![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
AMD: CUDA Is Doomed
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
Because on PC they don't give a shit.
Physx wouldn't make them money if it actually ran efficiently on a PC's processor or gave a proper AMD port that wouldn't run like shit (which you KNOW they would hinder performance...AMD is their COMPETITOR after all).
Not only that but by making sure they can get their noses in the asses of dev's it means that when a game is ported to PC they can code it for GPU Physx. Since Nvidia didn't get a piece of the console hardware pie (supposedly they wanted too much money) they decided they could instead just put their software on consoles.
In my opinion MS and Sony shouldn't allow this as all it does is stifle the evolution of OpenCL and limits what their consoles can do. By making the consoles run Physx that not only means that consoles won't be capable of advanced GPU physics but that on the PC end of things AMD and Intel IGP users will get screwed over as well.
Again, look at The Witcher 3. Next-gen game. Software Physx on the console and GPU Physx for the PC version. Better effects on the PC version while the console versions and AMD/Intel users get shit on in the end...this is NOT right. Isn't GPU physics kind of a big deal about the next-gen consoles? CD Projekt RED doesn't seem to think so.
I'm actually shocked that CD Projekt RED agreed to do this. I thought they did all the things they do because they aren't greedy assholes (like no DRM)...but by letting Nvidia apparently buy them out in this aspect they have lost respect from me.
THIS is why this proprietary shit needs to stop. This is why Physx NEEDS to die. You Nvidia users don't seem to understand that OpenCL and GPU Compute WILL RUN ON YOUR GPU. YOU DO NOT NEED PHYSX TO GET AWESOME EFFECTS!
So yeah, thanks Nvidia and the dev's that use software Physx.
Thanks Nvidia for holding next-gen back.
Sincerely,
AMD/Intel/Sony/Microsoft
Semantics
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,811
Or you can bunt off physics development costs to nvidia who will send their software guys to do all the heavy lifting and now your game has physics and you didn't have to do jack. Because you know developers are all about doing things right even if it cost them money.
Oh wahh.. Should NVIDIA really just hand over IP to a competitor for free- to what end?
Look, I'm not saying that Physx running in software is useless. I'm sure that Nvidia has given the PS4 a more optimized code for it's CPU. My point in that next-gen consoles support GPU computing and were built with this in mind. So sure we'll have some exploding boxes and what not with console/CPU Physx, but nothing in comparison to what next-gen could do with their GPU.
Remember the Havok GPU demo at the PS4 announcement...1,000,000 dynamic particles on the GPU while still being able to render graphics. How many particles you think Physx could do on the PS4? I'll give you a hint...no where near 1,000,000. I guarantee that .
No...dev's should want to push the limits of next-gen physics. Something Nvidia's Physx won't come close to doing unless they build Physx from the ground up to support AMD GPU's.
This is why I said I'm disappointed with Projekt RED. Not only are they limiting what a large amount of PC owners will be able to see and interact with in their new game but they chose to not even properly use next-gen as it was meant to be.
Plus how much do you think licensing something like Havok is? Star Wars: Force Unleashed used THREE physics engines. Even it Havok charged something like $50,000 or so...with a game that is already costing ten's of millions of dollars what's $50k to really push the physics of a next-gen game?
Instead dev's would rather use a FAR inferior product just so they can save a pretty dismal amount of money over all.
In the end though I think too logically about these things. I think too much in the "I would do everything possible to make it the best I could" type way. I forget that developers are in the end a business, and with business it's all about the bottom line and profit margin. So even though Projekt RED could easily use and afford Havok in the end they'd rather get paid to use a worse product then pay to get a superior one. But that's just business, right?...
Ashbringer
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2010
- Messages
- 5,522
Cause Nvidia wants to use CUDA as a way to leverage things in their favor. They're willing to bet that they have such huge influence on developers, that you either jump on the PhysX wagon and do what they say, or fuck off.
