ATI and PhysX Co-exist on the Nintendo Wii

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Kevin Parrish
Contributor

Kevin Parrish has over a decade of experience as a writer, editor, and product tester. His work focused on computer hardware, networking equipment, smartphones, tablets, gaming consoles, and other internet-connected devices. His work has appeared in Tom's Hardware, Tom's Guide, Maximum PC, Digital Trends, Android Authority, How-To Geek, Lifewire, and others.

  • trainreks
    who cares?

    its on a Wii.
    Reply
  • RiotSniperX
    trainrekswho cares? its on a Wii.

    AHAHAHAHAHA! So true! Whats a wii going to do with Physx? Make boom blox more realistic?
    Reply
  • thedipper
    "Like a huge slap in the face to ATI"
    Because ATI doesn't have a physics engine that they're trying to make mainsteam, that opener is pretty much as retarded as they get.

    Let's not pretend ATI systems can't run PhysX to its fullest. It DOES run on the CPU FYI.
    Reply
  • nukemaster
    Kind of funny how when it was Ageia PhysX, no one wanted it, now that Nvidia owns them, everyone is signing up.
    Reply
  • hellwig
    I say if Nvidia can get PhysX on everything, good. ATI will probably end up licensing it, and then games will actually start using it. With quad-core CPUs pretty much the norm these days, there's no reason any computer couldn't run PhysX (Nvidia GPU or not). Besides, my understanding is the PhysX overhead on the GPU is too burdonsome, like the GPU doesn't have enough to do in modern games.
    Reply
  • thedipper
    Well Hellwig, if PhysX ran on ATI GPUs, and used AMD Stream properly, it's really no question that ATI would have the clear advantage in physics rendering.

    I believe this is why it isn't currently useable on an ATI GPU.
    Reply
  • IMHO, the reason AMD doesn't use physx is because they do not want to be at the whim of their main competitor. Physx is a software solution that has been modified to run on AMD parts. AMD is fearful that if they officially consent to Physx use then the market share, and hence leverage, will increase for Physx.

    This would leave AMD in a bad position. First, development of Physx would be controlled by Nvidia. Second, you can guarantee that AMD will perpetually be in catch-up mode with poor relative performance.

    Why would you possibly consent to something that is only going to put you at a disadvantage as it becomes prevalent? For the good of the consumer? HAHAHAHAHA. First rule of business: Profit Maximization.
    Reply
  • hairycat101
    ATI should licence and start using PhysX. The reason is this. If I am getting a new card, I want to be able to still have a use for it when I upgrade. IF I get an Nvidia card, I can still use the old one for PhysX and the new one for the GPU. There is no use for an old ATI card... unless you have an old system that you want to slap it in.
    Reply
  • armistitiu
    First of all ATI can do Physx. It has been shown that CUDA can be enabled on ATI. They could make drivers to support it but they don't want to. ATI Stream apparently is not that popular but as soon as OPENCL SDK is out i think a lot of people will try using it because it's supported by both GPU vendors and beaucause it's open source and i think that's the most important thing. I tend to support ATI on this one (not enabling Physx) because i hate closed proprietary software. BTW OpenCL is very similar to CUDA and my guess is you could easily implement Physx in it.
    Reply
  • armistitiu
    hairycat101 There is no use for an old ATI card... unless you have an old system that you want to slap it in.Folding @ Home ? :)
    Reply