Call of Duty Ghosts will have PhysX and TXAA

[SirPauly]

Havok at one time was going to be ported to OpenCL, but after it was purchased by Intel, it was canceled because it's in Intel's best interests to keep physics on the CPU..

imho,

Open CL didn't exist at that time! Havok created HavokFX, which was utilizing - Shader Model 3.0!

Intel allowed AMD to port Havok to OpenCL and created a technology demo!

 

[Jaydip]

Ignore.

We will find another way as has always been in the case of technology.

 

[Final8ty]

Lets agree to disagree but I think going open isn't doing AMD any good.

Example:

You have to have the same brand of TV, DVD, Blueray, AV, Surround sound, HIFI components, headphones, ect... because all brands use incompatible interconnects, because its better for them.

I dont have shares and neither do i work for them, i buy because of whats good for me and not because its good for them and its nothing to do with open being a problem and all to do with performance, marketing and brand recognition in particular areas, NV was where it was even before the closed features we are talking about.

Don't generalize closed features as being the Key in all conditions and circumstance, 3dfx, Silicon graphics.

 

[Jaydip]

Example:

You have to have the same brand of TV, DVD, Blueray, AV, Surround sound, HIFI components, headphones, ect... because all brands use incompatible interconnects, because its better for them.

Look at Apple, this tactics has been very successful for them.

 

[SirPauly]

Ideally, open standards are key but, at times, can slow down innovation or be restrictive -- have no problems going beyond standards or trying to invent or innovate. There is more risk with proprietary but more potential reward.

Its not about fracturing fear mongering but a willingness to risk resources based on one's innovative vision.

Without the proprietary and innovation of Cuda -- would there be OpenCL and DirectCompute?

 

[Final8ty]

Look at Apple, this tactics has been very successful for them.

I was going to bring up Apple earlier but i choose not to because Apple is a completely different business model when the platform is not an open one and wholly owned by them.

Apple was on the brink of collapse because of being costly and under performing for the money, the Ipod, marketing, image and putting together great looking products that perform pretty good is what saved them.

Apple can go bust, the PC can not because no one owns it..

 

[Final8ty]

Ideally, open standards are key but, at times, can slow down innovation or be restrictive -- have no problems going beyond standards or trying to invent or innovate. There is more risk with proprietary but more potential reward.

Its not about fracturing fear mongering but a willingness to risk resources based on one's innovative vision.

Without the proprietary and innovation of Cuda -- would there be OpenCL and DirectCompute?

Open standards can drag there feet yes.

Cuda,OpenCL and DirectCompute, who says one has to come before the other.

Its like saying if it was not for the very first Audio, Video, file, compression algorithm by this person, company none would ever exists.

Its saying if it was not for Star Trek there would be no tablets.

 

[Jaydip]

I was going to bring up Apple earlier but i choose not to because Apple is a completely different business model when the platform is not an open one and wholly owned by them.

Apple was on the brink of collapse because of being costly and under performing for the money, the Ipod, marketing, image and putting together great looking products that perform pretty good is what saved them.

Apple can go bust, the PC can not because no one owns it..

Love it or hate it Apple has done many things right.If not for Apple we will be stuck with thick smartphones :biggrin:

 

[Final8ty]

Love it or hate it Apple has done many things right.If not for Apple we will be stuck with thick smartphones :biggrin:

Yes they have, but we are talking about the PC and smartphones would of been here regardless.
Don't confuses with possibly being first meaning the only one who had the idea or would ever have it.

 

[Jaydip]

Yes they have, but we are talking about the PC and smartphones would of been here regardless.

Ok, I think we were talking about proprietary stuffs in general.

 

[Final8ty]

Ok, I think we were talking about proprietary stuffs in general.

The proprietary is not what saved Apple and nether is it success because of it, its proprietary nearly killed it.

 

[Carfax83]

imho,

Open CL didn't exist at that time! Havok created HavokFX, which was utilizing - Shader Model 3.0!

Intel allowed AMD to port Havok to OpenCL and created a technology demo!

Intel honestly allowed AMD to port Havok to OpenCL? When did that happen?

In any case, unless Intel was going to allow the OpenCL version of Havok to be used for GPU accelerated physics in actual games, then it's irrelevant.

 

[SirPauly]

AMD demonstrates Havok with GPU acceleration

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2009/03/27/amd-demonstrates-gpu-physics-at-gdc/1

Havok Cloth Demo, OpenCL on AMD GPU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCaGb40Bz58

 

[Carfax83]

AMD demonstrates Havok with GPU acceleration

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2009/03/27/amd-demonstrates-gpu-physics-at-gdc/1

Havok Cloth Demo, OpenCL on AMD GPU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCaGb40Bz58

Interesting... Another article I chanced to come upon shows that NVidia once offered CUDA to AMD on a silver plate, but they declined the offer.

According to this article, developing for CUDA is absolutely free, even if you develop a CUDA driver

There would be a licensing fee, but according to NVidia, it's very very cheap. So AMD could easily develop a CUDA driver for PhysX if they wanted to....keyword wanted.

It seems AMD has latched themselves on to OpenCL, but they lack the resources and or ingenuity to make a open source physics engine to take the place of PhysX..

 

[SirPauly]

Imho

AMD could license Cuda but may decline to -- and may believe their resources are best spent on open standards in the long term outlook!

However, nVidia could port PhysX to OpenCL as well but may believe their resources are best spent on providing better experiences for their customers -- Cuda may be more robust and mature than OpenCL.

The two companies are competitors --- may do what is in their best interest for their respective visions, architectural and software strengths, their respective customer base over-all!

 

[Ibra]

Let's make it straight. If it would be AMD nobody won't say a word. :ninja:

 

[SPBHM]

Let's make it straight. If it would be AMD nobody won't say a word. :ninja:

if it was AMD it would probably be additional features compatible with NV and Intel hardware like tressfx...

I'm sorry but I can't see PhysX as something positive as long as it's limited to NV hardware...

 

[boxleitnerb]

I do, because it is better than nothing. I'm happy at least some people are getting extra stuff. Hope it continues for a long long time or until a suitable replacement finally takes off.

 

[SirPauly]

if it was AMD it would probably be additional features compatible with NV and Intel hardware like tressfx...

I'm sorry but I can't see PhysX as something positive as long as it's limited to NV hardware...

PhysX, isn't entirely limited to nVidia hardware -- with titles like Arma 3 and Bioshock Infinite; it's much more than just the GPU component!

 

[DarkKnightDude]

Let's make it straight. If it would be AMD nobody won't say a word. :ninja:

You do realize that was an Nvidia title right? What video game is pictured on top of a graphics card means little I'd imagine (my old 6850 had Alliance of Valiant Arms all over the graphics card).

 

[Keysplayr]

if it was AMD it would probably be additional features compatible with NV and Intel hardware like tressfx...

I'm sorry but I can't see PhysX as something positive as long as it's limited to NV hardware...

It isn't limited to NV hardware. It can be licensed by competitors. IMHO AMD is intentionally holding the industry back. PhysX would be much further along right now if AMD licensed PhysX from Nvidia, which they have every ability to do and cost restraints have been shown to be non-existant.

What it boils down to:
Nvidia users get PhysX.
AMD users do not. Why is that?

 

[uclaLabrat]

It isn't limited to NV hardware. It can be licensed by competitors. IMHO AMD is intentionally holding the industry back. PhysX would be much further along right now if AMD licensed PhysX from Nvidia, which they have every ability to do and cost restraints have been shown to be non-existant.

What it boils down to:
Nvidia users get PhysX.
AMD users do not. Why is that?

It could be any number of reasons, from AMD not seeing a benefit versus their own work with havok that justifies the licensing cost, to Nvidia demanding exorbitant fees from AMD, to Nvidia not willing to license it at all to use it as a brand-specific feature. Your insinuation is myopic and misleading.

 

[Phynaz]

It isn't limited to NV hardware. It can be licensed by competitors. IMHO AMD is intentionally holding the industry back. PhysX would be much further along right now if AMD licensed PhysX from Nvidia, which they have every ability to do and cost restraints have been shown to be non-existant.

What it boils down to:
Nvidia users get PhysX.
AMD users do not. Why is that?

IMHO Nvidia is intentionally holding the industry back. Why won't they submit PhysX to a standards body, or better yet open source it. I don't think anybody can complain about AMD until Nvidia makes PhysX available to everyone, no strings attached.

 

[Keysplayr]

IMHO Nvidia is intentionally holding the industry back. Why won't they submit PhysX to a standards body, or better yet open source it. I don't think anybody can complain about AMD until Nvidia makes PhysX available to everyone, no strings attached.

Now I have to sit here an figure out if you just said that because I said the opposite. After all, we are diametrically opposed in all things. 😀
Seriously though.
It would be a standard if it was adopted/licensed. Once that happens, everyone can use it. NOTHING is stopping this from happening except the competitors themselves. Can you name nothing in history that started out as proprietary and then became a standard?

There is a LOT of room for interpretation here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard

 

[Keysplayr]

It could be any number of reasons, from AMD not seeing a benefit versus their own work with havok that justifies the licensing cost, to Nvidia demanding exorbitant fees from AMD, to Nvidia not willing to license it at all to use it as a brand-specific feature. Your insinuation is myopic and misleading.

What you just said goes against what was already displayed earlier in this thread.
Sure, AMD may not see any benefit (including making their customers happy).
Licensing cost I thought was relatively inexpensive?? There was a link here earlier.
Where have you seen any evidence that Nvidia isn't willing to license?
My "insinuation" is rather realistic.