Havok, Intel, Microsoft, PhysX and Asynchronous Compute

[psolord]

So Microsoft bought Havok from Intel.

That's ok I guess, but reading this, some questions popped up.

Will Havok become a bigger physics choice, now that Microsoft owns it?

Will Asynchronous Compute have anything to do with physics calculations?

Is GCN really better than Nvidia's Maxwell/Kepler in Asynchronous compute and if so, will that mean that it could get an upper hand when heavy physics will be used in games?

Does PhysX suck so bad because Nvidia's architectures cannot process many compute commands along with their graphics commands?

I have witnessed my Nvidia cards not reaching maximum gpu load when using Physx, although I was not getting good performance and always wondered why.

ps Is there any study of Maxwell vs Maxwell 2 regarding the performance hit they take, when running Physx? Is Maxwell 2 better?

 

[ShintaiDK]

MS just signed a deal with nVidia for their Azure cloud. And MS want to use Azure for the Xbox, specially physics.
http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Microsoft-Demonstrates-Power-Cloud-Xbox-One-63207.html

Not sure what your issue with PhysX is. Care to explain?

I dont think Havok will change as such from a gamers standpoint. But rather stay as it is now with the usual implementations.

 

[ThatBuzzkiller]

Now that Microsoft has entered in the physics middle-ware market, PhysX/Nvidia is automatically a their competitor in this segment ...

Microsoft doesn't need to worry much since the Havok engine ALREADY dominates in that area ...

This is good news for gamers since Havok will be much more integrated into DirectX which has more chances that it will get more GPU accelerated which means more potential to offload the physics into the seperate compute queue ... (Currently AMD should see more benefits from this.)

Havok will finally be an all GPU accelerated physics engine after all these years of Intel failing to materialize Larrabee so that they could get into the GPU market ...

 

[railven]

Now that Microsoft has entered in the physics middle-ware market, PhysX/Nvidia is automatically a their competitor in this segment ...

Microsoft doesn't need to worry much since the Havok engine ALREADY dominates in that area ...

This is good news for gamers since Havok will be much more integrated into DirectX which has more chances that it will get more GPU accelerated which means more potential to offload the physics into the seperate compute queue ... (Currently AMD should see more benefits from this.)

Havok will finally be an all GPU accelerated physics engine after all these years of Intel failing to materialize Larrabee so that they could get into the GPU market ...

I see it not affecting PhysX, personally. With Havok (whether GPU accelerated or not) will be baked into the SDK for DX12. And that means it will be available to all developers and hardware platforms.

So I see them using Havok as game design (as shown in the Crackdown 3 demo, if that was Havok, which I assume it was by that press release above). So, that's now baseline. NV will probably keep using PhysX to add fluff as they've been doing for years. While I like PhysX eyecandy, it has done absolutely nothing (as far as I can remember outside of demos) that actually affect game play/design. It's always be superfluous fluff.

 

[ThatBuzzkiller]

I see it not affecting PhysX, personally. With Havok (whether GPU accelerated or not) will be baked into the SDK for DX12. And that means it will be available to all developers and hardware platforms.

So I see them using Havok as game design (as shown in the Crackdown 3 demo, if that was Havok, which I assume it was by that press release above). So, that's now baseline. NV will probably keep using PhysX to add fluff as they've been doing for years. While I like PhysX eyecandy, it has done absolutely nothing (as far as I can remember outside of demos) that actually affect game play/design. It's always be superfluous fluff.

I do see it affecting Physx because sooner or later Havok will get all the same features as Physx does but it will be accessible to IHVs other than Nvidia and that's big plus for AMD or Intel ...

PhysX CAN effect game design but the reason why it has failed in that aspect is because it was already a failure before Nvidia acquired Ageia which had acquired NovodeX to gain rights to the middle-ware ...

Havok gained so much traction that there was literally no way for Ageia to compete against them but what stopped Havok from embracing GPU acceleration has to do with the fact that Intel was trying to get a slice of the pie from AMD/Nvidia ...

