AMD's Roy Taylor: PhysX/Cuda doomed?

[SirPauly]

. Perhaps if nvidia gave their customers some Physx games with each purcahse then it would be ok.

They have, at times, in bundle deals!

 

[Final8ty]

They have, at times, in bundle deals!

He said with each purchase which means every time in the conext, we all ready know that NV does it sometimes.

 

[SirPauly]

And, also, there is GPU PhysX content in free-to-play games like WarFrame, PlanetSide2 and Hawken!

 

[NIGELG]

The market has decided so far that GPU PhysX is dead.Respect the market!!!

 

[SirPauly]

imho,

Actually GPU PhysX and GPU Physics are gaining momentum with Havok, again, entering the fray, which was wonderful to see, imho!

 

[Final8ty]

And, also, there is GPU PhysX content in free-to-play games like WarFrame, PlanetSide2 and Hawken!

Free to play is not what he meant, just image that if all game bundles that come with gfx cards were free to play.

 

[Mr Expert]

imho,

Actually GPU PhysX and GPU Physics are gaining momentum with Havok, again, entering the fray, which was wonderful to see, imho!

Who cares about Havok. Physx is only in Batman Orgins and one other new game I think big deal. Look at all the other new games that don't use Physx and they are great. Would they be greater with Physx that's up to your own descretion but for me I rather the performnce boost when Physx is not on because it adds next to nothing in game but a big performance flop.

 

[boxleitnerb]

I don't get it...
Why don't people clamor for GPU-accelerated physics via OpenCL? Wouldn't that be much more constructive instead of bashing the one solution that actually exists and is used in dozens of games? It's only big talk and bashing and discussing it to death...but nothing ever happens in regard to competing solutions. Nothing. Don't you people get sick of it?

 

[Final8ty]

Who cares about Havok. Physx is only in Batman Orgins and one other new game I think big deal. Look at all the other new games that don't use Physx and they are great. Would they be greater with Physx that's up to your own descretion but for me I rather the performnce boost when Physx is not on because it adds next to nothing in game but a big performance flop.

And they are great games because they are great games and Physx does not make a game great.

 

[NIGELG]

I don't get it...
Why don't people clamor for GPU-accelerated physics via OpenCL? Wouldn't that be much more constructive instead of bashing the one solution that actually exists and is used in dozens of games? It's only big talk and bashing and discussing it to death...but nothing ever happens in regard to competing solutions. Nothing. Don't you people get sick of it?

We can clamour but the overwhelming majority of the market will decide if they want any GPU physics from any vendor.

 

[Mr Expert]

And they are great games because they are great games and Physx does not make a game great.

IMO Physx makes the game worse because even with a $200 GPU it still cause performance issues. Low framerate with more Physx eye candy looks worse than 60fps Vsync without Physx on imo.

 

[Mr Expert]

We can clamour but the overwhelming majority of the market will decide if they want any GPU physics from any vendor.

I think it's the majority game developers that have decided that they don't want to implement Physx for various reasons. It's ultamatly up to the game dev as to weather or not Physx will become a mainstay or not. As it's stands Physx is far from becoming a mainstay.

 

[SirPauly]

Free to play is not what he meant, just image that if all game bundles that come with gfx cards were free to play.

The point or context was about free -- personally expanded on the point

 

[NIGELG]

I think it's the majority game developers that have decided that they don't want to implement Physx for various reasons. It's ultamatly up to the game dev as to weather or not Physx will become a mainstay or not. As it's stands Physx is far from becoming a mainstay.

My argument is that if it's good the market which some here like to emphasize will wholeheartedly embrace it.Developers and consumers will demand it...if it's worth it.

It is not worth it for so many reasons.

 

[SirPauly]

Who cares about Havok.

I do!

 

[Mr Expert]

I do!

There are lots of Physics in other games. I don't here people complaining about the Physics in BF3 etc.

 

[Mr Expert]

My argument is that if it's good the market which some here like to emphasize will wholeheartedly embrace it.Developers and consumers will demand it...if it's worth it.

It is not worth it for so many reasons.

Developers can only work within the confines of easy of use, financing and time. If Physx takes to much of any of the above they will move to something else like has generally been done since the inception of Physx.

 

[SirPauly]

It is not worth it for so many reasons.

That is fine, PhysX may not be ideal for all and for everyone and lots of innovation left with physics, one may imagine! PhysX may evolve! You have the choice of nVidia competitors to choose from and don't have to use the feature!

I like talking about GPU physics and desire more advances here with physics from the CPU and GPU. I think the dynamic effects are neat! What I have trouble understanding is why would posters waste their time and energy on something that is a turd or an epic fail to them.

 

[Mr Expert]

What I have trouble understanding is why would posters waste their time and energy on something that is a turd or an epic fail to them.

Because there seems to be a weird cult following of this as you say turd or epic fail. I have been saying that Physx is a fail for a long time and now it finially seems that many other people are starting to feel the same way. What I will ask you is how will GPU Physx be a reality in the future when most all of the big name game deves are jumping ship to AMD and the consoles can't even physically run physx. ?

 

[cmdrdredd]

Because there seems to be a weird cult following of this as you say turd or epic fail. I have been saying that Physx is a fail for a long time and now it finially seems that many other people are starting to feel the same way. What I will ask you is how will GPU Physx be a reality in the future when most all of the big name game deves are jumping ship to AMD and the consoles can't even physically run physx. ?

What he is asking is simple. Why, if you think it's such a failure, do you just not ignore and let it die and let the thread die with it? Is it perhaps because you don't see it as dead and are quite pissed that your thoughts were incorrect as of yet?

If you don't like it is one thing and it would be simple to just say something to the effect of "I don't like what Nvidia did with it and hope it goes away quickly".

Consoles can very much run physx, it's just software that can be offloaded to the CPU. It simply would not be the same level as the GPU.

 

[bystander36]

Because there seems to be a weird cult following of this as you say turd or epic fail. I have been saying that Physx is a fail for a long time and now it finially seems that many other people are starting to feel the same way. What I will ask you is how will GPU Physx be a reality in the future when most all of the big name game deves are jumping ship to AMD and the consoles can't even physically run physx. ?

You do realize PhysX works on any x86 CPU as well? The reality is, PhysX is in hundreds of games, it is the GPU accelerated version that is only on a few. As a result of how it does work on every system, it is possible the GPU accelerated part will live on, even if not used that often.

 

[Lonbjerg]

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.

It's be working...so far PhysX via CUDA is ruling GPU-physics, with no competition om the market...care to counterprove that fact? ^^

 

[Mr Expert]

What he is asking is simple. Why, if you think it's such a failure, do you just not ignore and let it die and let the thread die with it? Is it perhaps because you don't see it as dead and are quite pissed that your thoughts were incorrect as of yet?

If you don't like it is one thing and it would be simple to just say something to the effect of "I don't like what Nvidia did with it and hope it goes away quickly".

Consoles can very much run physx, it's just software that can be offloaded to the CPU. It simply would not be the same level as the GPU.

We been through this already in this thread. A CPU cannot run advanced GPU accelerated Physx.

 

[SirPauly]

There are lots of Physics in other games. I don't here people complaining about the Physics in BF3 etc.

Battlefield 3 uses Havok!

We have now made the decision to use Havok Destruction technology in Battlefield 3.

http://www.havok.com/products/destruction

Middlewares like PhysX and Havok are very welcomed!

 

[Mr Expert]

It's be working...so far PhysX via CUDA is ruling GPU-physics, with no competition om the market...care to counterprove that fact? ^^

How many games do not run Physx ?