aaronspink
Veteran
because physx is now a dead end. This was pretty much ensured the day Nvidia bought them. Nvidia's competitors would be as stupid supporting Physx as they would be supporting CUDA.
Amd Insight
- Thread starter Davros
- Start date
because physx is now a dead end. This was pretty much ensured the day Nvidia bought them. Nvidia's competitors would be as stupid supporting Physx as they would be supporting CUDA.
aaronspink
Veteran
hey and guess what, it will run like crap on physx too!
What, it's smart that AMD pushes their own inferior GPGPU standard while they're happily supporting Intel's physics library?
Debatable.
Actually, we're promoting Open/multi vendor platforms such as OpenCL and DX11 Compute Shaders; we are however supporting Brook+ (taken from another open platform) as a means to access our GPU's in such a manner in the meantime.
HOw the hell do you know. Do date, with the proper setups, EI 8800GT or better for physx, games can run at very playable frame rates with physx enabled. SO with a 50%(rough estimate) of gaming machines out there physx cablable, how is it a dead end? Seems like a good install base to me to program for. Unlike Havok which currently has 0% install base, oh thats right, it hasn't even been released yet.
I'm willing to bet not near as many as in the works that will allow for physx. 6 last time I heard with more planned. Havok, chirp chirp chirp chirp.
Are you suggesting that nothing coming up is using Havok?
You would be correct, least not work the way PhysX can and does on a GPU. Anyone who tries to suggest it will is looney.
XMAN, understand that Havok is, more or less, the incumbant in the market. Additionally, you would be wise to understand how the acceleration is to be achieved before making such statements...
Tell you what Dave, when Havok is able to do on a CPU what PhysX can do thru a GPU, follow up here ok. Physics thru a CPU do date is nothing more than a pipe dream that hinders games, not make them better. And I have a 4850 and would love to see GPU PhysX support over CPU based Physucks.
By "acceleration" I meant beyond CPU...
Well by AMDs own press release, you are looking into it for future possibilites, not that it was something you were going to be doing anytime soon.
Don't understand the question, are there any games announced using CUDA
That would be odd..
Did you read what "someone" actually said, and in reply to what? If for you GPGPU=PhysX, then:|
This assumption might be outdated. Havok Physics *was* the incumbent physics engine for commercial games in the past. But if you look at these pages: (1) (2), it seems like NV acquisition over Ageia has turned the tide quite drastically :
In summary,
Past/released titles (all platforms):
Havok Physics: 150+
PhysX: 94
Future titles/Titles under development:
PhysX: 44 (39 available in PC)
Havok Physics: 16 (9 availabe in PC)
Future titles that is confirmed to benefit from GPU acceleration:
PhysX: 15
Havok Physics: 0, or, remain a mistery...
aaronspink
Veteran
which is true as long as you aren't using physx for well PHYSICS! Using the physx library for just visual junk is fine, but it doesn't affect gameplay.
As far as Havok, it has the majority of the installed base of physics middleware.
aaronspink
Veteran
Considering that Physx hardware acceleration doesn't generally accelerate actual physics but just graphics.......
aaronspink
Veteran
you do realize your numbers make it look like physx is LOSING support right?
Similar threads
- Locked
