AMD: NVIDIA PhysX Will Be Irrelevant

Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Guru3D News, Oct 3, 2009.

  1. Redemption80

    Redemption80 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    18,495
    Likes Received:
    266
    GPU:
    GALAX 970/ASUS 970
    Yeah, of course i am, but people are being told don't use PhysX, but aren't being given a real replacement or a timeframe.

    I never said PhysX is an open standard, but at the moment its the only one.
     
  2. PhatKat

    PhatKat Banned

    Messages:
    3,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Hawk 5770 1.02G/1.4G H2O


    Douche.
     
  3. Stukov

    Stukov Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    6970/4870X2 (both dead)
    Open source means anyone can modify it, what we would like is for PhysX usage to be given a public license so anyone can use it for free. If they did that then PhysX would become a standard most likely, well it could have Im still thinking it won't be. Too many competitors out there. However, Nvidia doesn't want PhysX to be a standard, they want it to be a selling point for their graphics cards. But even that, they only want it to count for "primary" video cards, as it won't work if it is just your secondary card.
     
  4. xSLIX

    xSLIX Master Guru

    Messages:
    778
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    EVGA GTX470 WCSWIFTECH

  5. chanw4

    chanw4 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,362
    Likes Received:
    26
    GPU:
    NITRO+ RX6800XT SE
    Because that's what the community does, they hate things being locked. Like DirectX, lots of people don't like it because it is Windows only so they are trying hard to port it to other OS.

    Also, it is the only GPU Physics API atm. AMD said it is irrelevant in the future when other GPU physic engine being made.
     
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2009
  6. ElementalDragon

    ElementalDragon Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,318
    Likes Received:
    10
    GPU:
    eVGA RTX 2070
    Stukov: yes.... Blizzard and Valve use Havok.... but there's a difference. The Havok engine used in any current game is not GPU based.... which is what AMD is (supposedly) working on.

    chanw4: again, like others have said, other GPU physics engines may be in the works, but by the time anything is seen from them, PhysX will probably be the engine of choice.
     
  7. chanw4

    chanw4 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,362
    Likes Received:
    26
    GPU:
    NITRO+ RX6800XT SE
    It may or may not be the engine of choice.

    Currently, only Nvidia card owner can use PhysX, which could be a lost to game developer since only half the consumer on PC title can use the function. With Havok developing the GPU physic, not only both ATI and Nvidia can use it, the console version can also use the function since Havok is included in many engine that supported console.
     
  8. deltatux

    deltatux Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    19,051
    Likes Received:
    13
    GPU:
    GIGABYTE Radeon R9 280
    well no one is stopping anyone to port Bullet over to NVIDIA either since Bullet is opensource and they ARE working on a CUDA version too ;). You have to realize that AMD doesn't own Bullet, it's made by some third party developer ... and opensource matters. When done right, it can be a very powerful thing, just look at Firefox.

    EDIT: http://bulletphysics.com/Bullet/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=4165

    deltatux
     
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2009
  9. Redemption80

    Redemption80 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    18,495
    Likes Received:
    266
    GPU:
    GALAX 970/ASUS 970
    Everyone can use PhysX, from those using iphones to wii/360/PS3.
    Batman AA used software PhysX on the PS3/360 one, so implementing GPU PhysX is very easy when it comes to the PC version.

    In a recent study, the physics engine used by most developers on the PS3/360/PC was PhysX, then Havok, then Bullet.

    The more software PhysX games that get released, the greater the chance alot of them will end up being GPU accelerated on the PC.

    And the last thing we wont is game developers leaving out features because they would be lost on a certain group of PC gamers, if they think like that, then DX11 wouldn't get full support till everyone is using DX11 cards and has ditched XP.
    Its not the same thing, but its pretty close.

    deltatux, working on? As far as i know, im looking at a Bullet demo running on Cuda at this very minute.
     
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2009
  10. Terrorizor

    Terrorizor Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,897
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    EVGA GTX260 SC

    don't feel that is entirely true. i had a 5950ultra and a 9800pro . i actually enjoyed the 5950 more.




    even on hilberts review of the 5950ultra on this very site ,you can see what i mean in every game.

    http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-fx-5700-ultra--5950-ultra-review/13

    and some of these charts.



    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2009

  11. chanw4

    chanw4 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,362
    Likes Received:
    26
    GPU:
    NITRO+ RX6800XT SE
    I mean using the physic engine on the GPU. If Havok can utilize the GPU for physic. It will be 'PhysX on CPU other than Nvidia card as main renderer' vs 'Havok (or any other open standard) on GPU for any GPU configuration'. If developers are provided with 2 options, both can do the same job but 1 can be used on a specific hardware to its fullness while the other can be used on the majority platform. Which one will they choose?

    TWIMTBP is helping the developer and pathing the road for themselves. They want the developers to use theirs and get familiar with theirs while they dominate the field so that the developer don't want to change. Thats why they use the aggressive strategy right now to push PhysX. Even developer hate changes and learning new standard every now and then.

    That is hurting the customer in the future if Nvidia's PhysX stay as it is. Only people with Nvidia card can reap the full benefit.

    It depends on who pushing it. Microsoft with the vast market share is pushing DX11. Developer knew that people will eventually move on to DX11 someday.

    That is the reason why people hate proprietary standard as the end user are the one suffering.
     
