• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

AMD's take on GPU physics

chizow

Diamond Member
Jun 26, 2001
9,537
1
0
PhysX is an open standard, its just not free. Anyways, the summary of the article is the same as months ago, AMD/ATI has nothing so they're going to blow sunshine. The more interesting part of the article is the back and forth between Chris Ray and the author heh.

Anyways, as I predicted months ago, CUDA will be fully compatible with OpenCL and DX11, so that's one less mirror for AMD to blow smoke around.

Fudzilla

AMD?s only big argument against CUDA and Nvidia?s way to compute was that Nvidia?s hardware doesn?t support OpenCL 1.0, an open specification from the Khronos Group. So as of today, Nvidia officially supports it, and we?ve reported on many occasions that Nvidia does and wants to support any way of parallel computing.
I guess that was a foregone conclusion given Nvidia's VP of embedded content chairs the OpenCL group over at Khronos. :laugh:

and

Expreview

CUDA has integrated OpenCL 1.0 standard support, and is about to add DirectX 11 Compute Shader support. As an integration of OpenCL and DX11 computing, CUDA offers the best GPU computing choice for developers.
 

thilanliyan

Lifer
Jun 21, 2005
11,293
1,153
126
From Tim S.
"The reason? It's because there has to be a lowest common denominator in every system that the game is being played on. That is, sadly, not an Nvidia GPU. It is the CPU. And the developer can't break gameplay on systems that don't have an Nvidia GPU - it has to work when one is not present - falling back onto the CPU. Unfortunately for PhysX, while it runs on the CPU thanks to some great work by Nvidia's engineers who ported CUDA to the CPU, it is too slow for it to be usable in a game from the developer's perspective. Many of these developers are part of TWIMTBP, but they spoke freely and openly with me about the problems they face with GPU accelerated physics - if it is only available through CUDA, PhysX will not take off in the way it deserves to."

Very true. If it isn't universal, XX% of the gamers are being left out and I don't think developers want to do that. nV and AMD (+Intel maybe) have to come to an agreement about how it will eventually work or it will never "gain traction".
 

zagood

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
4,102
0
71
I remember an article about the guy who modded ATi drivers to allow for PhysX to be run on them, and his problems trying to get any type of support from AMD. So, if it dies, they helped kill it, which is probably what they want to do anyway.
 

nRollo

Banned
Jan 11, 2002
10,460
0
0
What would anyone expect AMD to say about PhysX?

"Damn. We really missed the boat on this one? "

If you look around, you can likely find AMD execs downplaying CUDA, stereoscopic monitors, and SLi as well- it's in their better interest to do so.

No matter what AMD execs say, many games will launch with PhysX effects built into them in 2009, and the only way to see these effects will be on NVIDIA hardware.

There's already a fair amount of content out there you can play with PhysX on, and there's no denying it adds a new level of realism and immersion to the games.
 

thilanliyan

Lifer
Jun 21, 2005
11,293
1,153
126
Originally posted by: nRollo
There's already a fair amount of content out there you can play with PhysX on, and there's no denying it adds a new level of realism and immersion to the games.
From the bit-tech article the author said all it adds for example in Mirror's Edge are effects and doesn't add anything to gameplay other than eye-candy. I myself like eye-candy but that alone doesn't sell games (except maybe Crysis :) ).
 

nRollo

Banned
Jan 11, 2002
10,460
0
0
Originally posted by: thilan29
Originally posted by: nRollo
There's already a fair amount of content out there you can play with PhysX on, and there's no denying it adds a new level of realism and immersion to the games.
From the bit-tech article the author said all it adds for example in Mirror's Edge are effects and doesn't add anything to gameplay other than eye-candy. I myself like eye-candy but that alone doesn't sell games (except maybe Crysis :) ).
In UT3 and Warmonger you can destroy cover enemies are using to expose them, or shoot the stairs or catwalks they are on out from under them.

While it's true eye candy alone doesn't sell games, a good game with eye candy beats a good game without any day.
 

ronnn

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
3,918
0
71
Seems to remain a pr battle. Would be nice to see something new to talk about.
 

nRollo

Banned
Jan 11, 2002
10,460
0
0
Originally posted by: ronnn
Seems to remain a pr battle. Would be nice to see something new to talk about.
Aw man- don't you want to see my rhetoric skillz?

;)

Seriously, the new powerpack came out recently, and the next PhysX title is launching next month. There's new stuff, with more on the way.

Takes a while for features to catch on in games, think of the ratio of DX10 to non DX10 games out now and there have been DX10 cards for two years.
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
28,037
5,098
126
Originally posted by: nRollo
Originally posted by: ronnn
Seems to remain a pr battle. Would be nice to see something new to talk about.
Aw man- don't you want to see my rhetoric skillz?

;)

Seriously, the new powerpack came out recently, and the next PhysX title is launching next month. There's new stuff, with more on the way.

Takes a while for features to catch on in games, think of the ratio of DX10 to non DX10 games out now and there have been DX10 cards for two years.

Please don't, I cant stand any more disappointment. :(

Can you hold off the hype until you've got something worthy.
 

ArchAngel777

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
5,223
61
91
Originally posted by: WelshBloke
Originally posted by: nRollo
Originally posted by: ronnn
Seems to remain a pr battle. Would be nice to see something new to talk about.
Aw man- don't you want to see my rhetoric skillz?

;)

Seriously, the new powerpack came out recently, and the next PhysX title is launching next month. There's new stuff, with more on the way.

Takes a while for features to catch on in games, think of the ratio of DX10 to non DX10 games out now and there have been DX10 cards for two years.

Please don't, I cant stand any more disappointment. :(

Can you hold off the hype until you've got something worthy.
LOL, amen to this.
 

SSChevy2001

Senior member
Jul 9, 2008
774
0
0
Originally posted by: nRollo
What would anyone expect AMD to say about PhysX?

"Damn. We really missed the boat on this one? "

If you look around, you can likely find AMD execs downplaying CUDA, stereoscopic monitors, and SLi as well- it's in their better interest to do so.

No matter what AMD execs say, many games will launch with PhysX effects built into them in 2009, and the only way to see these effects will be on NVIDIA hardware.

There's already a fair amount of content out there you can play with PhysX on, and there's no denying it adds a new level of realism and immersion to the games.
PhysX is owned by Nvidia so why would they want it?

AMD has stream and crossfire. They don't have stereo, but then again how many people can run 120FPS and have true 120hz LCDs?

Where are all the GPU PhysX titles that were supposed to come out before the end of the year?

Without ATi support GPU PhysX is going to slowly die.
 

dguy6789

Diamond Member
Dec 9, 2002
8,558
3
76
The UT3 community doesn't embrace the physX features when making maps at all. It is completely and totally ignored.
 

nRollo

Banned
Jan 11, 2002
10,460
0
0
Originally posted by: SSChevy2001
Originally posted by: nRollo
What would anyone expect AMD to say about PhysX?

"Damn. We really missed the boat on this one? "

If you look around, you can likely find AMD execs downplaying CUDA, stereoscopic monitors, and SLi as well- it's in their better interest to do so.

No matter what AMD execs say, many games will launch with PhysX effects built into them in 2009, and the only way to see these effects will be on NVIDIA hardware.

There's already a fair amount of content out there you can play with PhysX on, and there's no denying it adds a new level of realism and immersion to the games.
PhysX is owned by Nvidia so why would they want it?

AMD has stream and crossfire. They don't have stereo, but then again how many people can run 120FPS and have true 120hz LCDs?

Where are all the GPU PhysX titles that were supposed to come out before the end of the year?

Without ATi support GPU PhysX is going to slowly die.
As with all software, "when it's done".

Cryostasis is a PhysX title due in February.

