DX11 Isn't Important...says Nvidia...

[ElMoIsEviL]

It's hard to explain because when you argue with someone and you say that OpenCL is better then CUDA they tell you they work together.

Because CUDA is a computing engine or architecture. But it also has software tools and developer programming tools. CUDA currently is programmed for in C with nVIDIA only extensions (proprietary).

OpenCL is a programming language (which can also interface with CUDA architecture). But OpenCL is not a language controlled by nVIDIA. So OpenCL can interface with AMD Stream architecture (Brook+) as well as various CPUs etc.

OpenCL can be executed by a whole wide range of processors.

So yes.. OpenCL is superior to CUDA. It can run on several types of hardware. Current CUDA C (with nVIDIA extensions) programming only works for the CUDA architecture. And when I/we say this we are talking about the tool sets currently in use and owned by nVIDIA (the ones they also share with game devs).

 

[Atech]

It's hard to explain because when you argue with someone and you say that OpenCL is better then CUDA they tell you they work together.

Because CUDA is a computing engine or architecture. But it also has software tools and developer programming tools. CUDA currently is programmed for in C with nVIDIA only extensions (proprietary).

OpenCL is a programming language (which can also interface with CUDA architecture). But OpenCL is not a language controlled by nVIDIA. So OpenCL can interface with AMD Stream architecture (Brook+) as well as various CPUs etc.

OpenCL can be executed by a whole wide range of processors.

So yes.. OpenCL is superior to CUDA. It can run on several types of hardware. Current CUDA C (with nVIDIA extensions) programming only works for the CUDA architecture. And when I/we say this we are talking about the tool sets currently in use and owned by nVIDIA (the ones they also share with game devs).

You don't think Havok is properitary?
It's Intel's.
Don't believe AMD and Intel will kiss and make up over Havok.
Intel is aiming for a SoC (System On a Chip).
NVIDIA is not part of that plan for sure.
But neither is AMD.

OpenCL does nothing with a physics middleware.
NVIDIA has PhysX (also on CPU and Cell PPE, not just GPU) and will only truely make PhysX OpenCL if it's faster than it's CUDA PhysX.
Intel has Havok, but no hardware (besides CPU's of course)...yet.
Come be "larrabee" 2 or 3 (and a "larrabee" IGP in CPU's) and lets see how "friendly" Intel (and thus Havok) will be to AMD.
AMD has CPU and GPU's...but no middleware.

OpenCL is useless with the middleware.

AGEIA started the trend with hardware physics.
NVIDIA (and then ATI now)AMD followed suit.
Intel joined in.
Hardware physics is comming and no way you slice it can't ellude you that ALL the players are going there.
Nvidia (PhysX) Only full solution on the market.
Intel (Havok) Next best thing out there. CPU physics, with hardware comming...when Intel decides.
AMD is going there...but really stuck awaiting Intel's timetabel.

In the meantime I have since 2006 enjoyed PhysX.
Both with and without hardware support.
PhysX is not just a GPU thing, the UT3 engine eg. uses it as it's intertal CPU engine .
More games than you know run a plain CPU PhysX middleware.
It's now 2009 and more titles than ever are comming.

The only question now is how long before hardware physics becomes the norm.
That is something that only Intel knows...and your guess is as good as mine there

 

[Brackle]

Eh DX11 will be important, Windows 7 is very popular, DX11 will come out soon....so DX11 will be mainstream we just gotta wait.

Just wait until Nvidia get's out a DX11 part. Then it will be relevant to them.

Either way DX11 is important

 

[Flopper]

Eh DX11 will be important, Windows 7 is very popular, DX11 will come out soon....so DX11 will be mainstream we just gotta wait.

Just wait until Nvidia get's out a DX11 part. Then it will be relevant to them.

Either way DX11 is important

agreed.
dx11 helps with w7 and since already 2million gamers use windows 7 (steam), even when it isnt out yet, shows, many might go for dx11.

 

[Atomic_GreenDoGG]

What I want is the Ray Tracing, isn't that in DX11?

That is what I'm hyped up about

Can I use both? an ATi card for my main, and an nVidia card for PhysX in games?

Can I have my cake, and eat it too?

 

[smartpatrol]

What I want is the Ray Tracing, isn't that in DX11?

That is what I'm hyped up about

Bwahahaha that report was an April Fool's joke.

 

[ElMoIsEviL]

You don't think Havok is properitary?
It's Intel's.
Don't believe AMD and Intel will kiss and make up over Havok.
Intel is aiming for a SoC (System On a Chip).
NVIDIA is not part of that plan for sure.
But neither is AMD.

OpenCL does nothing with a physics middleware.
NVIDIA has PhysX (also on CPU and Cell PPE, not just GPU) and will only truely make PhysX OpenCL if it's faster than it's CUDA PhysX.
Intel has Havok, but no hardware (besides CPU's of course)...yet.
Come be "larrabee" 2 or 3 (and a "larrabee" IGP in CPU's) and lets see how "friendly" Intel (and thus Havok) will be to AMD.
AMD has CPU and GPU's...but no middleware.

OpenCL is useless with the middleware.

AGEIA started the trend with hardware physics.
NVIDIA (and then ATI now)AMD followed suit.
Intel joined in.
Hardware physics is comming and no way you slice it can't ellude you that ALL the players are going there.
Nvidia (PhysX) Only full solution on the market.
Intel (Havok) Next best thing out there. CPU physics, with hardware comming...when Intel decides.
AMD is going there...but really stuck awaiting Intel's timetabel.

In the meantime I have since 2006 enjoyed PhysX.
Both with and without hardware support.
PhysX is not just a GPU thing, the UT3 engine eg. uses it as it's intertal CPU engine .
More games than you know run a plain CPU PhysX middleware.
It's now 2009 and more titles than ever are comming.

The only question now is how long before hardware physics becomes the norm.
That is something that only Intel knows...and your guess is as good as mine there

Havok Physics has already been ported to OpenCL and they're working with AMD (AMD has adopted their engine). So yes Intel and AMD are working together.

Intel is also behind Havok.

As for OpenCL being useless without physical interactive engines being coded in the language... pardon me for saying (DUH!) I thought I was quite clear on that or did you just selectively read my posts?

The difference between Havok and PhysX is that Havok is less demanding. PhysX needs ridiculous amounts of horsepower in order to simulate things as simple as cloth. Havok can simulate cloth in a much more realistic fashion with less demand on the host processor(s).

I'm well aware that there is a pretty crappy CPU PhysX engine available (it's the reason you have to choose between using the CPU or the GPU in your PhysX menu).

You've enjoyed PhysX? In what game? Only UT3 actually was a popular title all the while utilizing the PhysX engine (GPU powered). But the two levels that ACTUALLY use PhysX were unplayable until recently (a testament to the ridiculous demands put forward by PhysX).

With Intel and AMD both behind Havok... It can't possibly lose. nVIDIA has had a head start with a mediocre product while Intel and AMD have been preparing a strong product in the meantime.

We'll see how this ends.

 

[Elledan]

Havok Physics has already been ported to OpenCL and they're working with AMD (AMD has adopted their engine). So yes Intel and AMD are working together.

Intel is also behind Havok.

Intel controls Havok. Intel has nothing to gain from AMD GPUs running Havok simulation code. Why else do you think nothing has happened or been announced after those few OpenCL demos?

The difference between Havok and PhysX is that Havok is less demanding. PhysX needs ridiculous amounts of horsepower in order to simulate things as simple as cloth. Havok can simulate cloth in a much more realistic fashion with less demand on the host processor(s).

This is patently false. It's undiluted BS. I'd call you out for not providing any references of any kind, but I already know you can't provide them. Why? Because I'm a bloody game developer. It's my task to know such things together with my fellow developers. Havok and PhysX are very, very similar. PhysX's API is just a tad more elegant and of course PhysX runs also on other processors than a CPU right now. There is no significant performance difference otherwise.

With Intel and AMD both behind Havok... It can't possibly lose. nVIDIA has had a head start with a mediocre product while Intel and AMD have been preparing a strong product in the meantime.

We'll see how this ends.

You're an absolute blast. You're sure you're not writing parody here? Because it sure sounds like it.

Here's my prediction: a free, non-proprietary physics library/API will rise up and squash proprietary physics libraries because they're all sluggish to incorporate changes (like PhysX soft-body event callbacks), not to mention expensive. It doesn't cost a cent to use OpenGL (D3D isn't free...), so why should one pay for a physics API?

Anyway, thanks for the laugh

 

[ElMoIsEviL]

Intel controls Havok. Intel has nothing to gain from AMD GPUs running Havok simulation code. Why else do you think nothing has happened or been announced after those few OpenCL demos?


This is patently false. It's undiluted BS. I'd call you out for not providing any references of any kind, but I already know you can't provide them. Why? Because I'm a bloody game developer. It's my task to know such things together with my fellow developers. Havok and PhysX are very, very similar. PhysX's API is just a tad more elegant and of course PhysX runs also on other processors than a CPU right now. There is no significant performance difference otherwise.



You're an absolute blast. You're sure you're not writing parody here? Because it sure sounds like it.

Here's my prediction: a free, non-proprietary physics library/API will rise up and squash proprietary physics libraries because they're all sluggish to incorporate changes (like PhysX soft-body event callbacks), not to mention expensive. It doesn't cost a cent to use OpenGL (D3D isn't free...), so why should one pay for a physics API?

Anyway, thanks for the laugh

Why hasn't OpenCL come out you ask? Because the drivers for it weren't ready yet. They're in BETA right now with version 1.0 having been released by nVIDIA. Also OpenCL wasn't completed yet (it was still a draft).

I think you will be pleasantly surprised come Sept 22nd. So much so that I expect many apologies. you're an nVIDIA hack (always have been always will be). Anytime someone says anything remotely negative about PhysX or CUDA you and Atech show up in pairs (I ask anyone to look up any negative threads regarding the two they'll realize what I say is true).

And you claim that Intel would never work with AMD? Really? Are there any USB ports on AMD machines? PCI Express slots? Don't AMD support SSE and SSE2/SSE3?

Oh wait they often collaborate.

They may be competitors but Havok HAVE been working closely with AMD. Havok has already been written in OpenCL and it does work (although as the Demo shows it was still work in progress).

Worth reading:
http://www.amd.com/us/press-releases/Pages/Press_Release_126548.aspx

Havok Physics scales extremely well across the entire family of AMD processors, including quad-core products such as the AMD Phenom™ X4. As part of the collaboration, Havok and AMD plan to further optimize the full range of Havok technologies on AMD x86 superscalar processors. The two companies will also investigate the use of AMD’s massively parallel ATI Radeon GPUs to manage appropriate aspects of physical world simulation in the future.

Havok GPU Accelerated Physics was a "future" based project. That future is arriving now.

Oh and when did Intel purchase Havok?
http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20070914corp.htm

So they announced a partnership AFTER Intel purchased Havok? Gee whiz that seems to contradict everything you've said in your post.

On the internet everyone has a PhD and a black Belt in Jiu Jitsu. I refuse to play that game and compare epeens. My argument is backed up by evidence (click the links right from the horses mouth). Your arguments depend highly on whether or not your claim of being a game developer is a factual one (you're banking on your past credibility with HardOCP posters). Even if it is a factual one, whether or not your accomplishments in that realm quantify your words as being anything other than "opinion" remains to be proven. Opinions are like arseholes.. everybody has one. Facts on the other hand, well they speak for themselves (again read the links).

 

[LOCO LAPTOP]

I have no problem giving AMD my money if they earned it with a better product.

This.

 

[Elledan]

Why hasn't OpenCL come out you ask? Because the drivers for it weren't ready yet. They're in BETA right now with version 1.0 having been released by nVIDIA. Also OpenCL wasn't completed yet (it was still a draft).

That's not what I asked. I asked why there hasn't been a definite announcement of GPU Havok (Havok FX) being released at any point in the future yet. As for OpenCL, nVidia's implementation just left Beta (I'm in the beta program), and a release is only a few months off at most.

And you claim that Intel would never work with AMD? Really? Are there any USB ports on AMD machines? PCI Express slots? Don't AMD support SSE and SSE2/SSE3?

Oh yes, open standards and all that. Plus AMD has had a patent cross-license agreement since the 90s with Intel. Might want to read up on your history there. SSE4 won't be supported by AMD for that reason.

Havok GPU Accelerated Physics was a "future" based project. That future is arriving now.

Announced in what press-release? What date?

Oh and when did Intel purchase Havok?
http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20070914corp.htm

SANTA CLARA, Calif., Sept. 14, 2007 – Intel Corporation today announced it has signed a definitive agreement to acquire Havok Inc., the leading provider of interactive software and services used by digital media creators in the game and movie industries. Havok will become a wholly owned subsidiary of Intel.

Right there, from your own link.

 

[trinibwoy]

i can't make any promises, but if it makes you happy, i will consider obliging you in the near future. nothing would satisfy me more than making sure you're emotional and mental well-being are taken into consideration for any of my statements/ opinions.

Classic

Or Intel with Larrabee (which BTW also is a MIMD part)

Nope. Larrabee is 16-wide SIMD.

What I want is the Ray Tracing, isn't that in DX11?

Nope.

 

[kumquatsrus]

I don't see why there would be a problem enjoying physx based games any more than havok. I've enjoyed games with both engines and games with other misc ones. A quality game may use physx while a crappy game can do the same. That goes for havok too. And I don't think ut3 was the only physx title that might be considered enjoyable by some including myself. I have enjoyed many physx based games (including some with accelerated physics) like graw, gears of war, mass effect, city of heroes, mirrors edge, fat princess and many more on console and pc alike. There are alot of fun games that can have very basic physics too. Along the same lines with dx, just because a game is only dx9 doesn't mean I can't enjoy it any more than a dx10 or dx11 supported game. Ultimately the quality of a title stands on its own merits. I doubt most would say that they would despise playing a game simply due to the physics engine it runs on. It is all merely opinion anyway whether one likes a particular game or not. As far as performance and efficiency goes, I've seen the havok demos and they look good, whiile I've seen ageia demos in the past that looked just as impressive and compelling to me as well. But at this point all we can do is speculate how the two might compare when it comes to accelerated physics and the benefits involved until real world applications/ games exist for both in a duplicate setting or arrangement, which may or may not be feasible or practical. Thanks for listening.