Featured Articles

IHS teardown reveals Galaxy S5 BOM

IHS teardown reveals Galaxy S5 BOM

Research firm IHS got hold of Samsung’s new flagship smartphone and took it apart to the last bolt to figure out…

More...
Galaxy S5, HTC One M8 available selling well

Galaxy S5, HTC One M8 available selling well

Samsung’s Galaxy S5 has finally gone on sale and it can be yours for €699, which is quite a lot of…

More...
Intel lists Haswell refresh parts

Intel lists Haswell refresh parts

Intel has added a load of Haswell refresh parts to its official price list and there really aren’t any surprises to…

More...
Respawn confirms Titanfall DLC for May

Respawn confirms Titanfall DLC for May

During his appearance at PAX East panel and confirmed on Twitter, Titanfall developer Respawn confirmed that the first DLC pack for…

More...
KFA2 GTX 780 Ti Hall Of Fame reviewed

KFA2 GTX 780 Ti Hall Of Fame reviewed

KFA2 gained a lot of overclocking experience with the GTX 780 Hall of Fame (HOF), which we had a chance to…

More...
Frontpage Slideshow | Copyright © 2006-2010 orks, a business unit of Nuevvo Webware Ltd.
Tuesday, 14 September 2010 18:25

Havok does need 6 cores

Written by Fuad Abazovic


IDF 2010: Makes a difference
We are not sure if it is PhysX or Havok that you chose, but you definitely need physics to make your game look better.

As Intel owns Havok, it focuses on up to six cores, as it doesn’t actually offer more than that, at least not in desktop CPUs. Nvidia on the other hand preaches more than six cores as it has hundreds of multithreaded cores in its GPUs.

The chap from Havok, Intel’s integrated part for graphics, showed off some nice cloth animation on multiple cloned trolls or dancing ladies. It looks good but we believe that graphics on a discrete GPU can do much more.

It is a fight for the physics market between Nvidia and Intel at the moment and AMD seems to be sitting this round out.
Last modified on Tuesday, 14 September 2010 18:28
blog comments powered by Disqus

Comments  

 
+20 #1 yourma2000 2010-09-14 19:31
But why would Intel keep the Havok engine to themselves when they know that even their processors won't be able to keep up with the calculations when applied to games? It would be like having a load of xbox games but no 360 to play them on, physics should be left to the GPU until the point when it becomes a background like process for the CPU.

Last I heard was that AMD are using Bullet physics which is open source but they were waiting for the engine to be translated into OpenCL code, that was around a year ago though
 
 
+15 #2 Alexko 2010-09-14 20:07
"Nvidia on the other hand preaches more than six cores as it has hundreds of multithreaded cores in its GPUs."

No it doesn't. NVIDIA may have decided to call each SIMT lane a "core" but that doesn't make it true.

The closest thing to a "core" in an NVIDIA GPU is the SM (Simultaneous Multiprocessor) and GF100 features 16 of those. That's a lot, especially since they're quite wide, but hardly "hundreds".

"It is a fight for the physics market between Nvidia and Intel at the moment and AMD seems to be sitting this round out."

Not exactly. They have their Open Physics initiative. They're admittedly a lot less involved in it than NVIDIA is in PhysX or Intel in Havok, but at least it's open.
 
 
+30 #3 Blacky 2010-09-14 21:48
Nvidia could have easily won this one out if they kept their initial commitment of PhysX being opened to everyone. Then they changed their minds and decided that only Nvidia cards can use PhysX. Now with their 400 series a mess, I am sure PhysX will probably succumb. This happens when you get too greedy.
 
 
-38 #4 Squall_Leonhart 2010-09-14 21:48
because anybody (that has an ounce of a clue) actually gives a shit about Open source.

Let me list why they don't
OpenGL
OpenAL
Linux.

nuff said?

What matters is Documentation, PhysX and Havok have this.
Ease of use, Again, both have this.
A large developer support network. You guessed it, they have it.

Bullet is dead, and OpenCL physx will never take off. Nvidia's been doing OpenGL long enough to know that anything from the Khronos faggots is as good as dead fish.
 
 
+15 #5 Super XP 2010-09-15 01:23
AMD does not consider the lack of NVIDIA's PhysX support on systems that feature ATI Radeon graphics processing units (GPUs) a problem. At the end, says AMD, PhysX application programming interface (API) will simply become irrelevant in the future.
Bye Bye NV PhysX and here comes Open Source all thanks to AMD. Now if only AMD & Intel can join Bullet & Havok Physics together and create a solution in which everybody can enjoy.
 
 
+10 #6 Super XP 2010-09-15 01:27
Quoting Blacky:
Nvidia could have easily won this one out if they kept their initial commitment of PhysX being opened to everyone. Then they changed their minds and decided that only Nvidia cards can use PhysX. Now with their 400 series a mess, I am sure PhysX will probably succumb. This happens when you get too greedy.

AGREED x 1000. This is what pissed a lot of people off about NVIDIA getting way too greedy. They had a chance to gain all gamers & deveolopers support but chose to RIP people off by overpriced and over hiped PhysX. I give PhysX less than 2 years until it dies off...
 
 
+9 #7 Alexko 2010-09-15 07:56
Quoting Squall_Leonhart :
[…]

What matters is Documentation, PhysX and Havok have this.
Ease of use, Again, both have this.
A large developer support network. You guessed it, they have it.

Bullet is dead, and OpenCL physx will never take off. Nvidia's been doing OpenGL long enough to know that anything from the Khronos faggots is as good as dead fish.





It's not even about being open source, it's about being compatible with anyone who wants to be compatible with it. What good is documentation, support and ease of use (PhysX) if less than 20% of the market can use it?

That's why PhysX is doomed, unlike Open Physics, anything that uses Direct Compute, and probably Havok.
 
 
0 #8 NidStyles 2010-09-15 07:59
I see the open source tool's are here in number's. Great site for them too. You know lost and utopian.
 
 
+1 #9 TouchMeNot 2010-09-15 08:54
Tell me again, why didn't MS open source their DirectX when they had a chance ? What with DirectX being only being able to run on MS-Windows OS and nothing else ?

Only difference here is that MS has the clout to do it and very minimal competition, where else Nvidia is struggling with a larger competition base as well as limited resources (cash-wise mostly). It didn't make sense to open up PhysX to the other competition at the time. Perhaps, it might be right to do so now, but then this is all dependant on Nvidia's roadmap and plans.
 
 
+4 #10 valhar2000 2010-09-15 09:25
Quoting TouchMeNot:
Tell me again, why didn't MS open source their DirectX when they had a chance ? What with DirectX being only being able to run on MS-Windows OS and nothing else?


This is not a good analogy. What Nvidia did would be analogous to Microsoft deciding that DirectX will only work on Microsoft-manufactured computers.

DirectX is available to everyone, pretty much. Anyone who uses an Intel or AMD CPU, even if they prefer to use Linux or BSD, can install a copy of Windows and use DirectX games.

With PhysX, on the other hand, you are tied to Nvidia cards.
 

To be able to post comments please log-in with Disqus

 

Facebook activity

Latest Commented Articles

Recent Comments