AMD: Multi-Core CPU Support Is Disabled in PhysX


NVIDIA PhysX



After the story where PhysX GPU that is disabled when a Radeon is used for graphics rendering, today, AMD accuses NVIDIA to have disabled the support of multi-core CPU in PhysX in order to sell more GeForce GPUs…

bit-tech: -so we’ll see AMD GPU physics in 2010?

Richard Huddy (AMD Developer Relations): Bullet should be available certainly in 2010, yes. At the very least for ISVs to work with to get stuff ready.

The other thing is that all these CPU cores we have are underutilised and I’m going to take another pop at Nvidia here. When they bought Ageia, they had a fairly respectable multicore implementation of PhysX. If you look at it now it basically runs predominantly on one, or at most, two cores. That’s pretty shabby! I wonder why Nvidia has done that? I wonder why Nvidia has failed to do all their QA on stuff they don’t care about – making it run efficiently on CPU cores – because the company doesn’t care about the consumer experience it just cares about selling you more graphics cards by coding it so the GPU appears faster than the CPU.

It’s the same thing as Intel’s old compiler tricks that it used to do; Nvidia simply takes out all the multicore optimisations in PhysX. In fact, if coded well, the CPU can tackle most of the physics situations presented to it. The emphasis we’re seeing on GPU physics is an over-emphasis that comes from one company having GPU physics… promoting PhysX as if it’s Gods answer to all physics problems, when actually it’s more a solution in search of problems.

[source] | [via]


9 thoughts on “AMD: Multi-Core CPU Support Is Disabled in PhysX”

  1. Leith

    I always wondered why FluidMark only ever loads up 1 core.

    Don’t suppose you can go back to a Ageia Physx version and verify that it did have multicore?

  2. Matt

    I’m very disappointed in Nvidia’s tactics. I was an ATI user for many years, but when I built a new PC last month I felt compelled to buy a Geforce simply because of its “exclusive” PhysX support which a lot of new games seem to use. I really wanted a DirectX 11 ready card (ATI) and could’ve gotten one of equal or greater power for a cheaper price, but the proprietary PhysX is what sold me. What a dirty business… “[Nvidia] doesn’t care about the consumer experience it just cares about selling you more graphics cards” seems to be the case. I’ve read that there is nothing physically limiting ATI cards from replicating the physics, just that Nvidia prevents them from doing so.

  3. Leith

    This is what said on tom’s hardware:
    “Sure the PhysX SDK may allow developers to choose to make their PhysX apps multi-threaded, and many will (3dmark).

    But the real question is, does NVIDIA pressure The Way It Is Meant To Be Played game developers to not multi-thread their PhysX apps.”

  4. JeGX Post Author

    @Leith: I planned a new update of FluidMark to use the latest version of PhysX SDK and I’ll try to take advantage of this update to add multi-core CPU support…

  5. Pingback: [PREVIEW] Multi-Core CPU Support in PhysX Seems to Work - 3D Tech News, Pixel Hacking, Data Visualization and 3D Programming - Geeks3D.com

  6. Pingback: [PREVIEW] Multi-Core CPU Support in PhysX Coming To PhysX FluidMark

  7. Pingback: [GPU Tool] PhysX FluidMark 1.2.0 Available with Multi-Core CPU Support - 3D Tech News, Pixel Hacking, Data Visualization and 3D Programming - Geeks3D.com

Comments are closed.