1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

AMD to PhysX: 'Acceptable Under Conditions'

Discussion in 'News' started by btarunr, Jul 15, 2008.

  1. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    28,713 (11.16/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,669
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    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
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2008
  2. tkpenalty New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,958 (2.36/day)
    Thanks Received:
    345
    Location:
    Australia, Sydney
    lol. AMD's tactics are rather interesting...
     
  3. panchoman

    panchoman Sold my stars!

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2007
    Messages:
    9,595 (3.61/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,200
    i agree! man amd is really playing it up!
     
  4. ShadowFold

    ShadowFold New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2007
    Messages:
    16,921 (6.77/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,644
    Location:
    Omaha, NE
    Very smart since that "The Way its" stuff makes noob users think nvidia cards will run the game better.
     
  5. KainXS

    KainXS

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,601 (2.16/day)
    Thanks Received:
    502
    Nvidia will not let phyX run better on ati hardware then their own hardware so this is already a fail
     
  6. [I.R.A]_FBi

    [I.R.A]_FBi New Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    7,664 (2.82/day)
    Thanks Received:
    540
    Location:
    c:\programs\kitteh.exe
    They dont want better, they basically said to amd

    "the same performance or gtfo"
     
  7. Megasty New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,263 (0.52/day)
    Thanks Received:
    82
    Location:
    The Kingdom of Au
    AMD already knows that, that's why they said it. Its almost funny how ppl fall for this 'how it should be' BS. We all know its just a ploy.
     
  8. sfp1987 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    24 (0.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Location:
    Faroe Islands (Faeroe Islands)
  9. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    28,713 (11.16/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,669
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
  10. sfp1987 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    24 (0.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Location:
    Faroe Islands (Faeroe Islands)
    ups :p my eyes must have been half open when read it.
     
  11. phanbuey

    phanbuey

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2007
    Messages:
    5,205 (2.05/day)
    Thanks Received:
    975
    Location:
    Miami
    wow... acceptable under conditions... of course its gonna run better on Nvidia lol... not because nvidia made it so, but because ATI cant write a driver to save their life.

    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.
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2008
  12. TheMailMan78

    TheMailMan78 Big Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Messages:
    21,141 (7.82/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7,670
    My question is when will they add it to Catalyst. You know if it works or not its an awesome gimmick. :shadedshu
     
  13. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    28,713 (11.16/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,669
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    They won't. It won't be distributed/supported by AMD, AFAIK. They regard it as 'middleware'. Ironically, they care about how this 'middleware' should perform with their products.
     
  14. erocker

    erocker Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Messages:
    39,810 (13.18/day)
    Thanks Received:
    14,192
    Why can't Vantage just support Havok so this mess can be laid to rest? Oh well, I just don't bother looking at CPU scores anymore...:ohwell:
     
  15. TheMailMan78

    TheMailMan78 Big Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Messages:
    21,141 (7.82/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7,670
    Because that would make sence. We know we cant have that happen can we? :rolleyes:
     
  16. Megasty New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,263 (0.52/day)
    Thanks Received:
    82
    Location:
    The Kingdom of Au
    Damn, just when logic was making a comeback too :shadedshu
     
  17. Darkrealms

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    852 (0.30/day)
    Thanks Received:
    23
    Location:
    USA
    ROFL, Let me know when it does I'll join the band wagon.

    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.
     
  18. usntom New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2008
    Messages:
    9 (0.00/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1
    Location:
    grove city, ohio
    quote:wow... acceptable under conditions... of course its gonna run better on Nvidia lol... not because nvidia made it so, but because ATI cant write a driver to save their life.:nutkick: you are so right phanbuey!!!!! one of these days ATI will know how to write drivers for their cards and maybe bye then i may even try one of their cards then:wtf:
    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
     
  19. Mussels

    Mussels Moderprator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    42,381 (11.54/day)
    Thanks Received:
    9,684
    look at F@H - the nvidia cards are working better than ATI.

    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.
     
  20. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,324 (8.25/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,778
    I think ATI is taking the proper stance here. Of course Physx is gonna run better on NV cards. Who would've though that CUDA runs better on the hardware it's coded for?

    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
     
  21. imperialreign

    imperialreign New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    7,043 (2.65/day)
    Thanks Received:
    909
    Location:
    Sector ZZ₉ Plural Z Alpha
    agreed with Wile E

    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.
     
  22. Mussels

    Mussels Moderprator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    42,381 (11.54/day)
    Thanks Received:
    9,684
    broken scaling options, the AGP cards not working for a few months with drivers... ATI have their share of screwups, its just that they update so often theres bound to be at least one driver that covers your needs, somewhere.
     
  23. imperialreign

    imperialreign New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    7,043 (2.65/day)
    Thanks Received:
    909
    Location:
    Sector ZZ₉ Plural Z Alpha
    well everyone has their hiccups - the AGP crowd has defi been pwnt by ATi

    never heard of any issues with broken scaling . . . are we talking MGPU or single?
     
  24. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,324 (8.25/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,778
    No, he's right. If you have widescreen, no matter what option you set in CCC, it scales 4:3 to the whole screen, instead of letterboxing it.

    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.
     
  25. imperialreign

    imperialreign New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    7,043 (2.65/day)
    Thanks Received:
    909
    Location:
    Sector ZZ₉ Plural Z Alpha


    I hadn't really noticed the image scaling issues, as I run everything in 1440x900; haven't messed with the LCD options at all as I don't enable CCC anymore (thanks to ATT).


    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 . . .
     

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page