CUDA, PhysX Are Doomed Says AMD's Roy Taylor

[Mousemonkey]

Seems hard to believe that technologies enjoyed by the majority of gamers would somehow die out in favor of other much less widely adopted ones.

Maybe exaggerating a bit there?

Keep in mind CUDA is not for games and many gamers don't play Physx games regardless of card brand.

I've seen a fair few threads where the OP mentions that they play Metro and/or BL2 not to mention the Batman games, so are you sure about that comment?

 

[MGDJoker]

On another note AMD has posted another quarterly loss of 16 million dollars...

 

[Mousemonkey]

On another note AMD has posted another quarterly loss of 16 million dollars...

Ouch!

 

[renz496]

... 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...

when talking about physx some people only focusing on the gpu accelerated part of the tech and forgot that physx is just another physic engine like havok. physx has no problem to work on any console to begin with since the type of physx that being used on those console will run on cpu just as it did on the pc. the same goes with PhysX for SoC. PhysX has been there for a long time (with unity engine) but only some THD titles put more effort to make physics effect to be more visible to the eye. but in reality i don't think other quad core SoC will do bad on much more advance physics calculation

 

[ubercake]

On another note AMD has posted another quarterly loss of 16 million dollars...

Wonder why? At least AMD has the game consoles to prop it up.

 

[Cazalan]

IBM breaths some life back into CUDA with OpenPower Consortium.

"And I personally see this about IBM backing CUDA, just like IBM backed Java in the enterprise nearly twenty years ago. They bring a high performance CPU to the party, and we have a high-performance GPU. And because we are cooperating, we can build a much better solution than other situations that we are in. Having choice in the ecosystem is good for the entire ecosystem."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/08/06/ibm_opens_up_power_chips_armstyle_to_take_on_chipzilla/

 

[warezme]

New cards are artificially crippled at FP64. It's intentional. Why buy a $5,000 Quadro or Fire when a $500 Geforce or Radeon has the same FP prowess only a hack away. The process has been refined every generation. This is why some older cards are more powerful at certain FP benchmarks than even the newer ones are. They haven't yet been completely neutered.

 

[IndignantSkeptic]

@Mousemonkey
@ fulle

You are both right. Nvidia apparently doesn't give a damn about pissing off customers because apparently they are not losing them. I myself only purchase Nvidia because I don't want to lose out on PhsyX. However I realise that Nvidia is using a very dirty business tactic here and should be seriously penalised for these ill-gotten gains against AMDATI. It's too bad everyone is too cowardly to stand up against Nvidia individually. If everyone would just agree to stick together then they could all teach a lesson to Nvidia.

When Nvidia helps games to have physics, then in exchange for that, Nvidia should get money from those game developers, but instead what they are essentially doing is getting to have the games run deficiently on their rivals hardware when that hardware is perfectly technically capable of running the software fully. That is just low-down dirty tactics.

 

[renz496]

@Mousemonkey
@ fulle

You are both right. Nvidia apparently doesn't give a damn about pissing off customers because apparently they are not losing them. I myself only purchase Nvidia because I don't want to lose out on PhsyX. However I realise that Nvidia is using a very dirty business tactic here and should be seriously penalised for these ill-gotten gains against AMDATI. It's too bad everyone is too cowardly to stand up against Nvidia individually. If everyone would just agree to stick together then they could all teach a lesson to Nvidia.

When Nvidia helps games to have physics, then in exchange for that, Nvidia should get money from those game developers, but instead what they are essentially doing is getting to have the games run deficiently on their rivals hardware when that hardware is perfectly technically capable of running the software fully. That is just low-down dirty tactics.

first it was ATI who promised to bring gpu accelerated physics through Havok FX (nvidia also take part in it; back then both claim their solution are much better than competitor). but then Havok got acquired by intel. with that the plan to accelerate havok using gpu just go down the drain. nvidia knows they can go on with havok FX so they bought Aegia so they can deliver their promised on gpu accelerated physics and spend R&D to develop it further. and now people asking nvidia to make PhysX work with AMD hardware?

 

[Bean007]

Honestly I never understood why nVidia even purchased PhysX. I remember when it came out and what it was suppose to be and I just never got excited out it.

 

[IndignantSkeptic]

@renz496

You apparently completely misunderstood my second paragraph. Nvidia deserves to benefit financially for bringing physics to games. However the way they are doing it is very dirty; they are getting money from the wrong people. They should be getting money from the game developers; not the game players. The whole business model is seriously faulty.

 

[Mousemonkey]

@Mousemonkey
@ fulle

You are both right. Nvidia apparently doesn't give a damn about pissing off customers because apparently they are not losing them. I myself only purchase Nvidia because I don't want to lose out on PhsyX. However I realise that Nvidia is using a very dirty business tactic here and should be seriously penalised for these ill-gotten gains against AMDATI. It's too bad everyone is too cowardly to stand up against Nvidia individually. If everyone would just agree to stick together then they could all teach a lesson to Nvidia.

When Nvidia helps games to have physics, then in exchange for that, Nvidia should get money from those game developers, but instead what they are essentially doing is getting to have the games run deficiently on their rivals hardware when that hardware is perfectly technically capable of running the software fully. That is just low-down dirty tactics.

It's called business mate, AMD dropped the ball when it came to GPU accelerated physics and by the time they realised that they didn't have enough money left to buy Ageia for themselves (and they wanted to) it was too late in the game. It's a shame that AMD have to resort to getting ex Nvidia employee's to slag off their their old boss in order to get a little bit of internet time though.

 

[IndignantSkeptic]

@ Mousemonkey

Nvidia is exploiting a law flaw.

 

[Heavensrevenge]

LOL I'm loving AMD more just because of this article, yet I truly do wish their CPU's were a tad faster... because I still am an ATI fanboy deep in my heart, and would really love to have AMD+ATI be my computational platform instead of Intel, maybe I'll switch back to AMD this/next generation just to find out how it is.

 

[Mousemonkey]

@ Mousemonkey

Nvidia is exploiting a law flaw.

A what? How?

 

[silverblue]

Mousemonkey

You're assuming that AMD has any control over what this guy is spouting. These sorts of articles - when posted on AMD.com anyway - are usually followed by a disclaimer stating that this guy's views are not necessarily shared by his parent company. In any case, for a guy so obsessed with games, the fact that he pushed for the 9590, and thinks that Intel is imitating AMD's APU approach (when Intel were the first to come out with a GPU on-die with Clarkdale/Arrandale as far as I recall) speaks volumes about his state of mind.

Still, he's a salesman. You know what they're like.

 

[Mousemonkey]

Mousemonkey

You're assuming that AMD has any control over what this guy is spouting. These sorts of articles - when posted on AMD.com anyway - are usually followed by a disclaimer stating that this guy's views are not necessarily shared by his parent company. In any case, for a guy so obsessed with games, the fact that he pushed for the 9590, and thinks that Intel is imitating AMD's APU approach (when Intel were the first to come out with a GPU on-die with Clarkdale/Arrandale as far as I recall) speaks volumes about his state of mind.

Still, he's a salesman. You know what they're like.

Well they should have some control as he is representing them in an official capacity, have you read the article over at VR-Zone?

 

[iam2thecrowe]

Does anyone remember when ATI launched "Truform" (it was a kind of tesselation) which only ran on ATI hardware.....
I guarantee that if AMD bought ageia they would have done the same thing as nvidia.

 

[Mousemonkey]

Does anyone remember when ATI launched "Truform" (it was a kind of tesselation) which only ran on ATI hardware.....
I guarantee that if AMD bought ageia they would have done the same thing as nvidia.

That wasn't the AMD Mecha HK-2207 demo was it?

 

[InvalidError]

Does anyone remember when ATI launched "Truform" (it was a kind of tesselation) which only ran on ATI hardware...

Except Truform isn't a programming API, ISA or hybrid computing standard. It was a driver+hardware proprietary image enhancement trick that used existing geometry and lighting data to extrapolate extra geometry, not much different from FSAA, MSAA, driver-based stereo-3D for non-3D-aware software, etc. If Nvidia wanted to have their own geometry+lighting based tesselation algorithm, they could have implemented their own.

