• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Intel To Acquire Havok

P

PrplMshrm

n00b
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Messages
38
This is interesting.

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.
 
Very interesting, since as far as I'm aware, Intel don't produce commercial software in any form.

Some of you might remember what followed the last time a semiconductor company bought up a physics middleware developer... No prizes for guessing what Intel has planned :D .
 
It will be interesting to see if there will perhaps be an integrated on-board chip for physics??
Maybe something in the CPU itself???? (That would be cool)

I have this third PCI-e slot on my 680 MB just waiting......if it makes a difference,I'll take one.:D
 
magoo said:
It will be interesting to see if there will perhaps be an integrated on-board chip for physics??
Maybe something in the CPU itself???? (That would be cool)
Click to expand...

CPU's don't fear well im SIMD and the architechture of an CPU isn't "geared" for physics either...it "todays" most used solution and frankly it is a poor solution.

But interesting none the less...
 
This really changes things; I wonder what this will mean for Havok FX, it is not exactly in Intels interest to continue funding something that could one day rob one of their CPUs jobs.

Allot of people have supported Havok FX because of promises of future potential, if Intel scraps it then the PPU will be the leading method of obtaining physics beyond today's CPU limitations.
 
This kinda kicks the middleware "Vendor Neutral" physics middleware market in the nuts.

Depending on how intel plays it, it could end up being really good for Ageia, I'm sure game developers would be reluctant to develop using a platform that could end up being gimped in favor of only systems with Intel chipsets/cpus in them.
 
Oh well, maybe Intel aquired it to gain some better knowledge in parallelism for their own CPU architectures.
 
Maybe a physics solution that uses their IGP? Or maybe even an IPP in the future? :D

Actually, that would be kind of nice. We already have sound, LAN, and (optionally) video built into motherboards as standard features. Sure would be nice if physics were built in as a standard feature on all Intel chipsets. Would also be a nice kick in the nuts to AMD/ATI and NVIDIA both at the same time. :p

CoW]8(0);1031434182 said:
Oh well, maybe Intel aquired it to gain some better knowledge in parallelism for their own CPU architectures.
Click to expand...

As much as we'd like to fantasize, this is probably the most realistic reason. Big tech companies buy little guys all the time so they can just strip out the patents they want and kill off the product. :(
 
LuminaryJanitor said:
Very interesting, since as far as I'm aware, Intel don't produce commercial software in any form.

Some of you might remember what followed the last time a semiconductor company bought up a physics middleware developer... No prizes for guessing what Intel has planned :D .
Click to expand...
Not true, Intel has several commercial middleware libraries that are used in games and industrial uses like compilers and a JPEG library that is used in a few Blizzard games and other applications.
 
Atech said:
CPU's don't fear well im SIMD and the architechture of an CPU isn't "geared" for physics either...it "todays" most used solution and frankly it is a poor solution.

But interesting none the less...
Click to expand...

But Intel is the company doing "terascale". I think that architecture lends itself very well to inclusion of some SIMD type coprocessors as one (or several) of the included compute modules. That, and some GPUs and some FPUs and some...
 
There is a software lag from the creation of hardware to when its benefits can be fully realized; mainly because game play influencing physics cannot be scaled without altering how the game works, so games always target the lowest common denominators in terms of CPU performance.

Take a look at dual cores for example, from when they were first released to the market to when games started taking advantage of them. Even today there are no games that require a dual core processor to run; to do so will alienate the majority audience on single core CPUs, when dual finally becomes required in games how long do you think it will take for quad to be utilised for more than just performance gains?

When a sufficient install base of the hardware is reached, then they can make it a mandatory requirement and fully utilise the additional cores.

So in truth multicore physics is still not here yet, dual cores boost performance but they don't do what single core processors cannot manage. For that reason referring to future CPU tech for use in physics doesn't really help, we are hardly taking advantage of what we have now let alone what will be out in a couple of years.

I don't see software physics beating the sheer jump in complexity that the PPU and Havok FX (presuming Intel doesn't kill it off) offers any time soon. I'm talking years before it catches up, they will promote it in some games but overall there won't be a significant improvement till hardware adoption increases.
 
pxc said:
True, Crysis isn't due for a few more weeks. :p

How's the PhysX card working out, Terra?
Click to expand...

Minimum:

- OPERATING SYSTEM: Microsoft Windows XP.
- 100% DirectX 9.c-compatible
- Pentium 4 3.0 GHz or Athlon 64 3200+
- 1GB RAM.
- Graphics Card: GeForce 6800 or Radeonx1650 -3D Accelerated Card with Pixel Shader 3.0
- Microsoft WindowsXP compatible sound card
- DVD-ROM: Dual Layer Compatible DVD-ROM Drive
- HARD DRIVE: 1.6 GB Hard Drive Space
- INPUT DEVICES: 100% Windows XP compatible mouse and keyboard

Reccomended:

- OPERATING SYSTEM: Microsoft Windows Vista.
- 100% DirectX 10-compatible
- Core 2 Duo E6600 2.60GHz or Athlon 64 X2 5400+
- 2GB RAM.
- Graphics Card: GeForce 8800 or Radeon HD 2900 -3D Accelerated Card with Pixel Shader 4.0
- Microsoft Windows Vista compatible sound card (100% DirectX 10 -compatible).
- DVD-ROM: Dual Layer Compatible DVD-ROM Drive
- HARD DRIVE: 1.6 GB Hard Drive Space
- INPUT DEVICES: 100% Windows Vista compatible mouse and keyboard
Click to expand...
Remember what I said on lowest common denominators when deciding on game play?

If the game will run on a single core processor; then it does not fully take advantage of the second core, if it did then the game would be unplayable on a single core processor because of complexity built around needing two cores. Crysis only takes advantage of the second core to boost performance, not to provide higher levels of game play physics.

It is likely that many of the advanced physics such as interactive plant life are effects that can be turned off for performance. Buildings that fall down like a stack of cards, plus procedural breaking on simple objects like tree trunks, are easily possible on single core processors.
 
AnnoyedDragon said:
If the game will run on a single core processor; then it does not fully take advantage of the second core, if it did then the game would be unplayable on a single core processor because of complexity built around needed two cores. Crysis only takes advantage of the second core to boost performance, not to provide higher levels of game play physics.
Click to expand...

This is absolutely untrue. A game is separated into two components: the engine and the objects (textures, sound, and models, to be specific). There is no such thing as an LCD in this scenario: the devs simply build two engines. They build one that is native and requires two cores. They build another that is compatible with you poor blokes still running single core. Both engines use the same set of objects. When you start the game, it checks your hardware and loads the appropriate engine.

Yes, both engines would be written separately, from the ground up, around their specific hardware. But it can be done, and as much boasting as Crytek has done, I would not be surprised at all if they did this.

Y hello thar, Terra! I'd say "nice to have you back," but that would make me a liar.
 
If you design a game to utilise multiple cores for more than just performance, then any system not running the same number of cores will have worse or even unplayable performance.

There is a Intel only Futuremark benchmark called Ice Storm Fighters, go download this as I want to prove something to you. This demo supports up to four cores, but has a version optimised for two. Watch what happens when you turn off one of the cores in a demo, that is what happens when you play a game designed specifically for dual core on a single core processor.

If you increase complexity to take advantage of additional cores, but then you remove cores that same load gets spread over less processing power. So it makes sense to design games around the performance limitations of single core processors, but provide performance benefits to those running multiple cores. If you design two versions of the engine, one that utilises dual core for advanced physics and one that doesn't, then you change the game play experience between different sets of hardware.

So until a significant portion of the PC gaming population are running dual core, you won't see games that use them for more than just additional performance. If we are only just close to that with dual we are no were near with quad. It would be like making a game that requires 4GB ram, or targets the performance of a flagship GPU and provides no scaling options, you will severely limit how many people can actually play it. If advanced multicore physics is put in the game, it has to be effect physics so it can be disabled without changing game play.


By the way, why do you people keep calling me Terra?

"Y hello thar, Terra! I'd say "nice to have you back," but that would make me a liar."

"How's the PhysX card working out, Terra?"
 
Makes you wonder when Ageia will get bought up, and by who

Intel definitely has something up their sleeves
 
Why do you think Ageia will get bought up?

GPU companies have physics acceleration on the GPU, CPU companies want to keep it all in software, who would benefit from obtaining the PPU tech? Right now I see Ageia staying on their own and doing their own thing, at least for the short term.

The future of Havok FX is debatable now that it is in Intel's hands, Ageia could stand to benefit if Intel forces Havok to focus only on software physics. For all we know Intel grabbed Havok to eliminate a threat, between all the companies working on implementing GPU physics in games Havok FX was the closest.
 
InorganicMatter said:
Maybe a physics solution that uses their IGP? Or maybe even an IPP in the future? :D

Actually, that would be kind of nice. We already have sound, LAN, and (optionally) video built into motherboards as standard features. Sure would be nice if physics were built in as a standard feature on all Intel chipsets. Would also be a nice kick in the nuts to AMD/ATI and NVIDIA both at the same time. :p
Click to expand...

Coming soon, from the company that brought you the 4 FPS integrated video solution: integrated physics!

Yeah, right. :D


CoW]8(0);1031434249 said:
Tomorrow isn't too far away....

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...e-confusion-over-intels-larrabee-part-ii.html

This might bring some clarity to the whole acquisition :)
Click to expand...

Ah, thanks for the Larabee link. I should come out of my cave more often.

Best candidate for an explanation offered so far.

And AnnoyedDragon, you're confused. You can do anything one one core that you can do on two -- just not as fast. A 3 GHz P4 is probably comparable to a slower dual-core system in that context, so i don't see the that the system requirements prove anything. Supreme Commander takes full advantage of multiple cores, but it still runs fine on one. There's not even a need for two separate engines as someone suggested: two threads can run in the same processor space. It's been going on for years.
 
Brent_Justice said:
Makes you wonder when Ageia will get bought up, and by who
Click to expand...
If anyone bought it, I would guess the buyer would kill off the hardware side*. Since Ageia is privately held it's hard to figure out what the company is worth and whether anyone would even want it.

* why? Because the time it would take to integrate the core into another product would take 2-4 years. A separate chip on the same PCB as a video card raises a whole new set of problems with a 1->2 device PCIe bridge.
 
pxc said:
Terrascale was only a research project.

Larrabee is something Intel could do physics with.
Click to expand...

"Research project" doesn't give terascale enough credit. It seems to be a rethink of what a computer can be, once a "b'jillion" "cores" are all working in the same system. Terascale seems to be working out really well, as that Polaris 80-core chip shows us. We will see the fruits of terascale in Intel's (rather distant, admittedly) future products, obviously. Larrabee could be the first product range to do so, but it seems a bit too pedestrian for that to be the case to any great degree, IMO.

When systems based on what terascale portends are actual products, I believe Intel will be well situated to "accelerate" everything related to games or anything else, including game physics. Their purchase of a physics solution company already, shows me that they are already assembling all the pieces they will need in order to make sure you do not need a chip not made by Intel on such a future terascale/multicore system.
 
Flandry said:
[snip]
Click to expand...
Exactly, not as fast which can mean anything from stutter to a slide show, so if you do something with dual core you previously couldn't do with single that alienates single core processors. So it is in the interest of developers to not fully utilise dual core quite yet; only to partially use it for performance gains, it is not much different from what they have been doing already with CPU advancements.

I have seen Supreme Commander take advantage of quad core, but that doesn't mean it does something that was previously impossible without that much CPU power. I have heard the game can have ridicules numbers of units, something I am sure quad core users can take full advantage of. However I don't see the game doing anything that you couldn't do without a quad, if they did that dual and single core users would have issues running the game.

If there is anyone who can demonstrate the point I am trying to get across here it is Intel, they're the ones pushing quad to allow previously impossible new game play. Take Alan Wake for example, that game was designed around at least two cores, anyone trying to run it on one will encounter problems.

Nothing is certain about the specifications but you will need Windows Vista and a fairly high spec PC. Remedy have showcased Alan Wake running smoothly on an Intel Core 2 Quad system overclocked at 3.73Ghz with a GeForce 7900GTX.

Markus from Remedy has said "Alan Wake would pretty much not run on any single core processors, although it may be possible to run on single-core Pentium 4 processors with Hyper Threading enabled, with noticably reduced image quality/experience."

The game will use a separate processing thread dedicated to physical calculations. Since Remedy is using Havok, there is no support for Ageia PhysX cards, so all the physical calculations are done using the CPU. Markus has explained that a normal Core 2 Quad will use 80% of one core for physical calculations.
Click to expand...

Now unless many people are willing to go against their own arguments of the performance from Dual and Quad processors beating Ageia, games designed specifically to take advantage of dual core will be almost unplayable on single core. For that reason most developers won't use the second core for anything but performance benefits, at least until the majority of the market are on dual.
 
Please, the market is already flooded with dual core processors. Particularly so in the hands of gamers.

Hell, my grand mother has a dual core a64 she bought 2 years ago at a best buy for christ sake. Stop acting like dual cores are rare in the real world, let alone in the hands of game enthusiasts.
 
Last I looked at the Steam data......dual cores are making headway, but surprisingly the single core CPU is still the dominant model.

Again, this was about two months ago. Sure the enthusiast has probably gone beyond dual and into Quad cores.......but the mainstream (for lack of a better term) still has single core to play CS:S and the like.

I'm really anxious to see what Valve has done to Episode 2 in terms of physics and the like.

No matter what, I hope Havok doesnt disappear.
 
AnnoyedDragon,

If you claim that a game made to utilize multi-cores won't run at all on a single-core, explain Supreme Commander to me.

I have dual Opteron 252's and when I run SupCom with both installed, it plays fine. Then, when I remove a CPU and play with one installed, it still plays.

The way SupCom works is that the game engine, AI, physics, and graphics engine are all modules of the core executable. If the core executable detects a single CPU, all the modules run on it. If it detects two or more CPUs, the core executable will assign the modules to each CPU core to spread the load.

AS/400's have been doing this for years. All it takes is a skilled programmer to code for the hardware.
 
This is terrible news for developers and gamers alike
Now intel is going to stop tweaking for non-intel platforms (PPC, AMD, ATI GPUs, CELL)
That means all Consoles,
That means all PCs with AMD cpu or ATI gfx

So now insted of having 1 physics system for all platforms that performs very well only intel x86 will be optimised.
Gamers will be annoyed by lack of performance due to intels pain in the ass tactics (see skype)
developers will be annoyed because what used to be a great cross platform solution just became intel only overnight. I'm sure anyone dev'ing using havok right now is pissed right off.
The only winner here is intel, but havoks new 'conflict of interest' problems may be the best news for ageia so far.
 
Brent_Justice said:
Makes you wonder when Ageia will get bought up, and by who

Intel definitely has something up their sleeves
Click to expand...

Actually it makes you wonder if Ageia will not just disappear.

From what I've seen Intel will keep Havok "independent", so probably nvidia and AMD will license the technology for their physics accelerators.

For months there were rumors about Havok or Ageia being acquired by AMD or Nvidia, even microsoft was said to be interested. No one saw Intel coming.
 
Quoted from the press release, it appears that Havok will continue to operate "business as usual" moving forward - not Intel only...

"Havok is a proven leader in physics technology for gaming and digital content, and will become a key element of Intel's visual computing and graphics efforts," said Renee J. James, vice president and general manager of Intel's Software and Solutions Group. "Havok will operate its business as usual, which will allow them to continue developing products that are offered across all platforms in the industry."

They may just be better funded and with access to other Intel technology and information via Intel's SSG...

http://blogs.intel.com/technology/2007/09/cry_havok_and_let_slip_the_dog.html

Cry Havok! And let slip the dogs of war...
posted by Nick Knupffer on September 14, 2007

According to www.phrases.org.uk The military order Havoc! was a signal given to the English military forces in the Middle Ages to direct the soldiery (in Shakespeare’s parlance ‘the dogs of war’) to pillage and chaos.

Spell havoc with a ‘K’ and you have an altogether different beast. Havok is a name many of you will recognise as a middleware provider to the world’s top game designers - its expertise can be found in titles such as Half-Life 2 and the recently release Bioshock. Havok is especially famous for its physics engine - the part of a game that adds realistic movement to objects and characters and their interatcion with the game environment.

Intel has just bought into this idea - so much so that Intel has bought Havok outright. At first glance you may ask what Intel may need with such a hot gaming property - but Intel actually has a huge group of elite programmers and tools called the Software and Solutions Group (SSG) that Havok will now have access to (as well as Intel’s hardware and technology goodies). In turn, this will enable developers in the digital animation and game communities to take advantage of Intel’s innovation and technology leadership in the creation of digital media. Havok will become a wholly owned subsidiary of Intel and operate as an independent business- so it will be business as usual for them and their customers.
 
I don't think anyone is following what annoyeddragon is saying. If a game was made from the ground up, specifically, for multiple cores it wouldn't work with a single core. There are two ways of coding multi-threaded apps,

1.) spreading the processes across both processors dynamically
2.) Dedicating each cpu to do specific processes.

These are just the two so far, there are def more ways to handle multiple cores. But without going into in-depth coding methodologies I agree that in order to fully delve into a complete multi-core based game engine you would have to code it ini a way that makes it incompatible with single core processors.
 
MacGyver467 said:
[snip]
Click to expand...

I really thought people would have grasped this by now; it seems my perspective on multicore utilisation is different from some of the other people here, I keep trying to find the right way to word it but I just don't seem to be getting across.

If you double your processing load on dual core; single cores will not have sufficient enough power to handle the same load unless they were pretty high end, which everyone into PCs should know don't make up the majority. It would be like trying fit two glasses of water into one, it just won't fit unless you remove some.

I'm not saying single core CPUs simply won't run them, I'm saying it will run like crap and most likely not offer a playable frame rate.

Since game play physics cannot be scaled without changing the games experience, they have to wait till the lowest common CPU performance is high enough to allow utilising multiple cores without alienating possible customers. With effect physics you don't have to worry about that, you just give the option of turning them off as they will have no impact on how the game works. I think people are overestimating the adoption of dual cores, just because you can pick one up now for £40 doesn't mean everyone will be out to get one. The majority of the market are still using pre built computers from retailers like Dell and PC World who most likely won't want to replace their entire system just to upgrade one component.

Can someone who knows what I am trying to say give it a go?

XamediX said:
[snip]
Click to expand...
Thank you.
 
snakeeyes said:
Quoted from the press release, it appears that Havok will continue to operate "business as usual" moving forward - not Intel only...

"Havok is a proven leader in physics technology for gaming and digital content, and will become a key element of Intel's visual computing and graphics efforts," said Renee J. James, vice president and general manager of Intel's Software and Solutions Group. "Havok will operate its business as usual, which will allow them to continue developing products that are offered across all platforms in the industry."
Click to expand...

To go Intel-only would put Havok to its end and then Ageia in the spotlight. I can almost assure you this will not happen. What this does however is give Intel's new video cards a solid base to operate from where the dynamics of physics are becoming more and more of a gaming focus. Also, it give Intel some bargaining chips it did not have before most of all against NVIDIA. I think AMD and Intel equally want NVIDIA out of the picture.
 
I'd love to see a bad ass Intel video card in order to give ATI and nVidia more competition.

But what I would really love to see is Intel move into the gaming sound card market and give Creative the severe thrashing they deserve.
 
Interesting move indeed...
As Havok is kind of a middleware it would have fitted Microsofts DirectX portfolio

My guess is that Intel wanted to make sure that the processing power stays where it belongs -> The CPU. They have always played that way no matter wether it was geometry processing (Remember way back when turning the Hardware T&L off got you better 3DMarks?) or sound (Not many dedicated soundcards still out there besides Creative and support for EAX seems to be fading).

Intel surely wants you to invest in a new multi core CPU rather then have you buying another GFX or physics accelerator card. That's where they rule the game (no AMD bashing here)

Maybe they also wanted to keep Microsoft from gaining as much power in physics as they got in graphics with DirectX (where there is still OpenGL around for an alternative)

As for the Intel graphics card I don't really know if it's going to be that revolutionary. Buying Havok NOW wont affect the design of a card they have been working on for quite a while allready. And why would they want to put more emphasis on a market where they will actually face some hard competition from NVidia and (maybe) Ati/AMD?

My guess is that they will make a decent card which fits higher performance workstations which need more than integrated graphics to complete their platforms. Companys may very well prefer buying a "completly Intel" system together with the certification for remote administration etc. and Intels market power alone make it sell.
We're at a point where power consumption keeps chipset graphics from becoming much faster.

Besides it's not the first time for Intel to produce a GFX card: The 740 performed quite well compared to the NVidia's Riva128 but they didn't continue on that the know how they aquired with buying the remains of Real3D.

<- way to long post...
 
Lith1um said:
I'd love to see a bad ass Intel video card in order to give ATI and nVidia more competition.

But what I would really love to see is Intel move into the gaming sound card market and give Creative the severe thrashing they deserve.
Click to expand...

I never thought about that but now that you brought that up, I would love for them to go into that industry more. Creative has been sitting fat and happy on a "monopoly" like the US oil companies for awhile now.

I also don't like the fact that Intel and/or AMD might be pushing to remove Nvidia from the market. If they disappear, who else is gonna come out with superior products for them to catch up on? Ok, sorry that was borderline flamebait, but you get the gist of my point.
 
I think this is essentially what AnnoyedDragon is saying. Dual core can enhance performance and aesthetics, but not gameplay. Gameplay has to remain identical along all configurations otherwise you can't sync up in multiplayer games. So once a system meets the basic performance requirements of a game, throwing more power at it, only makes things run more smoothly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top