AMD Showcases Havok Physics... Again?

Status
Not open for further replies.

curnel_D

Distinguished
Jun 5, 2007
741
0
18,990
1
[citation][nom]The Schnoz[/nom]AMD is in the perfect position to support both PhysX and Havok. If they are smart they will do so.[/citation]
Wont happen. Not only are they working closely with havok (and officially supporting PhysX would likely start a nosedive for havok), but to support PhysX, they'd have to buy the rights to use it off of Nvidia, who likely wont make it cheap. This would not only put AMD at the mercy of one more of it's direct competitors, but also kill their idea of price/performance. Nvidia is smart enough to know that if AMD came knocking, they could charge just enough to keep AMD's prices above Nvidia's so that they get 'all' the money.

Havok sounds like AMD's best option, and it's too bad they couldnt buy them out before intel did.
 

jerreece

Splendid
[citation][nom]curnel_d[/nom]Wont happen. Not only are they working closely with havok (and officially supporting PhysX would likely start a nosedive for havok), but to support PhysX, they'd have to buy the rights to use it off of Nvidia, who likely wont make it cheap. This would not only put AMD at the mercy of one more of it's direct competitors, but also kill their idea of price/performance. Nvidia is smart enough to know that if AMD came knocking, they could charge just enough to keep AMD's prices above Nvidia's so that they get 'all' the money. Havok sounds like AMD's best option, and it's too bad they couldnt buy them out before intel did.[/citation]

Course, this also means AMD will own nVidia in certain games, and nVidia will own AMD in certain games. Unless software developers design a game to run either Havok or PhysX (doubtful) you'll be completely at the mercy of whomever makes your favorite game.

Sure you can play Mirror's Edge without PhysX, as you will future titles. But you just may find yourself without that option should you have the wrong brand of video card for the particular game you want to play.
 

SneakySnake

Distinguished
Jan 28, 2009
451
0
18,780
0
Havok is already used by pretty much everyone, Nvidia just hypes Physx up like crazy. Physx has nothing the Havok doesn't have, and most game programmers have worked with Havok before so it should be a no brainer for AMD to start hyping it up to compete with nvidia
 

The Schnoz

Distinguished
Sep 17, 2008
234
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]curnel_d[/nom]Wont happen. Not only are they working closely with havok (and officially supporting PhysX would likely start a nosedive for havok), but to support PhysX, they'd have to buy the rights to use it off of Nvidia, who likely wont make it cheap. This would not only put AMD at the mercy of one more of it's direct competitors, but also kill their idea of price/performance. Nvidia is smart enough to know that if AMD came knocking, they could charge just enough to keep AMD's prices above Nvidia's so that they get 'all' the money. Havok sounds like AMD's best option, and it's too bad they couldnt buy them out before intel did.[/citation]
Yes but AMD doesn't have that much stock in the success of either. What do they care if Havok fails? Havok is owned by Intel. If they support both they will have a one up on both Intel (whom I suspect will put Havok acceleration in CPUs sometime soon) and Nvidia who are practically forced to only support one or the other. AMD is also in a great position because by supporting both they can decide to put Physics accelaration in GPUs and/or CPUs. Imagine being able to have physics acceleration of PhysX and Havok just by having a AMD CPU and/or GPU. Nvidia can't match it because they only have PhysX and only make GPUs, and Intel can't match it because they only support Havok (if you can call it support, really they just own it) and their GPUs suck donkey ass. I have a feeling Larabee will support Havok too. Also, Nvidia cannot charge much more to AMD for PhysX licensing than they do other companies, otherwise it would be illegal. They can decide not to licence it to them but thats not in their best interest. I say AMD should support both to set them apart from the competition. I know one reason I stick with Nvidia right now is PhysX and I don't even use it beyond my 3D Mark Vintage scores.
 
I just hope they finally pull through this time. If they had pursued it earlier, instead of killing it off, then PhysX wouldn't have been such a big deal for nVidia. Of course the devs wouldn't like coding for two different physics setups :).
 

eklipz330

Distinguished
Jul 7, 2008
3,019
10
20,795
1
“As the complexity and visual fidelity of video games increases, AMD wants to take advantage of opportunities to improve the game experience,” said Rick Bergman
More like "we don't wanna be left in the dust and let nvidia take the lead...again"

not a fanboy here, but that's what im really hearing. hey competition is NEVER a bad thing. do what you gotta amd to stay in the game
 
G

Guest

Guest
Pfft, I say just wait for directPhysics so there's a standard that everyone can use. No different from how the graphics APIs went. If directPhysics ends up being adopted by everyone (and if Microsoft does it right, why wouldn't everyone?), then nVidia and Intel will have both (for the most part) wasted their money.

Wait for a standard. Blu-ray/HD-DVD anyone?
 

Dmerc

Distinguished
Feb 3, 2009
36
0
18,530
0
I just wish that there was an open source version that was not controlled by Nvida, AMD or Intel. It would make it much easier for Devs to create games and not have to worry about cutting their market in half by own using Physix or Havok.
 

neiroatopelcc

Distinguished
Oct 3, 2006
3,079
0
20,810
9
[citation][nom]Dmerc[/nom]I just wish that there was an open source version that was not controlled by Nvida, AMD or Intel. It would make it much easier for Devs to create games and not have to worry about cutting their market in half by own using Physix or Havok.[/citation]
I believe an open source version won't work. If devs have direct influence you'll need 8 versions of it for 8 different games to work properly. It'll end up like opengl - basicly useless.
All it truely takes is for microsoft and some linux nerds to start developing a subset of directx that handles physics, and an equivalent library for linux to do the same stuff on the medival platform.
 

aracheb

Distinguished
Nov 21, 2008
275
0
18,780
0
[citation][nom]The Schnoz[/nom]Yes but AMD doesn't have that much stock in the success of either. What do they care if Havok fails? Havok is owned by Intel. If they support both they will have a one up on both Intel (whom I suspect will put Havok acceleration in CPUs sometime soon) and Nvidia who are practically forced to only support one or the other. AMD is also in a great position because by supporting both they can decide to put Physics accelaration in GPUs and/or CPUs. Imagine being able to have physics acceleration of PhysX and Havok just by having a AMD CPU and/or GPU. Nvidia can't match it because they only have PhysX and only make GPUs, and Intel can't match it because they only support Havok (if you can call it support, really they just own it) and their GPUs suck donkey ass. I have a feeling Larabee will support Havok too. Also, Nvidia cannot charge much more to AMD for PhysX licensing than they do other companies, otherwise it would be illegal. They can decide not to licence it to them but thats not in their best interest. I say AMD should support both to set them apart from the competition. I know one reason I stick with Nvidia right now is PhysX and I don't even use it beyond my 3D Mark Vintage scores.[/citation]\



If amd is smart enought, will implement the PHysx In their CPU.. and the Havoc in the GPU.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS