-
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.
Does ATI have a response to Physx?
- Thread starter Fledge
- Start date
There doesn't seem to be much about it.
Dug up this, its the most recent thing I could find.
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12976&Itemid=34
I read somewhere that havok would be compatible with nVidia cards too. All in all seems its only gone as far as a tech demo.
Dug up this, its the most recent thing I could find.
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12976&Itemid=34
I read somewhere that havok would be compatible with nVidia cards too. All in all seems its only gone as far as a tech demo.
Trouble with both PhysX and ATI's Havok is that they're both really gimmicky, and have, quite frankly, poor support.
I think physics is better suited to being worked on a "per-game" basis. Games like Painkiller (at the time) and nowadays, Crysis show what can be done without the need for GPU acceleration.
Plus it would be better to get all these spare CPU cores doing something anyway.
I think I can hear Pottsey sharpening his pitchfork for me as I speak...
I think physics is better suited to being worked on a "per-game" basis. Games like Painkiller (at the time) and nowadays, Crysis show what can be done without the need for GPU acceleration.
Plus it would be better to get all these spare CPU cores doing something anyway.
I think I can hear Pottsey sharpening his pitchfork for me as I speak...
Physx is lame and in my experience adds nothing to the game. Mirror's Edge on my GTX 280 had fancy glass shattering and fog...but the game was all about running quickly, not standing around looking at fog and breaking glass.
It's certainly not something I would pay extra money for.
It's certainly not something I would pay extra money for.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 8,152
- Location
- Surrey
Havok is a far better engine than physx imo, plus at least its got quite a few games that use it! Whether or not you need additional GPU support to run it on the other hand is a different story
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
this, again? seriously?
Lets see, Havok physics api is used in, lets see, a huge amount of games, lots of the triple AAA titles. it will soon have hardware support on EVERYTHING out there, intel, ati, Nvidia. Its looking increasingly likely that there will be no Physx support on next gen consoles and all of them will support Havok, aswell as havok being free, wide spread already, in most of the best games out, not a hardware hog, etc, etc, etc.
its beaten Physx hands down without any hardware acceleration and when it gets it, unlike the utterly failed physx it will launch with full support to all the brands of gpu's. How did it do it, and continues to do it, massive support, never charge companies massive money to use it, wasn't reliant on hardware at any stage while it became a widely used product.
As stated above
Does ATI have their own version of physx or is it Nvidia only stuff?
Thanks.
They don't need a response to physics, CPUs will be fine for that purpose for a long long time, anything else is just Nvidia marketing garbage.
As usual you completely miss the point of what I'm saying and go off on a rant.
Game development has already reached the limits of CPU physic there has been loads of cool features cut from games because its impossible to run them on the cpu but the average consumer nevers sees these cut features.
So the response is to cut features on the graphics side because the GPUs will be too busy running physics? It's a shame that processors are improving at such a rapid pace, and that we will see 4ghz+ 6-core 12-threaded processors next year, that won't at all be utilized in games.
You can do a lot of physics work on a GPU with little or no FPS impact, you would need 40+ cores on current CPUs to match what a GPU can do on the side with less than 30% rendering performance decrease.
ATI don't actually _have_ havok on GPU yet tho, that was the tongue in cheek point of my first post in this thread...
Physx on the other hand is actually up and running, well featured and stable.
Both physx and havok in software are used in a lot of games, I think about 200 mainstream titles for havok and 150 for physx. There are no games that use hardware havok
and only about 20 or so mainstream titles that can hardware accelerate physx features of which only about 4 of those are anything of any note at all...The problem here is no one will give hardware physics a chance based on what they have seen so far, they can't imagine what the potential of properly integrated hardware pyhsics are (which is understandable) so they are very negative towards, I also suspect in the back of their minds theres something saying "oh noes we are gonna have to spend more money if this comes out" which is also adding to the negativity.
Havok uses openCL doesnt it? Which is already fully supported by ATI drivers. Nothing use's it yet (apart from the odd concept demo), but Physx isnt too hot with games either. Like you said .
People should really ignore all them till anything decent is announced that uses either! Its all theory till then.
.People should really ignore all them till anything decent is announced that uses either! Its all theory till then.
ATI don't actually _have_ havok on GPU yet tho, that was the tongue in cheek point of my first post in this thread...
Physx on the other hand is actually up and running, well featured and stable.
Both physx and havok in software are used in a lot of games, I think about 200 mainstream titles for havok and 150 for physx. There are no games that use hardware havok
The problem here is no one will give hardware physics a chance based on what they have seen so far, they can't imagine what the potential of properly integrated hardware physics are (which is understandable) so they are very negative towards, I also suspect in the back of their minds there's something saying "oh noes we are gonna have to spend more money if this comes out" which is also adding to the negativity.
In the back of my mined i will spend more money if something worthwhile comes out. You seem to live in a reverse world to most people here & think people should spend the money first before seeing anything worth the money.
I read reviews & user feedback before i buy hardware or games most of the time. in your world its buy first then see if its worth it later, no thanks.
http://www.nzone.com/object/nzone_physxgames_home.html
http://www.havok.com/content/blogcategory/29/73/
http://www.havok.com/content/blogcategory/37/78/
http://www.havok.com/content/view/644/111/
Last edited: