Richteralan

引用:

As AMD announced the next step of its Open Physics Initiative today, the company also hit out at Nvidia’s PhysX technology, saying that most game developers only use it for the money.

Speaking to THINQ, AMD’s senior manager of developer relations, Richard Huddy, said: “What I’ve seen with physics, or PhysX rather, is that Nvidia create a marketing deal with a title, and then as part of that marketing deal, they have the right to go in and implement PhysX in the game.”  

There’s nothing wrong with this, you might think. However, Huddy spends a lot of time talking with game developers in his role, and he reckons that most devs would much rather Nvidia kept its hands off. “The problem with that is obviously that the game developer doesn’t actually want it,” he says.

“They’re not doing it because they want it; they’re doing it because they’re paid to do it. So we have a rather artificial situation at the moment where you see PhysX in games, but it isn’t because the game developer wants it in there.”  

http://www.thinq.co.uk/news/2010 ... physx-for-the-cash/


AMD, here\'s some ideas:

How about you actually put some effort into support devs for YOUR physics solution? Any financial support for devs using YOUR physics solution? Why devs wants to pay for YOUR solution if they can implement PhysX for free?



Lame troll stays lame.

[ Last edited by Richteralan on 2010-3-8 at 23:56 ]

qcmadness

引用:

Originally posted by Richteralan at 2010-3-9 08:35:

And PhysX is NOT ONLY FOR GAMES. Look at how many scientific applications supports it?

Richteralan

引用:

Originally posted by qcmadness at 2010-3-8 23:37:

ah.........got CUDA and PhysX mixed up....

qcmadness

引用:

Originally posted by Richteralan at 2010-3-9 12:56:

ah.........got CUDA and PhysX mixed up....

CUDA is a different story, with much tougher competition from DirectX Compute and OpenCL.

PhysX... I think this is a popular and most viable solution for game physics.
But over-symphasizing it will be a disaster for NVIDIA.

Richteralan

引用:

Originally posted by qcmadness at 2010-3-9 00:04:

CUDA is a different story, with much tougher competition from DirectX Compute and OpenCL.

PhysX... I think this is a popular and most viable solution for game physics.
But over-symphasizing i ...

I think NVIDIA never intended to compete against DXC and OCL. That\'s why NVIDIA puts out first OpenCL driver for devs.
And if you goto this site
http://www.nvidia.com/object/what_is_cuda_new.html
you\'ll see NVIDIA is doing CUDA/DXC/OCL.
These won\'t happen if NVIDIA position CUDA to compete against them.

Also, CUDA and DXC/OCL are different. Supporting one doesn\'t inherently exclude the support of other.

qcmadness

引用:

Originally posted by Richteralan at 2010-3-9 13:13:


I think NVIDIA never intended to compete against DXC and OCL. That\'s why NVIDIA puts out first OpenCL driver for devs.
And if you goto this site
[url]http://www.nvidia.com/object/what_is_cuda ...

But for most enterprise, CUDA is no difference from OpenCL / DirectCompute

dom

ATI/AMD should stop BSing , their "Stream" processing / Media Conver solution using GPU
DON\'T WORK , Broken , or CRAPPY as hell

Same as their Catalyst Driver ( especially the new 10.x series )
I won\'t believe all those BS from ATI dev