing. it will have plenty of physx I'd wager. smart move spending the 2 million whether they implement physx or not, however, since crysis 2 is very likely to be a big player in the benchmark game for years to come.

besides, throwing in physx won't hurt you if you don't use it, so why complain about it?

 

[Ares1214]

Crysis 2 will be crippled by being a console game as well, so it will be nothing near the benchmarking game of Crysis 1. It might be like MW2...

 

[shangshang]

And what's wrong with NV throwing money at developers to sell hardware? AMD is doing the same thing too. If you want something done, you put out money. That's how it's always been.

 

[bryanW1995]

for $2 million they're gonna expect some serious ROI as well. That must be some kind of record.

 

[SlowSpyder]

It's good that he explained the tessellation situation. I don't doubt that Nvidia is pushing that as hard as they can since they have an advantage. But as he points out, more isn't always better.

 

[Grooveriding]

they didn't pay $2 million for nothing. it will have plenty of physx I'd wager. smart move spending the 2 million whether they implement physx or not, however, since crysis 2 is very likely to be a big player in the benchmark game for years to come.

besides, throwing in physx won't hurt you if you don't use it, so why complain about it?

It will hurt plenty if it's like Mafia 2 where you either use physx or get no physics effects at all.

The physics were great in Crysis 1 and gave no perceptible performance hit. I want the same from Crysis 2. If NV pollutes it with physx and brings another title to the group of games that suffer performance wise if you want physics effects, I'll complain.

I want physics in Crysis 2 like I did in Crysis 1, and I want them to cost me nothing in performance like they did in Crysis 1, not cut my framerate in half.

If NV sticks to making the game deliver better framerates and perform better, that's great, if they try and influence it into being bloated up with features that kill performance to sell more cards, that's terrible.

Which segways into the opinion given in this interview. Are they contributing to Crysis 2 to make the game better for gamers, or to make themselves more money to the detriment of gamers.

 

[Attic]

they didn't pay $2 million for nothing. it will have plenty of physx I'd wager. smart move spending the 2 million whether they implement physx or not, however, since crysis 2 is very likely to be a big player in the benchmark game for years to come.

besides, throwing in physx won't hurt you if you don't use it, so why complain about it?

That's dense. It's also the same side nVidia paid board members take on the stance, and they are typically a good barometer for BS detection.

People complain about it because there are better physics solutions than GPU acclerated Physx. When nViida buys developers off with money it means that the gamer is less likely to see those better solutions and instead see GPU accelerated physx that cuts off gamers who prefer AMD gpu's.

I don't know why that is so hard to understand by those who claim nVidia pushing their selfish motivations on gaming developers isn't a bad thing. It is a bad thing for gamers.

Hardocp said it pretty good here regarding the situation with nVidia and physx, http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/10/19/batman_arkham_asylum_physx_gameplay_review/13

From our perspective, it is difficult to see NVIDIA’s PhysX technology as a genuine attempt to advance the state of the art. Rather, it seems to us that it is more of a backhanded attempt to increase NVIDIA’s market share by alienating people who are not already NVIDIA customers. This tactic does not create new customers. Rather, it turns off potential customers.

The biggest problem with PhysX is this: the PC is, and always has been, the open gaming platform. The entire point of PC gaming is that it can be changed and it can evolve in real-time as hardware evolves. PhysX, by its very nature as a proprietary technology, flies in the face of that openness. PC gaming is supposed to be democratic, not authoritarian.

I would like to state up front, all of us here at HardOCP do like physics in our games, and we want to see that front expanded on and improved. We want the gameplay experience to improve leaps and bounds from where it is now, and we know gameplay physics is the future. What we want to see, are actual gameplay physics improvements and not just effect physics like we’ve seen so far, which are nice yes, but don’t change the gameplay.

I strongly feel that hardware physics acceleration on GPUs needs to be completely open. Closed hardware acceleration routines do not a standard make. I also personally feel that there should be more focus on CPU based Physics right now, and leave the 3D accelerators to what they do best, accelerate our 3D games.

Unfortunately with nVidia dropping 2 mil on Crysis 2 it is a given that Physx is going to be demanding and likely achieved in this game. This is bad for the reasons stated above.

 

[Qbah]

I really hope there's no PhysX in Crysis 2. The physics engine in Crysis 1 was incredible and it was running on the CPU. I really REALLY hope Crytek uses their own implementations so that everybody can enjoy the game fully.

As for the article, I just don't like this guy. He's dodging questions and beats on some dead horses. Typical PR (which I hate).

 

[Attic]

I really hope there's no PhysX in Crysis 2. The physics engine in Crysis 1 was incredible and it was running on the CPU. I really REALLY hope Crytek uses their own implementations so that everybody can enjoy the game fully.

As for the article, I just don't like this guy. He's dodging questions and beats on some dead horses. Typical PR (which I hate).

I agree with your thoughts on Crysis and Crysis 2, but i'd be stunned if Crysis 2 doesn't come with PhysX.

I've always liked Huddy, he points out things that take place in the GPU and Gaming world that I think need to be discussed and looked at. I usually find myself siding with AMD for the main reason that their achievements in dev relations don't have the direct result of harming nvidia users while nVidia has shown time and again that they have no inhibitions with harming and/or minimizing an AMD users gameplay experience.

