AMD: PhysX and Other Proprietary Standards Will Die Off
Posted 12/12/08 at 11:21:05 AM by Paul Lilly
The promise of in-game physics has yet to be fully realized, but the technology doesn't appear to be going anywhere. Leading the charge is Nvidia, who has a vested interest with its acquired PhysX technology. But in an interview with Bit-Tech, Godfrey Cheng, Director of Technical Marketing in AMD's Graphics Product Group, downplayed the proprietary standard.
"There is no plan for closed and proprietary standards like PhysX," said Cheng. "As we have emphasized with our support for OpenCL and DX11, closed and proprietary standards will die."
The comment came in response to questions about EA's and 2K's decision to license Nvidia's PhysX technology across all of their worldwide studios. And while Cheng said he can't comment on competitor's business models, he did say that AMD views "Havok technologies and products to be the leaders in physics simulation," pointing out that game developers share that same view. If true, it would be reasonable to assume EA and 2K have gone against their development studios' wishes by adopting PhysX.
"People need to scrutinize various announcements on what is beling 'licensed,'" Cheng pointed out. "Is it to replace the whole physics simulation / tool stack within a game or within the whole studio? Is it for a specific physics simulation product or just a couple of titles? Remember PhysX also has game physics libraries in addition to its new GPU based products."
Cheng went on to say that Havok physics on Radeon videocards is still forthcoming, possibly by early 2009, but noted that this is just the beginning of in-game physics.
Who cares if Physx dies?
Submitted by billysundays on Fri, 12/12/2008 - 2:52pm
Who cares if Physx dies? I've been rooting for Physx from the start, but what I've really been hoping for is for the industry to accept the idea of "hardware accelerated" physics, whatever that solution may be. It could be that a GPGPU solution like OpenCL, DX11, or CUDA that might finally fulfill all the promises that PhysX has been making all along. It could also benefit any gaming application that would find significantly more performance or headroom running on the GPU than CPU, such as artificial intelligence or procedural animation.
Wait, so AMD is saying that
Submitted by Digital-Storm on Fri, 12/12/2008 - 10:33am
Wait, so AMD is saying that Physx will die, yet Havoc won't? Sounds to me like AMD is trying to bring there stock up in any way possible.
Sounds more like he's saying
Submitted by Velcrow on Fri, 12/12/2008 - 12:14pm
Sounds more like he's saying that Havoc is better than PhysX, but that
both are doomed with the advent of OpenCL. Will PhysX die out?
Eventually sure. But it is useful right now, and OpenCL needs time to
gain momentum with support, tools, and a library of goodies useful to
game developers. Meanwhile Havoc will probably be mostly overlooked
until that time. He appears to be directing attention as far from the PhysX vs Havoc competition as possible, while trying to undercut them at the same time.
Feature
Review
Feature
Feature
Feature






