1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

News AMD announces support for Havok Physics

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by CardJoe, 12 Jun 2008.

  1. CardJoe

    CardJoe Freelance Journalist

    Joined:
    3 Apr 2007
    Posts:
    11,344
    Likes Received:
    295
  2. p3n

    p3n New Member

    Joined:
    31 Jan 2002
    Posts:
    778
    Likes Received:
    1
    Source and havok already utilise multi threading?
     
  3. Tim S

    Tim S OG

    Joined:
    8 Nov 2001
    Posts:
    18,881
    Likes Received:
    78
    yep, and that's all done on the CPU AFAIK.
     
  4. kempez

    kempez modding again!

    Joined:
    4 Aug 2005
    Posts:
    1,212
    Likes Received:
    3
    Haven't AMD/ATI also announced support for PhysX as well?
     
  5. Timmy_the_tortoise

    Timmy_the_tortoise International Man of Awesome

    Joined:
    28 Feb 2008
    Posts:
    1,039
    Likes Received:
    7
    I thought Nvidia was soldering an entirely separate PPU onto their newest cards next to the GPU, meaning that valuable GPU power isn't taken up by physics processing.. That sounds more exciting than this ATI GPU acceleration.

    Or, did I get that wrong?
     
  6. Tim S

    Tim S OG

    Joined:
    8 Nov 2001
    Posts:
    18,881
    Likes Received:
    78
    not as yet, no.
     
  7. Jojii

    Jojii hardware freak

    Joined:
    12 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    122
    Likes Received:
    1
    here is my guess,

    intel is worried that if the install base is large for physx then developers will create titles for it, so maybe they brokered a deal to get ati into the havok game to act as a stop gap on the install base % so developers will continue to create new games that feature the havok engine.

    then intel shafts ati later, without astroglide
     
  8. Tim S

    Tim S OG

    Joined:
    8 Nov 2001
    Posts:
    18,881
    Likes Received:
    78
    Ouch. :eeek:
     
  9. johnmustrule

    johnmustrule New Member

    Joined:
    12 Jan 2006
    Posts:
    345
    Likes Received:
    3
    physx is a superior simulation, I can't understand why AMD would support intel with this.
     
  10. TreeDude

    TreeDude New Member

    Joined:
    12 May 2007
    Posts:
    270
    Likes Received:
    0
    PhysX is not superior. Ever play a game with support for PhysX? The whole idea was so that great physics don't cause a fps hit. But it does. A bad one at that. PhysX was a good idea with a terrible follow through. Not to mention that it hardly even added anything to the games. Most of the time it just gave you a bit more debris.

    AMD is only doing this because they do not want to add a third option. There are already 2 clear physics solutions and they needed to pick one to back. PhysX is no longer an option, due to the Nvidia buyout, so their choice was already made. This comes at no surprise to me.
     
  11. byronrock

    byronrock What's a HighK dielectric material?

    Joined:
    16 Mar 2008
    Posts:
    19
    Likes Received:
    0
    There's no sense if AMD dont will use (right now) in his GPUs. AMD must to transport Havok to its poor "Close to Metal" (if still isnt dead) for emulate Havok at GPGPU.
    I dont know but its kind of weird this decision, i though AMD was closer to choose Nvidia's PhisX (no matter if CUDA is needed) than Intel's Havok.

    But its supposed that AMD decision isnt close. And with the time can change. :)

    Can AMD take the 2 options HAVOK and PhisX?? Kind of hybrid decision.

    For to have total compatibility with all future game titles
     
  12. Icy EyeG

    Icy EyeG Controlled by Eyebrow Powers™

    Joined:
    23 Jul 2007
    Posts:
    517
    Likes Received:
    3
    No, nVIDIA is porting PhysX to CUDA.
     
  13. BioSniper

    BioSniper New Member

    Joined:
    5 Feb 2002
    Posts:
    3,815
    Likes Received:
    18
    It reminds me of 3dfx vs OpenGL vs Direct3D all over again.
     
  14. Timmy_the_tortoise

    Timmy_the_tortoise International Man of Awesome

    Joined:
    28 Feb 2008
    Posts:
    1,039
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ahh... That makes sense.

    Havok is the much better engine anyway. I've seen GRAW with and without PhysX.. and there is pretty much no difference, it's literally just a few extra black bits flying out from the centre of an explosion...

    Sure, the tech demos were great... But I have yet to see a decent implementation. And Havok are reaching a point which pretty much matches PhysX in terms of physics objects on screen at once..
     
  15. Brett89

    Brett89 Active Member

    Joined:
    15 Dec 2005
    Posts:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    22
    I'd love to see the Havok engine go further, seeing as it's so good.
    Priceless.
     
  16. Passarinhuu

    Passarinhuu I huffs cats

    Joined:
    30 Jul 2007
    Posts:
    19
    Likes Received:
    0
    You can't add more debris and expect not to have a performance hit. You're rendering more objects at the same time, there has to be lower performance... Unless the PhysX is also unloading work from the GPU there is no way you can avoid it
     
  17. TreeDude

    TreeDude New Member

    Joined:
    12 May 2007
    Posts:
    270
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dude Physx was an actual addon card. Made by Ageia before Nvidia bought them out. It WAS offloading and it STILL had a performance hit.
     
  18. HourBeforeDawn

    HourBeforeDawn a.k.a KazeModz

    Joined:
    26 Oct 2006
    Posts:
    2,637
    Likes Received:
    6
    hmm well i think this is a better way to go as Havok was the better physics engine over PhysX
     
  19. notatoad

    notatoad pretty fing wonderful

    Joined:
    25 Jun 2004
    Posts:
    3,213
    Likes Received:
    60
    yes, but it only offloaded the physics calculations, which i believe is relieving the CPU not the GPU. the system could calculate the trajectories for 50 peices of debris at once instead of 5, but that forces the graphics card to render 10x the polygons which is where the framerate hit comes from.
     
  20. Sebbo

    Sebbo New Member

    Joined:
    28 May 2006
    Posts:
    200
    Likes Received:
    0
    ATI was originally looking at running the havok engine on their GPU's back when they had a physics on crossfire solution coming, but that ground to a halt when intel bought havok. going from that, continuing to work with the havok engine seems an easy decision compared to forking out money to their main competitor in the GPU market or developing their own solution.
     
Tags: Add Tags

Share This Page