PS4 to include Nvidia ApeX and PhysX

PorkPieCat · 7 Mar 2013 at 17:03

http://www.slashgear.com/nvidia-announces-physx-and-apex-support-for-ps4-07272935/

It's probably worth nothing that the Xbox 360 also had an AMD gpu and PhysX.

I guess Nvidia figure consoles will sell the same amount whether or not they have PhysX, whereas the development and adoption of the technology could either slow down or grow depending on whether next gen consoles are capable or incapable of utilizing it.

Dom86 · 7 Mar 2013 at 17:08

That's quite interesting, so it seems that Physx can work on AMD hardware, I hope this is the start of Physx being non Nvidia exclusive on pc to.

Yaayuh! · 7 Mar 2013 at 17:09

Oh FFS. PhysX needs to go **** off.
This means that for the next X amount of years there will still be developers using PhysX rendering instead of Havok and the like and now, with really bad ports! Yay!

I've seen and said before, PhysX running off of nVidia hardware is diabolical.

Maybe, this will improve things? I'm really not holding my breath.

PorkPieCat · 7 Mar 2013 at 17:26

Dom86 said:
That's quite interesting, so it seems that Physx can work on AMD hardware, I hope this is the start of Physx being non Nvidia exclusive on pc to.

Yeah, since PhysX is just an API it's not hardware dependent. Nvidia also use similar locks to exclude non-certified 3D monitors from 3D Vision. Both to decent marketing effect.

I don't think it's consistent with Nvidia's modus operandi to open up PhysX for PC, and it probably makes more sense for them to just allow consoles to use it. Allowing Physx on consoles won't improve console sales (and therefore AMD revenue), but it will keep PhysX relevant for game developers and gamers alike, ultimately allowing Nvidia to sell more cards.

It's interesting to see that despite AMD and Nvidia's polar opposite approaches to marketing and development (open vs proprietary), gamers don't seem to care about it enough to make a difference in either company's wallets. Thing about PhysX is it's a double edged sword - Nvidia pump money into it and it doesn't give them significantly more market share than AMD because developers don't want to commit resources to a comparatively nascent technology only half or fewer gamers can use. I agree it should either be abolished or made open, but Nvidia probably don't see it that way. At some point if it doesn't die it will definitely get so good that developers would be foolish not to include it in their games. At that stage or preferably sooner AMD will have to respond with some kind of proper physics API. Will probably be expensive for them since Nvidia's been developing PhysX for years now. Anyway with the advent of TressFX, there's hope for interesting things to come

pecnarf · 7 Mar 2013 at 17:47

originally you had a standalone physx card (forgot what the comnpany was called) which work with both nvidia and ati cards but then nvidia decided to buy the company making physx card to intergrate it into their own hardware so that it be a nvidia only. now when this happen it was abit of a good thing but at the same time a bad thing for physx, what should happen in my opinion is that nvidia shouldn't of bought physx outright, it remain a standalone card and have both ati/nvidia in a partnership so to promote it and to develop it better. it would have most likely work a hell of a lot better that way but again big company see somthing they like, that a little company has develops so they take it by buy the little company up. it an age old story.

Calabi · 7 Mar 2013 at 17:48

Rossi~ said:
Oh FFS. PhysX needs to go **** off.
This means that for the next X amount of years there will still be developers using PhysX rendering instead of Havok and the like and now, with really bad ports! Yay!

I've seen and said before, PhysX running off of nVidia hardware is diabolical.

Maybe, this will improve things? I'm really not holding my breath.

Yeah I was hoping PhysX was finally going to die so we could start getting proper functional physics on all pc's.

Deceptor · 7 Mar 2013 at 17:52

pecnarf said:
originally you had a standalone physx card (forgot what the comnpany was called)

Aegia iirc? I had one of those cards

PorkPieCat · 7 Mar 2013 at 17:54

pecnarf said:
originally you had a standalone physx card (forgot what the comnpany was called) which work with both nvidia and ati cards but then nvidia decided to buy the company making physx card to intergrate it into their own hardware so that it be a nvidia only. now when this happen it was abit of a good thing but at the same time a bad thing for physx, what should happen in my opinion is that nvidia shouldn't of bought physx outright, it remain a standalone card and have both ati/nvidia in a partnership so to promote it and to develop it better. it would have most likely work a hell of a lot better that way but again big company see somthing they like, that a little company has develops so they take it by buy the little company up. it an age old story.

it's true it would be better for gamers, but evidently nvidia felt it was easy money for them.

frankly despite my personal annoyance about it it was obviously a smart move for nvidia. they got to buy an entire technology for what i assume was a paltry sum for them. ever since they've been putting aside a small amount of money for it every year in the knowledge that it will eventually be a hot commodity. if it fails, they don't really lose much. and it already generates them profit: there are plenty of gamers who pay a premium to buy an nvidia card just for this feature, and there are people who buy nvidia addon cards to enable physx using a main amd card.

nvidia made a move and the onus is on amd to make a response. gamers can shout all they want at nvidia, they won't budge while they make profit. unfortunately the longer amd waits the more expensive it will be for them later to counter what might by then be a very potent technology.

