<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>Havok does need 6 cores</title>
		<description>Discuss Havok does need 6 cores</description>
		<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20181-havok-does-need-6-cores</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 08:08:38 +0100</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.fudzilla.com/component/jcomments/feed/com_k2/20181/10" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>LuxZg says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20181-havok-does-need-6-cores#comment-4062</link>
			<description><![CDATA[So both of these technologies can cover all imaginable sizes of divecs, different platforms, and so on. CUDA/PhysX? Yes, PhysX can be done on CPU, but that's nothing special compared to others. And CUDA market share is globally small, and shrinking. So think again, is AMD/Intel doomed, or nVidia in this story? I'd say it's nVidia, despite a "better position" at the moment. P.S. Sorry for multiple posts, I had a lot to write :)]]></description>
			<dc:creator>LuxZg</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 16 Sep 2010 08:50:55 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20181-havok-does-need-6-cores#comment-4062</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>LuxZg says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20181-havok-does-need-6-cores#comment-4061</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Further problems arise from Intel and AMD integrating GPUs in low and mid-range CPUs. This means even less market for nVidia, and CUDA/PhysX as such. If we disregard gaming calculations on GPU and look at the overall GPGPU situation, you'll see that Intel, AMD, nVidia and Apple all support OpenCL. But that's not all, ARM, Freescale, Imagination, Qualcomm, Texas Instruments, Sony, Nokia, Ericsson, they are all voting members as well. Meaning OpenCL is or will be supported on all popular platforms, including mobile phones and such small and/or portable devices. So OpenCL has huge market share in hardware and software support. DirectX of course has Microsoft behind it, with almost a complete monopoly in PC gaming, and huge market share in console gaming as well.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>LuxZg</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 16 Sep 2010 08:50:11 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20181-havok-does-need-6-cores#comment-4061</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>LuxZg says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20181-havok-does-need-6-cores#comment-4060</link>
			<description><![CDATA[On the other hand, you need a higher level nVidia graphics card to have some use of PhysX. Yes, technically it works on any new nVidia GPU, but reality is that you waste GPU horsepower on PhysX, so if you have lower end GPU, it won't be able to render graphics and compute AI/physics at the same time at acceptable framerate. Considering that new 4xx series is a huge fail for nVidia, their market share is dropping. Since nVidia market share is falling, PhysX capable computers are also falling in share of total gaming computers. Which means it's less tempting for developers, etc. In long term, unless nVidia grabs more than 80% of discrete GPU market PhysX will fail as CUDA-only technology. They'll probably keep it but translate it to OpenCL / DX Compute to keep it alive.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>LuxZg</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 16 Sep 2010 08:49:20 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20181-havok-does-need-6-cores#comment-4060</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>LuxZg says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20181-havok-does-need-6-cores#comment-4058</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I don't get some of these comments.. OpenCL is just an open standard. Microsoft offers DirectX 11 with Compute Shader capability, which isn't open standard, but anyone can use it in their hardware. Both of these are supported by nVidia and AMD on their latest graphics cards and in their drivers. AMD gave up on STREAM computing as a whole, in favor of OpenCL. nVidia still holds on tightly to it's CUDA, which is prerequisite for PhysX on GPU as well. This all means that DirectX 11 and OpenCL is available on almost any newly bought gaming computer. There aren't many people that do actual gaming on Intel GPUs, or using non-Windows OS for gaming. I'd say DX & OpenCL are probably on +95% of gaming computers sold at the moment.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>LuxZg</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 16 Sep 2010 08:48:23 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20181-havok-does-need-6-cores#comment-4058</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>leftiszi says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20181-havok-does-need-6-cores#comment-3977</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I chose Havok. Well at least the PhysX SDK 3.0 comes out. Why? Currently PhysX on CPU is single threaded and X87 based. Need I say more? Although the multi threading for CPUs is available even today, developers don't use it. Dunno why. Oh wait a minute, I do! wink wink Have you guys run Fluidmark single threaded and multi-threaded to see the difference? We are talking 5X more performance on an i7. If you add another 2X from going to SSE instead of X87, we could be seeing up to 10X more performance than today and that's on today's hardware.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>leftiszi</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 15 Sep 2010 12:00:59 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20181-havok-does-need-6-cores#comment-3977</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Jaberwocky says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20181-havok-does-need-6-cores#comment-3975</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Technically wrong.You don't need a Geforce card to play Batman Arkham Asylum.That has Physx on it.I played it using an old ATI 2600XT at Medium settings.It was just that Physx on that game was loaded in as software rather than hard coded on the card.When i visited it again once i got a GTX460 it ran off the card in hardware.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Jaberwocky</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 15 Sep 2010 11:39:10 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20181-havok-does-need-6-cores#comment-3975</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>valhar2000 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20181-havok-does-need-6-cores#comment-3964</link>
			<description><![CDATA[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.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>valhar2000</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 15 Sep 2010 09:25:28 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20181-havok-does-need-6-cores#comment-3964</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>TouchMeNot says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20181-havok-does-need-6-cores#comment-3961</link>
			<description><![CDATA[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.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>TouchMeNot</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 15 Sep 2010 08:54:37 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20181-havok-does-need-6-cores#comment-3961</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>NidStyles says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20181-havok-does-need-6-cores#comment-3959</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I see the open source tool's are here in number's. Great site for them too. You know lost and utopian.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>NidStyles</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 15 Sep 2010 07:59:11 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20181-havok-does-need-6-cores#comment-3959</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Alexko says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20181-havok-does-need-6-cores#comment-3958</link>
			<description><![CDATA[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.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Alexko</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 15 Sep 2010 07:56:26 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20181-havok-does-need-6-cores#comment-3958</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
