Nvidia Announces PhysX and APEX Support for PlayStation 4

Status
Not open for further replies.

corvak

Honorable
Jan 31, 2013
5
0
10,510
0
I guess the PS4 has a seperate PhysX chip? Somehow I doubt nVidia would get it working on an AMD based APU.
 

kartu

Distinguished
Mar 3, 2009
379
0
18,930
0
[citation][nom]corvak[/nom]I guess the PS4 has a seperate PhysX chip? Somehow I doubt nVidia would get it working on an AMD based APU.[/citation]

"It only works on our chips" was an artificial BS to limit the customers from the very beginning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhysX
Versions 186 and newer of the ForceWare drivers disable PhysX hardware acceleration if a GPU from a different manufacturer, such as AMD, is present in the system.
 

Spelli

Honorable
Jul 27, 2012
3
0
10,510
0
PhysX can be done on the CPU, too. I don't know if that's still the case, but PhysX intentionally used the old, inefficient x87 code path when offloading to the CPU, severely limiting performance.
With an octa-core CPU and maybe proper SSE support, it shouldn't be an issue.

Also, I am pretty sure PhysX would work on AMD graphics cards with small modifications, as the concept of CUDA cores and stream processors are similar. It just wouldn't make any sense for Nvidia to allow it, they are going to promote their in-house product instead of the equally powerful openCL.
 

warmon6

Distinguished
Jul 24, 2009
189
0
18,640
1
[citation][nom]ojas[/nom]yay for recycling news!http://www.tomshardware.com/news/P [...] 21402.html[/citation]

I thought i was seeing dejavu.....
 

Memnarchon

Distinguished
Oct 4, 2011
31
0
18,590
2
I think that pepole forget.. Drivers before Versions 186, you could be able to play PhysX at your pc if you had an AMD gpu but it still required a Geforce gpu for physX dedicated card. So the first comment is right. Also physX can work with CPU too but a GPU can accelerate it better.
 

cknobman

Distinguished
May 2, 2006
277
0
18,930
0
Screw Nvidia and their crap PhysX. Adds jack squat to overall experience while killing your framerates.

Nvidia only wanted to force customers and devs into their ecosystem with this when they bought out Ageia anyways so it was doomed from that point on.
 

janetonly42

Honorable
Mar 4, 2013
26
0
10,580
0
[citation][nom]cknobman[/nom]Screw Nvidia and their crap PhysX. Adds jack squat to overall experience while killing your framerates.Nvidia only wanted to force customers and devs into their ecosystem with this when they bought out Ageia anyways so it was doomed from that point on.[/citation]
Sounds about equal to MS and their Direct X.
 

DjEaZy

Distinguished
Apr 3, 2008
338
0
18,930
0
... nVidia, make Physx open source, or it will not be relevant any more... bullet physics, tressFX, tessellation and other things...?
 

dark_lord69

Distinguished
Jun 6, 2006
740
0
19,010
37
The playstation 3 will make it easy for devlopers to make a game for PS3 and a PC at the same time with out much need to "Port" it over as needed in past generations. Using the same x86 CPU and same GPU and the same programming languages developers already know, means they will only need to change the playstation 4 version to fit the controller and make best use of the GPU.
 

Shin-san

Distinguished
Nov 11, 2006
169
0
18,630
0
[citation][nom]corvak[/nom]I guess the PS4 has a seperate PhysX chip? Somehow I doubt nVidia would get it working on an AMD based APU.[/citation]I'm feeling that this will be about the same as PhysX on the PS3
 

Vladislaus

Distinguished
Jul 29, 2010
582
0
18,930
0
[citation][nom]dark_lord69[/nom]The playstation 3 will make it easy for devlopers to make a game for PS3 and a PC at the same time with out much need to "Port" it over as needed in past generations. Using the same x86 CPU and same GPU and the same programming languages developers already know, means they will only need to change the playstation 4 version to fit the controller and make best use of the GPU.[/citation]
there will always be the need for a game to be ported. It's like saying Windows games don't need to be ported in order to be playable on Linux on the exact same hardware.
 

