Nvidia helping to bring PhysX to ATi Cards

Nvidia are helping to bring PhysX to your Radeon cards.

As this summer's battle of the graphics cards continues to hot up (look out for our in depth gaming performance article coming soon!) it looks like Nvidia is indulging in some cross brand tactics to promote it's PhysX API by directly supporting 3rd party modders in bringing PhysX processing to AMD graphics cards.

For those not in the know, Nvidia aquired PhysX developer Ageia back in February, and has successfully integrated PhysX support onto it's latest GT200 core graphics cards, with PhysX support for any Geforce 8-series or above card being released in the next few months.

In response AMD licensed Intel's Havok physics API (yeah, it's complicated) to include Havok acceleration on it's own Radeon graphics cards.

However, an intrepid team of software developers over at NGOHQ.com have been busy porting Nvidia's CUDA based PhysX API to work on AMD Radeon graphics cards, and have now received official support from Nvidia - who is no doubt delighted to see it's API working on a competitor's hardware (as well as seriously threatening Intel's Havok physics system.)

As cheesed off as this might make AMD, which is unsurprisingly not supporting NGOHQ's work, it could certainly be for the betterment of PC gaming as a whole. If both AMD and Nvidia cards support PhysX, it'll remove the difficult choice for developers of which physics API to use in games. We've been growing more and more concerned here at bit-tech at the increasingly fragmented state of the physics and graphics markets, and anything that has the chance to simplify the situation for consumers and developers can only be a good thing.

Still hoping for a unified physics API? Or is it still early days for physics in games? Let us know in the forums.
Quote Timmy_the_tortoise 9th July 2008, 12:46
Why can't they all just agree on a standard, right now.

It'll making everything far better for us, and make the corporations far more respectable.
Quote p3n 9th July 2008, 13:04
Can't wait for the GPU performance to be measured 'whilst xyz PPU operations' .. not
Quote wuyanxu 9th July 2008, 13:11
it's a good step towards unified system. but i don't understand why ATI isn't supporting those programmers
Quote Jordan Wise 9th July 2008, 13:23
i don't know why they all rant and rave about physx, from what i've seen of it i think the physics in the cryengine 2 blows it out of the water
Quote K20 9th July 2008, 13:57
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuyanxu
it's a good step towards unified system. but i don't understand why ATI isn't supporting those programmers

AMD claim they won't support CUDA as it isn't open source.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jordan Wise
i don't know why they all rant and rave about physx, from what i've seen of it i think the physics in the cryengine 2 blows it out of the water

Because PhysX is on dedicated hardware?
Quote Goty 9th July 2008, 14:13
I wonder just how much "Help" NVIDIA is really going to be in this case?
Quote sam.g.taylor 9th July 2008, 15:18
Damn it, pleasestop using the wrong form of "its"!

http://www.cgl.uwaterloo.ca/~csk/its.html

Don't make me call the Punctuation Police...
Quote Sebbo 9th July 2008, 16:07
i say, all the more power to the Red Team (they always win ;-)). Seriously, if they can have both Havok and PhysX running on their cards, and they advertise it, it will only mean more sales and marketshare.
I bet they're feeling pretty smug though, having physics solutions owned by their competitors running on their cards while their competitors themselves are stuck on a single solution only :-P
Quote Bauul 9th July 2008, 16:17
He's right, you've got your apostrophes in the wrong please. "It's" is ALWAYS short hand for "It is", never for "It belongs to", unlike other nouns.

So you've written in the article "it looks like Nvidia is indulging in some cross brand tactics to promote it is PhysX API". Which just isn't accurate.

On topic though: a unified physics API would be rather nice, although to be honest has anyone seen PhysX actually do anything properly useful in any game, ever?
Quote Timmy_the_tortoise 9th July 2008, 16:27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bauul
On topic though: a unified physics API would be rather nice, although to be honest has anyone seen PhysX actually do anything properly useful in any game, ever?

I saw the tech demos....


.. They were pretty cool...
Quote [USRF]Obiwan 9th July 2008, 16:29
"the way its meant to be played" out....
Quote Brulath 9th July 2008, 16:52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bauul
On topic though: a unified physics API would be rather nice, although to be honest has anyone seen PhysX actually do anything properly useful in any game, ever?

A unified method of performing general computing tasks on the graphics card would be more useful than having everyone use the same physics API; you wouldn't want another DirectX vs OpenGL scenario arising (where one completely dominates the other, for PC games at least). If nVidia makes CUDA an open-source specification and therefore allow all graphics card manufacturers to implement it we'd have a far better situation than if everyone adopted PhysX instead.

So I guess, in my opinion, the questioner is asking the wrong thing. Being forced to use a single proprietary platform for a wide array of things is generally a bad idea, but having an open specification for how to communicate with a graphics card to have it perform general computing tasks for you is a fantastic one.

Unifying the physics market would slow the advances it makes considerably; we've already seen that nVidia slows down with its technological progression when it's dominating the market =)
Quote leexgx 9th July 2008, 17:46
now both cards can run PhysX makes it an alot easyer to use it
Quote BentAnat 10th July 2008, 12:25
I must be honest and state that i don't get a number of business decisions made by AMD lately... my faith lies firmly with the green goblin.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.