Friday, July 4th 2008
Radeon PhysX Creator: 'NVIDIA Offered To Help Us', 'Expected More From AMD'
In a dramatic turnaround of events, NGOHQ.com, the creators of a special system software that allowed users of the ATI Radeon graphics accelerators to use proprietary features of NVIDIA graphics accelerators such as GPU-accelerated version of the NVIDIA PhysX game physics API, claim that in fact NVIDIA wanted to help them with this effort. On June, the 26th we had covered reports of the said outfit improvising a driver after proving that NVIDIA's proprietary GPGPU architecture, CUDA was flexible enough to work on a ATI RV670 graphics processor.
The NVIDIA PhysX API has gained immense popularity with the industry off late though the standard itself is not very recent, with the former Ageia having been in the industry for a while before its takeover by NVIDIA. The recent popularity surge of this API owes to the fact that PhysX processing plays a significant role in affecting the scores of the 3DMark Vantage benchmark, where a certain CPU test routine evaluates the computer's physics processing abilities. This gives users of the latest line of GeForce graphics accelerators an advantage over their Radeon counterparts since they get a significant increment in the benchmark score. The PhysX API functions as a CUDA application on GeForce, where the GPU's shaders are used by the process to process physics. With NGOHQ.com being successfully able to modify CUDA to function on ATI GPUs, it was only a formality to run any CUDA application on it, the PhysX process included. NGOHQ.com has gone on record saying that enabling PhysX support on Radeon cards is not particularly difficult, and might not be much be a technology problem but an issue of corporate dynamics.
The team sought support from AMD in the form of a Radeon HD4800 series sample, so they could work out a similar solution for it, but AMD rejected it telling it wasn't a venture worth investing product samples and PR information on, clearly a case of them downplaying the issue to evade possible action from NVIDIA on supporting the use of its proprietary technologies in violation of license agreements. After being denied support from a company they were banking the most on, they were left to their own plight against NVIDIA who have a history of an aggressive business model, even more so after it was known NGOHQ.com may have reverse engineered drivers, a clear violation of the EULA.
The dramatic turnaround of events has caused a little more than a ripple across the industry, the team at NGOHQ.com now claims that NVIDIA actually offered help to them and that they want to strengthen the industry position of CUDA as a viable competitor to Intel and its processing technologies. This follows news reports of a high-ranked officer at Intel downplaying the rising popularity of CUDA and effectively counter the competitive physics API, Havoc, which uses CPU to process in-game physics. The team goes on to use phrases such as "it seems they are giving us their blessings" to highlight their appreciation for the company.
What's beneath this green sugar-coat of an M&M bean? Clear corporate agenda at play. NVIDIA gets away with the higher moral ground in the issue, of having come in support of a small outfit trying to work on technologies that enhanced their competitor's, while in reality all AMD must have wanted was to stay away from IPR headaches at a time when a reinvigorated Radeon line is going head on against GeForce, the way NGOHQ.com portreys their approach looks more like they shied away from a challenge, in their views.With inputs from NGOHQ.com
The NVIDIA PhysX API has gained immense popularity with the industry off late though the standard itself is not very recent, with the former Ageia having been in the industry for a while before its takeover by NVIDIA. The recent popularity surge of this API owes to the fact that PhysX processing plays a significant role in affecting the scores of the 3DMark Vantage benchmark, where a certain CPU test routine evaluates the computer's physics processing abilities. This gives users of the latest line of GeForce graphics accelerators an advantage over their Radeon counterparts since they get a significant increment in the benchmark score. The PhysX API functions as a CUDA application on GeForce, where the GPU's shaders are used by the process to process physics. With NGOHQ.com being successfully able to modify CUDA to function on ATI GPUs, it was only a formality to run any CUDA application on it, the PhysX process included. NGOHQ.com has gone on record saying that enabling PhysX support on Radeon cards is not particularly difficult, and might not be much be a technology problem but an issue of corporate dynamics.
The team sought support from AMD in the form of a Radeon HD4800 series sample, so they could work out a similar solution for it, but AMD rejected it telling it wasn't a venture worth investing product samples and PR information on, clearly a case of them downplaying the issue to evade possible action from NVIDIA on supporting the use of its proprietary technologies in violation of license agreements. After being denied support from a company they were banking the most on, they were left to their own plight against NVIDIA who have a history of an aggressive business model, even more so after it was known NGOHQ.com may have reverse engineered drivers, a clear violation of the EULA.
The dramatic turnaround of events has caused a little more than a ripple across the industry, the team at NGOHQ.com now claims that NVIDIA actually offered help to them and that they want to strengthen the industry position of CUDA as a viable competitor to Intel and its processing technologies. This follows news reports of a high-ranked officer at Intel downplaying the rising popularity of CUDA and effectively counter the competitive physics API, Havoc, which uses CPU to process in-game physics. The team goes on to use phrases such as "it seems they are giving us their blessings" to highlight their appreciation for the company.
What's beneath this green sugar-coat of an M&M bean? Clear corporate agenda at play. NVIDIA gets away with the higher moral ground in the issue, of having come in support of a small outfit trying to work on technologies that enhanced their competitor's, while in reality all AMD must have wanted was to stay away from IPR headaches at a time when a reinvigorated Radeon line is going head on against GeForce, the way NGOHQ.com portreys their approach looks more like they shied away from a challenge, in their views.With inputs from NGOHQ.com