Did NVIDIA cripple its CPU gaming physics library to spite Intel?

and my point was they crippled it on purpose, i checked the whole article now and it looks like they already tried x86 and multi threading before,.. i mean who wouldn't, they saw it could run well on cpu's like my example with Cryostasis, so they ditched it and left it as it were in the first place x87 and old single threaded..
i mean it makes sense you could get around 2-3x the boost (4core cpu in mind); lowest 13fps vs 33fps makes a huge difference and yea its just like he said in this article in last paragraph.

quote from articles last paragraph

nvidia simply doesn't want it to run efficient on cpu, like havok or infernal velocity physics engine in Ghostbusters, etc.. yea, looks like it will be a bit better with physx 3.0 but still its not it, i bet it will use simple sse2 instructions at its best.
and normal cpu/portable devices etc. physx looks good enough for what it can do, but like in article im sure it could be allot better if it was x86 and multi threaded, it could render more stuff almost as much as on gpu,..

ElementalDragon

one word, better gpu

as much as its cpu based its still gpu bottleneck'ed when rendering explosions smoke effects etc,.. try physics, object detail, particle effects on enthusiast, rest on low and you will see my point.

 

I don't think anyone thinks it's that great, but if the choice of having the effects or not having the effects is to be made, then i'll have to go with physx.

After seeign Batman AA...I am 100% convinced that physics can be done fully on a cpu with even less of a performance hit, the physics in crysis ( shooting a hummer with the PAX cannon and watching it flip 100s of times and fly 100metres in the air...if that was done on the GPU the frame rates would plummet to 10 frames ) and bfbc2...

Then we have the weak ass effects in Batman AA...the supposedly realistic fog that moves in clumps...i've never seen fog move like that, and the cloth physx in mirrors edge, shoot the cloth with a shotgun...it's glitchy as hell, again,i've never seen cloth behave like that. The best physics thing in batman AA is batmans cape....and that is done on the cpu...

But having the effects is better than nothing so i'll keep using a physx card to get the extra effects, but I have never seen anything that I don't think could be done better on the CPU

 

Once Nvidia bite the bullet and port CUDA over to OpenCL it wont be a problem for any of us, even intel. As PhysX will run on both ATI and Nvidia and even AMD and Intel CPU's too. It was a waste of money for Nvidia to buy out Ageia.

 

Word. There is a conference where John Carmack is speaking about graphics tech and someone in the crowd ( and Nvidia fanboy ) asks what he thinks about physx, and John shuts him/physx down hard dissing the fact that it's proprietry and saying that there is no physx that is done on a GPU that cannot be done as well on a cpu, if John says it, so it is...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQSnXhgJ4GM

hilarious stuff

 

In most games the game logic (including physics) is locked at 30 fps, which is then interpolated.

 

This article just "bags" Nvidia and physx, but until ATI buys into physX themselves it hasn't been completely ported "and" utilized on a usuable and stable scale.

 

"Bottlenecks are elsewhere"

Well, GPU folding and other stuff I have seen, it's easy to believe in this. GPU's offer superior performance in some stuff. I'm not hardware engineer so cant say about this case.

I dont think price was ever told to public, but there were rumours about $150 million. Not a bad deal, PhysX is the physic engine in todays games.

Buys physx ? It was offered to ATI for free, but they refused. They are not going to use it and want to use Havoc instead.

 

Nothings free in business, ATI obviously didn't want the strings that would be attached.

 

They had their reasons not to accept it, but as far as I remember, Nvidia also offered help (software) to get it working.

 

Good luck using havoc Intel owns that now :wanker::wanker:

 

Hence why the deal probably went sour as we never heard anything more about it.
I do recall reading a while back that AMD is now trying to develop their own physics engine based on OpenCL.

 

I believe people believe that when using a PhysX enhanced title that needing a PhysX processor is required for it to function correctly, but this should not be Nvidia's problem.

 

yes they saw better performance, scaling and free for all in bullet physics.

 

So, um, where's a game using it and showing off the superior performance?

 

well amd acquired bullet in september 2009.. be patient give it 1-2 years max :nerd:, you must have almost entire market running dx11 so its efficient/worth it.

 

Been known for ages they were crippling it, now its come out

http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT070510142143&p=1

 

Why does the gut writing the article keep refering to Agia and Nvidia?? Agia isn't a company anymore and if it is it has no say with what Nvidia does with the PhysX engine as they own ti and all of it's subsidaries.
Personaly I think Nvidia is shooting themselves in the foot not allowing ATi users like myself (although I do prefer Nvidia's cards 480's weren't available when I bought this rig) to buy a mid ranged Nvidia card and run accelerated PhysX without a hack. It means that everyone (that wanted accelerated PhysX) with an Ati card would also have a Nvidia card. Nvidia would own the market. That would be about a %50 increase in GPU sales (estimate was made up on the spot. ).
The only reason I can see that this didn't happen was because Nvidia doesn't want a bunch of tards geting GF6200's and spamming the customer service with "I gots me a PhysX card and it don't be workin' and sh*t!! Wut up wit dat?" Becasue that thing they stated about the drivers neding to be closely tied and all that was put to rest with the ATi hack.
I am just speculationg as I realy have no idea. I soend most of spare time "pretending" to kill other people on line. Hardly a qualification for scrutinizing the business models of a companies that spend their spare time counting money.

 

Are there any physics engines that don't have framerate crippling performance when run on the CPU, we all know how bad performance can get on games using their own physics engines with Crysis, GTAIV and Saints Row2.
The Force Unleashed is capped to 30fps, and that even has dips down into the 20's.

Red Faction Guerilla and Just Cause2 both have heavy framerate drops and they just have simple destruction effects, with Red Faction being particulary bad and hitting the 20's most of the time, even with Havok's crappy disappearing objects issue

Ghostbusters has its own physics engine, and that game spends so much time with the framerate in the 20's that i gave up, and just capped the framerate to 30, it also goes down to 8fps and stays there till you restart it, but think that is a bug.

Its only Valves modified Havok that performs well, but its obviously been simplifed for gameplay mechanics, rather than impressive destructible effects.

 

it keeps referring to them because they crippled cpu accelerated code on purpose.

and this article just proved my point about cryostasis and cpu vs gpu render..

 

Even Nvidia admitted that the CPU as well as GPU PhysX performance of Cryostatis was very unoptomised compared to newer stuff like their Supersonic Sled demo.

It's not some secret you have happened to discover lol.