AMD's Roy Taylor: PhysX/Cuda doomed?

[SirPauly]

Cuda is just a fancy word coined by nvidia for Stream Proccesor. There is nothing fancy about Cuda it's just marketing speak.

The software:

https://developer.nvidia.com/cuda-toolkit

 

[BallaTheFeared]

CUDA actually stands for Could You Die Already?

 

[Mr Expert]

The software:

https://developer.nvidia.com/cuda-toolkit

I was thinking Cuda Cores as we are talking gaming here I thought LOL. Cuda Cores are nvidias name for Stream Proccesor which is what they used to be called. nvidia trys to pull an Apple and be different but they are the same dam thing as Stream processor.

 

[2is]

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.

Pretty much this. I'd love to see a "standard" that works across any GPU, but I haven't seen AMD make any significant strides for a viable alternative. I guess when you have nothing, all you can do is downplay the competitions advantage. If AMD wants PhysX to really die, then come out with something that will kill it. An interview won't do it.

 

[Mr Expert]

Pretty much this. I'd love to see a "standard" that works across any GPU, but I haven't seen AMD make any significant strides for a viable alternative. I guess when you have nothing, all you can do is downplay the competitions advantage. If AMD wants PhysX to really die, then come out with something that will kill it. An interview won't do it.

Actually where nvidia went wrong with Physx is locking it down to nvidia GPUs only. Ageia had it right with the extra stand alone add in card to go along side any GPU you choose. Besides Physx was never well recived by game developers for the reason stated and is why it is in so few games as to be considerd a moot feature. This GPU was a good idea but it never caught on https://www.evga.com/articles/00503/

 

[Spjut]

Actually where nvidia went wrong with Physx is locking it down to nvidia GPUs only. Ageia had it right with the extra stand alone add in card to go along side any GPU you choose. Besides Physx was never well recived by game developers for the reason stated and is why it is in so few games as to be considerd a moot feature. This GPU was a good idea but it never caught on https://www.evga.com/articles/00503/

The worst part IMO is even blocking actual Nvidia cards from being used for PhysX when the main card is from AMD.
I used my 8800GT as a dedicated PhysX card for the few titles supporting it, but then Nvidia went ahead and suddenly blocked off that feature(I know you can hack it)

 

[Mr Expert]

The worst part IMO is even blocking actual Nvidia cards from being used for PhysX when the main card is from AMD.
I used my 8800GT as a dedicated PhysX card for the few titles supporting it, but then Nvidia went ahead and suddenly blocked off that feature(I know you can hack it)

Physx is not worth the hassle imo.

 

[2is]

Actually where nvidia went wrong with Physx is locking it down to nvidia GPUs only. Ageia had it right with the extra stand alone add in card to go along side any GPU you choose. Besides Physx was never well recived by game developers for the reason stated and is why it is in so few games as to be considerd a moot feature. This GPU was a good idea but it never caught on https://www.evga.com/articles/00503/

I personally though having a separate piggy back card was the worst idea ever. I was glad to see it go.

 

[Mr Expert]

I personally though having a separate piggy back card was the worst idea ever. I was glad to see it go.

A seperate dedicated add on Physx card is the way to go. The dual GPU Physx GTX 275 was a good idea though but not enough games have Physx to warrent the extra cost of it. If at leased half of the games that get released have Physx then it means something but in fact it's only like 1% of games that run Physx and they are mostly all old games that no one plays anymore.

 

[2is]

Yes, I understand that's how you feel. I still disagree.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Physx is not worth the hassle imo.

How would you know?

 

[Nintendesert]

I really wish Nvidia would have licensed PhysX years ago so we could have seen widespread use and adoption of physics in general. Ah well.

 

[Lonbjerg]

I have heard that PhysX is dying since 2006.
Lets recap:

People have claimed that Havok would be better since 2006:
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1036230

Have not come true.

We have had uninformed reviewers blame PhysX in 2006...for Havok issues:
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1067327

In 2006 we even had games to brind out th "POWA" og QUAD-core physcis:
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1103557

We all kno how Allan Wake fared...right`^^

With that much FUD in the "luggage", it's no surprise a lot of the posts in this thread are either false, useless troll posts...or just posters with pure ignorance.

I got my first try at hardware (none CPU physics) in June, 2006.

That gives my time with PhysX...7 years and 2 months...and still counting...ARMA]|[ is my lastest PhysX game...and it tells Crysis to go home...because it's drunk.

Se you in 7 years...my bet is that it will be the same persons in 7 years, sitting declaring "PhysX is dead"

Not bad for a "dying" tech ^^

 

[Mr Expert]

Yes, I understand that's how you feel. I still disagree.

I think I am right. The market backs me up on that one.

 

[Mr Expert]

Not bad for a "dying" tech ^^

Being that Physx is in somethink like less than 1% of games I would say it's a big fat fail.

 

[Mr Expert]

How would you know?

imo means IN MY OPINION ! I told you my opinion that's how I know.

 

[Mr Expert]

I really wish Nvidia would have licensed PhysX years ago so we could have seen widespread use and adoption of physics in general. Ah well.

nvidia did license Physx years ago and it's still far from well recived.

 

[Mr Expert]

Yes, I understand that's how you feel. I still disagree.

So you feel that there is much more than 1% of games that have Physx and that less than %1 warrents to use and cost ?

 

[bystander36]

I was thinking Cuda Cores as we are talking gaming here I thought LOL. Cuda Cores are nvidias name for Stream Proccesor which is what they used to be called. nvidia trys to pull an Apple and be different but they are the same dam thing as Stream processor.

CUDA cores are not the same as Stream processors, but they are similar in function. I think they wanted a different name, because Nvidia uses far less of them for the same performance as AMD, which uses far more stream processors, which do less per processor.

This move is to make it clear to the consumer that you cannot compare the number to each other and make a valid comparison, even though some people try to.

 

[bystander36]

Being that Physx is in somethink like less than 1% of games I would say it's a big fat fail.

I do believe Nvidia has gotten a fair bit of extra purchases as a result of it, so it may not be a fail in a marketing standpoint. Of course if you call PhysX a fail due to low usage, then you'd have to say the same for OpenCl and DirectCompute. They aren't used very often either.

We'll see how it plays out in the future.

 

[Mr Expert]

CUDA cores are not the same as Stream processors, but they are similar in function. I think they wanted a different name, because Nvidia uses far less of them for the same performance as AMD, which uses far more stream processors, which do less per processor.

This move is to make it clear to the consumer that you cannot compare the number to each other and make a valid comparison, even though some people try to.

A Chevy Impala has many different trim levels and options but it's still the same thing even if the color is changes to Red or Green.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Being that Physx is in somethink like less than 1% of games I would say it's a big fat fail.

Let me guess...your subjective opnion, with no facts to back it up?

imo means IN MY OPINION ! I told you my opinion that's how I know.

Let me guess...your subjective opnion, with no facts to back it up?

nvidia did license Physx years ago and it's still far from well recived.

That you and ohter AMD fans don't like dosn't mean what you think it does....dosn't take an "Expert" to figure that one out.

 

[Lonbjerg]

A Chevy Impala has many different trim levels and options but it's still the same thing even if the color is changes to Red or Green.

Dosn't matter what color the car is (physics API)...if the tank is empty (aka ZERO OpenCL physic API games)

 

[bystander36]

A Chevy Impala has many different trim levels and options but it's still the same thing even if the color is changes to Red or Green.

The difference is they aren't the same size or power and Nvidia would not want the consumer to think they are. Nvidia typically uses fewer higher horsepower processors, and AMD uses more lower horsepower processors. Engine comparisons would be more apt btw.

Without a stat on the power of their stream processors, they wanted to rename it to make it clear they aren't the same.

 

[Mr Expert]

I do believe Nvidia has gotten a fair bit of extra purchases as a result of it, so it may not be a fail in a marketing standpoint. Of course if you call PhysX a fail due to low usage, then you'd have to say the same for OpenCl and DirectCompute. They aren't used very often either.

We'll see how it plays out in the future.

Ya lets sell our customers a largly unsupported feature set and market it as the best there is even though you can't use it in 99% of the games you play LOL. OpenCL and DC is not marketed and sold as a product to the unwitting and that's the difference between it and Physx. Perhaps if nvidia gave their customers some Physx games with each purcahse then it would be ok.