• 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.

PS4 to include Nvidia ApeX and PhysX

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.
Click to expand...

That's assuming that it's hardware accelerated physx.
 
Thinking about this, seeing as the APU is supposed to be a slightly customised version does that make it AMD who would have to pay the licence fee or Sony. We could in theory get full hardware accelerated Physx on an AMD APU inside the PS4 but not in normal desktop chips, then the same for the Xbox, just a thought.
 
You'd think... but given the complicated nature of the relationship between GPU PhysX and AMD hardware its far more likely to be just the software side of it.
 
Rroff said:
You'd think... but given the complicated nature of the relationship between GPU PhysX and AMD hardware its far more likely to be just the software side of it.
Click to expand...

Indeed, that's how I see it too.

You'd be far more likely to see AMD pushing a none proprietary physics API (With hardware acceleration) given they've got the console contracts (But having said that, this is illogical AMD, and bullet was all talk and no action). But even then I'm just speculating.
 
Last edited:
Does this mean future generation of ports will run better on NVidia hardware? assuming they have Physx hardware acceleration and AMD don't.

Even if PS4 Physx is done on the GPU the PC ports would presumably be hardware accelerated only on NVidia hardware? whereas AMD would need to license it like Sony has done?
 
Last edited:
If games used GPU PhysX on the console then yes the most logical path is porting them to the PC with GPU PhysX.

CPU PhysX features wouldn't make much odds you can run them now on the CPU with an AMD card rendering and for the most part there is no direct escalation path for running them on the GPU if the host has GPU PhysX capabilities.
 
No idea why everyone is getting all twisted up about it. Physx is on the PS3 and Xbox 360 and by that I mean, it supports games that use it, but not many games use it, and none use hardware acceleration.

Just because companies can use physx api if they choose, so what, thats been the case on PC games for ages and few game dev's use it, and its not very good when they do.


I'd be mighty surprised if it was hardware accelerated on the GPU.

As for physx/Nvidia and AMD rumours, the only sources I ever saw were Nvidia's own people claiming they offered it to AMD... we have zero proof of this, and assuming it happened they may well have said it will cost them £200million to licence.

Fact is physx is no better than any other physics API, the more interesting part of accelerated physics is going to be more things like TressFX, rather than trying to offer an engine with which you can do anything... when game dev's are shutting all over the place due to budget over spends, while making pretty basic games. You want bolt on "pieces" you can add in quickly, easily, with a somewhat known overhead so you can pick and choose features that fit your performance budget and game design.

OpenCL can be done on GPU and CPU, and there are starting to be tools to balance the acceleration and show dev's which bits will run better on what, accelerated one bit on the cpu and another on the gpu for better overall performance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom