Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

CUDA, PhysX Are Doomed Says AMD's Roy Taylor

By - Source: VR-Zone | B 195 comments

Here's a little smack-talk dished out by AMD.

In a recent interview with VR-Zone, AMD’s VP of channel sales Roy Tayor said that Nvidia's CUDA is doomed, and PhysX is an utter failure. Why? Because the industry doesn't like proprietary standards. Companies could get away with it in the early days of gaming, and it worked. But today, in a world of multiple platforms and form factors, proprietary standards are deemed unhealthy for the industry, and nobody wants it.

"Nvidia should be congratulated for its invention," he said. "As a trend, GPGPU is absolutely fantastic and fabulous. But that was then, this is now. Now, collectively our industry doesn’t want a proprietary standard. That’s why people are migrating to OpenCL."

For the uninitiated, OpenCL (Open Computing Language) is an open standard (framework) for cross-platform, parallel programming of processors (CPU,s GPUs, DSPs etc) used in mobile devices, servers and personal computers. It's maintained by the Khronos Group and adopted by Intel, Qualcomm, AMD, Nvidia, Samsung and several others.

In the interview Taylor also pointed to Intel's Sandy Bridge platform in which 17 percent of the die was GPU, Ivy Bridge which went up to 27 percent and Haswell around 32 percent. There's definitely a pattern, he said, and believes that Intel will eventually adopt the term APU much like ATI was forced to ditch the visual processing unit (VPU) label it began using in 2002 after the launch of the Radeon 9700.

"We think the reason they’re doing that is because of GPGPU," he said. "It’s not because of games. I think they see that HSA is an absolutely unstoppable force. I just don’t know why they don’t call [Haswell] an APU… it seems just like pride. If you remember [ATI] tried to join the coin term VPU… ‘No, no, no, it’s a VPU not a GPU,’ they would say. GPU just became widely adopted they just quietly adopted it, and I believe Intel will do the same. Look [Intel] it’s an APU, why are you protesting?"

As for SoCs with GPU cores versus standalone graphics cards, he believes there will always be a market for enthusiast gamers wanting the latter option. However there are some signs that APUs are eroding the lower-middle end discrete graphics card market.

"For enthusiast gamers, graphics cards will never go away," he said. "Unlike our competitor, who’s obsessed with launching consoles in the mobile market, we still love PC gamers and we’re absolutely committed to them. That’s never going to go away. Nobody should have any doubt that we’re committed to GPUs."

To read the full interview, head here.

Display 195 Comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 4 Hide
    BringMeAnother , August 5, 2013 6:13 PM
    Why even bother to say such things when you work for a rival company? What he says may or may not be true, but this just sounds like chest pounding.
  • 2 Hide
    fatboytyler , August 5, 2013 6:23 PM
    I mean he does have a good point. Games with heavy PhysX use are bit unfair to AMD users.
  • 30 Hide
    redeemer , August 5, 2013 6:34 PM
    PhysX has never taken off, OpenCL is taking over. This is not new, this is the way of the tech industry!
  • 1 Hide
    IndignantSkeptic , August 5, 2013 6:39 PM
    I thought OpenCL is being replaced by OpenMP.
  • 11 Hide
    InvalidError , August 5, 2013 7:34 PM
    I don't see why AMD wants Intel to adopt their APU term; their primary purpose is still to act as the CPU no matter what other bits and bobs get integrated.

    I doubt many people who know about APUs actually cares whether they call it APU or CPU. To me, this sounds like an obnoxious kid trying to get attention... yes, I know AMD wants us to call them APUs but to me, they're still CPUs with IGP.
  • 8 Hide
    dudewitbow , August 5, 2013 8:07 PM
    @mightymaxio

    it actually depends, AMD is better with open driver support on linux, nvidia is better with closed driver support. AMD only currently looks bad right now on the linux front because neither company has released an open driver any time recently, and since nvidia is better on the closed front, makes them the better option.
  • -7 Hide
    radiovan , August 5, 2013 8:32 PM
    Gee a salesman talking trash about the competition, now I have seen it all. It would be great if some people would watch some parts of Carmack's first 2013 Quakecon speech.

    PhysX and TressFX or any game "physics" is simply game fluff that in the end add absolutely nothing to the game experience. It is fluff for one reason and that is, actual in-game physics would take up too many resources hence it is relegated to in-game fluff like hair, flags and projectile impact effects, but nothing of substance.

    I like AMD products but their used-car salesman marketing tactics they have been pulling in the last year is getting silly. Whose intelligence are they trying to insult. Bashing the competition in your own (or any) field is never a good practice.
  • 20 Hide
    Someone Somewhere , August 5, 2013 8:57 PM
    Well, of course he'd say that.

    But still, I do agree. PhysX is a solution without a problem, and almost no-one uses it. CUDA is becoming less and less relevant due to OpenCL, plus the newer cards are relatively hopeless at FP64.
  • 14 Hide
    smeezekitty , August 5, 2013 9:09 PM
    Personally I feel AMD and NVidia can bash each other all they want. Its just marketing and part of business.

    Personally I do agree though. OpenCL being cross platform is much superior. Once it takes off better I am sure NVidia will quickly improve performance in it.

    Physx is mainly a gimmick and adds clutter to the screen.

    At the end of the day, who cares what the companies say about each other. Atleast it doesn't hurt customers like the hybrid-physx lockout and other anti-competitive practices.
  • 5 Hide
    Parsian , August 5, 2013 9:15 PM
    AMD just focus on your own growth. You are making good products, just keep it up. You should also promote GPCPU physics for PC and next gen consoles.
  • 0 Hide
    IndignantSkeptic , August 5, 2013 9:29 PM
    @ radiovan

    Currently a lot of physics in games is used just for cosmetic effect instead of affecting gameplay because otherwise people with weak hardware would be unable to play the games. This situation will change when most people have sufficiently strong hardware.
  • 3 Hide
    loops , August 5, 2013 10:11 PM
    After my 1st ATI gpu after 3 gtx cards...i dont miss gtx. My next gpu will be an apu in the ps4.

  • 4 Hide
    DjEaZy , August 5, 2013 10:13 PM
    ... CUDA, PhysX Are Doomed Says AMD's Roy Taylor... actually i agree... don't know about CUDA, but Physx seems to go under... nVidia is trying to push Physx with Tegra thru Android, but the gen2 Nexus 7 is not Tegra... and Physx is just optimized for nVidia GPU, but still works, but is not optimized for any x86 CPU... so, is just in the code... and other thing...
    http://www.tomshardware.com/news/PhysX-APEX-CUDA-PlayStation-SDK,21402.html
    ... so? If PS4 is all AMD, and nVidia Physx gonna work on PS4, so there is a possibility to open up Physx for other platforms... if nVidia opens up Physx, it haz a chance to live on...
  • 2 Hide
    Mousemonkey , August 5, 2013 10:23 PM
    Didn't a certain R. Huddy make these very same claims a few years ago?
  • -4 Hide
    radiovan , August 5, 2013 10:40 PM
    Quote:
    @ radiovan

    Currently a lot of physics in games is used just for cosmetic effect instead of affecting gameplay because otherwise people with weak hardware would be unable to play the games. This situation will change when most people have sufficiently strong hardware.


    Thank you for rephrasing, what I just said - in-game physics are just fluff due to high system requirements for thing like destructible environments. Was that point lost on you, in my initial post? :??:  Perhaps you need to read it again.
Display more comments