NVIDIA is adding developers and games to the PhysX list, not losing them.
 

aka1nas

Diamond Member
Aug 30, 2001
4,335
0
0
Originally posted by: thilan29
From Tim S.
"The reason? It's because there has to be a lowest common denominator in every system that the game is being played on. That is, sadly, not an Nvidia GPU. It is the CPU. And the developer can't break gameplay on systems that don't have an Nvidia GPU - it has to work when one is not present - falling back onto the CPU. Unfortunately for PhysX, while it runs on the CPU thanks to some great work by Nvidia's engineers who ported CUDA to the CPU, it is too slow for it to be usable in a game from the developer's perspective. Many of these developers are part of TWIMTBP, but they spoke freely and openly with me about the problems they face with GPU accelerated physics - if it is only available through CUDA, PhysX will not take off in the way it deserves to."

Very true. If it isn't universal, XX% of the gamers are being left out and I don't think developers want to do that. nV and AMD (+Intel maybe) have to come to an agreement about how it will eventually work or it will never "gain traction".
PhysX already ran in software mode well before the nvidia acquisition. Not sure what Tim was getting at there.
 

thilanliyan

Lifer
Jun 21, 2005
11,293
1,153
126
Originally posted by: aka1nas
PhysX already ran in software mode well before the nvidia acquisition. Not sure what Tim was getting at there.
But performance wasn't good...he said that in one of his posts.
 
Nov 26, 2005
14,765
114
106
Originally posted by: nRollo
No matter what AMD execs say, many games will launch with PhysX effects built into them in 2009, and the only way to see these effects will be on NVIDIA hardware.
There were sales of the NON-nVidia PhysX cards before. Hopefully I will see the one I bought pay off.

 

Keysplayr

Elite Member
Jan 16, 2003
21,209
50
91
Originally posted by: SSChevy2001
Originally posted by: nRollo
What would anyone expect AMD to say about PhysX?

"Damn. We really missed the boat on this one? "

If you look around, you can likely find AMD execs downplaying CUDA, stereoscopic monitors, and SLi as well- it's in their better interest to do so.

No matter what AMD execs say, many games will launch with PhysX effects built into them in 2009, and the only way to see these effects will be on NVIDIA hardware.

There's already a fair amount of content out there you can play with PhysX on, and there's no denying it adds a new level of realism and immersion to the games.
PhysX is owned by Nvidia so why would they want it?

AMD has stream and crossfire. They don't have stereo, but then again how many people can run 120FPS and have true 120hz LCDs?

Where are all the GPU PhysX titles that were supposed to come out before the end of the year?

Without ATi support GPU PhysX is going to slowly die.
My living room 46" LCD TV is 120hz. Samsung 6 series. 1920x1080. I wonder how that would be. Or if it can be used. I'll shoot this question to Nvidia.
 

SSChevy2001

Senior member
Jul 9, 2008
774
0
0
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
My living room 46" LCD TV is 120hz. Samsung 6 series. 1920x1080. I wonder how that would be. Or if it can be used. I'll shoot this question to Nvidia.
According to the manual it looks like it only can take a 60hz source.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,061
494
126
On one hand he says proprietary standards will die then hypes Havok. Makes sense.

Will these proprietary standards eventually die? Sure, once Microsoft gets off their ass an implements a standardized physics api. But in the meantime we will have PhysX and Havok to fill the void. Something Nvidia can tout to their fullest and ATI cant.

btw I find it pathetically amusing he is talking about Physics on the GPU some time in 09. I remember in 06 ATI hyping Physics on the GPU. It is going to take nearly 3 years for it to finally show up. Congrats!
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,061
494
126
Originally posted by: SSChevy2001
Originally posted by: nRollo
What would anyone expect AMD to say about PhysX?

"Damn. We really missed the boat on this one? "

If you look around, you can likely find AMD execs downplaying CUDA, stereoscopic monitors, and SLi as well- it's in their better interest to do so.

No matter what AMD execs say, many games will launch with PhysX effects built into them in 2009, and the only way to see these effects will be on NVIDIA hardware.

There's already a fair amount of content out there you can play with PhysX on, and there's no denying it adds a new level of realism and immersion to the games.
PhysX is owned by Nvidia so why would they want it?

AMD has stream and crossfire. They don't have stereo, but then again how many people can run 120FPS and have true 120hz LCDs?

Where are all the GPU PhysX titles that were supposed to come out before the end of the year?

Without ATi support GPU PhysX is going to slowly die.

PhysX runs on the CPU as well. With i7's going mainstream by the end of 09 with 8 hyperthreads it is possible to get some decent performance on the CPU.

Steam doesnt lie. Nvidia currently holds about a 2:1 advantage GPU's.


 

SSChevy2001

Senior member
Jul 9, 2008
774
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
PhysX runs on the CPU as well. With i7's going mainstream by the end of 09 with 8 hyperthreads it is possible to get some decent performance on the CPU.

Steam doesnt lie. Nvidia currently holds about a 2:1 advantage GPU's.
CPU PhysX is still very slow even with the i7, so I highly doubt that.

That's still a lot of users that can't use GPU PhysX. Not to mention that most games are now also on the console, which can't use GPU PhysX.

Developers are going to be limited on what they really can do with it.
 

chizow

Diamond Member
Jun 26, 2001
9,537
1
0
Originally posted by: thilan29
Originally posted by: aka1nas
PhysX already ran in software mode well before the nvidia acquisition. Not sure what Tim was getting at there.
But performance wasn't good...he said that in one of his posts.
Originally posted by: SSChevy2001
Originally posted by: Genx87
PhysX runs on the CPU as well. With i7's going mainstream by the end of 09 with 8 hyperthreads it is possible to get some decent performance on the CPU.

Steam doesnt lie. Nvidia currently holds about a 2:1 advantage GPU's.
CPU PhysX is still very slow even with the i7, so I highly doubt that.

That's still a lot of users that can't use GPU PhysX. Not to mention that most games are now also on the console, which can't use GPU PhysX.

Developers are going to be limited on what they really can do with it.
PhysX comes in numerous flavors, as aka1nas said there's been software PhysX for years that provides minimal physics effects in both PC games and consoles. This is your PhysX equivalent of Havok and is limited to CPU-acceleration/software. Its already well-implemented in games on both the PC and consoles, if you've played any UE3.0 games chances are you've experienced PhysX (Mass Effect, Gears of War/2, UT3, etc.)

Advanced or hardware accelerated PhysX effects are the Ageia PPU and now Nvidia GPU effects that come in the various Power Packs and the upcoming Mirror's Edge. Yes you can run these advanced effects with a CPU in a machine that cannot accelerated the effects on other hardware, but the performance will be unacceptable. This should not be a hard concept to understand for anyone who has seen the difference in folding@home on the GPU vs. CPU. Highly parallel GPGPUs are simply much better than CPUs in certain functions.

In any case, PhysX is clearly the most robust physics solution out there as it can provide limited effects similar to Havok on any gaming platform (console or PC) but also provides the option for advanced effects with dedicated hardware (GPU or PPU). With a 2:1 market dominance and the backing of some major studios (UE3.0, Gamebryo, and now EA/2K) backing it I don't think its going anywhere.

ATI owners will most likely get the benefits of PhysX with DX11, no need to fret or crap over it. ;)
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,061
494
126
Originally posted by: SSChevy2001
Originally posted by: Genx87
PhysX runs on the CPU as well. With i7's going mainstream by the end of 09 with 8 hyperthreads it is possible to get some decent performance on the CPU.

Steam doesnt lie. Nvidia currently holds about a 2:1 advantage GPU's.
CPU PhysX is still very slow even with the i7, so I highly doubt that.

That's still a lot of users that can't use GPU PhysX. Not to mention that most games are now also on the console, which can't use GPU PhysX.

Developers are going to be limited on what they really can do with it.
I havent seen any benchmarks with an i7 have you?
Either way it is coming out and doesnt require a GPU to work.
 

Wreckage

Banned
Jul 1, 2005
5,529
0
0
Originally posted by: SSChevy2001


Without ATi support GPU PhysX is going to slowly die.
One could just as easily say without physics support ATI is going to slowly die.

They clearly missed the boat and fell off the dock here.

There are more PhysX titles than DirectX 10 titles.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY