Download the Tom's Hardware App from the App Store
The reference for current tech news
Yes No

AMD: Developers Use PhysX Only For The Cash

by - source: Tom's Hardware US

AMD said that a Nvidia marketing scheme pays game developers to implement PhysX whether they want it or not.

In a recent interview with THINQ, AMD’s senior manager of developer relations Richard Huddy slammed Nvidia and its PhysX technology, claiming that the rival company is forcefully shoving the technology down cash-strapped developer throats and paying them off at the same time. Huddy claims that Nvidia's marketing deal gives it the right to implement PhysX elements into a game whether the developer wants it or not.

According to the interview, Huddy spends a lot of time with developers and has concluded that most do not want Nvidia involved in game development. "The problem with [the marketing deal] is obviously that the game developer doesn’t actually want it," he said. "They’re not doing it because they want it; they’re doing it because they’re paid to do it. So we have a rather artificial situation at the moment where you see PhysX in games, but it isn’t because the game developer wants it in there."

Huddy goes on to claim that developers outside Epic Games don't want to implement GPU-accelerated PhysX into their games. "I’m not aware of any GPU-accelerated PhysX code which is there because the games developer wanted it with the exception of the Unreal stuff," he added. "I don’t know of any games company that’s actually said 'you know what, I really want GPU-accelerated PhysX, I’d like to tie myself to Nvidia and that sounds like a great plan.'"

Of course, Huddy also thinks that AMD's open approach to GPU-accelerated physics will eventually force Nvidia's proprietary PhysX into the virtual graveyard along with A3D and the infamous GLide API. "If you go back ten years or so to when GLide was there as a proprietary 3D graphics API, it could have coexisted, but instead of putting their effort into getting D3D to go well, 3dfx focused on GLide," he said. "As a result, they found themselves competing with a proprietary standard against an open standard, and they lost. It's the way it is with many of the standards we work with."

To read more, check out the interview here.

Share:
4
Comments
Read more
X
Submit

Comments
Add your comment
bipolarsuxs 10/03/2010 15:56
Hide
-0+

Intel IBM Comcast Microsoft Apple Now Nvidia! Whos next on the monopoly list!!??

bipolarsuxs 10/03/2010 16:00
Hide
-0+

Intel IBM Comcast Microsoft Apple Now Nvidia! Whos next on the monopoly list!!??

bipolarsuxs 10/03/2010 16:00
Hide
-0+

Intel IBM Comcast Microsoft Apple Now Nvidia! Whos next on the monopoly list!!??

silverblue 12/03/2010 10:34
Hide
-0+

Actually, A3D went into the "virtual graveyard" because Creative wrongfully sued Aureal for patent infringement that Creative eventually lost, but Aureal spent so much defending themselves - and counter-suing that they filed for Chapter 11, only for Creative to buy them out and thus remove their only competitor. A3D was easily the better technology but Creative put paid to that.

If they did that nowadays I believe they'd get stamped on pretty hard.

As for Glide, it became outdated. Besides which, I doubt nVidia wanted to carry on the project once they bought out 3dfx due to the inherent limitations of the API.

Best offers

Newsletters


OK