Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

NVIDIA Responds to ATI PhysX Comments

PC Games Hardware has a response from NVIDIA to a recent statement by ATI that developers other than Epic use PhysX for physics "because they’re paid to do it." NVIDIA's Nadeem Mohammed, Director of Product Management, PhysX, who says: "we do not pay developers to select PhysX instead of other physics solution." He also states that PhysX is not proprietary, even though it obviously is, saying: "PhysX is a complete Physics solution which runs on all major platforms like PS3, XBOX360, Wii, PC with Intel or AMD CPU, and on the PC with GeForce cards; it even runs on iPhone. It's available for use by any developer for inclusion in games for any platform - all free of license fees. There's nothing restrictive or proprietary about that."

View
24. Re: NVIDIA Responds to ATI PhysX Comments Mar 13, 2010, 02:01 Beamer
 
Larrabee as a consumer graphics card is dead, according to Intel itself.

No, Larrabee G1 is dead. How can you not find any information on this? It's in the Wikipedia article, even. Here's a quote from Anandtech:
We should know more about the Larrabee situation next year, as Intel is already planning on an announcement at some point in 2010. Our best guess is that Intel will announce the next Larrabee chip at that time, with a product release in 2011 or 2012. Much of this will depend on what the hardware problem was and what process node Intel wants to use. If Intel just needs the ability to pack more cores on to a Larrabee chip then 2011 is a reasonable target, otherwise if there’s a more fundamental issue then 2012 is more likely. This lines up with the process nodes for those years: if they go for 2011 they hit the 2nd year of their 32nm process, otherwise if they launched in 2012 they would be able to launch it as one of the first products on the 22nm process.

For that matter, Since the Larrabee project was not killed, it’s a safe assumption that any future Larrabee chips are going to be based on the same architectural design. The vibe from Intel is that the problem is Larrabee Prime and not the Larrabee architecture itself. The idea of an x86 many-cores GPU is still alive and well.
http://anandtech.com/weblog/showpost.aspx?i=659
At the beginning he gives a bit about Intel’s view of Larrabee and the effect of “cancellation”, i.e., it’s not cancelled, just the first hardware release is off. He notes the day-to-day work of most Larrabee developers is unaffected. I appreciating him walking through the Intel position, as I haven’t been able to find any hard information (press releases, etc.) on their site. In retrospect, rumor-mill articles like this one (which we passed on earlier, lacking any sound data) appear to have extremely little resemblance to reality.Or his blog:
On the recent media attention: we're not cancelled - far from it.
http://home.comcast.net/~tom_forsyth/blog.wiki.html#%5B%5BLarrabee%20talk%20roundup%20and%20media%20attention%5D%5D

Trust me, I've spoken with Intel. They acknowledge that their PR did a terrible job with this one. The choice of words was terrible.

I don't care how Fermi will look in two years,

Why not? I honestly care how any technology will look in two years, especially if it has the potential to change how games are designed. Fermi does.
As if AMD will just be stagnant and do nothing in that same period.
Well, they're not going to push GPGPU unless their competitors do first. They've shown a willingness to be followers in this market.

The only thing plugging the dam has been some excellent marketing and thinly veiled bribery.

Not sure why you seem to hate Nvidia so much. Never understood choosing a side in this battle. Go with whomever is giving us the power. We should all hope Fermi works out because it has the potential to give us much more power than what AMD is pushing. Beyond that, if Fermi fails then Nvidia will probably go with it and we'll be left with a one player market. You really want ATI to stand alone?

