• 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.

Better OpenCL support in NVIDIA's CUDA SDK

PhysX working doesn't mean hardware accelerated support. Same as current consoles, same as the plethora of PhysX games out now.

One thing people are forgetting, while there isn't a single defined standard that allows hardware accelerated physics to work on all GPU vendors, we simply won't get the advanced physics in games.

All the AMD V Nvidia PhysX/OpenCL, no one's a winner, we're all losers.
 
Last edited:
Martini1991 said:
PhysX working doesn't mean hardware accelerated support. Same as current consoles, same as the plethora of PhysX games out now.

One thing people are forgetting, while there isn't a single defined standard that allows hardware accelerated physics to work on all GPU vendors, we simply won't get the advanced physics in games.

All the AMD V Nvidia PhysX/OpenCL, no one's a winner, we're all losers.
Click to expand...

Agreed and I for one want to see AMD and Nvidia using PhysX/TressFX more often. Small things like Lara's hair made the game feel a little bit special and all the fog and explosions with MetroLL seriously stand out for me.
 
I thought TressFX was naff to be honest, imagine that actually being used in grass? You'd be running like 2FPS.

They should just take what they've both got, compile one standard, and we can move forward with games using it as standard.
 
K, as an AMD user I have to say while I hate this, it only makes sense for Nvidia. They have no reason to support "open standards". It's kind of anti-competitive, but to them they own more than half the market, and CUDA works well for them, and they're the only ones that can use it, so what better way to capture more of the market while using less resources than to deny OpenCL? It's not silly at all. What it is, is typically dickish of Nvidia. I'm allowed to say that not as a "fanboy" but as a consumer who wants products to be of better quality and fairer price for the consumer. Having said that I feel the same way about this as I do about Physx - it's up to AMD to fight back, not Nvidia to "play nice".
 
Last edited:
you telling me that xbox one doesn't have the same support as PS4 has nothing to do with nvidia, it has everything to do with you just wanting to contradict me for the sake of it
 
Why would the PS4 and Xbone be using middleware like OpenCL? I'd imagine Nvidia would have produced a custom interface for PhysX on these machines.
 
andybird123 said:
you telling me that xbox one doesn't have the same support as PS4 has nothing to do with nvidia, it has everything to do with you just wanting to contradict me for the sake of it
Click to expand...

:confused:

I never said anything of the sort.
I simply said as far as we know they haven't got hardware accelerated PhysX support.

To which you posted a PS4 link which gives nothing on hardware accelerated support.

Then did the same with the Xbox one when I said both consoles, and it doesn't say anything about hardware accelerated support.

Put down the pitch fork.

layte said:
Why would the PS4 and Xbone be using middleware like OpenCL? I'd imagine Nvidia would have produced a custom interface for PhysX on these machines.
Click to expand...

Why? It won't be vastly different to what they run now on X86 computers for "Software PhysX"
 
PorkPieCat said:
K, as an AMD user I have to say while I hate this, it only makes sense for Nvidia. They have no reason to support "open standards". It's kind of anti-competitive, but to them they own more than half the market, and CUDA works well for them, and they're the only ones that can use it, so what better way to capture more of the market while using less resources than to deny OpenCL? It's not silly at all. What it is, is typically dickish of Nvidia. I'm allowed to say that not as a "fanboy" but as a consumer who wants products to be of better quality and fairer price for the consumer. Having said that I feel the same way about this as I do about Physx - it's up to AMD to fight back, not Nvidia to "play nice".
Click to expand...

Good post and fair comments.
 
How can AMD fight back? Make their own proprietary standard? But then what about the Nvidia users? They lose out, etc, etc. It's a no win situation.

You need an open standard (Which Nvidia don't want to support), or two separate API's in a game which activates depending on the GPU vendor, (Which probably isn't viable).

Like I say, in the end, we lose.

At any rate, with consoles being AMD, there's no reason they won't be using OpenCL for hardware accelerated physics (Assuming developers want to) which would make Nvidia users at a disadvantage.

It's a very crappy scenario.
 
Last edited:
The comedy is AMD is fighting the "Good guy" corner with OpenCL, something they support but never developed as their own.

I find it pretty comical they chuck mud at nVidia with their in-house CUDA standing on the foundation of something AMD put nothing into.

I find the double standards comical also. PhysX is crap/in hardly any games/not needed/not worth the extra but on the flip side we WANT Physics but only if it's on an open standard and nVidia support it.
 
How'd you propose you move forward with accelerated physics, when no matter what avenue you take you're cutting off one vendor?
And hardware accelerated PhysX is in a handful of games though? It's not like that's a lie.
 
Martini1991 said:
How'd you propose you move forward with accelerated physics, when no matter what avenue you take you're cutting off one vendor?
Click to expand...

The question is does the market want it?

Many people who buy AMD disregard PhysX entirely. Many people who buy nVidia disregard PhysX also.

Proper physics are awesome, don't get me wrong. I just do not think there is enough of a demand for it in the gaming world to make either AMD/nVidia budge hugely.

If there was such a big demand then the game devs would develop on OpenCL exclusively and nVidia would be forced to support it further. PhysX titles are not built as physic monsters that everybody wants and only nVidia users can have.
 
Hard to gauge the market on something that has never been available before.

I guess one problem is, and it always comes back to, it'd have to be designed with the consoles in mind, they'd never have had the power for it.
Perhaps this generation could see an improvement in the way of hardware accelerated games?
 
We have had physics simulation for years, be it software or hardware based.

There does not appear to have been demand for physics beyond what we have now that REQUIRES hardware acceleration to provide.
 
Sin_Chase said:
We have had physics simulation for years, be it software or hardware based.

There does not appear to have been demand for physics beyond what we have now that REQUIRES hardware acceleration to provide.
Click to expand...

It needs doing properly that's why. PhysX only has a wow factor in a very small number of games, in most it doesn't even look realistic.
 
There are hundreds of titles with physics that does not use nVidia PhysX.

Hardware acceleration allows you to do more complex things. To what degree and realism is down to the developer to achieve, that's something that will remain largely hardware independent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom