The primary reason I dislike Physx atm, is the only thing it can accelerate is minimal side candy. Its basically useless as it stands as a path to more complex integrated physics within games
The second part is probably true. The first part is not true. PhysX/Havok are very similar in overall capability. Yes devs are somewhat limited by the fact that they can't do much besides "Add on". But its also entirely possible to do these effects. But personally I reiterate that I think its a good thing that AMD users are denied half the game because its using GPU PhysX by Nvidia.
you do realize that Intel/AMD have a LONG history of coopitition right?
Cooperation when its within their interest. AMD and Intel also have a long history of legal battles, PR wars ((much Like Nvidia/ATI PR fights)), fights over X86 licensing and where that boundary ends. Much of this cooperation exists purely because of cross licensing agreement that Intel is stuck with in regards to AMD. A license agreement that I'm positive Intel would like nothing more than to see an end of. AMD didnt give intel 64 bit extensions out of the goodness of their heart. They gave it to them because the cross license agreement calls for this kind of thing.
This "ATI" made AMD and Intel friends because of Havok just doesn't fly with me. I have seen nothing to suggest that. And I certainly dont see why Intel would be going out of its way to support AMD in its GPU physics department.
You are missing timelines there Chris. ATI was working with havoc for quite some time now on accelerating it. In addition, looking at the timelines, havoc was pretty much the only game in town and has a MUCH higher installed base.
And neither you nor I know what contracts are in place between ATI/Havoc or when they were signed.
HavokFX is Dead. Intel buried. Its pretty much irrelevant at this point.
Before I go any further with this argument. I need to know a few things.
1) Do you have any links to AMD progress with their OpenCL port of Havok? Besides that nearly 6 month old demo of the red dress? What new has been talked about regarding Havok? Because if theres something new I'd like to see it. As I am interested.
2) I'm gonna refrain commenting on AMD's alledged OpenCL Havok driver until it publically exists. Its incredibly hard to argue the merits/cons compared to PhysX until it actually is there.
actually, Chris, unless nvidia uses some proprietary extension, Physx ported to CL will run on any device with a CL driver stack. That is one of the points of CL.
Yes but will it run optimally? There is still work that would have to be done. In all honesty its probably moot. The impression I got tonight is AMD has no interest in PhysX. Which is the impression I had before. And even if Nvidia extended their hand to help AMD promote PhysX on AMD hardware. AMD wouldn't want that anyway from a business perspective its an Nvidia technology. Just like its not in Nvidia's interest to build AMD a PhysX driver. Its not really in AMD"s interest to optimise or promote PhysX at all. Conflicts of Interest. However Nvidia does still insist that if AMD approached them and was interested in licensing their technology and using their methodology. They'd help them do so. But again moot. Unlikely to happen.
Moving onto the seperate issue. My first thoughts on my conference calls.
Anyway, First part of my call focused on CPU PhysX and how performs and how its optimised.
1) There are levels of "PhysX" which can be implemented. Take a look at the plane demo mentioned above. You can accelerate so many particles/destructible objects. But the math isn't really on the side of the CPU past a certain point.
Yes you could probably get a bit higher performance on a more multi threaded CPU PhysX implementation. But this partially a developer concern. A dev would have a choice to implement "Softer PhysX" so to speak. less collisions, less destructible particles, less fancy effects. But technically Possible. There are tons of games with Minor PhysX effects that run just off the CPU right now.
Use Cryostasis as an example. It has "Advanced PhysX" and Normal "PhysX" both can be run on the CPU. Normal non advanced PhysX are no where near as fancy but run on the CPU fine. The Advanced PhysX runs on the CPU too. But the performance isnt there.
PhysX "Can" be multi threaded. Theres not an inherit limitation to the PhysX library that prevents optimal CPU usage. Take a look at 3dmark Vantage which is properly threaded. So this is up to the developer. There are also tons of games which use PhysX middleware for pretty simple Physic effects right now.
For the more advanced effects devs probably don't care to do so because they cant the performance for the effects Nvidia is pushing. ((nvidia is pushing maximizing particle usage/collision/ ect)) and these types of PhysX effects using the Physic Library are streamlined to run optimally on the GPU. ((Also they get alot of Nvidia devrel love in making it run as fast as possible on the GPU) Where as the dev would have do CPU optimisations themselves. ((Which Nvidia wouldn't be too interested in helping with)) Doesn't fit their business model. Though its technically supportable.
So as far as PhysX CPU performance goes. If its basic Physic with minimal destructable objects/particles/occlusion. You should run just fine. (See Cryostasis non advanced Physics)).
For the more fancy things. Unless the developer bothers ((IE comes up with a more middle way between the crazy amount of GPU particles and the limited effects)). ((IE see the plane demo as an example of math throughput)). You probably aren't gonna see much. It just means more work for the dev.
In Short: I would not expect to see major performance gains for upcoming PhysX titles leveraging GPU PhysX on the CPU. As a matter of fact. I actually anticipate fully leveraged GPU physX to get even tougher on the GPU. I think you'll be surprised on Batman's recommended GPU for PhysX. Though I can't say this for certain yet without testing it. ((I will be getting a copy)) I expect Batman to be one of the first games that a dedicated GPU for PhysX might actually be ideal due the extreme PhysX workload thats supposedly coming for it.
Davros <-- I saw some amazing stuff with Batman. Stuff that makes Cryostasis and Mirrors Edge look silly. I can't speak for everyone. But I was truly impressed by some of the final levels.
I have more to talk about but I probably won't be back until sometime after the weekend.
