• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

AMD's Roy Taylor: PhysX/Cuda doomed?

Status
Not open for further replies.
BFG10K

BFG10K

Lifer
Nobody posted this interview yet? http://vr-zone.com/articles/nimble-like-a-starfish-amds-roy-taylor-sits-down-with-vr-zone/49320.html

I think CUDA is doomed. Our industry doesn’t like proprietary standards. PhysX is an utter failure because it’s proprietary. Nobody wants it. You don’t want it, I don’t want it, gamers don’t want it. Analysts don’t want it. In the early days of our industry, you could get away with it and it worked. We’ve all had enough of it. They’re unhealthy.

Nvidia should be congratulated for its invention. As a trend, GPGPU is absolutely fantastic and fabulous. But that was then, this is now. Now, collectively our industry doesn’t want a proprietary standard. That’s why people are migrating to OpenCL.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't necessarily agree with the Cuda part, but certainly hardware accelerated PhysX is a niche at best. nVidia's artificial blocking of it is a poor tactic. They tried the same stunt with locking SLI until they themselves got locked out by Intel playing the same game.
 
3 conclusions:

1 - That Roy dude sure talks a lot lol
2 - Cuda has it's purposes and it's actually being used by many.
3 - PhysX is a failure that year by year sees less games adopting it.
 
CUDA is far from doomed, its in a lot of scientific APPs that super computers crunch away on.

PhysX? Well they are having TWO 3AAA titles coming up with it, it will still be around, dragged kicking and screaming its final death throes..
 
Gikaseixas said:
3 conclusions:

1 - That Roy dude sure talks a lot lol
2 - Cuda has it's purposes and it's actually being used by many.
3 - PhysX is a failure that year by year sees less games adopting it.
Click to expand...

1, Agreed. He likes to talk [a lot of bull]. That's his job, though.
2, I think he's saying that because of Adobe's recent adoption of OpenCL. That's actually quite a big win for OpenCL. Gives him room to talk more [bull].
3, You better put on your flame proof undies talking like that around here. 😀

Just a reminder, imaginatively-censored profanity is only slightly better (but still not allowed) than bare profanity. What's better is we just avoid them altogether. FYI and for future reference. Thanks.

Moderator jvroig
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The general trend in the industry is largely towards open standards that everyone can compete around, its been true for many decades and there is no reason to think this time it will be different. CUDA being as closed and specific to hardware as it is largely limits its chance to be adopted in the coming decades. CUDA was first to market and hence currently shows a sizeable install base, but the passage of time is in OpenCL's favour, open standards pretty much always win over the propriety ones, even when they are worse.

As a programmer now writing HPC code I would choose OpenCL, because its a standard where 3 competing companies are all providing hardware that works with it. CUDA all I have is NVidia's cards, and only their crazy expensive cards are actually quick.
 
FizzX and game effects would be in a better place if nvidia and intel hadn't got their grubby paws on aegia and havok respectively 😡
 
In general, it's hardly surprising to hear one company politely position their competitor's offerings as no-longer-relevant. It's pretty standard marketing talk regardless of whether it's true.

I also think it's unfair to say that this guy likes to talk [bull], given that in nearly any interview with Jen-Hsun Huang he seems incapable of shutting his mouth.

That said, I think the jury is still very much out with respect to CUDA


Just a reminder, imaginatively-censored profanity is only slightly better (but still not allowed) than bare profanity. What's better is we just avoid them altogether. FYI and for future reference. Thanks.

Moderator jvroig
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wow, pro Nvidia anyone....
I think tinted rose glasses is a new {or old} trend in this forum,
the guy is absolutely right.

remember
MeTaL
Glide
DirectX
OpenGL
 
BFG10K said:
Nobody posted this interview yet? http://vr-zone.com/articles/nimble-like-a-starfish-amds-roy-taylor-sits-down-with-vr-zone/49320.html



I wouldn't necessarily agree with the Cuda part, but certainly hardware accelerated PhysX is a niche at best. nVidia's artificial blocking of it is a poor tactic. They tried the same stunt with locking SLI until they themselves got locked out by Intel playing the same game.
Click to expand...

It has already been posted in the cpu section. Pretty much useless PR banter IMO. It is the "we are a starfish (really??), "intel is a whale article". The interviewer asks him a direct question in the first paragraph about how amds apu are doing and he never really answers it.
 
The advancement of physics in games has been a huge disappointment. I think CUDA may be doomed in the long run. But right now who competes with nvidia where CUDA is important? Certainly not AMD. So i am not so sure OpenCL is going to be the killer. I'd say Intels Phi is more a threat to CUDA.
 
