- Do i need nvidia physx even though i have a amd gpu driver#
- Do i need nvidia physx even though i have a amd gpu code#
- Do i need nvidia physx even though i have a amd gpu license#
Do i need nvidia physx even though i have a amd gpu driver#
Note: Some applications may have higher minimum requirements. Supports NVIDIA PhysX acceleration on all GeForce 9‑series, and 100‑series to 900‑series GPUs with a minimum of 256MB dedicated graphics memory.Fixes a crash bug in Assassins Creed 4 Black Flag Havana when PhysX was set to high.Includes the latest PhysX runtime builds to support all released PhysX content.You can call it a smart business decision on nvidia's part, I just call them *******s. Just as ATi allowing crossfire on Intel boards opened the way to SLI on non-nvidia motherboards, this will open the way to physX without the requirement of cuda.
ATi (and AMD) have ALWAYS been about open standards, as fanboi as it may sound.
Nvidia likes a closed standard only usable on their hardware to drive sales and marketshare, and will do whatever they can to keep it that way. These are only stepping stones to dx11 though.
Do i need nvidia physx even though i have a amd gpu license#
With the upcoming programability of more open APIs, physX will be forced to include its self to be programmed using OCL/DX11 or die, as it would, as you said, be replaced by a more open standard.Such as what Havok is, and has always done.Īs such, as soon as this hits market, I imagine that nvidia will both license the tech from havok to run through cuda->opencl, and try to license physX in the same way (stream->opencl). With how quickly it was ported to CUDA from whatever Ageia used for their chip, it is even more apparent. This is why we see it now available on the Wii/PS3, neither of which use CUDA or some kind of dedicated hardware.
Do i need nvidia physx even though i have a amd gpu code#
All they have done is code it in a way unusable to those whom they don't want it to. It's all about a closed API (software SDK) and charging licensing fees to use it, no matter what Ageia or nvidia WANT you to believe. I know you don't, but I think many don't realize physX was NEVER about dedicated hardware. If anything, OpenCL is the "now" for current gpus, and DX11 is the future, as it will allow for less layers. OpenCL can run through cuda/stream, but dx11/compute shader will be it's own thing. Since the key to success is always the lowest common denominator, OpenCL/DX11 will be the future of these engines, as they will run on all upcoming hardware, rather than a proprietary API by a gfx company or subsidiary, such as physx using CUDA, or even HAVOK using OpenCL through stream (and possibley CUDA). The compute shader in DX11 will allow it to be used RATHER than stream/cuda, right? Therefore companies could bypass the propriatary APIs and build (ex: physics) engines using it. I disagree Ageia was a smart business choice, rather a snap judgement to establish the market and corner it, which will fail. The future will be the same, using OPENCL/DX11. Havok has had GPU physics since HavokFX, which if I recall correctly, was built to use with the DX9 API. Game Physics middleware -> GPU API: CUDA, Streams, OpenCL -> GPU hardware itselfĬlick to expand.Agree with bolded part. When DirectX 11 Compute Shader comes about I'm sure this will be the standard instead and the other middleware will be rewritten to take advantage of this if they have to. Games that are 2-3 years old rarely receive feature upgrades, seldom bug fixes.Īlso I don't get why people are focusing so much on a single physics middleware. They would need to be patched for this to happen and I doubt most games would receive "GPU physics updates". Old games using Havok can't automatically run it's physics on the CPU. If they could buy Havok instead they would have done so, but Ageia was made from the start to run on dedicated physics processing hardware which Havok was not. NVIDIA was right at the time to purchase Ageia and make it run on their GPUs. And now they could care less about open standards if it doesn't immediately yield increased income. Which means they have to give you a better gaming experience from time to time to earn a buck. Sorry but companies don't work to give you a better gaming experience.
0 kommentar(er)