This is what Creative wanted to do with EAX, and failed. This is what companies tried to do during the 56k era of modems. K56flex and X2 were huge competitors, and it got annoying. Eventually the industry ended up on v90, then v92.
The same will happen to CUDA.
Unknown-One
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 8,909
Uhm... what? OpenCL performance on Nvidia cards has been more than good enough to run a physics engine for a long, loooong time.
NoOther
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 14, 2008
- Messages
- 6,468
You can keep raging, but no one is forcing Sony and Microsoft to use PhysX, no one is forcing developers to code for PhysX. Nvidia isn't holding anyone back. Their cards, as you said so yourself, can use the open physics engines as well, so there is no stopping any developers or console makers from pushing more towards open standards. It is in NO way the fault of Nvidia. If AMD/Intel/Sony/Microsoft really wanted to push more towards the open standards, then they would put more money into help developers code for those engines. The fact that Nvidia does spend so much time with developers says a lot about their focus. So who is really out to help the gamer and developers? Certainly not AMD, that is for damn sure. They may contribute to competition and lower prices, but they aren't really doing much in the arena of pushing more GPGPU and physics developement except putting out hardware.
GotNoRice
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2001
- Messages
- 12,017
The biggest issue with PhysX not supporting all hardware is that game developers have to plan for it not being there, meaning that in most cases it's limited to novelty effects.
And when I see a game using PhysX now, my first thought is, why not DirectCompute or OpenCL instead?
And when I see a game using PhysX now, my first thought is, why not DirectCompute or OpenCL instead?
Semantics
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,811
Businesses like support more then openness at times. I'm sure nvidia is more then capable of porting CUDA into OpenCL so that things like Physx would run on any gpu. They just choose not to
I never said anyone was FORCED to use it.
As I said above:
That's the reason why these companies are using Physx, pure and simple. If that isn't the reason then what is? Why wouldn't RED want to use an open source or paid physics engine that could really do some cool effects for everyone?
Isn't that sort of the point of next-gen?
Plus, using Physx means that physics intense things can't ever be used for actual game play purposes and will always be limited to purely eye-candy for Nvidia users as consoles and AMD/Intel user wouldn't be able to run more intense Physx effects in it's current state.
Like I said, unless Nvidia redoes Physx to support all GPU's or makes it so the CPU can do things that can be done using Havok (like intense cloth, particle, fluid, etc) it will always hold back physics in games that rely on the CPU. This is a fact and can be proven by playing ANY game that uses GPU Physx with the CPU (Borderlands 2, Mafia 2, Arkham Asylum/City).
Havok (or similar) = Awesome and substantial physics effects for any CPU or GPU depending on which processing method is used.
Physx = Awesome and substantial physics effects for Nvidia users. Non-Nvidia users get stuck with physics that aren't any better than what we got with Half Life 2 almost 10 years ago.
I don't see how anyone can argue this point.
Exactly. Physx will always be limited to eye-candy for Nvidia users or simple uninteresting things for everyone else in it's current form.
As to the second question it's because Nvidia pays developers to use Physx. This has been a long known fact.
NoOther
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 14, 2008
- Messages
- 6,468
Got it, so its Nvidia's responsibility to hold everyone's hand and do everything for them? It isn't the responsibility of anyone else to push other platforms or lend a helping hand to developers and enable them to use these supposedly superior physics engines? Come on man...
Well you see the big difference between Nvidia and other physics companies is that Physx is only a part of Nvidia over all.
Companies like Havok or others (DMM, Euphoria, Bullet, etc) couldn't afford to pay dev's off so that they'll use their product instead. If Havok owned a industry leading GPU manufacturer and could safely afford to pay dev's to use Havok I'm sure they would.
Nvidia doesn't have to worry about people paying THEM to use it as to them, financially, it's such a minor thing. Basically what I see with Physx is Nvidia paying dev's to basically advertise the Nvidia name.