Gregster · 7 Mar 2013 at 18:42

Rossi~ said:
Oh FFS. PhysX needs to go **** off.
This means that for the next X amount of years there will still be developers using PhysX rendering instead of Havok and the like and now, with really bad ports! Yay!

I've seen and said before, PhysX running off of nVidia hardware is diabolical.

Maybe, this will improve things? I'm really not holding my breath.

Proper lol'd but if AMD are now taking PhysX on board their GPU's, this should be a good thing all round. I did say ages ago that Nvidia did open up PhysX to everyone but I got shot down for saying and linking the chap that said it.

Anyways, that is history and this is now. I for one would love to see PhysX working fully on AMD GPU's but not sure if that is the idea or not. That link is a little vague.

PorkPieCat · 7 Mar 2013 at 19:11

Gregster said:
Proper lol'd but if AMD are now taking PhysX on board their GPU's, this should be a good thing all round. I did say ages ago that Nvidia did open up PhysX to everyone but I got shot down for saying and linking the chap that said it.

Anyways, that is history and this is now. I for one would love to see PhysX working fully on AMD GPU's but not sure if that is the idea or not. That link is a little vague.

only on the ps4. as i said in first post they gave xbox 360 physx, and that was based on an amd gpu as well. while i'd love to be optimistic i think more realistically nvidia's just securing physx' future rather than letting everyone use it. we'll see!

Gregster · 7 Mar 2013 at 19:16

PorkPieCat said:
only on the ps4. as i said in first post they gave xbox 360 physx, and that was based on an amd gpu as well. while i'd love to be optimistic i think more realistically nvidia's just securing physx' future rather than letting everyone use it. we'll see!

Vaild points.

One thing I have noticed when I was doing my testing of recent games is the sheer amount of AMD Gaming Evolved titles. The AMD boys are doing well and now if AMD were to do PhysX like Nvidia, I would be over the moon. Nvidia have not used this enough to justify buying a Nvidia card and it is effects that look stunning when it is used.

I just don't know enough about PhysX to comment that much but do know that I like the effects it brings in games.

Rroff · 7 Mar 2013 at 19:41

This will probably just be the CPU side of PhysX as on the 360 and doesn't run on the GPU at all - lacks hardware acceleration for advanced effects, etc.

I suspect a lot of the motivation behind this, tho it was likely to happen anyway, was for Dust 514 which is a playstation exclusive title and CCP having been making use of PhysX/ApeX technologies.

varkanoid · 7 Mar 2013 at 20:32

pecnarf said:
what should happen in my opinion is that nvidia shouldn't of bought physx outright, it remain a standalone card and have both ati/nvidia in a partnership so to promote it and to develop it better. it would have most likely work a hell of a lot better that way but again big company see somthing they like, that a little company has develops so they take it by buy the little company up. it an age old story.

I wouldnt have bought a stand alone card just for physx. No what should have happened is nvidia bought the company then licenced the tech to AMD to include in there cards thus creating the standard. NVidia should have buried the hatchet and got in to bed with their arch enemy!

Rroff · 7 Mar 2013 at 21:05

varkanoid said:
I wouldnt have bought a stand alone card just for physx. No what should have happened is nvidia bought the company then licenced the tech to AMD to include in there cards thus creating the standard. NVidia should have buried the hatchet and got in to bed with their arch enemy!

custompc said:
Nvidia’s director of product PR for EMEA and India, Luciano Alibrandi, told Custom PC that ‘We are committed to an open PhysX platform that encourages innovation and participation,’ and added that Nvidia would be ‘open to talking with any GPU vendor about support for their architecture.’

Can't find the other quotes off the top of my head but first AMD declinded it saying that nVidia wanted them to port CUDA for AMD GPUs and they were worried it would sideline their own compute platform, then they said they turned it down because CUDA wasn't an open standard then they did a u turn and claimed nVidia never even approached them in the first place.

(EDIT: AFAIK there were no formal talks about it just the idea bounced back and forth).

bru · 7 Mar 2013 at 21:07

I was under the impression that when Nvidia first bought Physx from Aegia they did offer it to ATI but ATI said no to the license fees. so does that make it Nvidias fault or ATi's that we are stuck in this currant situation.

edit: thats what I thought ^^^^^

Rroff · 7 Mar 2013 at 21:10

I blame nVidia - if they opened it up so at the very least people could run a lower end nVidia card for physics alongside an AMD card for rendering, even with the potential testing issues, it would have taken on a lot more. Having a tantrum and cutting off their nose to spite their face after no one took them up on their offer didn't help anyone.

Slam · 7 Mar 2013 at 22:49

Deceptor said:
Aegia iirc? I had one of those cards

had? why didn't you keep it and use it alongside your main gpu as a dedicated physx card?

Rroff · 7 Mar 2013 at 23:32

nVidia dropped proper support for it - it was only as fast as a 9600GT at doing physics anyhow so not much use if games make proper use of PhysX these days... if...

Slam · 8 Mar 2013 at 10:00

Didn't realise it was only as fast a 9600 GT, I recall seeing the first Physx demos and thinking it was like tech from the future! Got to love how PC tech progresses so fast

Rusty0611 · 8 Mar 2013 at 10:09

spoffle will be over the moon :rolleyes: