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:
Greenbelt, MD 08/22

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
46. Re: NVIDIA Responds to ATI PhysX Comments Mar 13, 2010, 20:20 Beamer
 
Oh good lord you're making my brain hurt.

Will all caps make you understand?
READ THE CNET QUOTE:
""Larrabee silicon and software development are behind where we hoped to be at this point in the project," Intel spokesman Nick Knupffer said Friday. "As a result, our first Larrabee product will not be launched as a standalone discrete graphics product," he said. "

FIRST PRODUCT. THEY HAVE SHELVED THE FIRST PRODUCT. THEY HAVE NOT KILLED THE TECHNOLOGY. THEY HAVE NOT ENDED THE PRODUCT LINE. I SWEAR TO GOD YOU MUST UNDERSTAND THIS AND ARE SIMPLY TROLLING. EVERY SINGLE LINK I POSTED SPELLS THIS OUT. AND, CONTRARY TO WHAT YOU'VE SAID, THAT IS THE FIRST ATTACK ON YOU.

HERE WAS FROM THE ANANDTECH LINK:
"As of today, the first Larrabee chip’s retail release has been canceled. "

NOTE THE WORD "FIRST" THERE, IMPLYING THAT PLANS FOR THE SECOND AND THIRD RETAIL RELEASES HAVE NOT YET BEEN CHANGED.
HERE IS MORE FROM ANANDTECH:
"Next, this brings us to the future of Larrabee. Larrabee Prime may be canceled, but the Larrabee project is not. As Intel puts it, Larrabee is a “complex multi-year project” and development will be continuing. Intel still wants a piece of the HPC/GPGPU pie (least NVIDIA and AMD get it all to themselves) and they still want in to the video card space given the collision between those markets. For Intel, their plans have just been delayed."

NOTE THE LAST LINE. THE PLANS HAVE NOT BEEN CHANGED, JUST DELAYED.

Are the caps working? I'll keep with them, just in case. Clearly rational typing has not worked.

MORE FROM ANANDTECH:
"For the immediate future, as we mentioned earlier Larrabee Prime is still going to be used by Intel for R&D purposes, as a software development platform. This is a very good use of the hardware (however troubled it may be) as it allows Intel to bootstrap the software side of Larrabee so that developers can get started programming for real hardware while Intel works on the next iteration of Larrabee."

HE CLAIMS IT'S A GOOD THING THE CURRENT TECH WAS SHELVED TO R&D, AS THIS WILL GIVE DEVELOPERS A CHANCE TO LEARN TO USE IT BEFORE IT LAUNCHES TO CONSUMERS.

LAST BIT FROM ANANDTECH:
"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."

"SINCE THE PROJECT WAS NOT KILLED" and "THE IDEA OF AN x86 MANY-CORES GPU IS STILL ALIVE AND WELL."

Still not believing it? Then there's no hope for you. You're usually not a dense poster. I don't understand why it's so hard for you to understand this.


I'll break it down, then: Intel was not getting the results they wanted from Larrabee. The project was delayed to the point that it was no longer significantly better than standard GPUs on the market, yet would cost more. Furthermore yields were not really anywhere near what they needed to be. Rather than push out a half-assed project when the tech wasn't quite ready Intel put the first-gen on the shelf. No need to release it. They have huge pockets but desperately want a chunk of the GPU market. No point in releasing something that wasn't perfect - you only get one first impression.
Gee, sounds like Fermi, doesn't it? Delayed to the point that, though competitive (and likely the fastest single-board solution), it's dollars/performance ratio isn't quite right. The fabrication process also isn't quite right. Yet, unlike Intel, Nvidia is pushing Fermi through. Intel, wiser and with deeper pockets, is waiting a generation (or two) before bringing this to consumers.

 
-------------
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