Nvidia Offers PhysX, Apex Support for PlayStation 4

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

It is when the head of AMD/ATi's graphic marketing department says we don't want or need PhysX because we are developing our own physics API.
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
Why bother with PhysX which is proprietary to Nvidia when you have OpenCL and DirectCompute which are supported by just about every current unified shader IGP/GPU?

Of course, having a DirectCompute API on a Sony platform might be a little awkward so that leaves OpenCL as Sony's most logical standard option. My guess is that Nvidia did not want PhysX to get forgotten so they pushed to have PhysX included in the platform. Conversely, Microsoft will likely want to use the X720 to promote DirectCompute.
 

Souv_90

Honorable
Feb 12, 2013
25
0
10,540
1
“Loads of curent-generation games rely on it.”

Isn’t really true. Loads of current gen games rely on a physic API, but barely any games actually use PhysX, and less than 5% of the games that do use it, actually use the GPU for it...less than 5% games use physx,so it's irrelevent for gaming in broad perspective

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhysX
 

Pgooch

Honorable
Aug 7, 2012
282
0
10,790
3
What I'm seeing here is ALOT more games are going to be supporting physx if it comes on the ps4 which in turn will eventually give them the edge on PC is most likely the plan
 

alidan

Splendid
Aug 5, 2009
5,303
0
25,780
0
[citation][nom]jimmyjohnz[/nom]Uhh, can't you run physx on your PC on your cpu? I seem to remember being able to activate it on on my 3570K/7850 setup in Borderlands 2.[/citation]

because physx run x87 code, and runs like hell on the cpu... they neuter the code so only the gpu can run it well (imagine, nvidia only games because no cpu can run the game) and they than lock out amd cards.

[citation][nom]Mousemonkey[/nom]It is when the head of AMD/ATi's graphic marketing department says we don't want or need PhysX because we are developing our own physics API.[/citation]

yea, pay your direct competition money for every card, instead of develop an open solution.

[citation][nom]InvalidError[/nom]Why bother with PhysX which is proprietary to Nvidia when you have OpenCL and DirectCompute which are supported by just about every current unified shader IGP/GPU?Of course, having a DirectCompute API on a Sony platform might be a little awkward so that leaves OpenCL as Sony's most logical standard option. My guess is that Nvidia did not want PhysX to get forgotten so they pushed to have PhysX included in the platform. Conversely, Microsoft will likely want to use the X720 to promote DirectCompute.[/citation]

nvidia has a opencl version of physx to my understanding. the moment that amd gets close to a real competitor in physics, they will release physx as an open platform so they can at least lisence it out... like it or not physx is fairly good, just nvidia bound.
 
[citation][nom]Yuka[/nom]Uhm... So what?It's not like it's going to add a lot to what HavoK currently does.Besides, I'm VERY sure it will increase the overall console cost, so not such a good idea IMO.Cheers![/citation]
it will only increase the cost of games that use it. It will just run on the cpu as obviously there is no nvidia hardware in the console.
 
[citation][nom]sivaseemakurthi[/nom]I didn't understand. Did Nvidia 'offer' physx or its already supported in PS4?[/citation]
physx can run on x86 cpu's and the ps4 has an 8 core x86 cpu. As i said before, it will be up to game devs to use it if they want.
 

renz496

Champion
well said mouse. it seems that many people misunderstand what is this all about. afaik with this announcement nvidia wants to tell game developer that physx software is compatible PS4 hardware. this is significant to game dev because it might dictate what physics engine or game engine they will be able to use with PS4. remember the physics engine is part of game engine and not integrated into console software firmwares.

about physx running on amd hardware of course it can be done. but to do it legally amd must first license the tech from nvidia because nvidia are the current owner of physx. then amd have to optimize the software themselves for their hardware. in 2009 nvidia make the offer to amd if they want the tech to run on their cards but amd refuse the offer because they want to make another alternative to gpu accelerated physic with bullet. nvidia block the usage of gpu accelerated PhysX function in game when nvidia driver detect amd discrete gpu presence as primary gpu not long after that.
 

IndignantSkeptic

Distinguished
Apr 19, 2011
507
0
18,980
0
Nvidia should be making money from PhysX by charging developers to use it. They should not be using this dirty business tactic of making it exclusive to their system to make money that way. So many companies keep using tactics like that and we should never have tolerated it.
 

ojas

Distinguished
Feb 25, 2011
2,924
0
20,810
15
[citation][nom]demonhorde665[/nom]my thoughts exactly this is HARD proof that there is no excuse for AMD chips to dip down to 15 fps when runnign physx in software even. Nvidia is obviously coding Physx to run like crap when AMD cards are detected. dirty dirty buisness.[/citation]
But wouldn't running physx in software mode imply running it on the CPU? (which is usually much slower)?
 

billgatez

Distinguished
Feb 7, 2012
225
0
18,680
0
Intresting move by Nvidia. it means that when these Physx games are ported to PC nvidia will be able to say look at what you get with our GPU.
 

rantoc

Distinguished
Dec 17, 2009
1,859
1
19,780
0
[citation][nom]billgatez[/nom]Intresting move by Nvidia. it means that when these Physx games are ported to PC nvidia will be able to say look at what you get with our GPU.[/citation]

They will want the same thing with the new xbox and if that happens i'm sure many many dev's will use the PhysX rather than other solutions since its supported by the new xbox, ps4 and a big chunk of the pc gamers, it will be an enticement to go to team green for the PC gamers. It sure seems to be their plans...
 

ojas

Distinguished
Feb 25, 2011
2,924
0
20,810
15
[citation][nom]rantoc[/nom]They will want the same thing with the new xbox and if that happens i'm sure many many dev's will use the PhysX rather than other solutions since its supported by the new xbox, ps4 and a big chunk of the pc gamers, it will be an enticement to go to team green for the PC gamers. It sure seems to be their plans...[/citation]
Perhaps the way forward is to:
1) Run virtu, so that you're mostly running Intel's HD graphics
2) Have a primary AMD GPU to game with
3) Have a secondary Nvidia card for physx.
 

upgrade_1977

Distinguished
May 5, 2011
665
0
18,990
4
I think, they are licencing the technology to them so they can see how inferior the PS4 will be to a PC. I'm sure with physX enabled it'll slow the APU down close to a crawl. That will give them a way to compare the different platforms. Also, if nVidia didn't licence it, all the console fanboys would cry, and blame nVidia for not having it. And, it's another way for nVidia to make money, so that next time they release Titan 2 or whatever, it won't have to be $1000 bucks.
 

mamailo

Distinguished
Oct 13, 2011
166
0
18,690
1
The PS4 APU can compute PhysX in the graphics core so no real reason to expect a massive drop in frame rate.

Any way, PhysX licenses has been aviable since long time for Ps3, Xbox 360 and even Wii.Is not wide spread because the BS attitude of Nvidia towards said licenses.Nvidia want to charge for per game sold not per game engine and since developers do not like been said "hoop trough loops" using the TWIMTBP blackmail because it make them to bend over.For example: the Batman: Arkham Asylum AA issue, Need for Speed: Shift, Resident Evil 5, etc.

AMD was offered a deal for a non rolling license, meaning Nvidia could remove the license when they want or/and charge whatever they want for it, and can not be tunned.Not surprising AMD said fuck off, talk to the game engine makers.

Then it came chapter III of this soap opera,Intel in their monopolistic view of the world though "My Video designs are crap already and unable to do compute" . I better buy Havock and stop the development before this become a problem.Another BS attitude. When was the last time you saw a Intel Graphics Card ?

That and the fact epic games said NO, I will make my own for Unreal Engine 4, leave us with the sad,sad current situation. 95% of the games are not accelerated by PhysX or OpenCL.

What I can not understand; is why Nvidia do not want my money?. Many gladly would buy a dedicated PhysX card if their drivers allowed.The time to loosen the chain is now; once UE4 and others OpenCL engines are out; will be too late.
 

alidan

Splendid
Aug 5, 2009
5,303
0
25,780
0
[citation][nom]mamailo[/nom]The PS4 APU can compute PhysX in the graphics core so no real reason to expect a massive drop in frame rate.Any way, PhysX licenses has been aviable since long time for Ps3, Xbox 360 and even Wii.Is not wide spread because the BS attitude of Nvidia towards said licenses.Nvidia want to charge for per game sold not per game engine and since developers do not like been said "hoop trough loops" using the TWIMTBP blackmail because it make them to bend over.For example: the Batman: Arkham Asylum AA issue, Need for Speed: Shift, Resident Evil 5, etc.AMD was offered a deal for a non rolling license, meaning Nvidia could remove the license when they want or/and charge whatever they want for it, and can not be tunned.Not surprising AMD said fuck off, talk to the game engine makers. Then it came chapter III of this soap opera,Intel in their monopolistic view of the world though "My Video designs are crap already and unable to do compute" . I better buy Havock and stop the development before this become a problem.Another BS attitude. When was the last time you saw a Intel Graphics Card ?That and the fact epic games said NO, I will make my own for Unreal Engine 4, leave us with the sad,sad current situation. 95% of the games are not accelerated by PhysX or OpenCL.What I can not understand; is why Nvidia do not want my money?. Many gladly would buy a dedicated PhysX card if their drivers allowed.The time to loosen the chain is now; once UE4 and others OpenCL engines are out; will be too late.[/citation]

once a true alternative for physx is out they will go an opencl route, right now though they want as much as they can get out of it while its still impressive and only on their hardware.
 

David Zember

Honorable
Jun 7, 2012
25
0
10,530
0
[citation][nom]nikolayivanov321[/nom]PhysX is kind of overrated IMO. A few extra effects like better looking cloth and smoke in exchange for a huge framerate dip? No thank you...[/citation]

Sure, it may not be all that great currently, but it's definitely getting better. Look at Borderlands 2.
 

alidan

Splendid
Aug 5, 2009
5,303
0
25,780
0
[citation][nom]David Zember[/nom]Sure, it may not be all that great currently, but it's definitely getting better. Look at Borderlands 2.[/citation]

we use to have baked in graphic effects for things, lets say rubble for instance, because it was baked it looked fake, but it was better than nothing.

if physics gets put in, they no longer bake an effect, and its almost completely removed

look at the mafia 2 demos to see what im talking about.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS