bit-tech.net

EA and 2K Games license Nvidia PhysX technology

EA and 2K Games license Nvidia PhysX technology

Electronic Arts and 2K Games have announced that they will both license Nvidia's PhysX technology across all of their worldwide studios.

Electronic Arts and 2K Games have both announced that they will license Nvidia PhysX technology across all of their worldwide studios.

This follows on from Nvidia and EA’s joint announcement earlier this month regarding the PC version of Mirror’s Edge, which is claimed to be the first game to truly exploit PhysX technology.

PhysX is a great physics solution for the most popular platforms, and we're happy to make it available for EA’s development teams worldwide. Gameplay remains our number one goal, with character, vehicle and environmental interactivity a critical part of the gameplay experience for our titles, and we look forward to partnering with NVIDIA to reach this goal,” said Tim Wilson, Chief Technology Officer of EA’s Redwood Shores Studio.

Jacob Hawley, technology director for 2K said: “We are very impressed with the quality of the PhysX engine and we licensed it so our studios can use this solution early in development. Developing games with an interactive story and immersive gameplay remains our number one priority, and aligning with technology leaders like NVIDIA allows our teams to concentrate on making great games.

This is a move that will undoubtedly hit AMD’s plans to accelerate Havok Physics on the GPU and it appears to make PhysX more than just a checkbox feature – with many studios potentially using the technology, it could now have a huge impact on the differences in gameplay experience between Nvidia and ATI graphics cards. We have contacted AMD for a comment but haven’t heard back from the company at the time of publication.

We’ll bring you more later.

What do you think of this announcement? Discuss in the forums.

25 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
ChaosDefinesOrder 8th December 2008, 19:08 Quote
This would be why I bought me a GTX 280 instead of a 4870X2 recently for my new PC. AMD have a loooooong way to go to catch up on nVidia's CUDA
wuyanxu 8th December 2008, 19:34 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaosDefinesOrder
This would be why I bought me a GTX 280 instead of a 4870X2 recently for my new PC. AMD have a loooooong way to go to catch up on nVidia's CUDA
and nVidia's marketing ;)
frontline 8th December 2008, 20:02 Quote
Yay, more games with fancy physics effects and no gameplay.....
Cobalt 8th December 2008, 21:23 Quote
Its like as soon as people begin to catch onto the fact that shiny graphics are covering up bad games, publishers rush to find a new bone to throw to the masses in place of quality.

EDIT: complete sentences help sometimes
wharrad 8th December 2008, 23:21 Quote
I was under the impression that DX11 did it all 'out of the box' on DX11 cards.

I know it's very early to talk about this, but if that's the case, CUDA and PhysicX will die... As I doubt a developer - given the choice - would pick just Nvidia, when DX11 allows physics calculations to be done on both (or should I say all!).
-EVRE- 9th December 2008, 00:28 Quote
DX11 and AMD's current processor at the time is whats going to get my money... If what Wharrad said is true, I have a very good reason for waiting.
TomH 9th December 2008, 01:08 Quote
Interestingly enough, you all forget that Bit themselves reported on Nvidia helping the community hackers with their attempts to run PhysX on ATI cards. :)

However, I do agree that between DirectX and OpenCL, we aren't going to see much support for CUDA in the future. ATI have made their bed, and Nvidia will need to support DX11 anyway. As nice as CUDA is, there will need to be hard decisions made on the use of precious transistors at some point in next few years. I just hope Nvidia see it before it's too late... Because when Larrabee hits, we'll probably end-up with ATI and Intel on one side and Nvidia fighting a losing war.

Just keeps it interesting though.
Lepermessiah 9th December 2008, 01:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaosDefinesOrder
This would be why I bought me a GTX 280 instead of a 4870X2 recently for my new PC. AMD have a loooooong way to go to catch up on nVidia's CUDA

LOL, there is what 1 game that supports this? By the time Physics catches on (If it does at all) we won't be using these cards.
Mentai 9th December 2008, 02:45 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaosDefinesOrder
This would be why I bought me a GTX 280 instead of a 4870X2 recently for my new PC. AMD have a loooooong way to go to catch up on nVidia's CUDA

LOL, there is what 1 game that supports this? By the time Physics catches on (If it does at all) we won't be using these cards.

Mirrors Edge is out in Jan for PC, I assume he'll still be using that card then, and for the other EA/2k games that come out in 09...
Even as an Nvidia user, I'm really unhappy that adoption of PhysX in games seems to be ramping up. With AMD leaking billions every quarter they need all the advantages they can get, and I assume there will be hefty licensing fees if AMD ever does choose to use PhysX :(
Lepermessiah 9th December 2008, 02:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mentai
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaosDefinesOrder
This would be why I bought me a GTX 280 instead of a 4870X2 recently for my new PC. AMD have a loooooong way to go to catch up on nVidia's CUDA

LOL, there is what 1 game that supports this? By the time Physics catches on (If it does at all) we won't be using these cards.

Mirrors Edge is out in Jan for PC, I assume he'll still be using that card then, and for the other EA/2k games that come out in 09...
Even as an Nvidia user, I'm really unhappy that adoption of PhysX in games seems to be ramping up. With AMD leaking billions every quarter they need all the advantages they can get, and I assume there will be hefty licensing fees if AMD ever does choose to use PhysX :(

What game sin 09? Not one is announced, it will take a long time before anymore then a select few games support this, by them any seriosu gamer would have moved on.
dyzophoria 9th December 2008, 05:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mentai
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaosDefinesOrder
This would be why I bought me a GTX 280 instead of a 4870X2 recently for my new PC. AMD have a loooooong way to go to catch up on nVidia's CUDA

LOL, there is what 1 game that supports this? By the time Physics catches on (If it does at all) we won't be using these cards.

Mirrors Edge is out in Jan for PC, I assume he'll still be using that card then, and for the other EA/2k games that come out in 09...
Even as an Nvidia user, I'm really unhappy that adoption of PhysX in games seems to be ramping up. With AMD leaking billions every quarter they need all the advantages they can get, and I assume there will be hefty licensing fees if AMD ever does choose to use PhysX :(


+1

I think AMD will license PhysX if they see the need for it, even if these two companies licensed PhysX tech, we can't assume that all their next games will use the tech, I won't be surprised if only games released in the next 1 or 2 years just begin to use this technology
Kúsař 9th December 2008, 07:46 Quote
Clever move from nVidia - impress publishers instead of developers. They'll force it into their games no matter how useless it might be.
p3n 9th December 2008, 09:38 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by frontline
Yay, more games with fancy physics effects and no gameplay.....

Go buy garry's mod off steam and stop being a whiney little *beep*
Tim S 9th December 2008, 09:42 Quote
CUDA isn't going anywhere any time soon - I think you guys will be surprised how similar DX11 Compute and OpenCL are to CUDA. All Nvidia hardware since G80 already supports OpenCL and I've got good reason to believe that at least the current generation also supports DX11 Compute.

Although Nvidia skirts around the question, I believe PhysX will be ported to either DX11 Compute or OpenCL. It needs to if Nvidia wants to continue controlling the game physics middleware market (why else would it have bought Ageia?) because with compute APIs coming thick and fast, a developer can create their own 'accelerated' physics engine using the Compute Shader in DX11.
[USRF]Obiwan 9th December 2008, 10:25 Quote
So Cuda isn't going anywhere? What about this then. Looks like it's going everywhere. And do not forget some video editing, cad/cam and renderer developers are working on Cuda powered versions. adding to that, the Physics engine Nvidia got a nice deck of cards.

I think it is wrong to think Cuda is not going anywhere. Take for example TMPGEnc 4.0 Xpress. With Cuda it goes 300 times faster! This saves enormous amount of time. I use it to convert the AVCHD cam recorders to a more editable format for my videoeditor. Now all i need is the videoeditor to go the Cuda way and i'm happy like a bird because it saves me to buy a expensive quadcore.
Tim S 9th December 2008, 12:25 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by [USRF
Obiwan]So Cuda isn't going anywhere? What about this then. Looks like it's going everywhere. And do not forget some video editing, cad/cam and renderer developers are working on Cuda powered versions. adding to that, the Physics engine Nvidia got a nice deck of cards.

I think it is wrong to think Cuda is not going anywhere. Take for example TMPGEnc 4.0 Xpress. With Cuda it goes 300 times faster! This saves enormous amount of time. I use it to convert the AVCHD cam recorders to a more editable format for my videoeditor. Now all i need is the videoeditor to go the Cuda way and i'm happy like a bird because it saves me to buy a expensive quadcore.

CUDA isn't going anywhere as in it is not going to disappear. It's still going from strength to strength and developer adoption is increasing. Apologies for any confusion - I was merely answering the critics saying that CUDA would die because of OpenCL/DirectX 11 Compute. It won't.

However, I wouldn't be surprised if PhysX moved to DirectX 11 Compute because I am pretty certain that's where Havok will probably go once Larrabee has launched. At that point, PhysX would become an also-ran because one runs on every DX11 compliant hardware, the other only runs on GeForce. Publishers care about installed bases, so which would you choose as a publisher?
Saivert 9th December 2008, 14:49 Quote
big question is if OpenCL and DX11 Compute can offer the same features as direct CUDA. CUDA has in fact been developed by NVIDIA for use with their own line of GPUs. No way a GENERIC API can offer the same features. It has to support a common subset only.
Tim S 9th December 2008, 15:03 Quote
GT200 supports newer features in CUDA than G80 (think Double Precision), so yes, current and future APIs could in fact support many of CUDA's features... the thing with CUDA is that Nvidia will just release a compiler specific to API X, Y, Z, which translates the new code into something its GPUs understand.
Bladestorm 9th December 2008, 18:12 Quote
When Nvidia had a couple big companies demoing impressive gains using Physx/cuda (not ones that most consumers would notice, granted, but impressive nonetheless) and all AMD had on how theres would work was "no comment, come back later" I kinda figured Nvidia had it in the bag.
Tim S 9th December 2008, 19:20 Quote
I've been pushing AMD hard for a comment today, but I'm still playing the waiting game. Hopefully I'll have all of my questions answered soon. :)
HourBeforeDawn 9th December 2008, 19:35 Quote
see this is why as an ATI user I went ahead for now and bought ASUS PhysX card to fill in the gap but ya aside from the hacked libraries for physx on ATI, DX11 will be the better bet, as for CUDA, well thats nothing new ATI has had Stream for a long while but they are just not bring it to a consumer level. Which Cat 8.12 (release is expected to be tomorrow) will offer. ^^
frontline 9th December 2008, 19:49 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by p3n
Quote:
Originally Posted by frontline
Yay, more games with fancy physics effects and no gameplay.....

Go buy garry's mod off steam and stop being a whiney little *beep*

My comment was aimed at the 'quality' PhysX supported titles out there. Garry's mod and the source engine games are a prime example of how CPU (and/or GPU) based physics in moderation is the way forward. But thanks for the insult anyway.
roshan 10th December 2008, 15:18 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaosDefinesOrder
This would be why I bought me a GTX 280 instead of a 4870X2 recently for my new PC. AMD have a loooooong way to go to catch up on nVidia's CUDA

But ATI has the edge of directx 10.1
HourBeforeDawn 10th December 2008, 19:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by roshan
But ATI has the edge of directx 10.1

which sadly due Im sure by nVidia bitching wont be truly used by many makers and will be over looked until DX11 comes out. So most makers will use DX10 and just bunny hop over 10.1 and go straight to 11. :(
Bladestorm 10th December 2008, 23:10 Quote
Most of the features of DX 10.1 can be replicated on nvidias recent cards anyway, they're only lacking one or two small ones to actually be able to say they are compliant.
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.



Discuss in the forums