NVIDIA Announces PhysX and APEX Support for Sony PlayStation 4

[cadaveca]

It's just about giving your developers more options, nothing more nothing less.

And that's the main issue. Devs don't NEED options. That's the whole point of the console space, a closed platform. It's an act of desperation, really. CPU-based physics is like 1962 technology. Really. It's now 2013, 50 years later. That's why I quoted Jen Hsun's questions for entrepreneurs.. it's NOT the right way to do it, and Phys-X running NOW on GPUs proves it.

Nvidia must have hired some of AMD's old marketing team.

 

[Eagleye]

software development kits (SDKs)

AMD are working closely with Havok, so this is being put out just in case some developer bites. We will see 1 or 2 titles a year in best case scenario.

Nvidia will have a chip in the PS4 just for the Physx to be processed on, just like dedicating a card to it.

roflmao

 

[Fluffmeister]

And that's the main issue. Devs don't NEED options. That's the whole point of the console space, a closed platform. It's an act of desperation, really. CPU-based physics is like 1962 technology. Really. It's now 2013, 50 years later. That's why I quoted Jen Hsun's questions for entrepreneurs.. it's NOT the right way to do it, and Phys-X running NOW on GPUs proves it.

Of course they do, games use stacks of licensed technology regardless of the platform they are on. Lot's don't even use their own engine for example, why should they spend time and resources developing their own physics too when there are solutions already in place?

And if physics was all about the GPU these days then that actually puts PhysX in a strong position, Havok is all about the CPU and yet it just.... won't.... die.

PhysX is just another option, I get the NV- only GPU hate, but that doesn't make PhysX a less viable option than the others.

 

[TheMailMan78]

And that's the main issue. Devs don't NEED options. That's the whole point of the console space, a closed platform. It's an act of desperation, really. CPU-based physics is like 1962 technology. Really. It's now 2013, 50 years later. That's why I quoted Jen Hsun's questions for entrepreneurs.. it's NOT the right way to do it, and Phys-X running NOW on GPUs proves it.

Nvidia must have hired some of AMD's old marketing team.

You can blame me. I went NVIDIA and ever since they have been having issues. I have the opposite of the Midas touch when it comes to GPU makers.

 

[Casecutter]

it's time for physx to die

Not so much die, just be an OpenCL. It's like Borderland that has PhysX not being able to be turned off. They made it to run on low, so it chew's CPU resources when not using a Nvidia cards. :shadedshu

 

[cadaveca]

Of course they do, games use stacks of licensed technology regardless of the platform they are on. Lot's don't even use their own engine for example, why should they spend time and resources developing their own physics too when there are solutions already in place?

And if physics was all about the GPU these days then that actually puts PhysX in a strong position, Havok is all about the CPU and yet it just.... won't.... die.

PhysX is just another option, I get the NV- only GPU hate, but that doesn't make PhysX a less viable option than the others.

Nothing here counteracts my points posted above. PS4 is already using Havoc for GPU-based physics rendering, BTW, that was in the demo.

And I don't hate Nv at all...just this release. I've posted countless times that I'd like to see them leverage their strength on software on other hardware. But not in this fashion, as otherwise, it's not going to offer anything more than what current consoles and PCs have. It's not like these consoles are some big power-house PCs...they are just beyond mid-level tech of TODAY. So what we see on high-end PCs, performance-wise, shows CPU-based Phys-X leaves a lot to be desired.

 

[natr0n]

this is so odd

almost made me think amd didnt have any chips in a ps4

 

[Fluffmeister]

Nothing here counteracts my points posted above. PS4 is already using Havoc for GPU-based physics rendering, BTW, that was in the demo.

And I don't hate Nv at all...just this release. I've posted countless times that I'd like to see them leverage their strength on software on other hardware. But not in this fashion, as otherwise, it's not going to offer anything more than what current consoles and PCs have. It's not like these consoles are some big power-house PCs...they are just beyond mid-level tech of TODAY. So what we see on high-end PCs, performance-wise, shows CPU-based Phys-X leaves a lot to be desired.

And nothing here contradicts my points either. Havok is just another option available, it doesn't mean every game will use it. And equally it's not like there are any stand out Havok based titles on the PC today.

I guess that depends on whether those big meanies over at Intel want to plug their technology more of AMD and nVidia based hardware.

 

[Mindweaver]

Let see the only games that will use physx on the next gen is Batman A:?, Boarderlands 3, and Mafia 3? Did I miss anything?

 

[cadaveca]

And nothing here contradicts my points either. Havok is just another option available, it doesn't mean every game will use it. And equally it's not like there are any stand out Havok based titles on the PC today.

I guess that depends on whether those big meanies over at Intel want to plug their technology more of AMD and nVidia based hardware.

I disagree with your overall sentiment. But that's fine.


Intel is pushing software on competitor's GPU hardware, with Havok. That's what I expect of NVidia, and that's all.

 

[Xzibit]

And nothing here contradicts my points either. Havok is just another option available, it doesn't mean every game will use it. And equally it's not like there are any stand out Havok based titles on the PC today.

I guess that depends on whether those big meanies over at Intel want to plug their technology more of AMD and nVidia based hardware.

Hmm..

Havok titles

 

[Fluffmeister]

Hmm..

