AMD's Roy Taylor: PhysX/Cuda doomed?

[AnandThenMan]

Who creates the standard for multiple-brand video cards working simultaneously?

No need to create any new standard, it's all there and it works. From NV's responsibility, they don't have to do anything or change anything from a support perspective. If you run a mix/match system you can't call them and ask for support. It's really simple, you don't call Intel and complain when a USB device doesn't work properly. But if that USB port with an Intel chipset has a bug in it, then that falls on Intel.

As for what AMD would do, look at the history of the company. Have they ever done anything on the level of Nvidia when it comes to exclusionary tactics? From a business perspective maybe they should have played dirty pool like their competition. But from a consumer perspective, it hurts the market in general. So that begs the question, people vehemently defending Nvidia's practices, why?

 

[AnandThenMan]

Am I wrong? Everyone is saying nvidia is evil here, well put the shoe on the other foot and think about it. Would it be terrible then? To me it would be the same. It is an added feature for one piece of hardware. I didn't buy my 670s because of physx and I would not buy a pair of 7970s or anything if they did physx and not the 670.

I see nothing wrong either way. They own the tech so they can market it however they feel and I don't lose sleep.

A good example would be TressFX. I think what you're saying is AMD should have locked out Nvidia hardware from ever taking advantage of the visuals. And in fact AMD should lock out Nvidia hardware from visuals developed on all the next gen consoles that get PC ported. Support issues....

 

[cmdrdredd]

No need to create any new standard, it's all there and it works. From NV's responsibility, they don't have to do anything or change anything from a support perspective. If you run a mix/match system you can't call them and ask for support. It's really simple, you don't call Intel and complain when a USB device doesn't work properly. But if that USB port with an Intel chipset has a bug in it, then that falls on Intel.

As for what AMD would do, look at the history of the company. Have they ever done anything on the level of Nvidia when it comes to exclusionary tactics? From a business perspective maybe they should have played dirty pool like their competition. But from a consumer perspective, it hurts the market in general. So that begs the question, people vehemently defending Nvidia's practices, why?

Cause I see nvidia as any other company out there who's purpose is to make money for the shareholders. They are doing nothing illegal with physx and certainly don't have any monopoly on the industry. I like their product which is why I bought the cards I did. There was no nvidia employee forcing me to. As a consumer you can choose to buy an AMD card. No physx from it but if physx is so terribly done as people in this thread make it out to be, why care that you can't do it directly without hacks? It is only one feature and it should never make or brake a purchasing decision.

 

[omeds]

Nvidia locks out PhysX on systems with AMD hardware because they want it to be an exclusive, a bullet point, call it what you want. This is the ONLY reason, period.

So?

 

[96Firebird]

No need to create any new standard, it's all there and it works. From NV's responsibility, they don't have to do anything or change anything from a support perspective. If you run a mix/match system you can't call them and ask for support. It's really simple, you don't call Intel and complain when a USB device doesn't work properly. But if that USB port with an Intel chipset has a bug in it, then that falls on Intel.

Do you honestly think running two mix-vendor GPUs is as easy as plug-and-play? Running both AMD and Nvidia drivers surely wouldn't cause any problems..............

Hell, I've seen posts here where leftover drivers have cause problems even when the card isn't even in the system. Now try making them work together in a 3D game?

 

[AnandThenMan]

Do you honestly think running two mix-vendor GPUs is as easy as plug-and-play?

Yep, done it myself. Didn't have any problems it worked great. Could there be issues? Of course, just like there are issues with the myriad of hardware combos out there.

 

[railven]

And......who cares? Nvidia is here to make money like any business. One of the ways they do this is by touting features you cannot get on the competitor's brand. It is not new at all. The fact is that nvidia owns the physx property. They bought ageia. So they are very much free to do whatever they want with it.

I agree, NV should be making money and promoting their features. Don't you think the adoption rate would be higher and introduce a new revenue Stream for NV if they produced cards specifically for PhysX_GPU offloading that worked on any configuration?

