Does ATI have a response to Physx?

[londonbairn]

I wouldn't particulary say PhysX is well used, I've tried it and I thought it was naff to be honest! I think Havok is winning and will be the victor TBH

 

[MikeHunt79]

HAVOC?

 

[explicit4u]

No ATI has no response to physx, havok on GPUs is intels gig at best and a long way behind physx.

No doubt the ATI brigade are hard on my heels.

ATI and INTEL are working together on it, so its not just for intel

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

+1, i've seen more games on Havoc then Physx

ATI have Havok and DX10.1.

Used together they could produce better graphics + better fps the the nvidia equvilent.

*note Havok, DX10.1 and PhysX are not used in any decent game yet/ever. Dont buy a card based on any of those.

EXACTLY, DirectX10.1 (which nvidia have no alternative to) is really good if you have a DirectX 10.1 game, the only problem with all these engines and stuff (CUDA, HAVOC, PHYSx, DirectX 10.1 etc.) is that developers are not willing to pick up on them as much :-/

 

[FrenchTart]

ATI and INTEL are working together on it, so its not just for intel

I'm pretty sure that Intel own Havok, which I imagine is Rroff's point.

 

[Rroff]

I'm pretty sure that Intel own Havok, which I imagine is Rroff's point.

It was a tongue in cheek point that intel own havok and at the moment there is nothing out there except a few video tech demos and some written statements... so on paper ATI have nothing to compare to physx

As to which is better and what should be used, etc. well thats a whole different story. Personally I'd be happy to see either become adopted as the hardware physics standard - I've worked with havok but barely touched physx, tho I prefer physx for game useage as I find that havok's objects tend to "stick" on player objects whereas physx they tend to bounce off better not impeding the players' progress which from a game development point of view is the better approach even tho its slightly less realistic.

 

[explicit4u]

Sorry, ATI was working with Havoc THE COMPANY before it was bought by INTEL.

ATI is working with Havok and their Havok FX™ effects physics engine which enables game developers to produce more convincing environments that include richer, more detailed explosions, smoke, debris, fluids, cloth and hair.

 

[Talrinys]

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.

And we will have 40+ cores in a few years, remember these cores are clocked much higher and are much more advanced than GPU cores, and until then people will still want graphics in their games that won't happen at expense of their eye candy.

 

[Rroff]

In a few years... by then we will need 4 or even 8 times the number of cores to do the same kind of physics processing that GPUs out then could handle. (If GT300 really has full MIMD capabilities then it could be 200+ cores).

Meanwhile you can just plug in a £30-40 GPU (dedicated to physics) to do the same physics work that would require a £300+ CPU.

 

[D D Danneh]

And we will have 40+ cores in a few years, remember these cores are clocked much higher and are much more advanced than GPU cores, and until then people will still want graphics in their games that won't happen at expense of their eye candy.

The problem with CPU's are, they are designed for general use. They use a lot more commands than a GPU, and so they aren't really specialized in any specific area. GPU's, on the other hand, are made to solve linear equations and commands, which you find in graphics... and physics. In terms of raw calculating power, GPU's are better than CPU's, but only when it's something they CAN calculate.

It would be nice to utilize these extra CPU cores, because at the moment the CPU's are idling and the GPU's are working their arses off, but the GPU's are still better optimized to calculate physics. Perhaps one day we'll actually have a practical use for PPU's.