Analysis - AMD and Havok ? Jon Peddie speaks

[HEXUS]

Graphics guru Jon Peddie gives his take on AMD/ATI?s decision to cozy up to Intel owned physics house, Havok.

Read more.

[kalniel]

Nice article

[Rosaline]

Of course, some of this material I've said already Although I was focusing on why GPU physics is more desirable than CPU physics at the moment, and why you can't easily use spare CPU cores to enhance graphics.

Personally, I still strongly believe that two independent systems are not the way to go at all. Although developers will now be assured of acceleration for at least one, they will still have to either support both, or lose out on half the market. For detailed physics implementations to take off in games, developers need to be assured that the vast majority of the market will support whatever system they choose to use. As much as I am not a supporter of a microsoft monopoly, I do believe that the best hope for physics depth lies in all the required tooling being made part of the next DirectX standard. Hardware drivers could then use whatever system they like to implement this, and a market would exist on top of the DirectX provisions for extensions to their offerings (although these would likely be unable to use GPU acceleration without clever trickery).

[MadduckUK]

as long as its a microsoft OS then it will be a microsoft monopoly. The fact there isnt yet a clear cut way of handling physics that all hardware can abide to just emphasises that its a chicken with no head at the moment. as soon as it is brought into a future directx specification then we will see some coherency.

edit: i think microsoft were/are banking on the core increase making the point mute. even today looking towards the future thats not totally without merit

[chas]

as long as its a microsoft OS then it will be a microsoft monopoly. The fact there isnt yet a clear cut way of handling physics that all hardware can abide to just emphasises that its a chicken with no head at the moment. as soon as it is brought into a future directx specification then we will see some coherency.

edit: i think microsoft were/are banking on the core increase making the point mute. even today looking towards the future thats not totally without merit

Actually, I believe it's a two-headed chicken, not a chicken with no head. Also, the term is "moot point," not "mute point":

“Moot” is a very old word related to “meeting,” specifically a meeting where serious matters are discussed. Oddly enough, a moot point can be a point worth discussing at a meeting (or in court)—an unresolved question—or it can be the opposite: a point already settled and not worth discussing further. At any rate, “mute point” is simply wrong, as is the less common “mood point.”

Actually, that definition is a bit weak...'moot point' derives from 'moot court,' a classroom environment where future litigators argue old cases in an attempt to learn from them. Moot means pointless, because all of their arguing in moot court isn't going to change the outcome of the original case.

[dangel]

...anyway going back to the topic (chas' service to the English language er... noted) it does look like this will force cpu physics to the fore.

[kalniel]

Yes, interesting first post.

How long before Futuremark Vantage allows Havok accelerated physics tests then?