Mebbe it's just time to bite the bullet on physics and move on. 
How will NVidia counter the release of HD5xxx?
- Thread starter Miksu
- Start date
- Status
CUDA is proprietary, CUDA only runs on nV hardware. PhysX was ported to CUDA, thats how it works on nV hardware, you are missunderstanding the situation. Its open as in its free to use on any hardware, software packages as long as the company planning on using it makes drivers for thier hardware and the appropriate OS.
Dx is not like that, it will not run on any other OS other then MS's.
PhysX sdk is available for free and for other companies they can get even more details for free, again I'm not aware of any fees for such things, if those extentions are ported or mapped to another language like Open Cl or Brook (CUDA, Open Cl, Brook are all C based programming languages, so its definitly possible), it will work on AMD hardware, of course they will still have to create a driver on top of that too.
Last edited by a moderator:
What's open about DirectX?
And why would you do that if your AMD, so you can have "better" explosions in GRAW... at a big frame drop?. Or to have some cloth move in a robotic manner with a frame drop...This whole "debate is getting way off the mark. PhysX will be come a in game CP Chk box option to see some extra something that will drop you 5 to 10 frames... meh the CPU will rule them all in no time... With Intel and AMD with no loss of frames at all..
Raises hand.Mebbe it's just time to bite the bullet on physics and move on.
Mebbe it's just time to bite the bullet on physics and move on.
I think nvidia will counter the HD5XXX launch by having everyone across the globe talk about gaming physics in forums!
(PhysX=nVidia)
So far has AMD had anything that would compete with PhysX, Havok demos, are just that demos, when they do have it working in games, we can talk about it then, I'm not argueing that AMD has to use PhysX, I'm saying its up to them to support it, not nV. Why would company A spend thier own money and resources to help company B, company's A direct competitor to create something on company B's hardware when company B from all the things we have seen doesn't care about that feature ATM and in the near past.
The guy's crazy as a coconut ... no way in hell does AMD want a PLX->IL/microcode translation layer to support PhysX, it's a fools errand. NVIDIA can't really get burned here, they just let him rant spend and 5 minutes on e-mail ... best case he actually finishes the work and it performs exactly as good as is possible ... which is awful. Most likely case he never gets there, but still nothing lost. AMD can get burned here, best case he never finishes the work worst case he does.
Where does it say that? I can only see older links to Inquirer bullshit in their newsticker.
In the Print release, said one member in the 3DCenter-Forum. Havent read the current release myself.
Interesting. C't is one of few sources I tend to give great credence.
But I think they're off the mark on this one.
Now please list the PC games that use Havok and have the kind of PhysX realism that games using PhysX has. I've yet to see one game using Havok that does, IE box window dressing.
Half Life 2? Throwing a buggy around in the air beats symmetrically moving banners.
Please list the games that use PhysX realistically, aside from window dressings by adding bits of moving eye-candy.
Please list the games that use PhysX realistically, aside from window dressings by adding bits of moving eye-candy.
Wait.. how is that going to beat the HD5870....
oooohh.. I get it!
Got it, played it, and it has nothing as it isn't to the level of PhysX enabled games. And it is also weak.
Seen it, again, compared to what I have seen and played with PhysX, not very impressive.
- Status
Similar threads