As for thinly veiled bribery... hardly. Do you really think AMD doesn't offer developers money to optimize to their hardware? Pretty much every hardware company does this. Beyond that, with PhysX it's often the case that a dev team decides they want to use it so they go to Nvidia and ask for money. Nvidia makes a deal with them to do something they were already planning on. They use that money in small part to incorporate PhysX and in large part to extend their dev cycle a little bit and add some polish.
Don't see a real loser there.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Previous Post Next Post Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
    Date Subject Author
  1. Mar 12, 21:52 Re: NVIDIA Responds to ATI PhysX Comments Creston
  3. Mar 12, 22:22  Re: NVIDIA Responds to ATI PhysX Comments Ray Marden
  7. Mar 12, 22:51   Re: NVIDIA Responds to ATI PhysX Comments Flatline
  4. Mar 12, 22:24  Re: NVIDIA Responds to ATI PhysX Comments ramerco
  9. Mar 12, 22:54   Re: NVIDIA Responds to ATI PhysX Comments Flatline
  15. Mar 12, 23:56   Re: NVIDIA Responds to ATI PhysX Comments Creston
  18. Mar 13, 00:14    Re: NVIDIA Responds to ATI PhysX Comments ramerco
  22. Mar 13, 01:31     Re: NVIDIA Responds to ATI PhysX Comments .Drifter
  5. Mar 12, 22:25  Re: NVIDIA Responds to ATI PhysX Comments TheDevilYouKnow
  6. Mar 12, 22:49   Re: NVIDIA Responds to ATI PhysX Comments Overon
  26. Mar 13, 06:43    Re: NVIDIA Responds to ATI PhysX Comments BobBob
  27. Mar 13, 09:09     Re: NVIDIA Responds to ATI PhysX Comments DG
  8. Mar 12, 22:51   Re: NVIDIA Responds to ATI PhysX Comments Darks
  10. Mar 12, 22:59    Re: NVIDIA Responds to ATI PhysX Comments Overon
  11. Mar 12, 23:02     Re: NVIDIA Responds to ATI PhysX Comments Overon
  12. Mar 12, 23:22      Re: NVIDIA Responds to ATI PhysX Comments Beamer
  13. Mar 12, 23:44       Re: NVIDIA Responds to ATI PhysX Comments Cutter
  16. Mar 13, 00:09        Re: NVIDIA Responds to ATI PhysX Comments Jensen
  33. Mar 13, 12:21        Re: NVIDIA Responds to ATI PhysX Comments finga
  39. Mar 13, 14:54         Re: NVIDIA Responds to ATI PhysX Comments Beamer
  19. Mar 13, 00:28       Re: NVIDIA Responds to ATI PhysX Comments The PC Warrior
  20. Mar 13, 01:05        Re: NVIDIA Responds to ATI PhysX Comments Beamer
  21. Mar 13, 01:17         Re: NVIDIA Responds to ATI PhysX Comments Beamer
  23. Mar 13, 01:33         Re: NVIDIA Responds to ATI PhysX Comments The PC Warrior
>> 24. Mar 13, 02:01          Re: NVIDIA Responds to ATI PhysX Comments Beamer
  35. Mar 13, 12:37           Re: NVIDIA Responds to ATI PhysX Comments Joss
  41. Mar 13, 16:25           Re: NVIDIA Responds to ATI PhysX Comments The PC Warrior
  42. Mar 13, 17:09            Re: NVIDIA Responds to ATI PhysX Comments Beamer
  43. Mar 13, 17:40             Re: NVIDIA Responds to ATI PhysX Comments I've Got The News Blues
  45. Mar 13, 19:39             Re: NVIDIA Responds to ATI PhysX Comments The PC Warrior
  46. Mar 13, 20:20              Re: NVIDIA Responds to ATI PhysX Comments Beamer
  14. Mar 12, 23:46      Re: NVIDIA Responds to ATI PhysX Comments ramerco
  17. Mar 13, 00:09       Re: NVIDIA Responds to ATI PhysX Comments I've Got The News Blues
  44. Mar 13, 18:00       Re: NVIDIA Responds to ATI PhysX Comments ^Drag0n^
  25. Mar 13, 06:05    Re: NVIDIA Responds to ATI PhysX Comments lvitriol
  31. Mar 13, 11:36     Re: NVIDIA Responds to ATI PhysX Comments wrlwnd
  37. Mar 13, 14:39   Re: NVIDIA Responds to ATI PhysX Comments Agent.X7
  38. Mar 13, 14:52    Re: NVIDIA Responds to ATI PhysX Comments Beamer
  40. Mar 13, 15:43    Re: NVIDIA Responds to ATI PhysX Comments I've Got The News Blues
  2. Mar 12, 22:21 Re: NVIDIA Responds to ATI PhysX Comments ochentay4
  28. Mar 13, 09:44 Re: NVIDIA Responds to ATI PhysX Comments MMORPGHoD
  29. Mar 13, 11:20 Re: NVIDIA Responds to ATI PhysX Comments wtf_man
  32. Mar 13, 12:10  Re: NVIDIA Responds to ATI PhysX Comments Ray Marden
  49. Mar 14, 08:15  Re: NVIDIA Responds to ATI PhysX Comments ASJD
  30. Mar 13, 11:23 Re: NVIDIA Responds to ATI PhysX Comments Muscular Beaver
  34. Mar 13, 12:35 Re: NVIDIA Responds to ATI PhysX Comments Eldaron Imotholin
  36. Mar 13, 13:43  Re: NVIDIA Responds to ATI PhysX Comments ForgedReality
  47. Mar 13, 21:46 Re: NVIDIA Responds to ATI PhysX Comments The PC Warrior
  48. Mar 14, 01:51  Re: NVIDIA Responds to ATI PhysX Comments ^Drag0n^
  50. Mar 14, 10:25   Re: NVIDIA Responds to ATI PhysX Comments MTechnik
  51. Mar 14, 14:54    Re: NVIDIA Responds to ATI PhysX Comments Ant
  52. Mar 16, 12:49 Re: NVIDIA Responds to ATI PhysX Comments Verno


footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo