Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 2,925
- Location
- West Midlands
Are ati adding physix this year with their newer cards?
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Are ati adding physix this year?
- Thread starter dmxdex2020
- Start date
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,513
- Location
- Dormanstown.
PhysX won't go anywhere till Nvidia allow it.
You'd ideally need to wait for the new console generation, where we might actually get open hardware physics support.
You'd ideally need to wait for the new console generation, where we might actually get open hardware physics support.
ATI (AMD as they would very much like to now be known) has firmly got into bed with the concept of OpenCL.
NVIDIAs PhysX library relies on CUDA (effectively NVIDIAs proprietary version of OpenCL) in order to operate on a GPU. CUDA does not work on ATI hardware, nor will it (bar through driver hacking and the like, but even then its physically not designed for the architecture).
So to answer your question, I will happily predict that you will never see anything PhysX branded being run specifically on AMD GPU hardware (it all runs on any x86 CPU of course). What you may well see though is another physics engine library such as Bullet or Havok, getting their act together with OpenCL support, and then developers swapping to that as OpenCL can be run on pretty much any hardware you can think of (it's point is to be a cross platform version of CUDA in a way).
NVIDIAs PhysX library relies on CUDA (effectively NVIDIAs proprietary version of OpenCL) in order to operate on a GPU. CUDA does not work on ATI hardware, nor will it (bar through driver hacking and the like, but even then its physically not designed for the architecture).
So to answer your question, I will happily predict that you will never see anything PhysX branded being run specifically on AMD GPU hardware (it all runs on any x86 CPU of course). What you may well see though is another physics engine library such as Bullet or Havok, getting their act together with OpenCL support, and then developers swapping to that as OpenCL can be run on pretty much any hardware you can think of (it's point is to be a cross platform version of CUDA in a way).
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 23,679
- Location
- London
ATI cards already do physics!
You have Bullet physics and Havok physics which are used way more than Nvidia's physx!
Bullet physics is what AMD is trying to push as its open source, which means any dev or company can use it and its free!
Nothing better to get developers to use it and improve it, including Nvidia!
You have Bullet physics and Havok physics which are used way more than Nvidia's physx!
Bullet physics is what AMD is trying to push as its open source, which means any dev or company can use it and its free!
Nothing better to get developers to use it and improve it, including Nvidia!
PhysX is a Nvidia owned tech and AMD know well enough to steer well away from falling into that trap. Unfortunately for us gamers all AMD seem to have been doing in regards to HW physics is a lot of talk (the bit they are good at) and not much action (the bit which lets them down). First it was all about Havok, now Bullet who knows what their next great white hope will be.
Anyway seeing as at most we get console port with the very occasional made for PC title tossed to us like a bone. I'd expect the lack of HW physics in most titles to not be looked at until the next generation of consoles hit the market.
Anyway seeing as at most we get console port with the very occasional made for PC title tossed to us like a bone. I'd expect the lack of HW physics in most titles to not be looked at until the next generation of consoles hit the market.
Last edited:
I dont think we will However (and the guy was probably misinformed) but the upcomming ArmA3 is said to be using PhysX But it was mentioned to me by a friend he read it wont be for nvidia cards only and ATI will see the benefit. Im guessing though he probably missunderstood it or just only nvidia will have the GPU acceleration and smooth physics and ATI will not :/
*Please for the love of god don't comment on my spelling.
*Please for the love of god don't comment on my spelling.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
The vast vast majority of Physx is done on CPU, as in most games that support it support the software API version of it, not the hardware accelerated version of it. The few games that support the hardware acceleration really gain smeg all from it, its failed to make any impact into actual game mechanics in anything but a few tech demo's.
Also no, the "whole" of physx doesn't run on any x86 cpu, the hardware API runs on Nvidia cards only, the software is optimised for x87 iirc, realistically to purposefully cripple how fast it can run on the CPU.
Havok has FAR more market penetration than physx, is run on the CPU, is getting gpu acceleration across the board (anything with an opencl driver, so Nvidia, AMD, Intel, cpu and gpu) and frankly is better utilised.
You've got the daft situation for instance where Just Cause 2 uses Havok for its main physics engine, and physx for a couple "bolted on" effects.
Even then, have a look on Havok, and physx's site for a list of games they are in.
You've got everything from uber rag doll Just cause 2 and better games, to utter trash games with laughable poor physics mechanics and effects. Physics in game, both mechanics and effects, mechanics being breakable walls, box moves when you run into it, effects being more particles when something explodes, or supposedly more realistic explosions/water movement/cloth movement, its 99% down to how well its coded and designed for not how good the API is. Simple basic physics api's around for years can allow breakable walls and moveable destructable enviroments, the problem is the design/coding time to do that, not the API.
Its also worth noting in now several of the Physx hardware accelerated games rather than more realistic effects we're seeing scripted rubbish "cheating" effects for a large performance cost, Mafia 2 being one of them.
Also no, the "whole" of physx doesn't run on any x86 cpu, the hardware API runs on Nvidia cards only, the software is optimised for x87 iirc, realistically to purposefully cripple how fast it can run on the CPU.
Havok has FAR more market penetration than physx, is run on the CPU, is getting gpu acceleration across the board (anything with an opencl driver, so Nvidia, AMD, Intel, cpu and gpu) and frankly is better utilised.
You've got the daft situation for instance where Just Cause 2 uses Havok for its main physics engine, and physx for a couple "bolted on" effects.
Even then, have a look on Havok, and physx's site for a list of games they are in.
You've got everything from uber rag doll Just cause 2 and better games, to utter trash games with laughable poor physics mechanics and effects. Physics in game, both mechanics and effects, mechanics being breakable walls, box moves when you run into it, effects being more particles when something explodes, or supposedly more realistic explosions/water movement/cloth movement, its 99% down to how well its coded and designed for not how good the API is. Simple basic physics api's around for years can allow breakable walls and moveable destructable enviroments, the problem is the design/coding time to do that, not the API.
Its also worth noting in now several of the Physx hardware accelerated games rather than more realistic effects we're seeing scripted rubbish "cheating" effects for a large performance cost, Mafia 2 being one of them.
drunkenmaster said " The few games that support the hardware acceleration really gain smeg all from it, its failed to make any impact into actual game mechanics in anything but a few tech demo's."
I guess that's true as long as you ignore the real games like Crazy Machines 2: Liquid Force and other games.
drunkenmaster said " Havok has FAR more market penetration than physx, is run on the CPU, is getting gpu acceleration across the board (anything with an opencl driver, so Nvidia, AMD, Intel, cpu and gpu) and frankly is better utilised."
Last I heard was Intel bought Havok and dropped hardware/GPU accelerating. Has something changed that I missed? Why are you still saying Havok is getting GPU acceleration after all this time? Havok has also stripped away all sections on their own website to do with GPU acceleration also known as Havok FX.
Saying that I do wish either ATI gets a decent implantation of PhysX or DirectX or someone else brings out a global GPU acceleration physics engine every can use.
Also last time we ran the numbers and argued about market penetration which I admit was over a year ago, Havok had the far smaller penetration of titles. Can you prove it's now increased market share to get more penetration? I cannot even remember the last game I bought with Havok; it seems to have got very rare.
PhsyX has added far better effects to games then Havok has so far. Havok cannot even do basic stuff like real 3d fluids.
I guess that's true as long as you ignore the real games like Crazy Machines 2: Liquid Force and other games.
drunkenmaster said " Havok has FAR more market penetration than physx, is run on the CPU, is getting gpu acceleration across the board (anything with an opencl driver, so Nvidia, AMD, Intel, cpu and gpu) and frankly is better utilised."
Last I heard was Intel bought Havok and dropped hardware/GPU accelerating. Has something changed that I missed? Why are you still saying Havok is getting GPU acceleration after all this time? Havok has also stripped away all sections on their own website to do with GPU acceleration also known as Havok FX.
Saying that I do wish either ATI gets a decent implantation of PhysX or DirectX or someone else brings out a global GPU acceleration physics engine every can use.
Also last time we ran the numbers and argued about market penetration which I admit was over a year ago, Havok had the far smaller penetration of titles. Can you prove it's now increased market share to get more penetration? I cannot even remember the last game I bought with Havok; it seems to have got very rare.
PhsyX has added far better effects to games then Havok has so far. Havok cannot even do basic stuff like real 3d fluids.
Last edited: