Will ATI Play Nice?
Posted 07/05/08 at 03:56:49 AM by Justin Kerr

Recently in both the print and online versions of Maximum PC we looked at Nvidia’s CUDA API and what a GP-GPU future might look like. The one wild card in this equitation is the other big player in the graphics card market, ATI. Will ATI play nice by supporting CUDA and licensing PhysX? Or will it go its own way, a result which may end up killing both companies initiatives.
GP-GPU
Nvidia’s CUDA may not be open source, but it is free. ATI or other companies can easily write apps for the API or implement the functionality into its drivers, but will they? Of course not! The dollar cost may be free, but adopting the format means ATI loses control over the future of GP-GPU computing. ATI openly admits it is currently hard at work with its StreamSDK and Brook+ implementations and its future only takes it further from CUDA. I could write an entire article on the differences between the different approaches but suffice it to say, this is one area where consumers would benefit from a common platform. To prove my point we need only look at the PC gaming market in general. Does anyone actually think we would have been better off with 30 different non Microsoft operating systems and no DirectX? Developers need standards and it is up to hardware manufacturers to make this happen.
Physics
Inside sources at Nvidia have also confirmed that ATI can license its PhysX technology for pennies per GPU. ATI on the other hand, has shown no indication that it will do so and ATI has warmed up to the competing Havok solution owned by Intel. As a result the physics scene chaotic as it is will be slow to mature. Choosing between competitors for a physics solution must be no easy task. By siding with Intel, ATI is making a strategic decision that leaves the market divided. In fact, I would speculate that Nvidia’s low licensing fee is an attempt to seed the market with more PhysX compatible hardware to earn a dominate market share.
Conclusion
GP-GPU computing is still a long way out for mainstream users, but it shows incredible promise for many tasks which currently fall under the arduous category such as video transcoding. Additionally, physics acceleration could revolutionize the gaming experience. With these features combined, the graphics card of the future may be far more valuable than it is today. Unfortunately, the revolution may be held up in competing technologies that end up hurting the cause they are fighting for.
Well if this is the way
Submitted by Dostovel on Sat, 07/05/2008 - 9:49am
Well if this is the way ATI/AMD wants to play, by digging themselves into a deeper hole, so be it. To hell with the stubborn SOBs. It's obvious they are clawing for dear life to get themselves out of a hole, but why try and still fight the war if they haven't even won any battles... Huh, if this is how it's going to be, I'll be inclined to plant my flag on nVidias side of the fence.
use your brain fanboy
Submitted by hogkill on Sat, 07/05/2008 - 3:03pm
First off ATI isn't in a hole. We are all aware that NVidia has been dominating the top tier market for graphics cards for a while now and ATI had been going through some troubles shortly after its merger with AMD, but with the release of its 4800 cards that has completely changed. Are you aware that two 4850s in Crossfire outperform one GTX 280 by a large margin in virtually every application and the two of them together still cost $250 dollars less than one 280? And that two 4870s completely smoke the 280 making it look like a year old GPU and you still save 50 bucks?
If anyones in a hole now it's NVidia who have only been able to keep their innefecient monster cards selling for the past year because of a lack of competition.
Also did you even read the article? All I see our 4 sentences insulting ATI without even one refference to the topic at hand. We are talking about GPGPU here. And no I dont think ATI should have to license CUDA from Nvidia any more than Nvidia should have to License Havok from ATI if they merge. What they need is to both use an open source application or use one which neither of them have any dominion over. To expect one of these two rival companies to concede to the other is ludicrous. It isn't going to happen.
Also do we really want GPGPU that badly? Couldn't it hurt gaming as much as help it? Do I really want my GPU to be doing physics algorythms during Crysis when it could just as easily leave it up to the CPU and focus on what it does best? I think PureVideo is a great idea because it helps your computer when you'd otherwise not be using your GPU, but im a bit skeptical about dedicating physics to the GPU when the CPU can handle it just fine. Perhaps ATI and NVidia should be making plans to manufacture dedicated physics chips on their cards, if they are already planning on which engine to use.
The smells of the same kind
Submitted by Cache on Sat, 07/05/2008 - 4:40am
The smells of the same kind of format war we've seen in the past (HD-DVD vs. Blu-ray, anybody?). How much longer until I have to install a game specifically for my video card since the game won't play on a format developed by ATI? And then there's the Dark Horse, Intel's Larrabe solution, that could bring something new to the party in another couple of years.
Feature
Review
Feature
Feature
Feature






