AMD: "[Developers use PhysX only] because they’re paid to do it"

[Florin]

What do you expect? Nvidia haven't exactly endeared themselves to consumers have they? Wait, let me re-phrase. They haven't endeared themselves to non-nvidia users. AMD are just trying to push for more open solutions, which is great for all consumers, and are throwing a bit of dirt Nvidia's way for pushing a proprietary product by means of $$.

I expect Huddy to talk about ATI.

And I'm all for open solutions if there was actually something of substance behind the posture, instead of "we're not actually bothering to implement this GPU physics/3D vision/open source driver, but we did just announce an exciting new partnership".

 

[MfA]

I expect Huddy to talk about ATI.

What would that accomplish?

Either they can try to beat NVIDIA at their own game (subsidized vendor lock-in with part proprietary libraries) or they can try to change the rules of the game. The latter can only be accomplished by seeking publicity.

Do you really want PC graphics to devolve into incompatible camps? I think PC gaming has enough problems already.

 

[Sontin]

Either they can try to beat NVIDIA at their own game (subsidized vendor lock-in with part proprietary libraries) or they can try to change the rules of the game. The latter can only be accomplished by seeking publicity.

Change the rules? Oh they need something to beat nVidia. You can't win war with paper. Since summer 2008 we are waiting for an answer to PhysX. Since this time i heard the same thing over and over again from amd. It's time that they show their "product" in a game - and not with other demos at GDC 20xx.

 

[Florin]

What would that accomplish?

Evangelising your own strengths instead of gossiping about your competitor should be a good strategy in theory. Unless you're worried that your own offerings are not that compelling.

Either they can try to beat NVIDIA at their own game (subsidized vendor lock-in with part proprietary libraries) or they can try to change the rules of the game. The latter can only be accomplished by seeking publicity.

Do you really want PC graphics to devolve into incompatible camps? I think PC gaming has enough problems already.

I'm all for innovation and that includes technologies from Nvidia. Sitting around waiting for Microsoft/some dinky partner/the open source community to drive something forward shouldn't have to be the only option.

 

[John Reynolds]

I can only imagine the lynchmob that would be out here today if an Nvidia rep would say something similar about an ATI technology.

Statements like this usually say more about the poster's perspective than anything else

I expect Huddy to talk about ATI.

It would be nice if all PR/marketing folk hewed to this standard, but name me a world in which this happens and I won't question why you bring this up here.

 

[Arnold Beckenbauer]

And it had CUDA support long before that, point?

Do you know, for what they use(d) CUDA exactly?

 

[Florin]

Statements like this usually say more about the poster's perspective than anything else

I don't mind that, it doesn't make it any less true.

 

[Malo]

Change the rules? Oh they need something to beat nVidia. You can't win war with paper. Since summer 2008 we are waiting for an answer to PhysX. Since this time i heard the same thing over and over again from amd. It's time that they show their "product" in a game - and not with other demos at GDC 20xx.

Wouldn't a "product" from AMD just make the issue worse? It was my impression that AMD is pushing the open standards because there is no "product" to license, or the other existing products out there that work on all hardware, specifically for this reason? They don't believe in consumers being locked into their own hardware.

Would you rather they bought out Bullet or something else and made it AMD only? Would that quantify as a competing product worthy?

 

[Sontin]

Wouldn't a "product" from AMD just make the issue worse? It was my impression that AMD is pushing the open standards because there is no "product" to license, or the other existing products out there that work on all hardware, specifically for this reason? They don't believe in consumers being locked into their own hardware.

They can believe whatever they want. I want a real solution and no more announcements and demos.
One year after the Havok demos we have nothing. 6 months after their "open source" announcement we get a new announcement about the same thing. With Metro2033 there will be a new GPU-PhysX game in less than 10 days. Just Cause 2, Metro2033 and Bad Company 2 are three new "3D Vision Ready" games. And Just Cause 2 is the first pc-game which is using "Cuda" for effects.
And the only thing that AMD users get? Announcements and videos of demos...

 

[trinibwoy]

Ah, more mouthing off from the sidelines. Why does it matter if Nvidia is paying off devs to use PhysX when AMD is doing nothing at all? It's not like they're even trying.....

It was my impression that AMD is pushing the open standards because there is no "product" to license, or the other existing products out there that work on all hardware, specifically for this reason? They don't believe in consumers being locked into their own hardware.

They're pushing open standards because they have no other choice. All of the major commercial physics middleware libraries have been scooped up and they don't have a proprietary infrastructure like CUDA to build one on in the first place. It's very much a practical business decision, not some sort of kumbaya expression of generosity.

 

[rpg.314]

I would have been quite in favor of PhysX, if they had not locked out AMD gpu's for rendering. IMHO, it was a shoot-thyself-in-the-foot move by NV here.

 

[rpg.314]

They're pushing open standards because they have no other choice. All of the major commercial physics middleware libraries have been scooped up and they don't have a proprietary infrastructure like CUDA to build one on in the first place. It's very much a practical business decision, not some sort of kumbaya expression of generosity.

But they do have a Havok License.

On the whole, after 3 years of red rivers, I don't think they have the money to push _anything_ proprietary.

 

[MfA]

How should AMD get devs to use Bullet and Havok? PhysX is subsidized (it's free, with free developers and free PR). Should AMD spend just as much money on such subsidies, even though they fundamentally can't get the same ROI for it?

Lets say AMD tries to put just as much money in Bullet as NVIDIA does in PhysX what would happen? Well devs would gladly take the opportunity, but since Bullet is open it can provide no competetive advantage to AMD ... it can still try to only subsidize the GPU paths to make x86 look artificially bad, but NVIDIA would simply brush up the CUDA codepaths in sync with AMD to free ride on their investment. Which they can do because it's open source.

Only by getting a proprietary physics library and making it look artificially good on ATI GPUs could they ever justify throwing the same amount of money away on it as NVIDIA does with PhysX. Even if they wanted to do this there hasn't been a good one on the market for a long time, they all got bought up or destroyed during AGEIA's time.

Frankly the justification for GPU physics is extremely thin, PhysX has a tough time competing against itself on x86 vs GPU in real life situations ... and that's even with the fact that the x86 code paths have been held in stasis for so long (neither AGEIA nor NVIDIA have been terribly interested in improving them for obvious reasons since the Novodex times, a timespan during which say Havok has gone from single to multithreaded simulations).

 

[trinibwoy]

I would have been quite in favor of PhysX, if they had not locked out AMD gpu's for rendering. IMHO, it was a shoot-thyself-in-the-foot move by NV here.

Yep, it would have gone a long way to appease the people who are against PhysX. The consequences of allowing it have been rehashed to death but the bottom line is that Nvidia won't be compelled to do anything at all since AMD is not offering any competition in this space. The minute there is a compelling IHV agnostic alternative to PhysX on the GPU they will become a whole lot more accomodating.

 

[rpg.314]

Yep, it would have gone a long way to appease the people who are against PhysX. The consequences of allowing it have been rehashed to death but the bottom line is that Nvidia won't be compelled to do anything at all since AMD is not offering any competition in this space. The minute there is a compelling IHV agnostic alternative to PhysX on the GPU they will become a whole lot more accomodating.

If there is a compelling "IHV agnostic alternative to PhysX", why would anyone care for nv's accommodating stance?

Also, after GLSL+HLSL, nobody outside nv cares for Cg, no matter how "accommodating" they are.

 

[trinibwoy]

If there is a compelling "IHV agnostic alternative to PhysX", why would anyone care for nv's accommodating stance?

For the same reason some people like Coke and others like Pepsi.

 

[silent_guy]

<deleted>

 

[rpg.314]

By anyone I meant IHVs.

TBH, OCL based physics middleware has the best chance here, as it the only thing which can scale from cpus to gpus and across vendors. I am particularly interested in the physics stuff that can leverage both cpus and on die gpus simultaneously. They seem to have just about right amount of muscle for this. Yes, Llano is the only data point here.

 

[Malo]

They can believe whatever they want. I want a real solution and no more announcements and demos.
One year after the Havok demos we have nothing. 6 months after their "open source" announcement we get a new announcement about the same thing. With Metro2033 there will be a new GPU-PhysX game in less than 10 days. Just Cause 2, Metro2033 and Bad Company 2 are three new "3D Vision Ready" games. And Just Cause 2 is the first pc-game which is using "Cuda" for effects.
And the only thing that AMD users get? Announcements and videos of demos...

I fully agree with what your saying, Nvidia has always been involved with developers to get their name in the door, and to get their features into games. It's something I've commented on here about AMD several times, it is VERY frustrating. I firmly believe that Nvidia gets returns for their time and resource investment with developers through their program, but I don't think AMD is willing or in a financial position to do this. So they resort to posturing about open standards and developers doing the work for features they support.

I don't like the situation, neither do many consumers. As stated above, I think one of the biggest issues with CUDA and PhysX is not being able to run these on an Nvidia card with AMD as your primary. As soon as Nvidia made that decision, it killed any hope I had of experiencing these features, and reinforced my distaste of making any kind of Nvidia purchase in the future.

 

[swaaye]

I wish they'd leave the GPU to do graphics and compute-related graphics effects, and let the quad cores that are starting to be everywhere get some more usage by doing the physics. This hardware accelerated physics thing started as a way to create a need for a new product and I'm still not convinced years later. No game has done anything noteworthy with it IMO. It just slows the GPU down more, rendering lame barely interactive extras, while we have 2-3 idle CPU cores.

Some gamers need to try to think for themselves instead of letting NVIDIA do it for them. It's plainly obvious what NV sees Physx's role as when they pull shit like Batman con jobs.