News Nvidia considers porting PhysX to OpenCL

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Tim S, 27 Mar 2009.

  1. Tim S

    Tim S Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    8 Nov 2001
    Posts:
    18,879
    Likes Received:
    76
  2. nicae

    nicae New Member

    Joined:
    25 Nov 2008
    Posts:
    128
    Likes Received:
    0
    NV has a strong arm with ~65% of the market, but that's still virtually half of the market for something that takes a full development process. For things like physics, it makes so much more sense for developers to work on something that 100% of the market can use. Otherwise, we would see games "ATI compatible" or "NVDIA compatible", just like we see "MACOS compatible". And we all know how developers love porting over to mac in a timely fashion... :x
     
  3. yuusou

    yuusou Active Member

    Joined:
    5 Nov 2006
    Posts:
    1,193
    Likes Received:
    23
    Obviously a step in the right direction.
     
  4. p3n

    p3n New Member

    Joined:
    31 Jan 2002
    Posts:
    778
    Likes Received:
    1
    The whole QA argument seems dumb, either its transparent to the game and it works or they have to bodge it per game and its dirty and underhand (hi 3dmark).
     
  5. Mentai

    Mentai New Member

    Joined:
    11 Nov 2007
    Posts:
    758
    Likes Received:
    1
    I think developers will use havok in opencl since that runs similar effects on both cards instead of only 65% of the market. When that happens nvidias hand will be forced
     
  6. Tim S

    Tim S Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    8 Nov 2001
    Posts:
    18,879
    Likes Received:
    76
    Mentai: the point is that if Nvidia moves PhysX to OpenCL, it'll run on any hardware supporting OpenCL.
     
  7. Redbeaver

    Redbeaver The Other Red Meat

    Joined:
    15 Feb 2006
    Posts:
    2,051
    Likes Received:
    34
    sound like nvidia still pretty confident on their superiority, but like to have work on the same playing field with AIT... which could either mean they're lying or they're cocky.

    but it's a step in the right direction indeed.
     
  8. thehippoz

    thehippoz New Member

    Joined:
    19 Dec 2008
    Posts:
    5,780
    Likes Received:
    174
    oh yeah forgot about 3dmark physx cheats XD course don't bother bring that up to a fanboy.. he'll whine till the cows come home
     
  9. Turbotab

    Turbotab I don't touch type, I tard type

    Joined:
    4 Feb 2009
    Posts:
    1,217
    Likes Received:
    59
    It was inevitable really, love the barbed comment about ATI's hardware, "GPU computing solution is probably a couple of generations behind ours.” It sounds like a huge gap, yet in the graphics card world, two generations is probably less a year!
     
  10. wuyanxu

    wuyanxu still wants Homeworld 3

    Joined:
    15 Aug 2007
    Posts:
    10,536
    Likes Received:
    223
    there must be some trickery in this, making ATI cards go slower than nVidia counter parts for example.

    or why did nVidia acquire PhysX in the first place? what profit have they gained?
     
  11. tank_rider

    tank_rider New Member

    Joined:
    3 Feb 2005
    Posts:
    1,090
    Likes Received:
    6
    I can understand the QA argument, in that the physx stuff will have to be verified that it works on both nvidia and ati hardware, to ensure that there isn't something different with the ati implementation of openCL
     
  12. nicae

    nicae New Member

    Joined:
    25 Nov 2008
    Posts:
    128
    Likes Received:
    0
    If they don't QA on other hardware and things don't run on ATI cards, it's the same as keeping it under CUDA and not spending a dime.
     
  13. HourBeforeDawn

    HourBeforeDawn a.k.a KazeModz

    Joined:
    26 Oct 2006
    Posts:
    2,637
    Likes Received:
    6
    lol they are considering it more like have no choice unless they want to put all that wasted money down the drain
     
  14. Evildead666

    Evildead666 New Member

    Joined:
    27 May 2004
    Posts:
    340
    Likes Received:
    4
    They can't keep it proprietary for too long.
    A LOT of peope don't run Nvidia cards, and devs are not going to program just for Nvidia.
    They do some 'extras' specifically for Nvidia, but they paid for it.

    ATI and Intel will do havok over OpenCL, and Nvidia will be left with Cuda and PhysX.

    If they do write code for ATi, it will be abysmally optimised, and ATi probably knows that.
    Nvidia isn't exactly trustworthy when it comes to drivers and 'optimizations'.....
     
  15. nicae

    nicae New Member

    Joined:
    25 Nov 2008
    Posts:
    128
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think they are trustworthy. They have great relationships with other companies. For instance, Intel. :naughty:
     
  16. Hamish

    Hamish New Member

    Joined:
    25 Nov 2002
    Posts:
    3,649
    Likes Received:
    4
    i dunno, with havok being OpenCL, and i assume running equally well on ATi and Nvidia stuff, they would have to do a decent job of having physx run on both
    if you're a game developer and you're looking for a physics engine are you gonna pick the one that only runs properly on half the graphics cards out there or the one that runs well on both? :p

    also it cant possibly be a coincidence that they reveal this so soon after the havok/opencl announcement ;)
     
  17. HourBeforeDawn

    HourBeforeDawn a.k.a KazeModz

    Joined:
    26 Oct 2006
    Posts:
    2,637
    Likes Received:
    6
    lol
     
  18. aron311

    aron311 New Member

    Joined:
    14 Jul 2007
    Posts:
    64
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, Nvidia certainly has its head up its arse.
     
  19. Star*Dagger

    Star*Dagger New Member

    Joined:
    30 Nov 2007
    Posts:
    882
    Likes Received:
    11
    I think that I'll survive with my "couple of generations behind" ATI Radeon HD 4870x2, lol
     
  20. Veles

    Veles DUR HUR

    Joined:
    18 Nov 2005
    Posts:
    6,188
    Likes Received:
    34
    I think this is something that could benefit everyone, if PhysX will work on every new GPU being made they'll be more likely for developers to buy into it.
     
Tags: Add Tags

Share This Page