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 : : :
36.
 
Re: NVIDIA Responds to ATI PhysX Comments
Mar 13, 2010, 13:43
36.
Re: NVIDIA Responds to ATI PhysX Comments Mar 13, 2010, 13:43
Mar 13, 2010, 13:43
 
Eldaron Imotholin wrote on Mar 13, 2010, 12:35:
I have not yet seen anything PhysX can that Havok or whatever can't do. Seriously, I've even watched PhysX promo trailers with showing splitscreen the game with and without PhysX. It was like playing "Find It" on hardcore.

Fuck PhysX. No one would really miss it if it would simply stop existing.
Have never seen a Havok game.

Or if it used Havok, never noticed.

PhysX is noticeable, and it was really well implemented in Batman:AA.

Dunno where you're seeing PhysX-level Havok effects, but I'd be interested to find out.

finga wrote on Mar 13, 2010, 12:21:
Seems pretty simple right now. ATI is delivering better raw performance for the money at several price points, and nVidia knows they're not going to win on that this generation, so they've been pushing their proprietary, closed features as an alternative. Hence we see nVidia trying to dominate the conversation with talk of 3DVision and PhysX.

For me, Eyefinity is just as interesting of a feature as 3DVision in-game, but 1) 3DVision can cause headaches and offers no gameplay advantage, and 2) Eyefinity setups can be used outside of games. On the physics front, I see so many games out there only using 25-50% of a quad core CPU. Why would I use the component that's most often the bottleneck in games (the GPU) for that calculation when the CPU could be used? Unfortunately, developers still haven't figured that bit out yet and are adding in things like PhysX support only for nVidia cards when that could have easily gone on the CPU.

Show me a CPU with hundreds of cores, and we'll be in business.
Avatar 55267
Date
Subject
Author
7.
Mar 12, 2010Mar 12 2010
4.
Mar 12, 2010Mar 12 2010
9.
Mar 12, 2010Mar 12 2010
15.
Mar 12, 2010Mar 12 2010
18.
Mar 13, 2010Mar 13 2010
22.
Mar 13, 2010Mar 13 2010
6.
Mar 12, 2010Mar 12 2010
26.
Mar 13, 2010Mar 13 2010
27.
Mar 13, 2010Mar 13 2010
8.
Mar 12, 2010Mar 12 2010
10.
Mar 12, 2010Mar 12 2010
11.
Mar 12, 2010Mar 12 2010
12.
Mar 12, 2010Mar 12 2010
13.
Mar 12, 2010Mar 12 2010
16.
Mar 13, 2010Mar 13 2010
33.
Mar 13, 2010Mar 13 2010
39.
Mar 13, 2010Mar 13 2010
19.
Mar 13, 2010Mar 13 2010
20.
Mar 13, 2010Mar 13 2010
21.
Mar 13, 2010Mar 13 2010
23.
Mar 13, 2010Mar 13 2010
24.
Mar 13, 2010Mar 13 2010
35.
Mar 13, 2010Mar 13 2010
41.
Mar 13, 2010Mar 13 2010
42.
Mar 13, 2010Mar 13 2010
43.
Mar 13, 2010Mar 13 2010
45.
Mar 13, 2010Mar 13 2010
46.
Mar 13, 2010Mar 13 2010
14.
Mar 12, 2010Mar 12 2010
17.
Mar 13, 2010Mar 13 2010
44.
Mar 13, 2010Mar 13 2010
25.
Mar 13, 2010Mar 13 2010
31.
Mar 13, 2010Mar 13 2010
37.
Mar 13, 2010Mar 13 2010
38.
Mar 13, 2010Mar 13 2010
49.
Mar 14, 2010Mar 14 2010
 36.
Mar 13, 2010Mar 13 2010
 Re: NVIDIA Responds to ATI PhysX Comments
48.
Mar 14, 2010Mar 14 2010
50.
Mar 14, 2010Mar 14 2010
51.
Mar 14, 2010Mar 14 2010
52.
Mar 16, 2010Mar 16 2010