Tuesday, July 15th 2008
AMD to PhysX: 'Acceptable Under Conditions'
Following the NGOHQ episode with devising software that lets users accelerate GPU-based NVIDIA PhysX API on Radeon accelerators, and with NVIDIA coming in support of such an effort, a general opinion was made that NVIDIA sought an industry-wide domination of CUDA as the de-facto general purporse graphics processing (GPGPU) architecture, with putting their investment of acquiring Ageia Technologies to good use by pushing the PhysX API. Although it comes as a good news for AMD that their graphics cards that are already optimized for Havoc physics could now support PhysX acceleration, it's not in the best interests of the company that they allow the growth of CUDA and components based on it to this extent, since AMD has its own FireStream line of products and a GPGPU architecture in the making.
TG Daily spoke with Richard Huddy, Manager of Worldwide Developer Relations, and Godfrey Cheng, Director of Product Marketing, two key individuals with AMD. When it comes to the most interesting question of PhysX implementation on Radeon, Mr. Cheng says that AMD has no problems encouraging the use of feature-enhancing 'middleware', and that they have no arguments in NVIDIA going ahead with propogating their PhysX middleware as long as they don't put Radeon accelerators into a unfair disadvantage.
A clever stand, AMD says it doesn't mind PhysX if it performs the way is should, as long as PhysX isn't used to show performance advantages with NVIDIA products, or to put it coarsely "PhysX works best on GeForce", AMD doesn't have a problem in letting NVIDIA release their middleware that allows Radeon users PhysX. They would rather not allow PhysX at all than to see a "PhysX works best on GeForce" public opinion. Another clever use of words by Cheng was terming PhysX as middleware, portreying it as 'something optional', with clear undertones of downplaying it. In other words, AMD won't fall on its knees begging NVIDIA for PhysX, and there might not be a license of technology that NVIDIA would sell to AMD. So AMD leaves it to the users to install and use middleware from any reliable source, even if it has to be NVIDIA. Pretty nifty for higher 3DMark scores and more accurate 'crate-breaking'.
Source:
TG Daily
TG Daily spoke with Richard Huddy, Manager of Worldwide Developer Relations, and Godfrey Cheng, Director of Product Marketing, two key individuals with AMD. When it comes to the most interesting question of PhysX implementation on Radeon, Mr. Cheng says that AMD has no problems encouraging the use of feature-enhancing 'middleware', and that they have no arguments in NVIDIA going ahead with propogating their PhysX middleware as long as they don't put Radeon accelerators into a unfair disadvantage.
A clever stand, AMD says it doesn't mind PhysX if it performs the way is should, as long as PhysX isn't used to show performance advantages with NVIDIA products, or to put it coarsely "PhysX works best on GeForce", AMD doesn't have a problem in letting NVIDIA release their middleware that allows Radeon users PhysX. They would rather not allow PhysX at all than to see a "PhysX works best on GeForce" public opinion. Another clever use of words by Cheng was terming PhysX as middleware, portreying it as 'something optional', with clear undertones of downplaying it. In other words, AMD won't fall on its knees begging NVIDIA for PhysX, and there might not be a license of technology that NVIDIA would sell to AMD. So AMD leaves it to the users to install and use middleware from any reliable source, even if it has to be NVIDIA. Pretty nifty for higher 3DMark scores and more accurate 'crate-breaking'.
45 Comments on AMD to PhysX: 'Acceptable Under Conditions'
"the same performance or gtfo"
www.tomsguide.com/us/AMD-PhysX-Havok,news-1950.html
EDIT: although i do appreciate that they dont disallow it... But how is the "PhysX runs better on Nvidia" part gonna change??? If ATI doesnt support it, then PhysX runs better on Nvidia anyway, since ATI doesnt even have it. The only way they can avoid is if the DO support it, and it runs faster than on Nvidia hardware.
I didn't realize AMD took lessons from Nvidia on being snobby. If they won't support it then just say it and leave it alone and make theirs work.
but as for now no way!!!!!!!!!!! look good thing is prices are coming down oh yea baby!!!!:D
so great for us....... funny i'm nivida for GPU and AMD for processor :p
Nv cards are going to perform better simply because they seem to work better at these 'general purpose' applications.
As long as nvidia dont CRIPPLE ATI (as in, performance problems are the cards fault and not a deliberate crippling via the software) then this will be great. of course ATI are downplaying it, they've thrown money into their own solutions and would rather not have it go to waste because Nv is playing nice for once.
ATI just doesn't want NV to use it against them in advertising, in exchange for letting it happen.How would you know how well ATI codes drivers? In my experience, their drivers are every bit as good as NV's.Same as above goes for you. And did you just admit to being an AMD/NV fanboy? Yeah, that really validates your opinion. /sarcasm
I've never had any issues with any ATI drivers, either official or beta - 100% solid with every single ATI card I've ever owned.
Agreed as well that ATI is making sure nVidia doesn't use PhysX support to cut away at them; we all know PhysX will inherently run better on green hardware, AMD/ATI just doesn't want nVidia pointing and saying "ooO! ooO! PhysX runs better on our hardware than AMD's!!1!!@1!"
Either way, ATI are still ahead, as they've got weight to roll with right now - nVidia needs something to make themselves feel all fuzzy ATM; and if ATI completely blows PhysX off it'll only end up hurting nVidia as they'll have to regain lost ground this time around. It'd be nothing off AMD/ATI's back to decide to stick with Havok alone and watch the market follow them for a change.
never heard of any issues with broken scaling . . . are we talking MGPU or single?
But it's not like NV doesn't have their share of persistent issues. The playback issues of certain color spaces are a thorn in NV's side, for example.
Although, I thought he was refering to MGPU setups and performance scaling; as you can't hard set what type of MGPU rendering is used with ATI cards . . .
Either way, the progress of [graphics & physics] technology is going to be interesting this coming year.