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2009
  12. Stormyandcold

    Stormyandcold Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    5,772
    Likes Received:
    383
    GPU:
    MSI GTX1070 GamingX
    Well, the suffering has stopped for a bit as there's now hacked drivers (thanks!) like I'd hope there would be.

    I won't be suffering for a while though. Safest bet for me is still to get (any) G300 so I can use 8800gtx as physx card. The fact that it can still be of some use is a bonus really.

    What are you Ati owners going to do with your old cards apart from get rid of them in some form?

    No f***** way for me man. Now, if I had G300 I could use it again when I upgrade again to G600. G600 main + G300 physx. That could be beast. Physx being independant from dx is actually beneficial as support isn't tied to dx generation.

    *G600 is example only. This product doesn't exist yet.
     
  13. chanw4

    chanw4 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,362
    Likes Received:
    26
    GPU:
    NITRO+ RX6800XT SE
    Then you are limiting to one GPU maker and you'd lose that 'benefit' if you decide to switch side or pay more since Nvidia could jacked up the price like they did for the 8800.

    The last thing we want is a proprietary 'standard' that cripple your performance when you are not using the proprietary hardware for it.
     
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2009
  14. Stormyandcold

    Stormyandcold Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    5,772
    Likes Received:
    383
    GPU:
    MSI GTX1070 GamingX
    My 8800GTX cost me £230. It's been very good thanks.
     
  15. ElementalDragon

    ElementalDragon Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,318
    Likes Received:
    10
    GPU:
    eVGA RTX 2070
    chanw4: i don't know where you're reading, but last time i heard anything about Havok on GPU, it was for ATI... not so much NVidia. ATI are the one's backing the idea of developing a way to run Havok on the GPU.... so why on earth would NVidia want to pay THEM for support of a physics api, when they already have thier own quite well established system?

    And.... i think the idea of "half the consumers" would depend on how many people own ATI and NVidia graphics cards.

    http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/

    Seeing as Steam is quite the heavily used app.... i believe that those results kinda shed some light on which company a large chunk of gamers prefer.
     

  16. chanw4

    chanw4 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,362
    Likes Received:
    26
    GPU:
    NITRO+ RX6800XT SE
    Havok used OpenCL and ATi Stream currently, so if Nvidia want to, they can add support for Havok physic with Nvidia hardware like they used to. Nothing stop Nvidia to work with Havok and making it works with Nvidia's cards. Nvidia decided to use their own standard for GPU physic, from OpenCL to CUDA and Havok to PhysX.

    Havok is owned by Intel so they would keep it as a open standard until Intel GPU comes into the playing field, which may or may not continue as open standard (dropping OpenCL??). I think thats why ATi is giving support to a third party physic engine so they can level the playing field if Havok decide to go Intel only. Bullet also works with CUDA so it can be used on both Nvidia and ATi card.

    I didn't use steam (disabled start up and not running it) for a year, wouldn't use it if not because of Risen. And as shown from the post below, ATi is gaining popularity in the past few months.

    And it's only natural that Nvidia got more market share as the HD2xxx and HD3xxx series are jokes compare to Nvidia, until ATI comeback with the HD4800 series.
     
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2009
  17. Stukov

    Stukov Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    6970/4870X2 (both dead)

    NVIDIA GeForce 8800
    10.90%
    10.88%
    10.81%
    10.29%
    9.89%

    ATI Radeon HD 4800 Series
    5.82%
    6.46%
    7.23%
    7.46%
    7.89%

    NVIDIA GeForce 8600
    7.19%
    6.67%
    6.06%
    5.83%
    5.68%

    NVIDIA GeForce 9800
    5.13%
    5.34%
    5.62%
    5.59%
    5.63%


    Bottom number is most recent month. 4800 series has ~8% by itself which is ~2% lower than the 8800's ~10%, a lot of people bought 8800 series.
     
  18. Redemption80

    Redemption80 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    18,495
    Likes Received:
    266
    GPU:
    GALAX 970/ASUS 970
    I don't know why people are thinking Microsoft are pushing DX11, who's gaming priority is the Xbox360, they are pushing Windows7 though, but not primarily as a gaming platfrom.
    If they were wanting DX11 to succeed, then they would of funded the DX11 features of Dirt2, not AMD.
    Its up to the video card makers to make DX11 a success, but in this day and age of very succesful consoles, its still DX9 which rules the roost, and is the big money maker.

    Why would any developer spend money developing for more expensive hardware, when they are not guarenteed any returns from it.

    Havok isn't a realistic option for GPU accleration, it seems to be going nowhere and they seem happy to keep it as it is.
    Bullet is much more interesting, but has very little support at the moment.

    If some can provide a list of games in GPU accelerated games in development other than PhysX, then fantastic, but there aren't any at the moment, and thats worrying.

    These companies do whats best for profits, not whats best for the consumer.
     
  19. WhiteLightning

    WhiteLightning Don Illuminati Staff Member

    Messages:
    29,370
    Likes Received:
    2,188
    GPU:
    GTX1070 iChillx4
    TBH did they ever do this ? like fund features of Crysis for directx10 ?
     
  20. Redemption80

    Redemption80 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    18,495
    Likes Received:
    266
    GPU:
    GALAX 970/ASUS 970
    Nope, was just in response to people thinking Microsoft were doing alot to make DX11 succeed, when they aren't doing anymore than for DX10

    Though the fact most people use Vista or 7 now, will make the transition easier.
     

Share This Page