The reason for Intel buying Havok in the first place was to push their x86 graphics platform (Larrabee) but that project beared no fruit hence Intel selling Havok to Microsoft since there was no reason to keep them or their technology anymore ...

 

[ShintaiDK]

Havok is mainly focused on being interactive CPU physics. While PhysX is mainly focused on being non interactive GPU physics.

I dont see one removing the other.

 

[ThatBuzzkiller]

Havok is mainly focused on being interactive CPU physics. While PhysX is mainly focused on being non interactive GPU physics.

I dont see one removing the other.

It was INITIALLY focused on interactive CPU physics but now Microsoft having purchased Havok means they don't need to be at the mercy of Intel's agenda and can therefore directly compete with PhysX when it comes to GPU accelerated physics ...

The only reason for devs to use PhysX in the future would be that it's more optimized for Nvidia hardware or that they got some cash from Nvidia to advertise their tech ...

I don't see why Microsoft can't push for GPU acceleration in Havok the samy way Nvidia does for PhysX ...

 

[railven]

It was INITIALLY focused on interactive CPU physics but now Microsoft having purchased Havok means they don't need to be at the mercy of Intel's agenda and can therefore directly compete with PhysX when it comes to GPU accelerated physics ...

The only reason for devs to use PhysX in the future would be that it's more optimized for Nvidia hardware or that they got some cash from Nvidia to advertise their tech ...

I don't see why Microsoft can't push for GPU acceleration in Havok the samy way Nvidia does for PhysX ...

The bold has always been sort of true. Judging by the lack of PhysX GPU accelerated titles, it was always Nvidia pushing the tech on devs through some incentives. I don't see that ever changing.

Even if MSFT focused on hardware accelerated physics, it would still co-exist with PhysX. (however, performance issues not withstanding.)

A universal GPU-Accelerated physics system can be used for game design. PhysX could never be used for game design due to the fragmented market. It was always just pretty eye candy. It can still remain pretty eye candy.

 

[ThatBuzzkiller]

The bold has always been sort of true. Judging by the lack of PhysX GPU accelerated titles, it was always Nvidia pushing the tech on devs through some incentives. I don't see that ever changing.

Even if MSFT focused on hardware accelerated physics, it would still co-exist with PhysX. (however, performance issues not withstanding.)

A universal GPU-Accelerated physics system can be used for game design. PhysX could never be used for game design due to the fragmented market. It was always just pretty eye candy. It can still remain pretty eye candy.

It's still possible to use PhysX for game design ...

Instead of having one back end you now have two, one for Nvidia and Havok for everyone else. Even though it seems kinda dumb to have two middle-wares doing the same thing for your game ...

As for "eye candy", Havok can implement that very same "eye candy" you see in PhysX ...

 

[railven]

It's still possible to use PhysX for game design ...

Instead of having one back end you now have two, one for Nvidia and Havok for everyone else. Even though it seems kinda dumb to have two middle-wares doing the same thing for your game ...

As for "eye candy", Havok can implement that very same "eye candy" you see in PhysX ...

EDIT: everything below is in reference to GPU accelerated physics. Since PhysX CPU library is neutral, that isn't the focus of my point.

I think you are failing to see my point, or I'm not making it clear enough.

Havok would become the primary physics engine, because it is now baked into the SDK/API for DX12. So all devs regardless of platform (actually, wonder if Sony would have access to it?) could use it for game design.

I can't think of a single game outside of that failed demo (water something?) that actually used PhysX to affect game design/play.

So while Havok will run all the game design (and yes even eye candy) a PC port influenced by Nvidia (through money, or other incentives) could still have bolted on superfluous PhysX eye candy to attempt to set it (and it's platform) apart. Basically what NV has been doing since they got PhysX. It does nothing for gameplay, but it sure does look pretty and was just another bullet point in the marketing of their product.


tl;dr:
All games can potentially use Havok for physics game design and eye candy, but NV promoted PC ports can still tact on nonsense fluff on top of it to promote itself (and its platform) over its competition. IE; I don't see Havok affecting PhysX negatively.

 

[ThatBuzzkiller]

EDIT: everything below is in reference to GPU accelerated physics. Since PhysX CPU library is neutral, that isn't the focus of my point.

I think you are failing to see my point, or I'm not making it clear enough.

Havok would become the primary physics engine, because it is now baked into the SDK/API for DX12. So all devs regardless of platform (actually, wonder if Sony would have access to it?) could use it for game design.

I can't think of a single game outside of that failed demo (water something?) that actually used PhysX to affect game design/play.

So while Havok will run all the game design (and yes even eye candy) a PC port influenced by Nvidia (through money, or other incentives) could still have bolted on superfluous PhysX eye candy to attempt to set it (and it's platform) apart. Basically what NV has been doing since they got PhysX. It does nothing for gameplay, but it sure does look pretty and was just another bullet point in the marketing of their product.


tl;dr:
All games can potentially use Havok for physics game design and eye candy, but NV promoted PC ports can still tact on nonsense fluff on top of it to promote itself (and its platform) over its competition. IE; I don't see Havok affecting PhysX negatively.

I can see why PhysX would still co-exist with Havok unless of course in the future Nvidia decides to ditch it ...

I can also see why it wouldn't affect some Nvidia sponsored titles but in the general sense I can't see why it wouldn't negatively affect PhysX since the only big feature to differentiate itself from Havok was that it's GPU accelerated and that means less potential revenue for Nvidia in the end ...

Edit: Oh yes, I can't see why Microsoft won't license the middle-ware to Sony when they there is money to be made. If the BoD had the mindset of petty console wars then Microsoft wouldn't last very long considering the Xbox brand is a money sink to them ...

 

[ThatBuzzkiller]

I'm interested in why Intel didn't keep Havok to advertise their CPUs but when you have no competition (AMD) I can see why they don't need anymore marketing for their CPUs ...

Although this might come back and bite them since there will be less incentives to buy their latest CPUs with AVX-512 when your GPU will be handling the physics tasks ...

 

[railven]

I can see why PhysX would still co-exist with Havok unless of course in the future Nvidia decides to ditch it ...

I can also see why it wouldn't affect some Nvidia sponsored titles but in the general sense I can't see why it wouldn't negatively affect PhysX since the only big feature to differentiate itself from Havok was that it's GPU accelerated and that means less potential revenue for Nvidia in the end ...

Far as I know, PhysX CPU is freeware, I could be wrong. It's the GPU portion of PhysX that has any kind of cost associated, could be wrong on this too - I haven't read up on PhysX since they full out blocked Hybrid PhysX and now I have an NV card so I didn't bother to keep updated on it.

Anyways, I personally don't see NV ditching PhysX since it's basically just a marketing point. If anything, I'd seem them doing the same thing - target specific high profile titles, and ram as much of their IP tech into it to make their cards more alluring.

They haven't ditched it yet, even when it turned to like 5-6 titles per year.

I'm interested in why Intel didn't keep Havok to advertise their CPUs but when you have no competition (AMD) I can see why they don't need anymore marketing for their CPUs ...

Although this might come back and bite them since there will be less incentives to buy their latest CPUs with AVX-512 when your GPU will be handling the physics tasks ...

That is a good question. I wonder why Intel suddenly sold it myself. They promoted during the console E3's launches, so I assumed it was always in the mix.

Now for my own tin-foil hatting, perhaps it is part of a bigger deal. Intel and MSFT have been in bed for years. Could be Intel offered up Havok as a gesture or bargaining chip. I mean, they weren't doing jack with the IP.

 

[Genx87]

I think the most interesting possibility here is adding Physics API to DX. That would help push Physics forward.

 

[ThatBuzzkiller]

I think the most interesting possibility here is adding Physics API to DX. That would help push Physics forward.

I don't know why you would need another API for this ...

All the Havok team would have to do is rewrite their entire infrastructure which is based on C++ into HLSL compute shaders ...

 

[Phynaz]

Now that Microsoft has entered in the physics middle-ware market, PhysX/Nvidia is automatically a their competitor in this segment ...

Microsoft doesn't need to worry much since the Havok engine ALREADY dominates in that area ...

This is good news for gamers since Havok will be much more integrated into DirectX which has more chances that it will get more GPU accelerated which means more potential to offload the physics into the seperate compute queue ... (Currently AMD should see more benefits from this.)

Havok will finally be an all GPU accelerated physics engine after all these years of Intel failing to materialize Larrabee so that they could get into the GPU market ...

This. Expect Havok to get standards based hardware acceleration. Puts PhysX in the coffin.

 

[thesmokingman]

This is good news.

 

[3DVagabond]

I don't know why you would need another API for this ...

All the Havok team would have to do is rewrite their entire infrastructure which is based on C++ into HLSL compute shaders ...

Could be used as a means to separate DX from Vulkan, etc...

 

[gamervivek]

If it could lead to some HSA physics and rendering, that'd be great.

 

[tweakboy]

PHsyx is pretty much dead.

 

[Headfoot]

I'm on board with anything that lets better physics get baked into the actual game and not just adding banners flapping around.

The Battlefield series destructible environments while pretty limited still opened up tons of gameplay options. It just makes sense that you can use a rocket launcher to blow up a thin concrete wall. I want more of that

 

[bystander36]

Now that Microsoft has entered in the physics middle-ware market, PhysX/Nvidia is automatically a their competitor in this segment ...

Microsoft doesn't need to worry much since the Havok engine ALREADY dominates in that area ...

This is good news for gamers since Havok will be much more integrated into DirectX which has more chances that it will get more GPU accelerated which means more potential to offload the physics into the seperate compute queue ... (Currently AMD should see more benefits from this.)

Havok will finally be an all GPU accelerated physics engine after all these years of Intel failing to materialize Larrabee so that they could get into the GPU market ...

I'm pretty sure PhysX has a larger share of games using their physics engine. Don't be confused by GPU accelerated PhysX and think that is all the games PhysX is in.

Here is a list of over 500 PhysX games: http://physxinfo.com/index.php?p=gam&f=all

Havok's list is a bit smaller: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_using_Havok

 

[Stuka87]

I dont feel PhysX and Havok really compete. PhysX is for visuals only, zero game engine related physics. Havok is far more expansive and isn't just for visuals.

Turning PhysX off on a game with it has zero impact on the game, it only changes how it looks. If you somehow disabled Havok in a game, the game would not function as Havoc is integrated into the engine.

 

[Flapdrol1337]

I dont feel PhysX and Havok really compete. PhysX is for visuals only, zero game engine related physics. Havok is far more expansive and isn't just for visuals.

Turning PhysX off on a game with it has zero impact on the game, it only changes how it looks. If you somehow disabled Havok in a game, the game would not function as Havoc is integrated into the engine.

Not true. Physx is also for normal game physics, but that part always runs on the cpu.

 

[ThatBuzzkiller]

I'm pretty sure PhysX has a larger share of games using their physics engine. Don't be confused by GPU accelerated PhysX and think that is all the games PhysX is in.

Here is a list of over 500 PhysX games: http://physxinfo.com/index.php?p=gam&f=all

Havok's list is a bit smaller: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_using_Havok

Just how accurate is PhysXInfo exactly ?

Most of that list looks like is tied to the engine supporting the middle-ware, not the actual game using it itself ...

Why is Far Cry 4 in that list when Havok is the one publicly promoting it using their technology ?

Matter of fact where are their sources for these games claiming to use CPU PhysX ?

Havok themselves claim over 600 titles are been powered by their middle-ware so it's still more than whatever PhysXInfo claims ...

If your going to use a source that's not officially affiliated with Nvidia and doesn't appear to be impartial then it's only fair to hear words straight up from the Havok team ...

In fact if that list were true, Nvidia would be screaming down from the bottom of their throats about how PhysX is dominating the industry but their not ...