CUDA, PhysX Are Doomed Says AMD's Roy Taylor

Status
Not open for further replies.

BringMeAnother

Honorable
Apr 22, 2012
99
0
10,630
0
Why even bother to say such things when you work for a rival company? What he says may or may not be true, but this just sounds like chest pounding.
 

Giovanni-L

Honorable
Jun 13, 2013
71
0
10,660
9
That is basically being made public to defend AMD's image here on Tom's.

I find it revolting to see "paid-info-wars" happening on this website. I might just migrate do Anandtech or whatever.
 

notsleep

Distinguished
Jan 19, 2010
219
0
18,680
0
well, how about listing all the openCL games against a listing of physx games?

just off the top of my mind, i only know of physx games.
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
I don't see why AMD wants Intel to adopt their APU term; their primary purpose is still to act as the CPU no matter what other bits and bobs get integrated.

I doubt many people who know about APUs actually cares whether they call it APU or CPU. To me, this sounds like an obnoxious kid trying to get attention... yes, I know AMD wants us to call them APUs but to me, they're still CPUs with IGP.
 

mightymaxio

Distinguished
Nov 9, 2009
1,193
0
19,360
48
So what does that make TressFX from AMD or any of the other restrictive technologies holding back the Linux community? NVIDIA has had far better driver support for Linux than AMD has ever had and now it just seems like AMD is spreading lies about NVIDIA not being open source lol.
 

pocketdrummer

Distinguished
Dec 1, 2007
1,060
3
19,285
0
AMD is coming off like a bunch of douche bags. It's one thing to say you have the superior product, it's another entirely to put down the other company in such a pompous manner.

This makes me want to buy nVidia even more.
 

dudewitbow

Dignified
@mightymaxio

it actually depends, AMD is better with open driver support on linux, nvidia is better with closed driver support. AMD only currently looks bad right now on the linux front because neither company has released an open driver any time recently, and since nvidia is better on the closed front, makes them the better option.
 

pocketdrummer

Distinguished
Dec 1, 2007
1,060
3
19,285
0
Look at all the down votes on everything that isn't pro-AMD. We either have a load of AMD fanboys on here, or AMD has paid employees to artificially influence public opinion.

(it wouldn't be the first time a company has been caught doing so)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Gee a salesman talking trash about the competition, now I have seen it all. It would be great if some people would watch some parts of Carmack's first 2013 Quakecon speech.

PhysX and TressFX or any game "physics" is simply game fluff that in the end add absolutely nothing to the game experience. It is fluff for one reason and that is, actual in-game physics would take up too many resources hence it is relegated to in-game fluff like hair, flags and projectile impact effects, but nothing of substance.

I like AMD products but their used-car salesman marketing tactics they have been pulling in the last year is getting silly. Whose intelligence are they trying to insult. Bashing the competition in your own (or any) field is never a good practice.
 
Well, of course he'd say that.

But still, I do agree. PhysX is a solution without a problem, and almost no-one uses it. CUDA is becoming less and less relevant due to OpenCL, plus the newer cards are relatively hopeless at FP64.
 

smeezekitty

Distinguished
Personally I feel AMD and NVidia can bash each other all they want. Its just marketing and part of business.

Personally I do agree though. OpenCL being cross platform is much superior. Once it takes off better I am sure NVidia will quickly improve performance in it.

Physx is mainly a gimmick and adds clutter to the screen.

At the end of the day, who cares what the companies say about each other. Atleast it doesn't hurt customers like the hybrid-physx lockout and other anti-competitive practices.
 

Parsian

Distinguished
Apr 28, 2007
774
0
18,980
0
AMD just focus on your own growth. You are making good products, just keep it up. You should also promote GPCPU physics for PC and next gen consoles.
 

IndignantSkeptic

Distinguished
Apr 19, 2011
507
0
18,980
0
@ radiovan

Currently a lot of physics in games is used just for cosmetic effect instead of affecting gameplay because otherwise people with weak hardware would be unable to play the games. This situation will change when most people have sufficiently strong hardware.
 

DjEaZy

Distinguished
Apr 3, 2008
1,161
0
19,280
0
... CUDA, PhysX Are Doomed Says AMD's Roy Taylor... actually i agree... don't know about CUDA, but Physx seems to go under... nVidia is trying to push Physx with Tegra thru Android, but the gen2 Nexus 7 is not Tegra... and Physx is just optimized for nVidia GPU, but still works, but is not optimized for any x86 CPU... so, is just in the code... and other thing...
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/PhysX-APEX-CUDA-PlayStation-SDK,21402.html
... so? If PS4 is all AMD, and nVidia Physx gonna work on PS4, so there is a possibility to open up Physx for other platforms... if nVidia opens up Physx, it haz a chance to live on...
 
G

Guest

Guest


Thank you for rephrasing, what I just said - in-game physics are just fluff due to high system requirements for thing like destructible environments. Was that point lost on you, in my initial post? :??: Perhaps you need to read it again.
 

cats_Paw

Distinguished
Sadly, if AMD makes anything that is not propietary and nvidia does, many people will choose nvidia over amd just to have both.

Id love to be able to choose my GPU based on performnace and not on other factors, but its still something to take in consideration.

Physx might not be the best thing ever but it is a nice thing to have...

 

ET3D

Distinguished
Mar 12, 2012
76
0
18,630
0
I never liked NVIDIA's way of using proprietary stuff. Even on Android they help developers create games for Tegra and just lock them to it. There's a new game released with Tegra 4 optimisations, but it only runs on Tegra 3 or 4. I have a Nexus 7 with Tegra 3, but I'm not going to buy a game that's locked to the hardware.

That's where I think NVIDIA fails, it limits things too much. With PhysX, if it even let me use a second card for it I probably would have, but instead it did its best to lock out the possibility. That's why PhysX will never make it. I'm sure a lot of people wouldn't have minded spending $50 on a PhysX card even if they bought AMD.
 

yannigr

Distinguished
Oct 3, 2008
140
0
18,680
0
Nvidia killed PhysX when they locked the drivers
"Oh no, you can't have PhysX with an AMD as a primary card"
"But I AM your customer. My second card IS Nvidia"
"No you CAN'T"
"OK then, I DON'T WANT IT".

On the other hand AMD DIDN'T locked TressFX and I thank them. I am an AMD customer (3 PCs, 2 Phenom II, 1 Athlon II) but this period of time happens to be with two Nvidia cards. I was with AMD cards for years (HD3850 CF/HD4830 CF/HD4850/HD4890/HD5670...) but I found an 560ti and an GT240 at half the price and couldn't resist. Well, AMD DIDN't punished me like Nvidia would. That's why I will continue being their customer always waiting the right time to replace my two Nvidia cards with AMD ones.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS