What do you think would happen if nvidia had a physX capable GPU in one of the next generation consoles. Would it increase the number of physX PC titles and thus the request for nvidia cards?
Thats all depending on the price nVidia would take for using physX. The consolemakers doesn't like licensing.
What do you think would happen if nvidia had a physX capable GPU in one of the next generation consoles. Would it increase the number of physX PC titles and thus the request for nvidia cards?
All of the current consoles already run PhysX (the CPU vs GPU PhysX distinction is not as relevant to the consoles).
All of the current consoles already run PhysX (the CPU vs GPU PhysX distinction is not as relevant to the consoles).
If Nvidia really wanted to push hardware PhsyX, they could sell a dedicated PhsyX card at $50 that worked regardless of your GPU brand. The PhysX issues are still gameplay (can't have PhysX effecting gameplay unless everyone has it) and market share. But market share issue isn't simply Nvidia vs AMD, it's Nvidia high-end vs AMD and Nvidia low-mid. They PhysX market is much smaller than most think.
People blame AMD for holding up GP physics (I do) but Nvidia could have pushed for an open standard too and then marketed their cards on superior performance.
Nv's PhysX "big plans" have been in the works for years.
It's biggest boon has probably been customer retention. "I have an NV card. I bought a PhysX game. My next upgrade has to be NV so I can still play my PhysX game."
No it's called marketing, and some fall for it splendidly, even to the point of faithfully championing a companies apparent virtues with absolutely no gain to themselves.Most plans take many years to place them in position when a market may boon; it's called pro-active and vision!
I seriously doubt it. Consoles operate on pretty weak hardware and game developers focus heavily on optimizing and squeezing every thing they can out of the hardware.
Nvidia's GPU Physx is a bloated resource hog and completely goes against the idea of optimizing and using hardware resources efficiently. I doubt game developers would be interested in using bloatware like that, would just bog the game down and kill framerates.
The poor performance vs effects delivered is most likely the largest contributing factor to why there are only about four games for every year of GPU physx's existence. It's just not a good feature worth implementing. Nvidia has to pay to get developers to use it, that speaks volumes for its appeal(lack of) to game developers. Even Crytek, a heavily nvidia involved developer, will not use it and has their own implementation of physics in all their games.
But you always say the market decides!!!How does that not apply to gpu PhysX?It is such marketing that AMD themselves were in quiet talks about it! Is it possible to move beyond petty and silly personal attacks?
So don't you think that the market has decided that it's an epic fail or is too niche or expensive or not worth it??It certainly does apply and the amount of content has been my constructive nit-pick! My other is a desire to see the GPU Physic component be ported to OpenCL some day!