nvidia sets up against intel by supporting efforts to port physX to AMD?

[SunnyD]

Being that NVIDIA opened up the PhysX api to anyone, this doesn't surprise me. AMD is in a great position because they can opt to support everything they can and rule the roost without any sort of API/Vendor lock-in.

 

[taltamir]

you know... now that i think about this... this might finally result in some loosening of the death grip of the x86 license. x86 is a wonderful architecture, but:
1. Changes are needed, the way video cards annihilate it in certain tasks shows its age.
2. The problem isn't the platform, it is the license keeping anyone from competing.

ccording to Badit, it took AMD seven days to respond and send the requested documents.

What a snippy guy... of course it took a week, they had to make some hard decision on weather to support or squash that. The fact that after only a week they decided to jump on the bandwagon, and that it is now supported by both nvidia AND by AMD both providing technical briefs and engineer access to this guy, means that we really WOULD be seeing CUDA + PhysX on AMD cards soon.

Ironically, that COULD give the push towards physX over havok, since getting havok to work on even AMD GPU would be potentially a lot of work, and two, like DX10.1, since it will be only supported by ONE of the two players, it will be less attractive to developers.
And with CUDA, and the new video encoding in CUDA, we could see a drastic shift from overpriced quad core CPUs to video cards.

 

[Fattysharp]

I think Nvidia made the right move here. They need to prove CUDA and PhysX are the way to go, and if to the 2 main companies are already supporting it, it will net nvidia more game titles.

It also puts Intel with larabee a step back since CUDA and PhysX will be tested and working (??) when Intel can make their release.

This is however very much against what Nvidia usually does. They are not known for the sharing of information. When a company changes a unwritten policy, there is a reason for it, and I think they are worried.

Intel and AMD using Havok. AMD and Nvidia using Cuda/PhysX. Nvidia has the established graphics name, so if they are willing to share the technolgy with AMD, then they stay one step ahead of intel, and just remain where they are with AMD. This was a smart move for Nvidia.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: Fattysharp
I think Nvidia made the right move here. They need to prove CUDA and PhysX are the way to go, and if to the 2 main companies are already supporting it, it will net nvidia more game titles.

It also puts Intel with larabee a step back since CUDA and PhysX will be tested and working (??) when Intel can make their release.

This is however very much against what Nvidia usually does. They are not known for the sharing of information. When a company changes a unwritten policy, there is a reason for it, and I think they are worried.

Intel and AMD using Havok. AMD and Nvidia using Cuda/PhysX. Nvidia has the established graphics name, so if they are willing to share the technolgy with AMD, then they stay one step ahead of intel, and just remain where they are with AMD. This was a smart move for Nvidia.

I honestly believe this is a lot more than about gaming. Nvidia is positioning the GPU as an alternative to the CPU. The only way this has any chance of taking hold is to get CUDA into as many current systems as possible. By porting both CUDA and PhysX over to ATI, Nvidia has effectively given programmers a large percentage of current equipment to program for. I don't know the exact figures, but lets just say it could easily be over 50% of current computers will be capable of using CUDA in the next year or two.

 

[extra]

Originally posted by: Fattysharp

It also puts Intel with larabee a step back since CUDA and PhysX will be tested and working (??) when Intel can make their release.

Ding ding ding

And hey, it helps us gamers here and now with a few games and more soon, so .. cool.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: extra
Ding ding ding

And hey, it helps us gamers here and now with a few games and more soon, so .. cool.

Havok is software based so it is already usable by all CPU's without any extra drivers. Blizzard has just signed a contract with Intel to use Havok in both Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2. So PhysX has hardly won any battle and it appears that Havok is ahead at this time. Nvidia allowing PhysX on other GPU's is more about getting CUDA distributed than it is about positioning PhysX ahead of Havok.

Diablo III to use Havok Physics Engine

Havok on Wikipedia

Edited to change all GPU's to CPU's which was my intent in the first place.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Originally posted by: extra
Ding ding ding

And hey, it helps us gamers here and now with a few games and more soon, so .. cool.

Havok is software based so it is already usable by all GPU's without any extra drivers. Blizzard has just signed a contract with Intel to use Havok in both Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2. So PhysX has hardly won any battle and it appears that Havok is ahead at this time. Nvidia allowing PhysX on other GPU's is more about getting CUDA distributed than it is about positioning PhysX ahead of Havok.

Diablo III to use Havok Physics Engine

Havok on Wikipedia

How reliable is that site? There's not a single direct quote, and I bet if I googled their "according to the developer" quotes I'd just end up being directed to the D3 website or even the voice-over in the game demo. Also, if you click "Next" on that page, it basically says Blizzard didn't say any of that and everything on the previous page is speculation. If you look at Diablo 3's FAQ it says:

What engine is Diablo III running on? What graphical enhancements are included?
Diablo III runs on a custom 3D game engine for rendering full-3D characters and environments. The 3D game engine not only simulates advanced animation sequences and sound effects, but also uses a custom physics engine that allows for realistic object dynamics and cloth simulation.

The strong emphasis on DX10.1 without any evidence whatsoever points strongly to that being an anti-NV fluff piece, and that's all.

Like others though, I think NV keeping PhysX open is a win for everyone. Havok is a non-issue imo, as it will always run on any CPU out there. Until Intel has something that runs Havok faster than their own CPUs its simply not in their best interest to allow hardware support from another vendor.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Originally posted by: extra
Ding ding ding

And hey, it helps us gamers here and now with a few games and more soon, so .. cool.

Havok is software based so it is already usable by all GPU's without any extra drivers. Blizzard has just signed a contract with Intel to use Havok in both Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2. So PhysX has hardly won any battle and it appears that Havok is ahead at this time. Nvidia allowing PhysX on other GPU's is more about getting CUDA distributed than it is about positioning PhysX ahead of Havok.

Diablo III to use Havok Physics Engine

Havok on Wikipedia

How reliable is that site? There's not a single direct quote, and I bet if I googled their "according to the developer" quotes I'd just end up being directed to the D3 website or even the voice-over in the game demo. Also, if you click "Next" on that page, it basically says Blizzard didn't say any of that and everything on the previous page is speculation. If you look at Diablo 3's FAQ it says:

What engine is Diablo III running on? What graphical enhancements are included?
Diablo III runs on a custom 3D game engine for rendering full-3D characters and environments. The 3D game engine not only simulates advanced animation sequences and sound effects, but also uses a custom physics engine that allows for realistic object dynamics and cloth simulation.

The strong emphasis on DX10.1 without any evidence whatsoever points strongly to that being an anti-NV fluff piece, and that's all.

Like others though, I think NV keeping PhysX open is a win for everyone. Havok is a non-issue imo, as it will always run on any CPU out there. Until Intel has something that runs Havok faster than their own CPUs its simply not in their best interest to allow hardware support from another vendor.

Please google this yourself. This was reported all over the place, but I will provide more links since the one I already provided was not good enough to satisfy you.

Neowin

Hovok Announcement

Shacknews.com

Gamezine.com.uk

So please stop this crap because it has been confirmed by both Havok and Blizzard.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Please google this yourself. This was reported all over the place, but I will provide more links since the one I already provided was not good enough to satisfy you.

Neowin

Hovok Announcement

Shacknews.com

Gamezine.com.uk

So please stop this crap because it has been confirmed by both Havok and Blizzard.

Actually that Havok direct link press announcement is good enough. They're all better than that garbage anti-NV fluff piece you linked to the first time though. Thanks.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Originally posted by: extra
Ding ding ding

And hey, it helps us gamers here and now with a few games and more soon, so .. cool.

Havok is software based so it is already usable by all GPU's without any extra drivers. Blizzard has just signed a contract with Intel to use Havok in both Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2. So PhysX has hardly won any battle and it appears that Havok is ahead at this time. Nvidia allowing PhysX on other GPU's is more about getting CUDA distributed than it is about positioning PhysX ahead of Havok.

Diablo III to use Havok Physics Engine

Havok on Wikipedia

no it is already useable by all CPUs... not by ANY GPUs....
That means it can't touch the GPU accelerated ones.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: chizow
Actually that Havok direct link press announcement is good enough. They're all better than that garbage anti-NV fluff piece you linked to the first time though. Thanks.

First off, I am far from a fanboy of either Nvidia or ATI. Read my signature and you will find I actually own both a Nvidia GPU and chipset.

Second, telling the truth is hardly a anti-nvidia slant.

According to Blizzard, the new game engine ?not only simulates advanced animation sequences and sound effects, but also uses a custom physics engine that allows for realistic object dynamics and cloth simulation.? Based on Havok, the new physics engine is a bit of a blow for Nvidia which is currently pushing its recently acquired PhysX technology from Ageia. Meanwhile, Havok is now owned by Intel, although the company is now working with AMD towards getting the technology working on both AMD?s CPUs and GPUs.

That was the only sentence that said anything about how this affects Nvidia. This sentence is absolutely correct that it is a blow to Nvidia. Blizzard is one of the biggest and most profitable game publishers in the industry. To reject PhysX over Havok is a big blow to Nvidia.

Your fanboy stuff does not fly with me so you are better off just not trying to pull it at all.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: taltamir
no it is already useable by all CPUs... not by ANY GPUs....
That means it can't touch the GPU accelerated ones.

My bad, that was actually what I meant to type.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: soonerproud
First off, I am far from a fanboy of either Nvidia or ATI. Read my signature and you will find I actually own both a Nvidia GPU and chipset.

Second, telling the truth is hardly a anti-nvidia slant.

Truth?

We don?t know if Havok in Diablo III will be GPU-accelerated, and it?s more likely that it will be CPU-accelerated, given that Havok support on both Intel and AMD?s CPUs will make for much more widespread support.

More truth? LOL. What Magical Features is DX10.1 going to provide again? Maybe a special in-game item?

That said, there are a lot of rumours on the Web about the game supporting DirectX 10.1, as well as DirectX 9, adding extra graphical features for owners of supporting GPUs such as ATI's Radeon HD 3000 and 4000 series.

Again, without a single direct quote from anyone at Blizzard or even a link to a reliable source, I think its difficult to find any truth in that article. The other sites do a much better job of highlighting features while minimizing fluff.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: soonerproud
First off, I am far from a fanboy of either Nvidia or ATI. Read my signature and you will find I actually own both a Nvidia GPU and chipset.

Second, telling the truth is hardly a anti-nvidia slant.

Truth?

We don?t know if Havok in Diablo III will be GPU-accelerated, and it?s more likely that it will be CPU-accelerated, given that Havok support on both Intel and AMD?s CPUs will make for much more widespread support.

More truth? LOL. What Magical Features is DX10.1 going to provide again? Maybe a special in-game item?

That said, there are a lot of rumours on the Web about the game supporting DirectX 10.1, as well as DirectX 9, adding extra graphical features for owners of supporting GPUs such as ATI's Radeon HD 3000 and 4000 series.

Again, without a single direct quote from anyone at Blizzard or even a link to a reliable source, I think its difficult to find any truth in that article. The other sites do a much better job of highlighting features while minimizing fluff.

And all those links I provided collaborated everything you pointed out. So, yes the article was telling the truth. Your bias is what is blinding you to this fact. I would not have linked the article if it was spreading misinformation.

Now go ahead and prove any point in that article wrong, because you can't. Call it fluff or what ever you want to, it is collaborated by both Havok and Blizzard themselves.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: soonerproud
And all those links I provided collaborated everything you pointed out. So, yes the article was telling the truth. Your bias is what is blinding you to this fact. I would not have linked the article if it was spreading misinformation.

Now go ahead and prove any point in that article wrong, because you can't. Call it fluff or what ever you want to, it is collaborated by both Havok and Blizzard themselves.

Actually those sites don't confirm anything there as fact. Diablo 3's website mentions a "custom physics engine", no mention of Havok, however the licensing agreement entered into in 2006 is reasonable evidence they will continue to use Havok for SC2 and Diablo3.

Its not a blow to Nvidia or PhysX because it does not and cannot adversely impact support of their hardware, as Havok will run on any CPU whether Intel or AMD. NV hardware can and will always run on these platforms (in non-SLI form anyways). There is no proof of GPU hardware acceleration for Havok and even AMD's recent press announcement on the issue is vague on the topic.

Further, its not to say games won't support both PhysX and Havok depending on how difficult it is to implement and whether or not its worthwhile. We've seen GPU accelerated physics can result in much better performance and effects, but it will certainly take time for devs to catch on. We see this all the time with sound solutions, with some type of 3D sound engine + added support for EAX 5.0.

And do I really need to cover the DX10.1 blurb? That's straight FUD as there's no proof of DX10.1 implementation anywhere, not to mention there aren't any "extra graphical features" over DX10.

Taking exception to that rag has nothing to do with bias, its the same garbage being thrown around here on a daily basis with regards to PhysX, DX10.1, Havok etc.

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: chizow
There is no proof of GPU hardware acceleration for Havok and even AMD's recent press announcement on the issue is vague on the topic.

I think this is a really important point that people should keep in mind. AMD has yet to confirm that they and Havok are seriously working on GPU acceleration at this time, so I'm not sure it's safe to rule out the idea that this is just a strategic move against NVIDIA. And while we're on the subject, just because something uses Havok doesn't mean it will use hardware acceleration; look at PhysX, 100+ titles, less than 20 are PPU/GPU accelerated. People shouldn't get too excited too soon or they'll end up disappointed; it could be another promised feature (*cough* hardware encode acceleration *cough*) that never materializes.

 

[Aberforth]

Since MS is working on Ray tracing and Physics into DX11, nv would have to license it from MS and Intel in future.

 

[taltamir]

According to Blizzard, the new game engine ?not only simulates advanced animation sequences and sound effects, but also uses a custom physics engine that allows for realistic object dynamics and cloth simulation.? Based on Havok, the new physics engine is a bit of a blow for Nvidia which is currently pushing its recently acquired PhysX technology from Ageia. Meanwhile, Havok is now owned by Intel, although the company is now working with AMD towards getting the technology working on both AMD?s CPUs and GPUs.

the most interesting thing is that they said "AMD GPUs and CPUs".... what do they mean intel is working with AMD to get havok working on AMD cpus? they are both x86 compliant... unless havok specifically requires intels SSE4 implementation, in which case it will not work on any pre penryn intel as well...
So obviously whomever made that quote is absolutely clueless about anything. If he thinks some magic "work" is needed to make havok compatible with AMD cpus, I see no reason to take his claim that it will be GPU accelerated on AMD GPUs seriously.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Not to try and nit pick the current direction of this thread, but does anyone think they are going to see either one of those Blizz titles within the next 18 months? They announced WoTLK quite a while ago, it's been in beta for a while now and most would be shocked to see it before Q4 at the earliest. I would be farm more blown away if we saw both SC2 and D3 before '10-11(one of them may hit by the end of '09, but I wouldn't even bet on that). By the time these games launch, much of the physics war will be over with.

 

[Aberforth]

SC 2 will be released this year and D3 in Q1 09.

 

[taltamir]

either way, both titles don't use any mentionable physics... even if they use havok, havok is physics on CPU, and cannot come close to physics on GPU. As such, it is not even a contender. Using it as their physics engine is no different then half life using their own collision engine, etc... its a CPU beast that is of limited power and utility.

 

[Aberforth]

It would be wise to use Havok at present because not many people have physx enabled video cards, where as you can find Dual and Quad core processors every where.

 

[aka1nas]

Originally posted by: Aberforth
It would be wise to use Havok at present because not many people have physx enabled video cards, where as you can find Dual and Quad core processors every where.

Which PhysX does just as well and gives you the option for hardware acceleration.

 

[taltamir]

yea... havok is not "wise" in that is just gives you low quality CPU acceleration.
With physX you could have two modes, one is a low quality CPU accleration, and one is a high quality GPU acceleration for those with PPU.

Ofcourse, maybe havok does the low quality CPU only part better and blizzard never intends to waste their time coding advanced physics effect due to the tiny market share it represents... Blizzard makes it clear the game will be maxed out at what us enthusiasts will call low end systems, because the have good business sense.

 

[BenSkywalker]

SC 2 will be released this year and D3 in Q1 09.

ROFLMAO!

That is some seriously funny stuff right there

Blizz release 3 games in six months? Diablo may have gone rainbow bright, but Hell hasn't frozen over that much yet. We will be lucky if we see both games get a release date(that will certainly be pushed back) by Q1 '09.