Havok titles

Hmm..

http://physxinfo.com/

 

[erocker]

Official response:

I wasn't expecting that answer at all. Promising!

 

[NdMk2o1o]

Hmm..

http://physxinfo.com/

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM...

http://www.havok.com/customer-projects/games/other-titles?items_per_page=All&=Apply

 

[Fluffmeister]

I disagree with your overall sentiment. But that's fine.


Intel is pushing software on competitor's GPU hardware, with Havok. That's what I expect of NVidia, and that's all.

That's fine, but they have literally only posted a single video, if only Nvidia could enjoy as much benefit of the doubt.

It will be interesting if Havok based GPU acceleration eventually comes to the PC and how it effects things.

 

[OneCool]

I smell a $3-$5 per-copy licensing fee for devs that use it.

Exactly!

 

[Fluffmeister]

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM...

http://www.havok.com/customer-projects/games/other-titles?items_per_page=All&=Apply

Not sure what point your making beyond what Xzibit posted? It's widely used across multiple platforms, so is PhysX.

 

[Xzibit]

Hmm..

http://physxinfo.com/

And you notice all those games have in common. All PC.

If you've been pushing PhysX for 5 years and only can get it to less then 100 games. When your comparing it to Havok which is in over 500 titles over several platforms.



Too much green tea in your diet

 

[erocker]

I think people are just reading too much into this, PhysX was licensed and used on the current gen consoles and it will be no different with the new consoles.

It's just about giving your developers more options, nothing more nothing less.

You missed this post then...

Currently, most features in the PhysX SDK run only on the CPU, regardless of platforms. Certain features, such as particle systems and clothing, can be accelerated on a CUDA-capable GPU. We will continue to study the feasibility of alternate implementations, and welcome any feedback from the developer community regarding the value of GPU-accelerated PhysX on all architectures.

I have no idea why you're bringing up Havok. Nothing to do with this.

 

[okidna]

And you notice all those games have in common. All PC.

If you've been pushing PhysX for 5 years and only can get it to less then 100 games. When your comparing it to Havok which is in over 500 titles over several platforms.



Too much green tea in your diet

"less than 100 games"? Try 429 games : http://physxinfo.com/index.php?p=gam&f=all

 

[Fluffmeister]

And you notice all those games have in common. All PC.

If you've been pushing PhysX for 5 years and only can get it to less then 100 games. When your comparing it to Havok which is in over 500 titles over several platforms.



Too much green tea in your diet

All PC? Did you even look at the list?

I count 216 Havok titles on their official site, I'm interested in the seeing the link showing 500+ if you can post it?

You missed this post then...



I have no idea why you're bringing up Havok. Nothing to do with this.

I missed nothing, it's pretty much a given it will run on the CPU, whether devs use it it not is their choice. I brought up Havok because it's pretty much the only viable reference, sorry about that.

 

[Xzibit]

"less than 100 games"? Try 429 games : http://physxinfo.com/index.php?p=gam&f=all

I did try and I could only count 100 or so

And thats because Nvidia is still including Ageia titles that were in development prior to 2008 when Nvidia bought them. Back then PhysX was only running on CPU and Ageia was making a push to offload the workload to a PPU.

All PC? Did you even look at the list?

I count 216 Havok titles on their official site, I'm interested in the seeing the link showing 500+ if you can post it?

I'm going by whats on there site. Not going by a 3rd party website. E-mail them for the list and share it

Havok has over 13 years of experience servicing the most demanding technical requirements for leading customers in the commercial games and entertainment industry. Havok’s combination of superior technology and dedication to delivering industry leading support to its customers has led to the company’s technologies being used in over 500 of the best known and award-winning titles including Halo 4, Skylander's Giants, Assassin’s Creed III, Guild Wars 2, Uncharted: Golden Abyss™ and Darksiders II.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

IE: We will never let it be more than x86 and CUDA, but we will string you along so you believe it could happen soon.

Exactly, like they ever get a dev asking for more walls, less end users and less end user satisfaction.
Im quite enraged by this bull pr as ive a hybrid physx setup just for batman obv and its a pain in the ass , they shouldn't oughta have done that.
And reizor your deluded, only nvidia make progress stopping standards that only work on nv every one else actually tries to work together to make our(end users) life easier better and more fun.
Sinister licence waveing BS......

 

[okidna]

I did try and I could only count 100 or so

And thats because Nvidia is still including Ageia titles that were in development prior to 2008 when Nvidia bought them. Back then PhysX was only running on CPU and Ageia was making a push to offload the workload to a PPU.

*facepalm*
That's an extremely outdated list.

You can't even find Alice: Madness Returns, Borderlands 2, Batman Arkham Asylum and Arkham City, Mafia II, Mirror's Edge, Hawken, and all the PhysX game titles which released after 2010.

And you still can find Heavy Rain as a PC title in that list

 

[TheMailMan78]

*facepalm*
That's an extremely outdated list.

You can't even find Alice: Madness Returns, Borderlands 2, Batman Arkham Asylum and Arkham City, Mafia II, Mirror's Edge, Hawken, and all the PhysX game titles which released after 2010.

And you still can find Heavy Rain as a PC title in that list

Is Metro 2033 on there?