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

AMD to Demonstrate GPU Havok Physics Acceleration at GDC

ShadowFold said:
Do you not have an Intel CPU? They must be doing something right :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

As I said, what hardware I have has nothing to do with which technologies I want for the future. I bought Intel because I always buy whichever is best in the price range I choose to pay (maybe you all could remember this Intel example the next time you choose to think I'm a Nvidia fanboy). At the same time I know how shaddy and evil Intel is. I gave them my money, because they had the better product, but I never give my heart to any company. I know they've been holding back physics in games and I know they will continue with that in the future. In the future I will probably buy Intel CPU again, but I don't want them doing the physics, because I know that represents the stagnation, milking and sandbagging of something that I've been wanting for almost a decade.
 
Mussels said:
I dont see any logic behind that.

If intel makes it x86, then AMD can run it, via can run it, etc.
If they make it GPU capable, then at least they're getting paid for it in royalties.
Click to expand...

It's not about who, but how. If Intel makes it x86 it will happen two things:

1. That it will never reach the heighs that GPU physics would reach. GPUs are always going to be faster (at number crunching) than any x86 based CPU/GPU for the same die area and power consumption. In any case you would need to buy an Intel GPU or AMD start making them, because CPUs will never hold enough power into them. It's not cost effective to add so many ALUs into a CPU, when most of the times they will be idling. And high-end on die GPUs so that you don't need a discrete one (hence the ALUs would be working most of the time), will never happen, because of thermal constraints.

2. Because of the growing importance of physics in games if Havok is used and it is x86 based, the better gaming solution would be an Intel GPU, because at Graphics+Physics it would be faster, although it would be lagging far behind at pure graphics, and would also be lagging in physics if Havok wasn't used and true GPUs from Nvidia and AMD could take advantage of PhysX instead of being forced to adopt Intel's path.

Not to mention that I think it's time for everybody to open the eyes and see that AMD has nothing to do against Intel when it comes to x86, it's ages ahead and I don't think AMD will ever catch on. They will continue being competitive because that's what most benefits Intel, but will never be ahead again.
 
DarkMatter said:
It's not about who, but how. If Intel makes it x86 it will happen two things:

1. That it will never reach the heighs that GPU physics would reach. GPUs are always going to be faster (at number crunching) than any x86 based CPU/GPU for the same die area and power consumption. In any case you would need to buy an Intel GPU or AMD start making them, because CPUs will never hold enough power into them. It's not cost effective to add so many ALUs into a CPU, when most of the times they will be idling. And high-end on die GPUs so that you don't need a discrete one (hence the ALUs would be working most of the time), will never happen, because of thermal constraints.

2. Because of the growing importance of physics in games if Havok is used and it is x86 based, the better gaming solution would be an Intel GPU, because at Graphics+Physics it would be faster, although it would be lagging far behind at pure graphics, and would also be lagging in physics if Havok wasn't used and true GPUs from Nvidia and AMD could take advantage of PhysX instead of being forced to adopt Intel's path.

Not to mention that I think it's time for everybody to open the eyes and see that AMD has nothing to do against Intel when it comes to x86, it's ages ahead and I don't think AMD will ever catch on. They will continue being competitive because that's what most benefits Intel, but will never be ahead again.
Click to expand...
Thats a LOT assumption and a pessimistic view on your part Dark. Almost everything happening points to just the opposite of what you just said. A year ago people were saying AMD was done for and buying ATI was a huge mistake. Now look where we are.
 
TheMailMan78 said:
Thats a LOT assumption and a pessimistic view on your part Dark. Almost everything happening points to just the opposite of what you just said. A year ago people were saying AMD was done for and buying ATI was a huge mistake. Now look where we are.
Click to expand...

And where are we?? Phenom II has a hard time even competing with Intels 2 years old hardware that had been sandbagged to begin with. Now Intel's Nehalem is somewhere 30% faster clock for clock and even with the restrictions they have put in place to hold back overclocking they still overclock like a charm. The die area of Nehalem is the same as that of Phenom 2, so it's actually cheaper to produce for Intel because of their much bigger fabs. If Intel wanted or needed, they could make anything from creating much faster Nehalems to lowering the price to a lower point than AMD if they trully required that.
 
DarkMatter said:
And where are we?? Phenom II has a hard time even competing with Intels 2 years old hardware that had been sandbagged to begin with. Now Intel's Nehalem is somewhere 30% faster clock for clock and even with the restrictions they have put in place to hold back overclocking they still overclock like a charm. The die area of Nehalem is the same as that of Phenom 2, so it's actually cheaper to produce for Intel because of their much bigger fabs. If Intel wanted or needed, they could make anything from creating much faster Nehalems to lowering the price to a lower point than AMD if they trully required that.
Click to expand...

Wow the R&D behind Nehalem must have been free then. As for the Phenom II having a hard time competing I think you better research thier intended performance bracket. The Phenom II is mopping the floor with Intel. Its an overachiever when it comes to games also. In gaming it goes toe to toe with the i7. I wont even go into ATIs end of things. So yeah we are FAR better off than we were a year ago. The future looks bright!
 
TheMailMan78 said:
Wow the R&D behind Nehalem must have been free then. As for the Phenom II having a hard time competing I think you better research thier intended performance bracket. The Phenom II is mopping the floor with Intel. Its an overachiever when it comes to games also. In gaming it goes toe to toe with the i7. I wont even go into ATIs end of things. So yeah we are FAR better off than we were a year ago. The future looks bright!
Click to expand...

There's a time when you have to come back to reality. AMD is better now than one year ago, but I don't see the bright future you talk about. I want to see it, but I'm too realist for that.

I'm sorry for you, really. Just out of curiosity, how much did you pay for those stocks? I was close to buy 4000€ in AMD stock around 18 months ago for $7-8 or so I think, and I'm so happy that I didn't... uff I dodged that one by a hair. :ohwell:
 
DarkMatter said:
There's a time when you have to come back to reality. AMD is better now than one year ago, but I don't see the bright future you talk about. I want to see it, but I'm too realist for that.

I'm sorry for you, really. Just out of curiosity, how much did you pay for those stocks? I was close to buy 4000€ in AMD stock around 18 months ago for $7-8 or so I think, and I'm so happy that I didn't... uff I dodged that one by a hair. :ohwell:
Click to expand...

:laugh: Any stock right now is shot. However I've been buying into all kinds of things. 5 years from now people are going to be kicking themselves. Patience is key. Stocks never reflect the moral of a good company. Only negative press. Right now AMD is producing some great press. If this continues stocks will rise. How do you think Apple survived?

FYI me owning a part of AMD has nothing to do with my views. I used to own an 8800 on my old gaming system ;)
 
TheMailMan78 said:
Wow the R&D behind Nehalem must have been free then. As for the Phenom II having a hard time competing I think you better research thier intended performance bracket. The Phenom II is mopping the floor with Intel. Its an overachiever when it comes to games also. In gaming it goes toe to toe with the i7. I wont even go into ATIs end of things. So yeah we are FAR better off than we were a year ago. The future looks bright!
Click to expand...

The Phenom is not mopping the floor with Intel. You need to double check that. The only thing it really keeps up with Intel in is encoding and gaming. And it only keeps up in gaming because current titles are limited by the gpu, not the cpu. AMD is still behind clock for clock. It's only equal in some tasks. To put that into perspective tho, they are now just starting to catch up to a 2 year old design. Compared to i7, Phenom II loses everywhere.

Yes, AMD made a step in the right direction, and they are now competitive in their bracket, but I doubt they'll pass Intel up in performance any time in the next couple of years. Intel has a much larger R&D budget.
 
Well that's kinda cool. I want to see some videos of this destruction tho :D
 
I think nVidia should port Physx to use OpenCL.
 
I don't see anything in that link, just PR. I thought there would be a video there. I have seen the videos in Havok's page though and are not impressive at all. I'll stay with PhysX thank you.
 
DarkMatter said:
Also DX11 or OpenCL doesn't change anything. Nvidia can and will adapt PhysX to DX11/OpenCL when Win 7 launches too. Remember that it took them 3 months to adapt PhysX to CUDA. It won't take much more to adapt it to any other API.

And maybe I'm wrong, but when that happens, it's going to be very interesting, because Ati cards will be able to play PhysX, with AMD's permission or without. The only requirement for PhysX will be a card capable of running DX11 compute shaders then and AMD cards will do so. It will matter very little if AMD wants PhysX on their cards or not, unless they do something shaddy, they will not be able to prevent that.

The one that will win this game is the one that gets better support now and IMHO that's PhysX at the moment.
Click to expand...

yeah, PhysX is getting better support and is being used far more then havoc, mostly because intel dont really want gpu enhanced phisics they want to keep everything on the cpu.

i dont see it taking them that long honestly, i would bet nvidia is already working on the project maby only a couple people but fact is if they get started early they can put it out either early or on the day dx11 is avalable.

also from what i have read this is NOT TIED TO dx11 shaders, so you wont have to replace your 8800+ or hd2k+ card to use it(hell even the x1900/1950 are acctualy capable of this kinda work)

The prospecs is exciting to me, if only both companys would grow up and realise they need to team up against intel (main company driving this "keep everything on the cpu" BS)

IF ati/amd and nvidia could work togather in at least a limmited fassion they could take some of the wind out of intels sails, i mean it wouldnt be perfect but at least amd/ati and NV onboard could be used as a ppu, think about it, again not "optimal" but if all boards had onboard that could support physx(780/790gx and nvidia equivlants),

blah......just blah!!
 
DarkMatter said:
I don't see anything in that link, just PR. I thought there would be a video there. I have seen the videos in Havok's page though and are not impressive at all. I'll stay with PhysX thank you.
Click to expand...

You see Havok video or HavokFX video?
 
Wile E said:
I think nVidia should port Physx to use OpenCL.
Click to expand...

I would bet you they are already working on it, if havoc can run on openCL then nvidias gonna want a peice of that action and the ability to have their physx do the same thing and work on the same hardware.

I would bet you start seeing other phisics engines moving to support opencl as well, it just makes sence to support it if avalable.
 
FryingWeesel said:
I would bet you they are already working on it, if havoc can run on openCL then nvidias gonna want a peice of that action and the ability to have their physx do the same thing and work on the same hardware.

I would bet you start seeing other phisics engines moving to support opencl as well, it just makes sence to support it if avalable.
Click to expand...

That's my take on it. But I get this feeling it won't happen. nvidia really likes to lock their technologies to their hardware for some reason. Presumably to help their hardware sales. I'm hoping that Physx doesn't provide enough hardware demand that they have no choice but to port it over to OCL.
 
well, nvidia wants physx to be top dog, they where even trying to help those people make a port for ati cards(the one that turned out to be vaporware)

for nvidia pushing physx would have no downside really, even if its allowing support over opencl, their cuda based implementation would be more optimzied anyway, after all they own the engine, they could make sure it just runs better on their cards then on opencl based cards.
 
FryingWeesel said:
well, nvidia wants physx to be top dog, they where even trying to help those people make a port for ati cards(the one that turned out to be vaporware)

for nvidia pushing physx would have no downside really, even if its allowing support over opencl, their cuda based implementation would be more optimzied anyway, after all they own the engine, they could make sure it just runs better on their cards then on opencl based cards.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's a way to look at it too, i suppose.

I will say, Physx is actually one thing I miss about owning an nv card. But then again, I really like GRAW and GRAW2 a lot.
 
Game devs will have a simple choice

Nv physx, that only works on G92 and newer cards

Havok, that works on ATI cards (2k and up)

Now its a tough choice - comes down to whatevers easiest to code, or cheapest to use. If one of them goes openCL and becomes viable on both brands, that engine takes the lead - no alienating your customer base.
 
Mussels said:
Game devs will have a simple choice

Nv physx, that only works on G92 and newer cards

Havok, that works on ATI cards (2k and up)

Now its a tough choice - comes down to whatevers easiest to code, or cheapest to use. If one of them goes openCL and becomes viable on both brands, that engine takes the lead - no alienating your customer base.
Click to expand...

um, from what i reammber g80 card can now run physx(any cuda compatable card can) so even older 8800's can support physx.

as to havok vs physx, they both got their flaws and advanteges, as i have said b4, As I understand it nvidia is giving physx away
http://developer.nvidia.com/object/physx.html
infact they are!!!

physx has gone "licence free" this makes it more attractive to developers then havok thats owned by intel and thus requiers them to get a licence from intel to use/support it.
 
G80 and up!

screwup on my part, i was getting confused because i've been using coreAVC, and its G92 and up.
 
A little info/show of what hardware physx can do.
http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-275-review-test/7

Ambient Occlusion
http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-275-review-test/6

AO perf hit in games i have tested it in has been pretty low on my 8800gts 512mb as long as im using the 185.66 drivers, older drivers the hit was higher, would guess that the perf hit will go down even more as the drivers mature more :)

WoW for example looks amazing with AO enabled, shadows acctualy are NICE, NwN2 looks better, as well as some other older games I have tested.
 
Whatever happen to this? I have yet to see any GPU accelerated physics on ATI.
 
TheMailMan78 said:
Whatever happen to this? I have yet to see any GPU accelerated physics on ATI.
Click to expand...

nothing really.

at a guess, game devs are holding off til ATI and Nv have working Direct compute/openCL drivers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top