GDC 2010, Day 1: The Missing Middle

AMD's Open Standards

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
  • Onus
    nVidia, please take a Bullet for the team. Let PhysX die, and embrace a shared, open standard.
    ATi, if it will help them swallow a bitter pill, do your 3D their way.
    To get the best features, I don't want to be limited to only certain games based on whose GPU I bought. You'll fracture the PC gaming market, and I really don't see how that is in anyone's interests.
    Reply
  • rad666
    jtt283nVidia, please take a Bullet for the team. Let PhysX die, and embrace a shared, open standard.ATi, if it will help them swallow a bitter pill, do your 3D their way.To get the best features, I don't want to be limited to only certain games based on whose GPU I bought. You'll fracture the PC gaming market, and I really don't see how that is in anyone's interests.
    I second the motion.
    Reply
  • JohnnyLucky
    Interesting developments. I don't think the major players really want to share unless it is absolutely, positively necessary.
    Reply
  • bitterman0
    jtt283nVidia, please take a Bullet for the team. Let PhysX die, and embrace a shared, open standard. ATi, if it will help them swallow a bitter pill, do your 3D their way.To get the best features, I don't want to be limited to only certain games based on whose GPU I bought. You'll fracture the PC gaming market, and I really don't see how that is in anyone's interests.rad666I second the motion.It's called "competition". And it is considered a norm to have two or even more (in extreme cases) competing technologies to become "standard". After a while only one technology remains and becomes a de-facto standard. Nothing to get yourself worked up about, really.
    Reply
  • falchard
    Since nVidia does not have the performance crown, they most likely will be unable to push a closed standard like PhysX or nVision. Any game developer who uses such technology will do so at a dive in the total amount of customers they can have.
    Reply
  • shin0bi272
    I thought amd didnt want anything to do with physics... are they scared of nvidia's physx now or something? All of a sudden they are pushing for an open source standard when 3 or 4 years ago when ageia was up for sale they wouldnt touch it with a 10ft pole. Seems amd is scrambling to find a solution that will benefit them equally with their competitors because they screwed up and are now covering their asses while pointing their finger at nvidia saying that a hardware dependent solution is unfair etc etc.
    Reply
  • Trueno07
    Ahhh i love seeing this.. Rebirth of the PC and with it, new and flourishing competition.

    Makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside.
    Reply
  • Onus
    Oh, I'm all for competition. Compete on price and performance though, not on a mutually exclusive feature set that forces uncomfortable choices. People complain about game quality now, how do you think it will get when developers know they're only writing for that portion of the market that uses {ATi | nVidia} ? Ugly. Or compete on a value-add. Write a driver that uses one vertical column of pixels at each edge as a sort of "sound level meter," so those of us who are deaf in one ear (or entirely) will know where the sound is coming from; stuff like that.
    Reply
  • I don't see any reason for nVidia to drop PhysX, since Bullet will run on the GeForce chips just fine using OpenCL or DirectCompute, but if the game supports PhysX then nVidia can get a boost in performance since that's specifically designed for their chips.
    Reply
  • Isnt the Xbox "Microsoft" Natal compatible with windows? Wonder how many games will support it.
    Reply