blazorthon

Distinguished
Sep 24, 2010
761
0
18,960
13
[citation][nom]Vladislaus[/nom]there will always be the need for a game to be ported. It's like saying Windows games don't need to be ported in order to be playable on Linux on the exact same hardware.[/citation]

Windows games don't need to be ported to play on Linux with the exact same hardware. Wine (and some other such software) can let you play almost all Windows games with similar performance, granted some games are more difficult than others to set up properly. You don't need to port stuff if you can make a translation layer.

That's a lot more performance-intensive to do for porting games intended for completely different hardware than it is for games meant for different operating systems on the same hardware, hence we have ports when it comes to current consoles to current desktop/laptop computers, but we don't need to do it for Linux.

Evidence is shown in how our computers can struggle to run emulators and such for the consoles, yet they can run console ports far better than the consoles do despite still being far from as optimized as the consoles.
 

upgrade_1977

Distinguished
May 5, 2011
185
0
18,630
0
I don't get it, why is everyone all mad at nvidia??? PhysX was offered to AMD by ageia and nvidia, they didn't want it... Case closed. If people don't like physX then turn it off and don't use it. I read an article on this years ago when nvidia purchased ageia. Amd was offered it, they didn't want it. Nvidia licenced it to amd for free anyways, and amd let Nvidia do all the legwork with the drivers, so Nvidia got sick of it, and said why should we have to do all the work? So they asked AMD to pay for it. AMD didn't care about physics, so they said no. Why is everyone always hating on nvidia? People are complaining because nvidia has free features?!?!? I'm sure if anyone wants to develop physX drivers for free for AMD everytime they update there drivers, then i'm sure nvidia would let them licence it for free. Ask yourselve's this. Why should AMD get a free slice of the pie, when they didn't want it at first anyways, and nvidia paid completely for ageia, and they did it for us gamers, so why doesn't amd care about gamers enough to cough up a lil coin?

I realize everyone says they need opensource blah blah blah, but honestly, if apex or havok or whateveris so much better then physX, then physx wouldn't even be around right now. I love having physX built into my cards. It's just like 3D, amd didn't want to support that either. Amd doesn't care what a gamer wants, they only care about money. It's funny how nvidia comes out with new features, then AMD is always like "thats stupid we don't need that", then later on amd adds similiar features as an after thought. Then everyone gets mad at nvidia??
Nvidia corporate train of though is "what do the gamers want", AMD's is like "how can we make money"..

http://www.bit-tech.net/custompc/news/602205/nvidia-offers-physx-support-to-amd--ati.html
 

alidan

Distinguished
Aug 5, 2009
1,681
0
19,730
0
[citation][nom]cknobman[/nom]Screw Nvidia and their crap PhysX. Adds jack squat to overall experience while killing your framerates.Nvidia only wanted to force customers and devs into their ecosystem with this when they bought out Ageia anyways so it was doomed from that point on.[/citation]

it ads eye candy, and a very large ammount if done right.
see when physics gets put into something, they stop baking in pre determined code, so lets say you shoot something and a bit of rubble happens, with physics, its there, without it its missing completely, without physics in the game at all, they put a baked script to it.

so physics improves over all graphics, but if physics are in a game, people who cant use it are screwed hard.

[citation][nom]Vladislaus[/nom]there will always be the need for a game to be ported. It's like saying Windows games don't need to be ported in order to be playable on Linux on the exact same hardware.[/citation]

if they use opengl i dont think os is an issue. [citation][nom]upgrade_1977[/nom]I don't get it, why is everyone all mad at nvidia??? PhysX was offered to AMD by ageia and nvidia, they didn't want it... Case closed. If people don't like physX then turn it off and don't use it. I read an article on this years ago when nvidia purchased ageia. Amd was offered it, they didn't want it. Nvidia licenced it to amd for free anyways, and amd let Nvidia do all the legwork with the drivers, so Nvidia got sick of it, and said why should we have to do all the work? So they asked AMD to pay for it. AMD didn't care about physics, so they said no. Why is everyone always hating on nvidia? People are complaining because nvidia has free features?!?!? I'm sure if anyone wants to develop physX drivers for free for AMD everytime they update there drivers, then i'm sure nvidia would let them licence it for free. Ask yourselve's this. Why should AMD get a free slice of the pie, when they didn't want it at first anyways, and nvidia paid completely for ageia, and they did it for us gamers, so why doesn't amd care about gamers enough to cough up a lil coin?I realize everyone says they need opensource blah blah blah, but honestly, if apex or havok or whateveris so much better then physX, then physx wouldn't even be around right now. I love having physX built into my cards. It's just like 3D, amd didn't want to support that either. Amd doesn't care what a gamer wants, they only care about money. It's funny how nvidia comes out with new features, then AMD is always like "thats stupid we don't need that", then later on amd adds similiar features as an after thought. Then everyone gets mad at nvidia?? Nvidia corporate train of though is "what do the gamers want", AMD's is like "how can we make money".. http://www.bit-tech.net/custompc/n [...] --ati.html[/citation]

yea pay your rival for every card and every graphics thing you do... i cant see how that wouldn't be just the most desirable thing to do.

especially during a time where nvidia locked code in games to be nvidia only (not sure if they still do this allot) so any amd card has to have a more gpu intensive work around artificially making them play worse.

instead of we have physx and they dont, they would show off how much "better" physx is on their cards apposed to amd.

amd not support 3d... you mean amd didn't require a 3d box and glasses for their 3d... nvidia is in the business of milking their consumers, by pushing out gpus that are slightly better for insanely higher prices. not saying amd doesn't also do that given the chance, but i still feel amd is being less douchey about it.

try looking it up, twimtbp games, especially older ones lock graphic effects from compediter cards, even if they can be played on them. buisness practices like that sicken me and nvidia tends to do them FAR more than amd.
 

shin0bi272

Distinguished
Nov 20, 2007
271
0
18,930
0
"Great physics technology is essential for delivering a better gaming experience and multiplatform support is critical for developers,"
Really is that why you disabled it on systems that had another type of video card PRESENT in the system a long time ago? Hypocritesayswhat?
 

ojas

Distinguished
Feb 25, 2011
370
0
18,940
2
[citation][nom]Spelli[/nom]PhysX can be done on the CPU, too. I don't know if that's still the case, but PhysX intentionally used the old, inefficient x87 code path when offloading to the CPU, severely limiting performance.With an octa-core CPU and maybe proper SSE support, it shouldn't be an issue.Also, I am pretty sure PhysX would work on AMD graphics cards with small modifications, as the concept of CUDA cores and stream processors are similar. It just wouldn't make any sense for Nvidia to allow it, they are going to promote their in-house product instead of the equally powerful openCL.[/citation]
Yeah. It still sucks on the CPU.
http://bit.ly/Y0a20r
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
clutchc Apps General Discussion 0
H Apps General Discussion 2
B Apps General Discussion 1
L Apps General Discussion 14
M Apps General Discussion 6
N Apps General Discussion 0
N Apps General Discussion 1
NoPuhi Apps General Discussion 4
kikobie Apps General Discussion 2
L Apps General Discussion 1
D Apps General Discussion 1
T Apps General Discussion 7
9 Apps General Discussion 1
G Apps General Discussion 1
B Apps General Discussion 2
K Apps General Discussion 2
S Apps General Discussion 1
kol12 Apps General Discussion 3
Mrcrazed Apps General Discussion 9
M Apps General Discussion 1

Similar threads


ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS