Closed

ATI version of PhysX??

Tags:

Last response: February 20, 2012 2:03 PM in Graphics & Displays

Roxas2030

February 20, 2012 4:01:23 AM

Hi there guys. I wanted to know why AMD/ATI doesn't have their own version of NVidia PhysX. Is it because they aren't capable of such technology?

I've been reading up a bit and apparently ATI is working with HAVOK or something, here's more on it if someone would like to explain.

As you can tell I'm stil la noob just seeking more info.

"Note that ATI are just supporting/funding the development of Open Physics engines. The ones that are on the way are:

Pixelux DMM http://www.pixelux.ch/
Bullet Physics http://bulletphysics.org/wordpress/
Havok FX

Pixelux DMM as of now is pretty much ready for use, and being made available to developers. But it will take time before any games using Open Physics actually hit the market.

http://www.ngohq.com/news/17416-amd-open-physics-initia..."
~Gamersam from Gametrailers

More about : ati version physx

| Report abuse

jsc

February 20, 2012 4:16:54 AM

AMD has more urgent problems.

| Report abuse

renz496

February 20, 2012 4:21:44 AM

i think you have to ask amd themselves for your question. i heard about ati working with havok before but now havok owned by intel. logically i wouldn't think that intel will make their havok to run better on gpu be it amd or nvidia gpu. about bullet physics engine the talk about running the simulation/calculation on gpu was around since the introduction of amd 5k series. now they already roll out their 7k series but to this day i still haven't see a single game incorporate bullet physics which its calculation done by gpu.

| Report abuse

Best solution

unksol

February 20, 2012 4:46:23 AM

physx is already barely used in any games, and developers have to spend extra time to implement it. AMD creating their "own" version would result in the same situation. there's not much of a point until there is an open standard that runs on all cards and developers actually want to spend the time to use it.