AMD's Roy Taylor: PhysX/Cuda doomed?

[f1sherman]

I think CUDA is doomed.

Rudeness and needless confrontation from AMD like usual. This is like Jensen saying HSA is dead in water.
Only difference being HSA is imaginary tech, and CUDA is leading standard in consumer, professional and academic space.

Also it seems that Roy forgot to send the memo to IBM and Co:

SAN FRANCISCO - 06 Aug 2013: Google, IBM (NYSE: IBM), Mellanox, NVIDIA and Tyan today announced plans to form the OpenPOWER Consortium – an open development alliance based on IBM's POWER microprocessor architecture. The Consortium intends to build advanced server, networking, storage and GPU-acceleration technology aimed at delivering more choice, control and flexibility to developers of next-generation, hyperscale and cloud data centers.


As part of their initial collaboration within the consortium, NVIDIA and IBM will work together to integrate the CUDA GPU and POWER ecosystems.
http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/41684.wss

As for PhysX being fringe tech, this is non-debatable. Being non-AMD friendly not being a good thing - also non-debatable.
But it's still there and has delivered more (GPU) physics than all other alternatives combined. At least they are doing something to push the boundaries. They could always just sell you bare GPU like AMD.
Next apesh** station - ShadowPlay :ninja:

 

[boxleitnerb]

^ this.

GPU-PhysX games: 31
Released: 23
In development: 8

OpenCL GPU-based physics games: 0

If GPU-PhysX is fringe tech (which it is), then every competing technology is virtually non-existent.

 

[Jaydip]

I believe to date Batman Arkham City probably has the best Physx implementation

 

[SirPauly]

Glide only died because 3Dfx was killed off by none other than... NVIDIA!

Glide actually was offered open source, with FXT1, before 3dfx perished

 

[SirPauly]

. Once an OpenCL-based GPU-Physics solutions is actually used in games, I'm with you - THEN, and only then can PhysX die.

or evolve potentially! As competition heats up with physic innovation and more maturity with DirectCompute or OpenCL -- can see nVidia port the GPU PhysX ability to OpenCL or DirectCompute!

In the future it is a possibility that we could use OpenCL, but at the moment CUDA works great.

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2009/03/27/nvidia-considers-porting-physx-to-opencl/1

 

[boxleitnerb]

Or this.

 

[Carfax83]

LOL, people have been clamoring for the death of PhysX for years now, but it's still here and stronger than ever.

PhysX will be used in the next gen consoles, and is integrated into the Unreal Engine 4. It is by far the most optimized, capable and flexible physics API out there right now.

AMD needs to [redacted] and bring Bullet up to par before they can be taken seriously..

No profanity in the technical forums.
-- stahlhart

 

[akugami]

LOL, people have been clamoring for the death of PhysX for years now, but it's still here and stronger than ever.

PhysX will be used in the next gen consoles, and is integrated into the Unreal Engine 4. It is by far the most optimized, capable and flexible physics API out there right now.

AMD needs to [redacted] and bring Bullet up to par before they can be taken seriously..

PhysX implementation has been for not much more than eyecandy even after all these years. There has been almost no innovative use of PhysX for physics implementation. There are even cases where the developer looks to have clearly crippled eyecandy only to implement as a PhysX requirement.

Will PhysX still be here for years to come? Yeah...but if the last 5 or so years is any indication, I'm not impressed.

I don't think physics processing in games will really take off until we have a platform agnostic solution that works whether you're using AMD or nVidia.

 

[Vesku]

CUDA definitely has a "cloudy" outlook as an 8-ball would say. Even if AMD doesn't make marketshare gains in HPC there is still Intel's Xeon Phi product line which doesn't run CUDA code. In the non-HPC spaces pretty much every non-Nvidia GPU is going the OpenCL route.

Nvidia has more flexibility in keeping PhysX alive though. If alternative Physics engines start to gain in popularity Nvidia does have the ability to alter the PhysX licensing and back-end (better CPU support, OpenCL) to stay relevant.

 

[Carfax83]

I believe to date Batman Arkham City probably has the best Physx implementation

And Borderlands 2.

And for all those people complaining about how PhysX doesn't affect gameplay, look at Hawken's full destruction PhysX.

Also, keep in mind that hardware accelerated PhysX uses the GPU for effects which are the most compute intensive, and the CPU has the most difficult time running at acceptable frame rates, ie fluid, cloth etcetera..

If it wasn't for PhysX, we'd still be using canned animations for these effects in games..

 

[Carfax83]

PhysX implementation has been for not much more than eyecandy even after all these years.

Hawken full scale destruction physics.

And so what if it's been used for eye candy? Eye candy physics like cloth and smoke tend to be very compute intensive so running it on the CPU lowers your frame rate big time.

Would you rather developers use canned animations for these effects, rather than actual physics?

 

[BallaTheFeared]

My molex powered PCIe ribbon should be here soon, it's in Chicago. Took awhile coming from China!

I for one, love PhysX. My only complaint is the aren't enough games that use it. Luckily it seems to find its way into some top notch games, I can't wait to enjoy all it's glory in The Witcher 3 while my two 7950s crush it

 

[Stuka87]

And Borderlands 2.

And for all those people complaining about how PhysX doesn't affect gameplay, look at Hawken's full destruction PhysX.

Also, keep in mind that hardware accelerated PhysX uses the GPU for effects which are the most compute intensive, and the CPU has the most difficult time running at acceptable frame rates, ie fluid, cloth etcetera..

If it wasn't for PhysX, we'd still be using canned animations for these effects in games..

The walls are still destructable without PhysX though. PhysX just makes it look prettier.

There are plenty of other games that have realistic destruction without PhysX. Namely, Battlefield Bad Company 2, BF3, and BF4.

 

[Carfax83]

I can't wait to enjoy all it's glory in The Witcher 3 while my two 7950s crush it

Witcher 3 is going to be the pinnacle for PhysX games. There is so much potential for PhysX in that game, and the developers are aware of it for sure.

Hair and fur PhysX are already confirmed, and there will be fluid PhysX as well.. Destruction and particle PhysX for signs and spells will also assuredly be used in the game.

 

[Carfax83]

The walls are still destructable without PhysX though. PhysX just makes it look prettier.

There are plenty of other games that have realistic destruction without PhysX. Namely, Battlefield Bad Company 2, BF3, and BF4.

Every single one of those games you mentioned uses a mixture of canned animations and computed effects. Do you honestly believe those games use 100% computed physics like PhysX games do?

No CPU is powerful enough to fully compute the destruction effects seen in those games..

 

[sushiwarrior]

Red Faction Guerilla had more impressive destruction than Hawken, and that was back in 2009. PhysX is not necessary to make good looking physics interactions, neither is a GPU (remember how PhysX pre-3.0 crippled CPU performance to make GPUs look good?).

It's absolutely possible to achieve the exact same effects using OpenCL.

 

[3DVagabond]

No, there is nothing comparable out there. Physics != physics.

So let me get this straight. Because DirectX is proprietary to MS, it should die too? As long as there is no substitute, PhysX has to stay. Once an OpenCL-based GPU-Physics solutions is actually used in games, I'm with you - THEN, and only then can PhysX die.



What did I just say about not only words? Show me one game where this is used (GPU-based physics, mind you! Because that is what we're talking about here. CPU-based PhysX is usable with every CPU). You can't, because none exists.

PhysX does not equal physics. PhysX is eye candy. Swirly particles, green goo, etc... They code some catchy special effects and insert them into the game, slap the TWIMTBP sticker, and pay the dev. Makes the game run faster on their hardware because it bottlenecks the CPU on their competitors. Win/Win for the Dev and nVidia.

 

[Dankk]

I agree with pretty much everyone here. CUDA is useful, but GPU-PhysX is a stupid proprietary gimmick that needs to die.

If you want to see some really cool physics that actually affect gameplay, check out the latest Red Faction (Armageddon). First time I swung my hammer into the corner of a building, making a huge hole in the wall and causing the supports to to collapse to the ground limb-by-limb, it blew my mind.

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHKPW49BdBI

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Ahh subjective opinion so nice...

Red Faction looks stupid and unrealistic, that hammer destroying so much in a single swing, please. Is your guy a super hero or is that a +5 mace of epic destruction?

Ahh IC, it uses Havok destruction which is probably why it looked exactly like BFBC2, same oversized blocks and little to no debris.

 

[boxleitnerb]

PhysX does not equal physics. PhysX is eye candy. Swirly particles, green goo, etc... They code some catchy special effects and insert them into the game, slap the TWIMTBP sticker, and pay the dev. Makes the game run faster on their hardware because it bottlenecks the CPU on their competitors. Win/Win for the Dev and nVidia.

You didn't understand what I meant...at all.
First you need to differentiate between normal PhysX and GPU-PhysX. Most people fail to do so. Second, GPU-PhysX computes only visual effects, that is hardly news; everybody knows that. Lara's hair is applauded, but other visual effects aren't? Thirdly, GPU-PhysX computes effects (amongst others) that haven't been realized by other means. I have never ever seen fluid or gas simulations in games that didn't use GPU-PhysX. These types of calculations have to run on the GPU, and there is no other solution (that is actually being used) than GPU-PhysX that can achieve that.

GPU-PhysX is physics, just not all of it, only a part. There is no problem with that. Particles that interact with each other and the environment in a fluid simulation IS physics. Just because it isn't gameplay relevant doesn't mean it automatically isn't physics. To think that is stupid. It's a visual effect like the 100 others that people like. Lara's hair, ambient occlusion, global illumination, displacement mapping etc. They don't add anything to the gameplay, yet no one complains about them with the fervor that people exhibit when bashing GPU-PhysX. They simply don't understand it and are learning-resistant. Sad.

 

[Atreidin]

Every single one of those games you mentioned uses a mixture of canned animations and computed effects. Do you honestly believe those games use 100% computed physics like PhysX games do?

No CPU is powerful enough to fully compute the destruction effects seen in those games..

I don't think you read his post correctly. I didn't see anything implying those games use "100% computed physics", just that they don't use Physx, and they still look good.

Who cares if there are canned effects as long as they look good?

 

[Dankk]

Ahh subjective opinion so nice...

Red Faction looks stupid and unrealistic, that hammer destroying so much in a single swing, please.

And I thought Hawken looked stupid when they added wizard orbs and spellcasting effects to what is otherwise supposed to be a mech game. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGVXfvA_-fA

I mean, come on, I know Red Faction doesn't strive for realism. If it did, how would it still be fun?

Is your guy a super hero or is that a +5 mace of epic destruction?

Yes. Why not?

Ahh IC, it uses Havok destruction which is probably why it looked exactly like BFBC2, same oversized blocks and little to no debris.

BFBC2's destruction is nothing like Red Faction's. RF Armageddon's destruction is way more varied, dynamic, and random. BC2 just uses a bunch of pre-set models and animations to give the illusion of destruction. Contrastly, when you shoot a wall in Red Faction, it actually makes a hole where you shot. Literally almost every structure can be dynamically destroyed.

 

[thilanliyan]

^Yep, the Red Faction games have very good destruction physics. IIRC, they did implement real structural physics. Not sure about cloth and fluid simulation though.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/134561/the_destructible_world_building_.php
"Our game, our engine -- we like to tout as the only engine out there that can literally destroy and break apart every single man-made object in the game, and none of it is canned, it's full, sharded destruction with physics."

 

[Lonyo]

Consoles. End of.

^ this.

GPU-PhysX games: 31
Released: 23
In development: 8

OpenCL GPU-based physics games: 0

If GPU-PhysX is fringe tech (which it is), then every competing technology is virtually non-existent.

How many of those will run their hardware PhysX on next gen consoles? 0
How many next gen consoles can support OpenCL physics? 2

Fact is, both next gen consoles are AMD. That means GPU PhysX cannot be used unless NV open it up. OpenCL can be used. And can be used on PCs.

The most likely thing is that developers will use an OpenCL physics package that will run across all three platforms they are developing for. Or NV opens up PhysX to run on AMD GPUs, at least on consoles.

 

[boxleitnerb]

^ true. I never said the situation will never change. I said, PhysX is a good thing until something finally comes and replaces it. Let's hope there will be...not more talk...and announcements and then...nothing.