That being said, whatever positives or negatives we draw from these two companies, I like to have these interviews and am glad AMD took the initiative and responded first to KitGuru's questions. When nVidia replies it will be interesting to read as well.

 

[Daedalus685]

Crytek has at many points advertised the scalability of the new cry engine, including the advanced in house physics, AI, rendering, etc. aspects.

I'd be floored if the game includes physX as it would require skipping a large portion of the engine itself, and likely hurt sales of the engine.

Crysis 1 was an Nvidia sponsored game as well. I'd expect, and hope, that the money was used to provide support for hardware, some software experts, and a big Nvidia logo when you boot it up (just like in crysis 1).

Crytek really seems to hate middleware.

 

[Lonyo]

Crytek has at many points advertised the scalability of the new cry engine, including the advanced in house physics, AI, rendering, etc. aspects.

I'd be floored if the game includes physX as it would require skipping a large portion of the engine itself, and likely hurt sales of the engine.

Crysis 1 was an Nvidia sponsored game as well. I'd expect, and hope, that the money was used to provide support for hardware, some software experts, and a big Nvidia logo when you boot it up (just like in crysis 1).

Crytek really seems to hate middleware.

Making it for consoles though, it may be that ripping out their own physics engine and replacing it with PhysX would be easier? Who knows, we shall have to wait and see.

 

[Daedalus685]

Making it for consoles though, it may be that ripping out their own physics engine and replacing it with PhysX would be easier? Who knows, we shall have to wait and see.

The specs of the engine are not on the site anymore, but while they were the included "supports everything without middleware" was one of the selling points of the scalability to consoles. Everything was included, and could be used in anyh number of levels (high or low) to work on almost any hardware. I just don't see the point.

http://www.gamephys.com/tag/crysis-2-physics/

That (from march) even has a demonstration of the destructive physics they have implemented in their own code. So if physX is there at all it would only be dust effects here and there and be wholly pointless... unless they backtracked on the march data.. hence the delay?

I can't imagine it would be easier unless they lied and theirs didn't work as advertised. I'd wager this will be no different than crysis 1 in the TWIMTBP stuff. Aside from the fact that it will likely have DX11 bristling out of every pixel. Something that at this moment would result in far superior performance on an Nvidia card.

 

[blastingcap]

For those that missed the grudge match over Batman the first time around (mentioned by Huddy in the OP's linked article):

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=20928
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=20952
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=20991

I'm not sure who won the grudge match, but it's amusing nonetheless. It was kind of surreal to see actual AMD and NV employees flaming each other's companies on the forums. (Hexus took the quotes from the Hexus discussion forums to make it easy to find and to read. The actual flaming was on a forum that looks like the one you're reading right now. E.g., http://forums.hexus.net/hexus-net/1...s-nvidia-neglecting-gamers-2.html#post1806514 and http://forums.hexus.net/hexus-net/1...s-nvidia-neglecting-gamers-4.html#post1807879 )

 

[Madcatatlas]

Damn

ty for the read blastingcap

I missed that debate when it came up. Did Lars ever reply to Richards post about contacting Eidos and telling him to open the AA IP stuff?

went a few pages and couldnt see a reply, maybe he got leashed?

 

[extra]

Everyone seems to hate on Kitguru--charlie really seems to hate that dude...but honestly, they usually post interesting stuff--I rather like them. Their power supply article was great for example. I like this article.

 

[nitromullet]

Interesting read. I'm guessing that NV will respond as well, now that AMD has said their piece. I don't think there are many that agree with what NV did with Batman AA, but I think PhysX is a different story. I dont' like the idea of a proprietary solution, but I also don't really think there are any other real alternatives currently available for computing physics on the gpu.

IMO, to solve this MS needs to add physics on the gpu to DirectX. Left to their own devices, AMD and NV will never solve this between them.

 

[Silverforce11]

Bad Company 2 has great physics, you don't need physx, and it doesn't slow perf to a crawl.

If NV had paid $2M for crysis 2, then it will have physx. That's just how it works, you don't get $$ if you don't do as they wish.

 

[OCGuy]

Bad Company 2 has great physics, you don't need physx, and it doesn't slow perf to a crawl.

If NV had paid $2M for crysis 2, then it will have physx. That's just how it works, you don't get $$ if you don't do as they wish.

Should they just hand over money for no reason? *confused*

 

[ugaboga232]

I don't think that was his point. I think he wanted Crytek to remain neutral and just use its in house physics which have been quite good. However, it remains to be seen if there is significant nvidia biased settings/performance. PhysX could surprise a lot of us if they really use it well in the game (aka offering more gameplay options like everything is realistically destructible).

 

[Keysplayr]

Bad Company 2 has great physics, you don't need physx, and it doesn't slow perf to a crawl.

If NV had paid $2M for crysis 2, then it will have physx. That's just how it works, you don't get $$ if you don't do as they wish.

BC2 has great "scripts".

 

[GaiaHunter]

Just by the way, Batman AA does have AMD AA support in game currently.

About the scripts argument - "physX effects" are also a script.

 

[Skurge]

Just by the way, Batman AA does have AMD AA support in game currently.

About the scripts argument - "physX effects" are also a script.

I own the game, Is there patch or something. It just tells me to use CCC.