http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33237
Thought it was intresting read. Wonder if it's just BS or not.
Thought it was intresting read. Wonder if it's just BS or not.
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.
They couldn't care less about adoption of their middleware - after all, they're not making any money out of it
You could probably run HavokFX on a PhysX card if you wanted to.
hexxx said:Havok said they are only willing to support the PhysX in Havok FX provided they make the PPU SM3.0 compliant. Nice way of saying they will never support it.
jimmyb said:Since you claim to be incapable of understanding why Havok will support video cards I'll explain:
Almost everyone who plays games has a video card. That's a large market. There's no sense in passing it up. I really find it hard to believe you don't understand this concept.
On another note, It wouldn't come as a huge surprised to me if the PhysX card was sm3 compliant, but that's just speculation. I'm not familiar with the hardware.
Well I give you a more viable option here.jimmyb said:Since you claim to be incapable of understanding why Havok will support video cards I'll explain:
Almost everyone who plays games has a video card. That's a large market. There's no sense in passing it up. I really find it hard to believe you don't understand this concept.
On another note, It wouldn't come as a huge surprised to me if the PhysX card was sm3 compliant, but that's just speculation. I'm not familiar with the hardware.
Terra said:My videocard don't have to many spare cycles left when gaming 4xTRSSAA/16xAF 1280x1024...Most games are GPU bound and you wanna take cycles away from graphics processeing and dedicate to to physics in single card colutions?
Terra...
jimmyb said:I'm not sure what that has to do with my post. I was merely explaining to cyks why the people at Havok felt compelled to support video card physics.
Brent_Justice said:actually, i'm willing to bet not all pipelines are being fully utilized at all times, that's kind of the whole idea behind a unified architecture, to allow cards to use whatever number of vertex/pixel units are needed for a given scene, right now cycles are being wasted on your GPU
It wouldn't be bad business at all. Havok supporting more hardware only improves the desirability of their product. If they can produce middleware that supports all forms of hardware physics acceleration, you can bet they'll be selling licenses like hot cakes. Supporting PhysX, ceteris paribus, is only a good thing.Terra said:Would be bad buisness for them(Havok) to try and make an API for the PhysX.
AGEIA makes the $$$ on the cards.
And give away their API for free if you support the PhysX hardware.
Would be kinda impossbile for them(Havok) to sell any software licenses to PhysX hardware, when AGEIA is giving it away
jimmyb said:It wouldn't be bad business at all. Havok supporting more hardware only improves the desirability of their product. If they can produce middleware that supports all forms of hardware physics acceleration, you can bet they'll be selling licenses like hot cakes. Supporting PhysX, ceteris paribus, is only a good thing.
AGEIA sells hardware, Havok sells software; These are not conflicting markets.
Terra said:My videocard don't have to many spare cycles left when gaming 4xTRSSAA/16xAF 1280x1024...Most games are GPU bound and you wanna take cycles away from graphics processeing and dedicate to to physics in single card colutions?
Terra...
mjz_5 said:you'll get to use your old videocard as a physics solution..
And I am sure when ATi/Nvidia/Havok finally figure that one out, what they call "A discovery to be made," they will finally tell you, mr. all ears.jimmyb said:If you have a technical reason why DX9 class hardware won't work, I'm all ears.
And where exactly are you planning on putting it? Looks to me like you're gonna need to buy a Crossfire motherboard...mjz_5 said:you'll get to use your old videocard as a physics solution..
LuminaryJanitor said:I'm fairly confident single-card performance will be absolutely horrendous. Unplayable on a single X1600, for sure.
That's a fair opinion.LuminaryJanitor said:I'm fairly confident single-card performance will be absolutely horrendous. Unplayable on a single X1600, for sure.
Yeah. On an X1900, you get to experience the joy of playing it on a X1600. With more chunks.psychoace said:X1600 is horrendous without any physics functions so of course it will be even worse. Now on a x1900 or 7950 that is something different.
ATi says a X1600 will perform as fast as Ageia in crossfire mode. So any GPU physics user (oxymoron?) with any common sense could reason that crossfire would be needed. Besides, how well do you think a single X1600 will perform on not only today's games, but future games? "remains to be seen," my ass. That is the single most misleading statement I have yet seen in GPU/PPU history. Step aside effects/gameplay physics, jimmyb with his mysterious X1600 of untold power has taken the stage.jimmyb said:Havok FX is enabled for the X1600 and up according to Ati. Crossfire will not be required for it either. A single card will work (mind you, the performance may not be great, that remains to be seen).
You are trapped in a PR time warp jimmy. On today's games, Havok uses the CPU. So yes, Havok does not currently use DX. Guess what happens when ATi/Nvidia finally decide to let you use your godly X1600 for physics? HavokFX rolls over off of the CPU and on to the GPU, using GPU hardware via DX. And yes, Havok did say that the CPU version will still be possible on the CPU at the same time, but the CPU is horrible for physics (and why on earth would you want two live instances of physics calculations, can you get enough bottlenecks!?!?).jimmyb said:As I mentioned earlier, Havok does not run through DirectX. The display driver provides a layer between the hardware and api. There is no reason they would be waiting for DirectX to be released. It has nothing to do with Havok FX.
No, this is not the case. As far as Havok has stated, the driver for the video card provides a layer between Havok FX and the api. DirectX is not anywhere in there.cyks said:HavokFX rolls over off of the CPU and on to the GPU, using GPU hardware via DX.
But as I mentioned, according to Havok, Havok FX will not be working through DirectX, instead a driver will provide a layer between the hardware and api.Pottsey said:But DX10 talks to the GPU in a very different way from DX9 and its much easier/better sending data back to the CPU from the GPU with DX10. It appears Havoc are waiting for DX10 so they can better send the physic data from the GPU back to the CPU.
Does this driver have a name? Can we see it too?jimmyb said:But as I mentioned, according to Havok, Havok FX will not be working through DirectX, instead a driver will provide a layer between the hardware and api.
Pottsey said:Terra first says DX10 has nothing to do with physics now he says havok fx is useless without it.
That makes sense if you understands the technology. DX10 has nothing directly to do with physics in that there are no physics added to the API. But DX10 talks to the GPU in a very different way from DX9 and its much easier/better sending data back to the CPU from the GPU with DX10. It appears Havoc are waiting for DX10 so they can better send the physic data from the GPU back to the CPU.
The hole driver structure for DX10 is different from DX9 you will need a new set of drivers and its these drivers Terra thinks will contain the ability to do physics.