Here is a rhetorical question... If AMD bought Ageia instead and did the same exact thing, would we be having the same hissy fits over the locking out of nvidia hardware?

As an own of an NV card, I'd be equally as pissed. Since there are people showing it works, I don't see why the manufacturers (be it AMD or NV) want to claim it isn't possible.

Am I wrong? Everyone is saying nvidia is evil here, well put the shoe on the other foot and think about it. Would it be terrible then? To me it would be the same. It is an added feature for one piece of hardware. I didn't buy my 670s because of physx and I would not buy a pair of 7970s or anything if they did physx and not the 670.

I see nothing wrong either way. They own the tech so they can market it however they feel and I don't lose sleep.

Woah, I never said nor implied NV was "evil" so please don't include me in your blanket statements.

I'm just pointing out it is stupid for them to block it after it's been shown that it works.

 

[NIGELG]

. Simple math, my friend, simple math.



And no game developer wants to develop GPU-based physics simulations with Havok or Bullet. So what's that all about? Maybe the devs are all cheap and lazy in that regard and don't care about advanced physics in general?

Less than one percent of developers release games with GPU PhysX....simple mathematics .Fail.

It's because 99 percent of gamers don't care enough for it to be profitable to developers.If it was so great it would sell.

Maybe developers care about advanced GPU PhysX...but is it profitable to them?

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Obviously people want it, otherwise they wouldn't be in every PhysX thread crying foul over not having it

 

[akugami]

Have you tried Hawken with PhysX on? The CPU does a nice job here in comparison with the GPU!

But the point was that some of the graphical effects that are passed off as "only able to be done on PhysX" are in fact implemented on other games without PhysX.

Personally, I felt they were a tad overdone, but that's to be expected considering nVidia is footing most of the bill for PhysX. Looks nice on a highlight reel but might be distracting in a real game session.

Am I wrong? Everyone is saying nvidia is evil here, well put the shoe on the other foot and think about it. Would it be terrible then? To me it would be the same. It is an added feature for one piece of hardware. I didn't buy my 670s because of physx and I would not buy a pair of 7970s or anything if they did physx and not the 670.

I see nothing wrong either way. They own the tech so they can market it however they feel and I don't lose sleep.

I have never made the claim nVidia is evil. I understand what they are trying to do with PhysX from a business standpoint. I just think they have made puzzling decisions that have hindered PhysX adoption...the exact opposite of what their goal should be. In fact, I think nVidia has downright bungled the handling of PhysX.

Let's face it, nVidia has mismanaged PhysX. PhysX had such a lead on everything else and yet it's largely irrelevant as far as gaming goes. It's been about 6 years since nVidia bought Ageia. Where is the physics innovations? How has PhysX furthered the state of gaming? And the answer is, PhysX has done practically zero to further gaming.

 

[NIGELG]

Obviously people want it, otherwise they wouldn't be in every PhysX thread crying foul over not having it

Illogical.If it was that good I would want it.....I don't want it.

I am not opposed to good Physics in games.

 

[SirPauly]

What is the ratio of GPU PhysX titles to NON GPU PhysX titles since 2006?I am sure it is less than 1%......

Epic fail.

Small and expected! Best case to me was 6-12 titles a year and most would be CPU PhysX titles!

The GPU PhysX titles are on a rise from the trickle the last few years probably because of the improvements with Apex and the PhysX SDK.

 

[Subyman]

Less than one percent of developers release games with GPU PhysX....simple mathematics .Fail.

It's because 99 percent of gamers don't care enough for it to be profitable to developers.If it was so great it would sell.

Maybe developers care about advanced GPU PhysX...but is it profitable to them?

That's kind of a pointless argument. Less than one percent of developers release games in the Crysis engine, that doesn't mean the Crysis engine is a failure. There are tons of options for developers and if PhysX provides them functionality that they need for their specific game then that's great. Most games don't need the kind of robust physics simulation that PhysX provides. Most side scrollers are fine with the basic kinematic equations, that doesn't mean PhysX "failed" them, it means they didn't need it.

PhysX allows developers to simulate things like wheel colliders without having to create an entire one-off wheel model. Getting a drivable vehicle in a game is a matter of hooking into PhysX and messing with variables instead of a month developing a wheel simulator framework.

Physx fluid simulation is a hard one because it requires Nvidia hardware or it runs like ass. Most of the other components run with minimal use of the CPU if an Nvidia card is not present.

FWIW, any game made in Unity most likely uses PhysX, its just not advertised.

 

[SirPauly]

Edit:

Did take down based on too personal for me!

 

[SirPauly]

Maybe developers care about advanced GPU PhysX...but is it profitable to them?

Here is a quote from one of the developers of the ARMA franchise:

You can't see any PhysX particle effects in the game right now. This technology is only for our internal use at this moment. We are working on implementation and optimization of all this. We would like to have advanced (PhysX) particles in the game, but we can't promise anything right now.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthre...h-discussion&p=2416707&viewfull=1#post2416707

This carries some weight and certainly not an epic failure!

 

[AnandThenMan]

Perfect illustration of a vocal poster that believes they're the market!

Can you show me a non-vocal poster? How does that work exactly?

 

[akugami]

Perfect illustration of a vocal poster that believes they're the market!

With regards to PhysX, we are the market. Joe Gamer doesn't give a crap, he just wants it to look reasonably well on his 1080p monitor. He doesn't analyze (over analyze?) things like the enthusiasts community. He doesn't worry about having a PhysX co-processor. PhysX is not even on the radar for the majority of them.

 

[NIGELG]

With regards to PhysX, we are the market. Joe Gamer doesn't give a crap, he just wants it to look reasonably well on his 1080p monitor. He doesn't analyze (over analyze?) things like the enthusiasts community. He doesn't worry about having a PhysX co-processor. PhysX is not even on the radar for the majority of them.

He loves to preach ''let the market decide'' well the market has decided that GPU PhysX is a failure based on the the number of games that has it,the ratio of released games that have it to those that don't have it and the fact that only when Nvidia pays for it to be in a few games we see it....

All GPU Physics have been failures including Havok and Bullet.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

With regards to PhysX, we are the market. Joe Gamer doesn't give a crap, he just wants it to look reasonably well on his 1080p monitor. He doesn't analyze (over analyze?) things like the enthusiasts community. He doesn't worry about having a PhysX co-processor. PhysX is not even on the radar for the majority of them.

I like how you say that with such certainty.

 

[SirPauly]

With regards to PhysX, we are the market. Joe Gamer doesn't give a crap, he just wants it to look reasonably well on his 1080p monitor. He doesn't analyze (over analyze?) things like the enthusiasts community. He doesn't worry about having a PhysX co-processor. PhysX is not even on the radar for the majority of them.

But does the market support Cuda and PhysX; to continue to support and invest for nVidia?

I would say yes based on their share, revenue and margins!

 

[Grooveriding]

Guys the physx in Arma 3 is really something, true realism.

If they get gpu physx running I think he'll make it all the way to the moon. :awe:

 

[Keysplayr]

Guys the physx in Arma 3 is really something, true realism.

If they get gpu physx running I think he'll make it all the way to the moon. :awe:

Keep pickin them cherries son. Eventually you'll run out.

 

[NIGELG]

Guys the physx in Arma 3 is really something, true realism.

If they get gpu physx running I think he'll make it all the way to the moon. :awe:

Scoffs.

 

[railven]

Guys the physx in Arma 3 is really something, true realism.

<snip>

If they get gpu physx running I think he'll make it all the way to the moon. :awe:

That gif is hilarious! haha. Kudos for the laugh

 

[railven]

Keep pickin them cherries son. Eventually you'll run out.

Give it time, more will grow back. But I'm pretty sure that isn't what you meant with your analogy.