hypothetical: nvidia in a console -> more physX titles?

[NIGELG]

CUDA is the problem for AMD.
CUDA even found it way into games not using PhysX.

As much as people want to equate CUDA = OpenCL = DirectCompute...the reality isn't so.

CUDA is much more "mature" and have a better "ecosystem" that both OpenCL and Direct Compute....would AMD lock themselfes to CUDA (and NVIDIA's mercy)?

Nope.

But it also seems Intel is the "Kaizer Soze"...hiding in the background.

Intel killed both AMD's and NVIDIA's dabble with Havok....when they aquried Havok and killed off HavokFX (to return on a later date when Larrabbe is ready?).

NVIDIA was smart...and got AGEIA.

AMD got...well...nothing.
But they sure talk alot about when they need the PR:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWL1Ikdqd9Q

I guess the red camp thinks AMD should drop all GPU physics...after that demo..is the best AMD can do...a demo...after...what...6-7 years of talk?

Classic example....whoever made that demo it's terrible.

Doesn't matter who it came from...Nvidia or AMD.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Let me make this simple.....does a random forum poster with a bias toward the green team dictate what are the facts or a third party website dedicated to the subject?

You act too much like a know it all .....

Show me PhysX CPU code vs PhysX GPU code.

My bet: You will post a lot of FUD...but no code.

 

[omeds]

I don't understand the PhysX hate, other than it's proprietary. The effects, and tech itself is great.

It's a nice addition in every game I've tried, wish there were more of them.

 

[SirPauly]

My constructive nit-pick is a desire for more of them as well. Don't understand the hate as well, if one doesn't like the feature -- turn it off, real simple.

I like the technology and enjoy talking about it with other gamers -- pros and cons.

 

[Silverforce11]

My constructive nit-pick is a desire for more of them as well. Don't understand the hate as well, if one doesn't like the feature -- turn it off, real simple.

I like the technology and enjoy talking about it with other gamers -- pros and cons.

If you dont understand the hate after many of us have explained why, you will never understand it.

If you are a user of both ATI/NV GPUs and alternate between them depending on who offers the best bang for buck, you will understand why a propriety API is the reason that is holding PhysX back from reaching its potential. But if all you are is a user of 1 vendor, you wont get it.

 

[SirPauly]

Personally understand what proprietary is and still don't understand the hate. Owned a lot of sku's from various companies and still don't understand the hate. The feature may bring added immersion and enjoyment to some gamers and a good thing over-all. But, of course, the one's that don't hate are sheep!

 

[Lonyo]

I think this thread needs closing because certain people seem to be talking about random crap, and not focusing on what the original topic was, which was GPUs which support hardware PhysX being in next generation consoles.

People are even posting in the thread after admitting they don't know what it's about,. and then talking about "Green team" and "Red team".

Good job on spoiling the thread and being an idiot.

Maybe the mods can close this thread and we can start a new one with reasonable discussion about the actual topic the OP started with, which is actually reasonable and something which has been mentioned before in threads about both consoles and PhysX.

 

[Phanuel]

Maybe the mods can close this thread and we can start a new one with reasonable discussion about the actual topic the OP started with, which is actually reasonable and something which has been mentioned before in threads about both consoles and PhysX.

Is there an open source / multi-platform alternative to PhysX? If so, then we can have a rational discussion. Until then, vendor specific physics coding being something we should be excited about in console ports? No.

 

[NIGELG]

Personally understand what proprietary is and still don't understand the hate. Owned a lot of sku's from various companies and still don't understand the hate. The feature may bring added immersion and enjoyment to some gamers and a good thing over-all. But, of course, the one's that don't hate are sheep!

There is no hate FROM ME..But if something looks terrible and is overrated then I will say so.

 

[NIGELG]

Show me PhysX CPU code vs PhysX GPU code.

My bet: You will post a lot of FUD...but no code.

Why don't you post it then and enlighten us oh great knowledgeable one.

You can talk about code and other crap but as an end user it looks fake and tacked on to me.

 

[SirPauly]

The two prominent players with multi-platform may be PhysX and Havok -- both proprietary.

There is Bullet and ODE.

 

[NIGELG]

The two prominent players with multi-platform may be PhysX and Havok -- both proprietary.

There is Bullet and ODE.

Yes Pauly but they all have to make it look good and not tacked on.

 

[SirPauly]

which was GPUs which support hardware PhysX being in next generation consoles.

It was more than that :

Would it increase the number of physX PC titles and thus the request for nvidia cards

Talking about PC PhysX as well, the number of titles -- is also part of the discussion!