The only "special" requirement to use Truform was an API call to turn it on because ATI wouldn't put the option in their drivers' control panel due to how many developers' geometry and lighting tricks made Truform produce weird results. Some people have hacked games to force Truform on and results varied wildly.

With unpredictable results unless developers designed their lighting and geometry with Truform in mind (hence the "need" for the software-controlled switch), Truform did not gain much popularity.

 

[master9716]

Duh , they were never a contender .

 

[shin0bi272]

Physx is going to fail because nvidia is a selfish child with a ball who wont play with the other children on the playground. Nvidia didnt make physx they bought it when they bought out Ageia (who bought it from another company I forget their name). Ageia had a standalone PPU (physics processing unit) whos major downfall was that it was a PCI card and needed more bandwidth to push more objects. It worked but it was limited to about 30k objects (the 8800gtx could do 60k in the same simulation). All nvidia had to do was keep that idea around and sell it (possibly even still under the ageia name since they own that too) as a pci-e 4x or 8x card and let it work with any video card.

Instead Nvidia took their ball and went and played with themselves. While there are several games (any game on the unreal 3 or 4 engine) and even non game programs (3dstudio max, maya, etc) that make use of physx its popularity is limited because of nvidia's ardent refusal to allow physx to work unless the nvidia card is the primary card in the user's rig. So you cant go buy an ageia ppu (they disabled that option in the physx drivers after 8.5 or 9.0), and you cant go buy an old 8 series nvidia gpu and run your brand new AMD 7970 because nvidia doesnt like that either.

Hell nvidia could have sold amd the rights to implement it and made millions on the deal! But nooooo nvidia had to be pricks about it and now instead of it making them money on every AMD card sold its turning into a joke.

Just look at the difference between these two mafia2 screenshots:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mafia_physx.jpg

And mafia2's graphics suck compared to crysis... imagine crysis with hardware accelerated physics!

 

[Mousemonkey]

Physx is going to fail because nvidia is a selfish child with a ball who wont play with the other children on the playground. Nvidia didnt make physx they bought it when they bought out Ageia (who bought it from another company I forget their name). Ageia had a standalone PPU (physics processing unit) whos major downfall was that it was a PCI card and needed more bandwidth to push more objects. It worked but it was limited to about 30k objects (the 8800gtx could do 60k in the same simulation). All nvidia had to do was keep that idea around and sell it (possibly even still under the ageia name since they own that too) as a pci-e 4x or 8x card and let it work with any video card.

Instead Nvidia took their ball and went and played with themselves. While there are several games (any game on the unreal 3 or 4 engine) and even non game programs (3dstudio max, maya, etc) that make use of physx its popularity is limited because of nvidia's ardent refusal to allow physx to work unless the nvidia card is the primary card in the user's rig. So you cant go buy an ageia ppu (they disabled that option in the physx drivers after 8.5 or 9.0), and you cant go buy an old 8 series nvidia gpu and run your brand new AMD 7970 because nvidia doesnt like that either.

Hell nvidia could have sold amd the rights to implement it and made millions on the deal! But nooooo nvidia had to be pricks about it and now instead of it making them money on every AMD card sold its turning into a joke.

Just look at the difference between these two mafia2 screenshots:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mafia_physx.jpg

And mafia2's graphics suck compared to crysis... imagine crysis with hardware accelerated physics!

So where's the Bullet Physics that was supposed to be here by 2010?

bit-tech: -so we'll see AMD GPU physics in 2010?

RH: Bullet should be available certainly in 2010, yes.

Link

 

[renz496]

@renz496

You apparently completely misunderstood my second paragraph. Nvidia deserves to benefit financially for bringing physics to games. However the way they are doing it is very dirty; they are getting money from the wrong people. They should be getting money from the game developers; not the game players. The whole business model is seriously faulty.

nvidia is profit making company. and about physx it depends on game dev themselves if they want the gpu accelerated stuff or not. to most of people they thought nvidia did a bad thing with physx but they still deliver on their early promised to bring gpu accelerated physics to consumer where as amd keep promising one.

 

[Mousemonkey]

Anyone else see this about CUDA?

http://www.legitreviews.com/news/15832/

It's doomed, DOOMED!