Possible AMD support for CUDA coming

[Scali]

Before we get ahead of ourselves, what is the assumption that there will be AMD GPU support based on?
All I can see is that nVidia wants to support "other platforms" with Cuda.
Now a "platform" could be any number of things... Different CPUs, OSes or hardware for example.

Currently Cuda only works on x86-based Windows and linux OSes.
However, nVidia GPUs can also be found in Macs, FreeBSD systems, Itanium-based computers and ofcourse there is nVidia Tegra, for embedded systems (media players, smartphones etc, such as Zune HD).
Couldn't THOSE platforms be the platforms that nVidia is referring to?

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: ShawnD1

Mac? You mean it's actually possible to run Crysis on GeForce 9400M integrated graphics?

http://store.apple.com/us/product/TW387ZM/A

You clearly don't know what you're talking about, so I will just ignore you.

Holy fuck.

I would never, EVER buy that. Nobody does either..

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1

CUDA is a different matter. Depending on licensing from a rival company when other free alternatives are on the table (DirectX, OpenCL) is just crazy. Nobody does that. This would be on the same level as Microsoft making PS3 exclusive games.
"Buy our product even though it directly supports our competitors!"

Correct me if I'm wrong since I'm going off stuff I think I heard, but doesn't havoc charge licensing fees while physx doesn't?

 

[Keysplayr]

ShawnD1

"I need a $3000 computer before I can buy a $450 video card on a platform that makes up 5% of the computer market? Developers must be idiots if they don't jump on the opportunity to develop for that. When I said it was a total waste of time to care about Mac compatibility, I was dead wrong."

Scholzpdx

"I would never, EVER buy that. Nobody does either.."


So you two are actually sitting there typing that nobody buys Mac Pros.

You must be thinking of just us computer gamers. Broaden your perspectives to the professional graphics and multimedia markets. Corporate. 3000 per workstation is nothing to a "worldwide" corporate market. The PC workstation would probably cost similar. Look at the BASE price of this Dell Precision T7400 workstation:
Dell Precision T7400 Workstation base price $2266.00

Upping the processors to two top end quad core Xeons, and 32 GB Ram and a Quadro 5800 brought us up to over $12,000.00.

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: AyashiKaibutsu

Originally posted by: ShawnD1

CUDA is a different matter. Depending on licensing from a rival company when other free alternatives are on the table (DirectX, OpenCL) is just crazy. Nobody does that. This would be on the same level as Microsoft making PS3 exclusive games.
"Buy our product even though it directly supports our competitors!"

Correct me if I'm wrong since I'm going off stuff I think I heard, but doesn't havoc charge licensing fees while physx doesn't?

I think the hardware side is free. Intel makes money on this by selling Havok to the game developers.

 

[Keysplayr]

Both have licensing fees for developers to use them in their games.

 

[Kuzi]

Originally posted by: Scali
Before we get ahead of ourselves, what is the assumption that there will be AMD GPU support based on?

Here is a Demo of Havok Cloth Physics using OpenCL on an AMD GPU.

I believe what we will see in the near future is more and more developers using OpenCL to accelerate Physics and other parallel tasks on CPUs and GPUs. CUDA will be good for Nvidia only for a short while.

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
Both have licensing fees for developers to use them in their games.

Did Nvidia change this? There was a time when PhysX was free, or at least some part of it was free under some condition. Nvidia has the SDK available for download on their website whereas Havok requires you to contact them to get a copy of it (probably because it costs money). I'm trying to read through the EULA but I'm still too tired to make any sense of it.

http://developer.nvidia.com/object/physx_EULA.html

License. NVIDIA grants you (?you?) a limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable
world-wide, royalty-free license to (a) internally install, use and display the PhysX SDK,
solely for purposes of developing Physics Applications on Licensed Platforms; (b)
internally use, copy, modify and compile the Sample Code to design, develop and test
Physics Applications on Licensed Platforms; and (c) reproduce and distribute the
Redistributable Code only in object code form and only as fully integrated into Physics
Applications, provided you meet and comply with all requirements of this Agreement.

What is "object code form" and what does the bold part mean? You can write PhysX applications and distribute them as long as it's compiled but you can't distribute the source? I don't know. Need more coffee and maybe a dictionary.

Lower down it has this

To seek such a remedy, you must return the entire PhysX
SDK to NVIDIA, with a copy of the original purchase receipt within the warranty period.

Huh? Purchase receipt for software that can be downloaded without purchase?

 

[Scali]

Originally posted by: Kuzi
I believe what we will see in the near future is more and more developers using OpenCL to accelerate Physics and other parallel tasks on CPUs and GPUs. CUDA will be good for Nvidia only for a short while.

OpenCL actually runs on top of the Cuda stack (as does DX11 CS). Cuda is not going anywhere.
But it doesn't answer my question... Why do people think nVidia would port Cuda to AMD GPUs, when they just said they'd support "other platforms"? I find it rather unlikely.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
Both have licensing fees for developers to use them in their games.

Did Nvidia change this? There was a time when PhysX was free, or at least some part of it was free under some condition. Nvidia has the SDK available for download on their website whereas Havok requires you to contact them to get a copy of it (probably because it costs money). I'm trying to read through the EULA but I'm still too tired to make any sense of it.

http://developer.nvidia.com/object/physx_EULA.html

License. NVIDIA grants you (?you?) a limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable
world-wide, royalty-free license to (a) internally install, use and display the PhysX SDK,
solely for purposes of developing Physics Applications on Licensed Platforms; (b)
internally use, copy, modify and compile the Sample Code to design, develop and test
Physics Applications on Licensed Platforms; and (c) reproduce and distribute the
Redistributable Code only in object code form and only as fully integrated into Physics
Applications, provided you meet and comply with all requirements of this Agreement.

What is "object code form" and what does the bold part mean? You can write PhysX applications and distribute them as long as it's compiled but you can't distribute the source? I don't know. Need more coffee and maybe a dictionary.

Lower down it has this

To seek such a remedy, you must return the entire PhysX
SDK to NVIDIA, with a copy of the original purchase receipt within the warranty period.

Huh? Purchase receipt for software that can be downloaded without purchase?

Looks like maybe only the PhysX SDK is free? Unsure. Why wouldn't Nvidia charge a license fee for devs to actually use PhysX in their games? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like only the SDK is free but actual use of the PhysX content in games warrants a fee?

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
Looks like maybe only the PhysX SDK is free? Unsure. Why wouldn't Nvidia charge a license fee for devs to actually use PhysX in their games? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like only the SDK is free but actual use of the PhysX content in games warrants a fee?

Something like PhysX would be given out for free because Nvidia controls the hardware it uses. If there was a bunch of killer PhysX apps where the game was much faster for anyone using a Nvidia graphics card, Nvidia could say "Look how much faster this game runs when you have a Nvidia graphics card!"

I'm not saying that's the case. You're probably right about there being a license fee somewhere. I'm just saying that such a model would make a lot of sense. If really popular games like Team Fortress 2 and Left 4 Dead relied on PhysX instead of Havok, and using an ATI card in such a game would cause severe CPU bottlenecking, that would be a huge win for Nvidia. Then when PhysX dominates the market, they could license it to ATI and collect royalties or just keep it Nvidia exclusive and boost hardware sales. It's a win win situation when developers adopt your API.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1
I'm not saying that's the case. You're probably right about there being a license fee somewhere.

There IS a licensing fee. According to the article linked to in this thread there's a fee for example for ATI to license PhysX although it's minimal right now.
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...AR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Looks like maybe only the PhysX SDK is free? Unsure. Why wouldn't Nvidia charge a license fee for devs to actually use PhysX in their games? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like only the SDK is free but actual use of the PhysX content in games warrants a fee?

Anyone can download Havok for free. Both Havok & PhysX are free to download. The difference is that PhysX SDK can be used without paying anything to Nvidia for a commercial game unless you need the source for PhysX , then you have to pay. ATI would have to pay Nvidia to develop products that use PhysX because they would need the source code.

With the free download of Havok Physics and Havok Animation for the PC, you can develop and distribute your free PC Game or free PC application for no direct or indirect commercial value provided the Havok libraries are compiled and distributed with your application or game in an integral, non-separable way.

Post your game on the web, share it with friends, link it to your on-line resume. There?s no charge because the license fee has been covered by Intel under a commercial agreement with Havok.



If you are building a commercial PC game, regardless of price, you can begin developing your game immediately after downloading from the www.havok.com/tryhavok site. During development, you can evaluate, prototype, and even publicly demonstrate your PC game, subject to general restrictions in the download agreement, with no further involvement from Havok.


If you plan to sell your commercial PC Game for a retail value of less than or equal to $10 USD, the PC Game distribution license is NOT required from Havok ? knock yourself out!

www.havok.com/tryhavok

Seems pretty fair , not free for commercial games over $10 but they have to make money to stay in business. Nvidia can afford to let games use the sdk for free because it is not their primary stream of revenue. Havok however relies on their api to say in business. Even though Intel owns the company that doesn't mean they will just support them with no money coming in.

I still think Havok has the edge because of all the systems they support that work together. Much easier for a developer to use Havok that also ties in with behavior , AI , than to use PhysX and other engines to do the same thing.