My point with this was nVidia may spend resources on the SDK, with a robust, flexible tool set.

 

[thilanliyan]

They were offered, they refused. They still can today, nothing stopping them but pride. (I know, what pride) shrugs.

I am not going to debate the merits of PhysX...but this statement I will respond to.

Do you think nV would license from AMD if the shoe was on the other foot? It would be a mistake for either company to license something like this (non-essential) that is wholly controlled by the other. What is to stop nV from imposing an artificial limitation (and hence making their cards look better) on physx if AMD had licensed it? I wouldn't put it past any company to do something like that...they are in competition after all trying to get us to buy their cards.

 

[3DVagabond]

If,if,if....if AMD had something as ugly as what I see in those games I would say the same.

Ugly is ugly no matter who produces it.

When HARDWARE ACCELARATED physics looks proper it will take off.4 games a year is not taking off.

Don't you get it? Whatever is wrong is AMD's fault.

Prices are high? AMD's fault. nVidia released a mid range card for their top sku? AMD's fault. No games with PhysX? AMD's fault. World wide recession? AMD's fault? Get the idea?

 

[AnandThenMan]

OMG, LOL. Hardly dude. PhysX is improving/evolving all the time. Now 3.0 is working it's way through devs. It isn't going away. AMD users have to hack with an add in NV card to use it (and they do, a lot ) , or they do without or let the CPU run it at low settings.
Blame your company for not licensing and expediting the adoption of PhysX across both Nvidia and AMD platforms. They were offered, they refused. They still can today, nothing stopping them but pride. (I know, what pride) shrugs.

This post is total garbage. :thumbsdown:

 

[SirPauly]

I am not going to debate the merits of PhysX...but this statement I will respond to.

Do you think nV would license from AMD if the shoe was on the other foot? It would be a mistake for either company to license something like this (non-essential) that is wholly controlled by the other. What is to stop nV from imposing an artificial limitation (and hence making their cards look better) on physx if AMD had licensed it? I wouldn't put it past any company to do something like that...they are in competition after all trying to get us to buy their cards.

Absolutely believe AMD would license PhysX if nVidia offered the OpenCL API for the GPU Physic component.

 

[AnandThenMan]

Absolutely believe AMD would license PhysX if nVidia offered the OpenCL API for the GPU Physic component.

Why would AMD have to license PhysX? Makes zero sense. Nvidia should be licensing PhysX to the game devs, and make sure it runs on all hardware using OpenCL. If AMD starts paying Nvidia for the rights to have PhysX run on their hardware, is Intel going to do the same?

 

[SirPauly]

Imho,

If nVidia offered OpenCL support -- AMD would welcome this!

 

[Kenmitch]

Snip

Snip

Snip

Next time you guys have lunch with Jen-Hsun Huang please ask him if his company is willing to design a chip that is capable of bringing PhysX to the console world. Don't forget to tell him that most likely it'll have to be really cheap. It must use low power to keep the heat down. It must be able to maintain fps without taking a hit when PhysX is used....If possilbe maybe one of you could post a video of him slapping the other upside the head

 

[SirPauly]

Sure thing!

 

[thilanliyan]

Absolutely believe AMD would license PhysX if nVidia offered the OpenCL API for the GPU Physic component.

That has not happened yet. I was responding to Keysplayr's post that AMD should have licensed PhysX. IMO it would not be in the best interest of either company to license anything wholly owned by the other...as I said, that leaves too much room for shenanigans from either side.

 

[chimaxi83]

If PhysX wasn't proprietary like it is, locked to Nvidia like it is, and only gimmicky "omg never ending particles!" effects like it is, it wouldn't be the tacky crap that it is. My opinion.

If it spread to consoles, and/or AMD, where devs could freely program for it and optimize it, throw in new features, etc, it might actually become cool.

Again, my opinion, so you usual people obsessed with defending Nvidia honor, save it, this has nothing to do with AMD

 

[SirPauly]

An older article:

Nvidia considers porting PhysX to OpenCL

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2009/03/27/nvidia-considers-porting-physx-to-opencl/1

It's a move I would welcome very much so!

 

[AnandThenMan]

Commenting on this possibility, Mohammad said that “if we start using OpenCL, then there’s a chance that the features would work on ATI, but I have no idea what the performance would be like. Previously, looking at things like Folding@home, ATI GPU computing performance seems to be behind Nvidia. That probably reflects the fact that their GPU computing solution is probably a couple of generations behind ours.”

How things change.