Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
ppu development went kaput with nvidia's acquisition of ageia earlier this year. you should only expect hardware physx to be implemented on nvidia gpus for the foreseeable future.
PhysX was obsolete the day it was released. Anyone that didn't see this coming needs to reconsider their need for a killer nic or _______ fatality product.
Well, I'd love to stick to a nvidia gpu running as a physics card, but it's still not an option for anyone running a mobo with only 1 PCIE 16X slot or for someone with an ATI card. While it's not a booming market for sure, it'd be nice to see at least an upgraded version that could at least compete with the newer Nvidia cards in physx mode.
There is still some fluctuation that can occur once DX10.1 & 11 come out (both of which are said to include physics support).
People have been telling me that an 8800 GT is about the lowest you can go for a PPU-only GPU without compromising on performance.
*shrugs* Eventually it all comes down to what games you play and at which resolution
Ok, so lets say you have a board with 2 PCI-e x16 slot and two PCI-e x1 slots and one PCI slot, and the x16 slot is taken up by video. What would you get, an 8400GS PCI or another PCI-e x16 card and us it in a x1 slot. Also if you did use it in a x1 slot, which one would you buy?
Ok, so lets say you have a board with 2 PCI-e x16 slot and two PCI-e x1 slots and one PCI slot, and the x16 slot is taken up by video. What would you get, an 8400GS PCI or another PCI-e x16 card and us it in a x1 slot. Also if you did use it in a x1 slot, which one would you buy?
I don't think PhysX will be OpenCL. nVidia has no reason to.
OpenCL is basically a ripoff of Cuda. It doesn't add anything extra on nVidia hardware.
I also doubt that AMD will ever do anything with PhysX, certainly no hacks. If anything, they'll have to do it the official way, by licensing the technology from nVidia (which nVidia has already offered, but AMD has declined).
You make AMD sound like the bad guys. Remember what NVidia used to charge motherboard manufacturers in royalties to put an NVidia chipset on the board? Ever think that maybe they haven't changed their act?
IMO I don't think they turned them down because of the tech, but because of the price of the licensing.
I don't know why they turned it down, but PhysX might well prove to be priceless technology. In that case, if they did turn it down because of the price, that was a big mistake, perhaps the last mistake that ATi will ever make.
Also, weren't there some people who made PhysX acceleration work on AMD cards already?
Out of curiosity: is nvidia going to continue to provide driver support to the already released PPU's or are they dead in the water?
That turned out to be a hoax. They just posted some hacked screenshots, and were never heard from again.
Funny enough (just like with the DX10-on-XP stuff earlier), some people actually thought (or still think) that it was a working solution.
One could implement the PhysX API using OpenCL, though... AMD supports it too, so it may be a viable way
Sure you could... They could even implement it through their Stream SDK, or the Brook+/CAL stuff they used before that.
But who's going to... and you probably need some kind of license to implement the API, since nVidia owns the rights.
You make AMD sound like the bad guys. Remember what NVidia used to charge motherboard manufacturers in royalties to put an NVidia chipset on the board? Ever think that maybe they haven't changed their act?
I don't know why they turned it down, but PhysX might well prove to be priceless technology. In that case, if they did turn it down because of the price, that was a big mistake, perhaps the last mistake that ATi will ever make.
OpenCL will not be insignificant. Apple's using it in Snow Leopard, and AMD is working with the JVM vendors to seamlessly offload certain processing to OpenCL graphics cards. Besides, OpenCL and PhysX are not mutually exclusive. The real deciding factor will be what Microsoft decides to do with DirectX. Whichever direction they go in terms of DirectX implementation, whether it's OpenCL, PhysX, Havok, or something else, the other options will eventually end up being like Glide.
OpenCL is not a physics API (neither is DirectX). I've said it before: who's going to make a physics API?
It's all just floating-point math,
One thing I don't see is Intel and AMD paying Nvidia a fee to use their stuff when they can just write their own or collaborate on something they don't have to pay for (something like Havok, for instance).
Why would AMD pay Intel for Havok?
Btw how long is your a "few months"?
So before 20th Dec 2009, the PhysX games will outnumber the Havok games? I'm so gonna bump this thread then.