AMD's Roy Taylor: PhysX/Cuda doomed?

[Mr Expert]

Battlefield 3 uses Havok!




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

Middlewares like PhysX and Havok are very welcomed!

Havok is better cause it runs on anything wothout being locked down to one vendor as well Havok is much better because it does not creat massive framerate drops.

 

[Mr Expert]

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.

CPU cannot run adavnced Physx on a GPU. They are two dofferant things. CPU Physx are not better than Havok or any other decent Physics.

 

[Lonbjerg]

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

You should tell that to:

• EverQuest Next
• Batman: Arkham Origins
• Witcher 3: The Wild Hunt

All unrelased AAA titles.
ARMA 3 devs are also looking into GPU-pHysX.

What did you call dead again? ^^

 

[Lonbjerg]

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

False...I have had the SDK's (starting with Novodex Rocket back in 2006, to CUDA; PhysX and APEX SDK's today.

There is NOT 2 codesets, one for CPU and one for GPU.
It's all PhysX code...and you can even run fludis on your CPU.

You wouldn't like the performance tough...we are talking SUB 1 FPS.


Stop talking about aspects of PhysX you do not know anything about..."mr. Expert" ^^

 

[Lonbjerg]

Havok is better cause it runs on anything wothout being locked down to one vendor as well Havok is much better because it does not creat massive framerate drops.

BF + Havok = scripted physics...you did not just compare scripted physics to dynamically physics did you? lol

 

[bystander36]

CPU cannot run adavnced Physx on a GPU. They are two dofferant things. CPU Physx are not better than Havok or any other decent Physics.

Advanced PhysX is nothing but a relative term. The CPU can do all the PhysX the GPU can, it just gets taxed easier, so it is limited a bit. There are people who play Borderlands 2 with PhysX on high end CPU's with heavy OCing without problems.

Havok has been around a while, and at least in the past, only used the CPU. It may use some GPU resources now, at times, but that only makes it similar to PhysX. Mostly a CPU physics engine, and has the ability to use GPGPU.

 

[Mr Expert]

You should tell that to:

• EverQuest Next
• Batman: Arkham Origins - Is an old series that alread had Physx so it's not a newly adopted game dev.
• Witcher 3: The Wild Hunt

All unrelased AAA titles.
ARMA 3 devs are also looking into GPU-pHysX.

What did you call dead again? ^^

3 new games that are using Physx. How many new games that can out in 2013 that did not use Physx ?

 

[SirPauly]

Havok is better cause it runs on anything wothout being locked down to one vendor as well Havok is much better because it does not creat massive framerate drops.

Enough is enough -- you just mocked Havok as who cares --

Who cares about Havok.

I will no longer respond to you, sorry!

 

[Mr Expert]

Advanced PhysX is nothing but a relative term. The CPU can do all the PhysX the GPU can, it just gets taxed easier, so it is limited a bit. There are people who play Borderlands 2 with PhysX on high end CPU's with heavy OCing without problems.

Havok has been around a while, and at least in the past, only used the CPU. It may use some GPU resources now, at times, but that only makes it similar to PhysX. Mostly a CPU physics engine, and has the ability to use GPGPU.

Havok does not make the framerate crap the bed like Physx does. Boarderlands 2 just has some extra goo and the call that Physx LOL. Not to mention the framerates takes massive hit when the goo is around in BL2 LOL. FAIL.

 

[SirPauly]

Advanced PhysX is nothing but a relative term. The CPU can do all the PhysX the GPU can, it just gets taxed easier, so it is limited a bit. There are people who play Borderlands 2 with PhysX on high end CPU's with heavy OCing without problems.

Havok has been around a while, and at least in the past, only used the CPU. It may use some GPU resources now, at times, but that only makes it similar to PhysX. Mostly a CPU physics engine, and has the ability to use GPGPU.

And also with PhysX On in Hawken one can enjoy the physical particles with the CPU, too!

 

[Lonbjerg]

3 new games that are using Physx. How many new games that can out in 2013 that did not use Physx ?

How many games comes out using a OpenCL/Direct Compute alternative?

And, while you at it..please adress my other points thnaks you.

You can try and play the fallacy of "moving the goalposts" with some clueless n00b.
I will keep tally of the arguments you try and avoid...and stack them up against you.

 

[Mr Expert]

Enough is enough -- you just mocked Havok as who cares --



I will no longer respond to you, sorry!

We are not talking havok so drop it.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Enough is enough -- you just mocked Havok as who cares --



I will no longer respond to you, sorry!

Good catch...troll confirmed...of to ignore with him

 

[Lonbjerg]

We are not talking havok so drop it.

No, we are adressing your credibility...and it's gone.

 

[Mr Expert]

How many games comes out using a OpenCL/Direct Compute alternative?

Why are you trying to segway the conversation away from the issue which is Physx. Nobody is dissatisfied with the Physics in any of the blockbuster AAA games that don't use Physx. most people can't even run Physx without making the game play choppy so it's a nich market as best for the nvidia die hards.

 

[bystander36]

Havok does not make the framerate crap the bed like Physx does. Boarderlands 2 just has some extra goo and the call that Physx LOL. Not to mention the framerates takes massive hit when the goo is around in BL2 LOL. FAIL.

So basically it is not PhysX unless you say it is? You think highly of yourself.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Why are you trying to segway the conversation away from the issue which is Physx. Nobody is dissatisfied with the Physics in any of the blockbuster AAA games that don't use Physx. most people can't even run Physx without making the game play choppy so it's a nich market as best for the nvidia die hards.

Befor I waste anymore time on your "aeguments".

What is your stance on Havok?

 

[Mr Expert]

No, we are adressing your credibility...and it's gone.

Seems you are upset because some people don't agree with what Physx has not acomplished. Please don't try and take a personal stab at me just because you are an nvidia die hard.

 

[Lonbjerg]

So basically it is not PhysX unless you say it is? You think highly of yourself.

His account has to be a troll account...he is not even close to using real arguments...it's just "This is what I think..and thus reality bows it!!!"

 

[Lonbjerg]

Seems you are upset because some people don't agree with what Physx has not acomplished. Please don't try and take a personal stab at me just because you are an nvidia die hard.

Avoiding the fallacies:
What is you stance on Havok?

 

[Mr Expert]

Befor I waste anymore time on your "aeguments".

What is your stance on Havok?

It does not matter. I did not even know that BF3 uses Havok as I thought it was Dices own physics engine. I don't give a hoot about the name or marketing behind any Physics engein just as long as it does not make the framerate take a crap and it works.

 

[Mr Expert]

So basically it is not PhysX unless you say it is? You think highly of yourself.

Is that what you pulled from what I posted. Please re read and re post.

 

[Lonbjerg]

It does not matter. I did not even know that BF3 uses Havok as I thought it was Dices own physics engine. I don't give a hoot about the name or marketing behind any Physics engein just as long as it does not make the framerate take a crap and it works.

Do you know the difference between:
-Scripted and dynamic physics (and please explain the difference bwcase you posts indicate that you do NOT!)
-Tier 1 and Tier 2 physics

Because all I see in your posts are:
False arguments
Invalid comparisons

Letss recap your..well...garbage:

• I.Q. difference between NVIDIA amd AMD in games (despite no reviewers seing this)
• Comparing BF's scripted Havok physics to dymanic, interactive PhysX physics.
• False statements about physx code and the code path.
• Fasle statmenst about PhysX SDK, developer and time (it actually SAVES them time, not having to code a physics engine for them selfes

Can you think of more false argumrnts you have tired to use?

 

[cmdrdredd]

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

cause a CPU is not a GPU so yeah, it won't run GPU physx. Brilliant

 

[Mr Expert]

cause a CPU is not a GPU so yeah, it won't run GPU physx. Brilliant

So then we both undertsand that they are not the same which is the point I was trying to make. CPU Physx on the low power APU in the consoles will not be anything close to say Metro Physx etc.