Imho,

Actually GPU PhysX is seeing more content:


Borderlands 2, Hawken, PlanetSide 2, WarFrame, Metro: Last light, Rise of the Triad with Batman Origins, Witcher 3, potentially Everquest Next and The Bureau: XCOM Declassified to look forward to.

It's up to AMD to smash, destroy and offer competition to see GPU PhysX die or evolve into a more open standard! There are more titles now!


Doomed? Probably but when? Will it evolve?
 
People are constantly bashing PhysX, but to date, there is no alternative (that is actually used). So we get rid of GPU-PhysX, then what, nothing?
I'm glad GPU-PhysX exists, at least until there is a replacement that is more than words.
 
Steelski said:
remember
MeTaL
Glide
DirectX
OpenGL
Click to expand...

It's pretty easy to remember the latter two since they're still around. 😛 Glide only died because 3Dfx was killed off by none other than... NVIDIA! I remember looking in magazines at the Voodoo 3 and the Voodoo 5, and then came the GeForce 256 (there was the Riva TNT series prior to that).
 
Last edited:
I think as OpenCL gets used by more and more people, CUDA will start to lose market share. The people that buy the hardware to do the number crunching do NOT like being locked to one manufacturer. Having 2-3 companies compete is a far better setup for end users.

The only games with PhysX these days are nVidia sponsored games. With the new consoles really using GPGPU this time around via OpenCL, I think things will start to slide away from PhysX.
 
There are plenty of games that have realistic physics engines that don't force you to only use your GPU, and don't force you go buy your hardware from only one vendor.

This has been discussed at length, but the "PhysX bashers" have nothing against the tech, and everything against the nonsense Nvidia pulls by artificially locking you out if you own AMD hardware. Just lame Nvidia just lame, PhysX deserves to die for this reason alone.
 
AnandThenMan said:
There are plenty of games that have realistic physics engines that don't force you to only use your GPU, and don't force you go buy your hardware from only one vendor.
Click to expand...
That's pretty much it. I've yet to see a hardware accelerated PhysX title implement anything like (e.g.) Far Cry 2's propagating fire or Red Faction's Geomod, both of which meaningfully impact gameplay too.

Both of these solutions also run plenty fast on the CPU.
 
BFG10K said:
That's pretty much it. I've yet to see a hardware accelerated PhysX title implement anything like (e.g.) Far Cry 2's propagating fire or Red Faction's Geomod, both of which meaningfully impact gameplay too.

Both of these solutions also run plenty fast on the CPU.
Click to expand...

Well thats just it. PhysX has never had an effect on the game. There is zero interaction with anything that it does. It is eye candy, and thats it.
 
AnandThenMan said:
There are plenty of games that have realistic physics engines that don't force you to only use your GPU, and don't force you go buy your hardware from only one vendor.

This has been discussed at length, but the "PhysX bashers" have nothing against the tech, and everything against the nonsense Nvidia pulls by artificially locking you out if you own AMD hardware. Just lame Nvidia just lame, PhysX deserves to die for this reason alone.
Click to expand...

No, there is nothing comparable out there. Physics != physics.

So let me get this straight. Because DirectX is proprietary to MS, it should die too? As long as there is no substitute, PhysX has to stay. Once an OpenCL-based GPU-Physics solutions is actually used in games, I'm with you - THEN, and only then can PhysX die.

brandonb said:
Bullet

http://bulletphysics.org/wordpress/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_(software)
Click to expand...

What did I just say about not only words? Show me one game where this is used (GPU-based physics, mind you! Because that is what we're talking about here. CPU-based PhysX is usable with every CPU). You can't, because none exists.
 
boxleitnerb said:
No, there is nothing comparable out there. Physics != physics.

So let me get this straight. Because DirectX is proprietary to MS, it should die too? As long as there is no substitute, PhysX has to stay. Once an OpenCL-based GPU-Physics solutions is actually used in games, I'm with you - THEN, and only then can PhysX die.
Click to expand...

The latest iteration of OpenGL can do just about everything DirectX can, and is certainly a viable alternative. And I certainly would love to see DirectX ditched for an open API. MS loves to force people tp upgrade to the latest Windows to get the latest DirectX.
 
Stuka87 said:
The latest iteration of OpenGL can do just about everything DirectX can, and is certainly a viable alternative. And I certainly would love to see DirectX ditched for an open API. MS loves to force people tp upgrade to the latest Windows to get the latest DirectX.
Click to expand...

Can almost do everything DirectX can do. But how many years did it take for them to catch up? OpenGL has been a poor example by the open model crowd to show open standards work. A proprietary system crushed it and never looked back. One of the reasons I dont have high expectations for OpenCL. CUDA or Phi will move faster and react to the market quicker.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top