As I just said above...if you are a developer would you rather be paid to use something or pay to use something. You really think RED is using Physx because it's the SUPERIOR product or do you think they're using it because they get money to use it.
In other words, do you think Physx would be as wide spread in use if developers HAD to pay for it like they would with Havok, etc? Of course not. If all physics engines had to be paid for then why would a dev want a CPU limited software solution for their next-gen games instead of something that could use the GPU and do SO SO SO much more?
Semantics
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,811
Well the problems with physx on cpu only is that there are hard limits to effects in the coding although i haven't looked over 3.x yet. Plus the old 2.x on newer cpu's that don't allow x87 coding outside of single thread. Still physx is a near split with havok each with about 500 products using their engine.
Unknown-One
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 8,909
Uhm... you need to do some fact checking...
- Havok is owned by Intel, and Intel can certainly afford to pay devs off.
- Intel is THE industry-leading GPU manufacturer (Intel has 51% of the GPU market).
Yeah, I'm unsure as to what 3.0 is capable of at this point. If Nvidia has made it to where it can do things like what Havok and others can do on the CPU (like cloth, hair, fluid, smoke, etc) then that's awesome and I congratulate them for finally catching up and not purposely limiting their software.
However, I still feel that on the GPU end of things Physx either needs to work on all or just die.
Watch the fur demo Projekt RED showed off for The Witcher 3. It's stuff like this that pisses me off. Instead of using an open source physics engine so that all can enjoy moving and flowing fur they instead CHOSE to let Nvidia pay them so that those effects could only be done on THEIR GPU's.
As I've said before this is what really ticks me off. If Physx was something new and there were no alternatives then I would be fine with it...the problem being is that there ARE alternatives and better ones at that!
I mean, at the end of the day I don't think Nvidia really CARES about pushing physics technology. I feel that if they did then Physx would have already been open source and work perfectly on all manners of processing be it CPU or GPU's from any company. The fact that it doesn't goes to show that to them it's just one more thing that they can say "we have it and you don't".
NoOther
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 14, 2008
- Messages
- 6,468
Your entire statement is flawed here. Havok doesn't need to pay people off, and actually Havok was bought by Intel. Last I checked, they were a fairly good sized company... AMD went down the Havok road for awhile as well. Either Intel or AMD could have helped developers out more.
Also, the main author of Bullet has strong ties to both AMD and Sony...more holes in your theory.
Euphoria is a very limited engine focusing almost entirely on character animation.
Realtime DMM was exclusive to LucasArts games.
Your entire arguments are all flawed. Simply put, you let your hatred for Nvidia spoil the truth and the facts out there.
It would be great for more developers and more games use other physics engines, but you know what? THEY ALREADY DO!! Its amazing how many games use other physics engines. A number of studios create their own physics engines as well. PhysX is not the big bully out there, and neither is Nvidia. In fact, if AMD and Intel would get off their collective arses and push Havok more and actually help developers, then it would have a good chance to take over PhysX. Also more and more developers and companies are coming onboard to OpenCL, but it hasn't been as prominent until just recently. Most games take years to develop their engines. They aren't going to just willy nilly drop all the work they have already done to integrate a new physics engine, that takes time and money. Time and money that Nvidia was willing to offer to developers to help make better games. Time and money that Intel or AMD could have also invested.
Again, if you want to throw blame, throw it squarely at AMD and Intel. They are the 2 other giants in the room doing absolutely nothing.
Unknown-One
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 8,909
Oh, and there was a nice hardware-agnostic GPU-based version of Havok under development called Havok FX. It was able to run on both ATi and Nvidia graphics cards of the day.
The project was quietly killed after Intel acquired Havok Inc.
You want anyone to blame for PhysX being the only game in town for hardware accelerated physics in commercial games, blame Intel.
The project was quietly killed after Intel acquired Havok Inc.
You want anyone to blame for PhysX being the only game in town for hardware accelerated physics in commercial games, blame Intel.
Alright then screw Havok then. Dev's could just use one of the open source physics engines.
Problem is, as I've pointed out numerous times already, is that Nvidia = we do most of the work PLUS we'll pay you (which limits the amount of effects and/or those that can use it to the fullest) vs. open source = everyone can use it but would cost developers a little bit of money and time to get it working properly.
As a business that makes video games they want the easy and paid for option vs. the option that would yield better and more fair results for all but they have to spend some time and effort to do so.
Either way it still doesn't change the fact that Physx is still the inferior product when it comes down to what it can do and for how many users it can do "x" for. As someone who isn't a greedy asshole if I owned a AAA game studio I'd rather spend the time and money on something that can be used and loved by all then be a dick and go with something I'm being bribed to use.
Physx = Limited use and stifling of progress and technology BUT get's paid for and all the work done by someone else
vs.
Open Source = Use for everyone and progression of technology BUT has to be researched and learned and you aren't getting paid in the process.
That's just me though.
Make better games for THEIR products only.
Phoenix333
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2009
- Messages
- 3,510
Now that's a response I can understand and reply to. Thank you.
I was simply pointing out that a big name title, in this case Borderlands 2, made heavy use of PhysX and even took the time to advertise their PhysX effects. Regardless of personal opinions on PhysX - and I'm not really a huge fan of proprietary stuff myself as a rule - if it's "dead" as AMD is claiming then this seems to be contradicting their statement. Same with CUDA. If it's being used by someone then it's not dead. That's all I meant.
NoOther
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 14, 2008
- Messages
- 6,468
Or ANYONE who wants to license it, as we see, has been done in some form or another...
Again, you are just uttering blind hatred at Nvidia. They didn't create the problem, they tried to create a solution for gamers and developers. Again, Intel and AMD can do the same thing, they have paid other people to do other things. Hell Intel and AMD pay companies millions to try to screw eachother over on their x86 licenses. You know, the license that AMD stole in the first place.
Yet somehow they get a pass in all this from you? Yet again, come on man... It is just more of AMD's BS. Just like all their other PR campaigns.
ShamisOMally
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2010
- Messages
- 1,480
It's required by anybody that accepts funding from Nvidia that PhysX to be put into their games.
Repeat, required.
If this is not "Bullying" the developer, I dunno what is.
At least AMD's program they help the developer tweak the game engine so it runs better on both AMD and Nvidia, hell they do it for free even.
ShamisOMally
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2010
- Messages
- 1,480
Um, Nvidia did create the problem by not having PhysX a open source standard.....
relapse808
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2005
- Messages
- 1,709
As a gamer I also don't want AMD cpu's or gpu's in my computer.
NoOther
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 14, 2008
- Messages
- 6,468
So why is the "big bully" not on the majority of the games out there? PhysX is a very small percentage of the total games produced. And sure, if developers want money to develop games using PhysX, it would stand to reason they would then use PhysX... Your argument makes absolutely no sense. AMD and Intel could also offer to help. There is nothing stopping them. And which AMD program is this? The PR BS they put out? As many a developer has said in the past, where has AMD/ATI been all this time? And what does AMD doing it for free have to do with anything? Nvidia has also worked with many developers, doing things for them for free as well. And they do not always require developers use PhysX when they assist them. You are trying to mix up different programs.
So any company that does not produce an open standard is creating a problem? That is a bunch of BS and you know it too. ANY company can push their product out there and help developers use it. Many companies already do. There are tons of private physics engines in games that are NOT PhysX. Please, tell me where all these PhysX games are that are causing the downfall of the industry...
You guys are all riled up over a small percentage of games. Nvidia isn't hurting the industry at all. In fact, their cards support other standards. There is no reason other companies and developers can push and use those other standards. Again your arguments are just plain falling flat. If instead PhysX comprised 40% or more of the big market games, then I would actually consider your arguments, but the fact is it doesn't.
And as far as CUDA that is an entirely different thing than PhysX. And CUDA has many other applications that are being used to great effect in many different industries. To say that CUDA is doomed is completely ridiculous.
The simple fact remains, AMD needs to start putting up or shut up. They keep running their mouths on stupid PR stunts and BS, instead of trying to push for real change. If they really think these things are true, then they should invest more in making a change. Hell, they own the ENTIRE next-gen market share. They have a huge opportunity to make a change and push for an open standard. So what are they doing? Mouthing off about small scale proprietary standards instead... What a freaking joke.
No Nvidia hatred. Closed software to be used with specific hardware hatred.
Also being obviously Nvidia biased doesn't help your case either..."they tried to create a solution for gamers and developers"...what solution? That's right, a solution that helps THEM AND ONLY THEM. Sure it helps gamers....as long as you're a "The Way It's Meant To Be Played" gamer.
The developer side of things is simply because the developer is being paid to use it so of course a lot of them are going to use Physx. Less money and less work for them. What's not to like besides cutting off a large majority of consumer base.
Either way in the end, we can all argue all we want. It still doesn't change the fact that Physx is a plague to the gaming community and unless Nvidia want's to make it open source or makes it run LIKE IT SHOULD and without severely gimping it on CPU's and other vendors GPU's it needs to die.
NoOther
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 14, 2008
- Messages
- 6,468
Right I am Nvidia biased....coming from you, that is funny.
So a company should not attempt to profit on advancements they bring to their industry? Nvidia bought PhysX and offered to license it. They also help developers write code for PhysX. Developers dont 'have' to use PhysX and neither do gamers. But its Nvidia's product, it was something extra being added, it does improve games. That is indeed trying to create a solution for gamers and developers. It isn't something for them and only them, they have often offered to license it. Microsoft licenses out their standards as well, as does both AMD and Intel, along with hundreds of other companies. Rail against all of them too. PhysX isn't even a drop in the bucket compared to all the other proprietary licensing going on. And at least with PhysX both gamers and developers have a choice.
The developers being paid has not been the huge incentive you think it is. Again, I point to the lack of saturation of PhysX in the big game market. It does not have that strong of a foothold. And if I was some Nvidia homer, why would I keep pointing that out? The problem is you are just too blind in your vitriol to see the points being made.
And the funniest thing, is you sit here and rant about how PhysX is so crappy compared to other engines, yet in the same breath want it to be made open source so even more games will use it? Come on man...
Sounds like you are. What is it about Physx that you love so much other than the fact that you get to use it when it's used and the rest of people that don't own Nvidia are SOL?
I'd still be arguing these points whether I owned Nvidia or not.
Advancements created by a Ageia. Licensed to games for free because Nvidia get's their name in a game thus free advertising. They help code because of the previous point. Dev's don't have to use Physx but that money smells good! It doesn't improve games. It adds some flying pieces of paper or some liquid that looks like snot. Only time Physx will actually improve anything is if it's GPU driven effects can be used on all GPU's. Other than that it will continue to be nothing more than eye-candy and will never be utilized in actual game play or else that game becomes broken with non-Nvidia users.
For Nvidia users only. You don't seem to understand that Nvidia doesn't give a shit about advancements. It only cares about itself as most business do.
You're right. Nvidia offered to license it to AMD as long as they got to write the drivers for it and had full access to AMD's hardware. Sounds fair right? Because we all know Nvidia would have done the right thing and made Physx run faster on their competitors products that have faster GPU computing capabilities.
The things these companies license get to have done whatever to by the company licensing them. Nvidia would only license to AMD if AMD did as Nvidia wanted which was basically give up their trade secrets. Of course AMD didn't agree to that, no business would.
There ya go with that choice thing again! Either you have it or you don't. What a great choice! Thanks Nvidia and dev's! I have no problem as a gamer paying the same price for an inferior product. How awesome.
Sure it is. How is it not? Either pay for something themselves or get paid to use something...which choice would you make as a greedy business only worried about the bottom line?
Nvidia can't pay everyone!
Nope, as I've said before it has nothing to do with me hating Nvidia (which I don't) but has everything to do with me hating closed standards.
I don't give a damn what physics engine it is, as long as it isn't platform specific thus shutting out anyone who doesn't use that platform. By Nvidia having Physx as a closed platform that means that:
We're never going to see Physx used for game play purposes in games.
-and-
We're never going to see physics that push game play boundaries because it's compatible with only a single platform.
Now obviously this isn't only Nvidia's fault it's the developers as well. This is why I said that Physx is fine...as long as it can be used by everyone...which in it's current state it can't be.
OpenCL and DirectCompute...this is what I want to see dev's use. This is why they should stop being lackies and actaully, you know, DEVELOP physics so that we can have game changing physics in ALL games on ALL platforms.
Equality. That's all I want. Is that so much to ask for?
I would like to point out that a lot of developers used PhysX because it was already tightly integrated to UE3 by Epic in the engine that Epic has been licensing. They were not getting paid. It doesn't make sense to rip it all out and then pay another big chunk of change and try to integrate something else in. When you are on a tight timeline and budget it doesn't make sense.
A lot of Midways fails as they were sinking all suffered from spending a lot of time trying to integrate in Havoc when UE3 wasn't set up for it.
A lot of Midways fails as they were sinking all suffered from spending a lot of time trying to integrate in Havoc when UE3 wasn't set up for it.
ShamisOMally
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2010
- Messages
- 1,480
UE3.5 and 3.5+ both are able to use PhysX 3.X easily, UE3 could only use PhysX 2.X natively
Nvidia still pays developers when making 3.5 and 3.5+ UE games to only use PhysX 2.X though in order to sell cards, biggest offenders lately is Arkham City and Borderlands 2
Semantics
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,811
tin foil hats here get your tin foil hats
SHAMIS STOP IT WITH THAT LOGIC SHIT!
NoOther
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 14, 2008
- Messages
- 6,468
I am sorry, can you point out to a single instance where I stated an opinion in favor of using PhysX? Really take your time... Don't want you to throw out even more inaccuracies...
Completely laughable, same broken record that is false. Again, if developers loved the money so much, why aren't there more PhysX games? And where are all these games that are apparently "broken"?
You mean for anyone that licenses PhysX, but please, keep misrepresenting it.
Oh wait, you didn't forget about the licensing, convenient how you temporarily leave things out of your arguments and then use those very things later... What you keep saying about this is just twisting things around. Yes, Nvidia would write drivers, but AMD could also modify those drivers and test them out. And there were several options actually offered, not just one. But please, keep spouting more anti Nvidia vitriol, oh wait..your not anti-Nvidia...hard to keep track of that...
COMPLETELY false. I have never seen a statement so false in my life. Which companies can do whatever they want with DirectX? They can't. They can 'use' it, but they can't do 'whatever' they want with it. Again, your making completely erroneous statements about the proposed license deal between AMD and Nvidia.
There ya go with that choice thing again! Either you have it or you don't. What a great choice! Thanks Nvidia and dev's! I have no problem as a gamer paying the same price for an inferior product. How awesome.
I am sorry, its not a choice to use a different physx engine? OMG, more than 80% of the developers for games out there completely missed your memo on that! Wow, you are TOTALLY right, I can't play ANY games WITHOUT PhysX, amazing! And your bit about an 'inferior' product is laughable. PhysX is an enhancement, not a requirement for the game. You can play the game without it. In fact people play games without physics processing all the time.
Again, so more than 80% of the market is apparently missing out on this INCREDIBLE deal since they AREN'T using PhysX. What stupid morons they are! You told them!
Lol, really? Yet apparently they are destroying the industry...
No CLEARLY you are non-biased toward Nvidia...
No, you don't want equality. You just want to take away the very small niche market that is PhysX simple because its not open to every single device out there to use. But it is open for them to use, if they license it. What you are really mad at is people aren't licensing it, and they aren't rallying behind any other particular standard. But what you fail to see is that there is already equality out there. There are many other physics engines being used, and some favor AMD hardware. Why don't you go rail against those?
Again, PhysX is a very small niche market. There are only so many games that use PhysX, so its hardly a factor on the overall market. Your arguments simply don't hold any water when you look at the actual full landscape of gaming.
I am just done with this argument, it has become pointless. You want to make a huge grand scale hate bashing of a very small segment of gaming that affects a very small segment of gamers.
The fact still remains, neither CUDA nor PhysX are done. They are both here to stay until someone comes up with better solutions that are viable and adopted by the entire industry. The fact that there are soo many options out there for physics engines is actually what helps keep PhysX alive. And CUDA has far more capabilities in research and design industries that rely on its proven capabilities. Nothing else at the moment really matches up with the maturity and support of CUDA. Those are really the facts at the base of the argument. If AMD really wanted to push the envelope they would help mature a different standard and invest in it. But instead of investing in a new standard and new applications, they invest in BS PR campaigns like they have done for years. It is just one of the reason they continue to get stomped on my Intel. Its sad to see them waste time with this crap.
I am just done with this argument, it has become pointless. You want to make a huge grand scale hate bashing of a very small segment of gaming that affects a very small segment of gamers. Yet you ignore everything else but a very small singular area.
PhysX is not dying, this year alone saw the release of 7 games supporting it , which is higher than ever before ..
PlanetSide 2
Hawken
Metro Last Light
Rise Of The Triad
Warframe
XCOM the Bureau (announced, to be released this month)
Batman Arkham Origin (announced, to be released in 2 months)
PlanetSide 2
Hawken
Metro Last Light
Rise Of The Triad
Warframe
XCOM the Bureau (announced, to be released this month)
Batman Arkham Origin (announced, to be released in 2 months)
prevalence in a field is different from cornering a market.
monopolizing something is different than being recognized as a leader in a field.
cornering a market is different from monopolizing in that monopolissies makes it impossible for others to compete, where as a cornered market has only few outlets for consumers.
since monopolizing is illegal, cornering makets is the most EFFECTIVE way to produce profit.
when u reduce, or limit, the consumers resources, those who provide those resources essentially become the ONLY providers, which in essence becomes a monopoly under a different guise.
u can say AMD VP is hating, or Nvidia is a better ciompany providing better service, but in the end the truth of his message is clear, "propreitary things fail"
in other words, maybe not "fail" in the most conventional form of failure in that it doesn't achieve its purpose, but that it fails to provide what we've expected. something for everyone, without one person doing nothing but gaining more than everyone combined.
monopolizing something is different than being recognized as a leader in a field.
cornering a market is different from monopolizing in that monopolissies makes it impossible for others to compete, where as a cornered market has only few outlets for consumers.
since monopolizing is illegal, cornering makets is the most EFFECTIVE way to produce profit.
when u reduce, or limit, the consumers resources, those who provide those resources essentially become the ONLY providers, which in essence becomes a monopoly under a different guise.
u can say AMD VP is hating, or Nvidia is a better ciompany providing better service, but in the end the truth of his message is clear, "propreitary things fail"
in other words, maybe not "fail" in the most conventional form of failure in that it doesn't achieve its purpose, but that it fails to provide what we've expected. something for everyone, without one person doing nothing but gaining more than everyone combined.
ShamisOMally
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2010
- Messages
- 1,480
Rumor is it right now that Arkham Origin is using PhysX 2.X again, and not 3.X
Nvidia strikes again!
Nvidia strikes again!
I bet all of those games were subsidized by Nvidia to include it...and its not very many at all compared to total games released.