What is Digg?59 Comments
- lordblue, on 07/08/2008, -1/+81Nvidia said there was no reason why it would not run on a Radeon, just that they would not code it. They said anyone could do it, and they would not stop them.
- likwidtek, on 07/08/2008, -0/+74nice. Open API's means more choices for the consumer. Good job nvidia.
- Owwmykneecap, on 07/09/2008, -4/+67I like physics, it rules my universe.
- BugMeNot2, on 07/09/2008, -1/+44Physics always brings me down.
- muka3d, on 07/09/2008, -0/+38It clearly helps NVIDIA to have ATI onboard as well... Forces more people to use their product (CUDA). I don't see any disadvantages in this... It's a good move, to standardize physics acceleration once and for all, and make it available to everyone.
- inactive, on 07/09/2008, -1/+20I see what you did there!
- ExRe, on 07/09/2008, -0/+19How does we learn grammar?
- Lunarbunny, on 07/09/2008, -0/+13PhysX actually has a software-based solution so games meant to run on more than just PhysX-containing machines can use the exact same API with a lower object/detail level. That's why games based on PhysX will ask to install a driver even despite a lack of PhysX hardware.
- ExRe, on 07/09/2008, -1/+10Havok should join PhysX and work together to build a standard.
- Freddfx, on 07/09/2008, -0/+8PhysX started out just as Havok did as software only, Ageia happened to add hardware acceleration.
both both can but run in software mode. - jo21, on 07/09/2008, -1/+7good luck with taht one
6 dual layer dvds or 12 dvds you pick - iofthestorm, on 07/09/2008, -0/+6No, PhysX and Havok are both physics libraries, it's just that PhysX also has a hardware accelerator card and hardware acceleration via GPU now. But PhysX will also run without a PhysX or nVidia 8 series card, such as in Unreal Tournament 3, just not with as many effects. Similarly, I suppose Intel could make drivers for Havok acceleration on GPU if they wanted to, or even make their own Havok card, it's just that no one would buy it.
- Speed, on 07/09/2008, -2/+7I may be wrong, but isn't Havok software (in-game physics), while PhysX is a hardware processor of physics (basically, a second CPU dedicated solely to running the calculations supplied by something like Havok).
Please correct me if I'm wrong. - themastersb, on 07/09/2008, -0/+5How do you get out of my head?
- takeo1775, on 07/09/2008, -2/+7Can someone link some good physics tech demos please.
- Hellothere123, on 07/09/2008, -0/+5nVidia is probably doing this so they can get more people to buy a high end GPU, instead of a high end CPU. Even if the GPU isn't theirs, there will be a larger audience they can convince.
- Seanathan, on 07/09/2008, -2/+7.........How does I shot web?
- swgbex, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4Since the only other option is hardware acceleration of havok (owned by intel), i'm sure nvidia would rather them port physX. If/when Intels GPU launches and it also has havok hardware acceleration it could be really bad news for PhysX. Now that physX can run on both ATI and Nvidia, the threat from havok is almost gone and developer support might move to PhysX. Thank god for the wars between AMD Intel and Nvidia..
- chillypacman, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4yep, it's crazy, I was definitely going to get an nvidia card next because of CUDA and PhysX but then it turns out ATIs 4xxxx series is doing better than nvidias latest crop of cards and it's like 'bleh', but if they're going to put physx support on the ATI cards then I'm one happy consumer.
- bobartig, on 07/09/2008, -1/+5I think that nVidia knows that the PhysX performance on Radeon will not usually rival their own hardware, and thus will provide them with another benchmark with which to prove their superiority.
- medfreak, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3Well it is part of the ongoing Physics Wars, just like any other media war. Havok VS Physx. Looks like Physx is going to win and become the standard.
- ExRe, on 07/09/2008, -2/+5Seems a bit surprising compared to what nVidia has been doing recently.
This is a very, very good thing. I hope nVidia does more stuff like this in it's other departments. - da_bradler, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3Do you want ones that you can run or just videos of them running? the new 3d Mark Vantage incorporates PhysX into the main demos Unreal tournment 3 PhysX map pack also has some pretty neat PhysX effects.
You can look at Crazy Machines 2 has some pretty intense physics action in the PhysX level pack.
as far as tech demos you can search for videos of those games and others check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3ekKZR9_SY&feature ... and there are tons other on youtube. The cloth stuff is for sure the most impressive though. - Tombo44, on 07/09/2008, -1/+4I Wish i knew what this article was about
- DeathByPOGs, on 07/09/2008, -3/+6right
- Gizza, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2I believe Havok FX was going to be hardware accelerated, but when Intel bought them they scrapped that, obviously because they want the CPU to continue being used for physics calculations.
- adlep, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2Sweet!
- Cebo, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2See how nVidia is playing nice when put in a tight spot? Would be nice if they were like this all the time.
- danz32, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2I'm not sure what nvidia's true motives are...obviously the more cards that support PhysX the more likely developers are to use it in their games (espically with AMD/ATI's tie with Havok). Although they probably have a decent amount of sway seeing as they keep pushing their "the way its meant to be played" program already. But its nice to see nvidia in the news for something positive, after the defective cards and the high prices on the new line of cards.
- homercles337, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2Who was phone?
- al13n, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2I know that you could download the physx driver back then when physx wasn't owned by nvidia. The driver also included some nice physics demos that you could run on a cpu, without a physx card. Maybe you can still get it somewhere.
- jull1234, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1And once they have everyone addicted to the PhysX, bam, they start charging.
- Freddfx, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1that depends on how the developer (for whatever project, like a game) feels
- da_bradler, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Havok used to have Havok FX which was a GPU solution but it failed. I think they are trying to implement it to go off the GPU but I haven't seen any real word examples of that, every game that uses it currently is solely CPU.
- pedepy, on 07/09/2008, -2/+3where have i read this exact title before ? ......
- sanosuke001, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2How is "oh wait...they are Intel..." a valid statement? You do know they're separate companies, right? It's ATI and AMD that are the same company now. For all I know, there's only been speculation that they might buy nVidia; they haven't, yet. As far as I know, anyway.
- novakyu, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Er, Step1Mark, I think you missed bobartig's point.
bobartig wasn't saying that nVidia will always be better than ATI---he was saying that given that PhysX is a nVidia product, it will most likely always run better on nVidia hardware than ATI hardware (sort of like how Microsoft products will always run better on Windows than Mac OS X or even GNU/Linux). So, if PhysX becomes widespread enough for people to start using it as a benchmark, then nVidia will have an edge over ATI, regardless of actual, say, raw power of their GPUs. - dalittle, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1You always get more than you give if you are the standard. It is a good move by Nvidia.
- philhatesyou, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2Nvidia wouldn't have been in trouble. No one who wants a serious video card considers Intel to be a viable choice.
- fuzzynyanko, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2Very excellent news that nVidia is interested in doing this. However, I'm kinda disappointed in AMD/ATI because they haven't been in touch with that team that's doing PhysX on Radeon.
http://www.ngohq.com/news/14254-physx-gpu-accelera ... - Slizzo, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Kind of worthless to have a third party working on getting an API that they don't make on video cards that they don't write drivers for.
IMO, it's better to have the company that actually MAKES the API (whether they've been bought out by nVidia or not) make their API work on all GPU hardware. - Step1Mark, on 07/09/2008, -2/+3I am an Nvidia fan mostly for their drivers. but just to play devils advocate ... you cant say that Nvidia will always have better hardware. The hardware market is like a pendulum. Look at AMD and INTEL. Those companies go back and forth ever 4-6 years between who has bang for the buck and who has more power. Same goes for AMD and Nvidia. Normally bang for the buck wins. One thing that comes into play with video cards is drivers. Obviously Nvidia has the advantage over AMD's ATI drivers. Why would a company require .NET to be installed before you can install drivers!
- Osilo, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Havok, pre-Intel and post-Intel, has been working with ATI to get havok on their boards. It does not suprise me that NVIDIA would support the idea of PhysX running on those cards instead of Havok
- swgbex, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1I'm sure intel can push it as a platform and the vast majority of users wouldnt care as long as games ran. Of course anyone that knows what to look for problably wont be buying into that. I still think its an attack against intel more than anything else.
- megamod, on 07/09/2008, -1/+1oooh I got one...physics r0x0rz my b0x0rz
- Debdrup, on 07/09/2008, -1/+1I can't understand why they wouldn't support it. It's not as if they can prevent it, so they might as well embrace it.
But good on you, nVidia. -
Show 51 - 59 of 59 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is