![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Nvidia is too stubborn to do an OpenCL port, and OpenCL is irrelevant to consoles anyways. It would be possible for either Nvidia or game developers to port code to whatever native GPGPU APIs run on the consoles, or for another physics middleware developer to take advantage of the opportunity coming with next gen consoles.
PhysX is a multi-platform physics middleware engine that runs on a variety of CPU architectures. GPU accelerated PhysX is a Windows-centered implementation that is based on CUDA, which runs the same simulation in CPU code if GPU support is not available/enabled.
Nvidia is too stubborn to do an OpenCL port, and OpenCL is irrelevant to consoles anyways. It would be possible for either Nvidia or game developers to port code to whatever native GPGPU APIs run on the consoles, or for another physics middleware developer to take advantage of the opportunity coming with next gen consoles.
3 for 3 posts so far have completely confused PhysX for GPU accelerated PhysX.
So no, this won't be "the final blow to PhysX". Seriously, was one single moment of thought put into that question?
Namecalling. Again.
The Wii, PS3 and the 360 make use of PhysX. It is strictly 'software' PhysX, and is not the same as the PhysX middleware library on the PC. Even some ARM-based products license PhysX. So, as hard as it is for me to admit, pxc is right.
Namecalling. Again.
I wrote about why your question was irrelevant to consoles. Want to dispute what I wrote or just call names? I have yet to see you ever engage in any technical discussions, so I think I know the answer already.
The Wii, PS3 and the 360 make use of PhysX. It is strictly 'software' PhysX, and is not the same as the PhysX middleware library on the PC. Even some ARM-based products license PhysX. So, as hard as it is for me to admit, pxc is right.
Incredible...
Nvidia is too stubborn to do an OpenCL port, and OpenCL is irrelevant to consoles anyways. It would be possible for either Nvidia or game developers to port code to whatever native GPGPU APIs run on the consoles, or for another physics middleware developer to take advantage of the opportunity coming with next gen consoles.
3 for 3 posts so far have completely confused PhysX for GPU accelerated PhysX.
So no, this won't be "the final blow to PhysX". Seriously, was one single moment of thought put into that question?
On consoles I wrote. On consoles I wrote. And OpenCL (Open Computing Language) != OpenGL (Open Graphics Library).
On consoles I wrote. On consoles I wrote. And OpenCL (Open Computing Language) != OpenGL (Open Graphics Library).
There is no need for a general API like OpenCL on consoles. The hardware platform is fixed and native APIs can be exposed for maximum performance. It's how all consoles allow interfacing to GPU or other specialized hardware.
For example, people often say that the Wii and PS3 use OpenGL, but that's not accurate. Both use a graphics API somewhat similar in function to, but which is not OpenGL. Each of those uses a proprietary API that exposes hardware directly as possible. Even the XB360's DirectX is significanly different from the one that runs under Windows.
they run on different hardware,,....
They have different optimizations and aren't necessarily identical to the x86 CPU path or Windows GPU path. This stuff is even in the sdk announcements. C'mon.
Let's not go back through this cycle again, please?
The XB360 and Wii currently use ATi, so the PS3 is the only change next generation if the rumor is true. It will be interesting how backwards PS3 compatibility, if any, works on the PS4. Not that BC will be an easy task for the other consoles, but it seems more possible on Wii 2 and XBN. The XB BC on XB360 was pretty underwhelming, while Wii's GC compatibility was very good.
Losing Apple and (possibly) Sony has to hurt because of how high profile those wins were. Tegra 2 tablets aren't doing well enough to make up for the loss of Apple. And that Sony bypassed Nvidia's Tegra 3 on Playstation Vita was a huge snub.
The XB360 and Wii currently use ATi, so the PS3 is the only change next generation if the rumor is true. It will be interesting how backwards PS3 compatibility, if any, works on the PS4. Not that BC will be an easy task for the other consoles, but it seems more possible on Wii 2 and XBN. The XB BC on XB360 was pretty underwhelming, while Wii's GC compatibility was very good.
Nvidia seems to have the opposite of momentum right now.
Vita is the PSP successor based on a quad core ARM Cortex A9 processor and a PowerVR SGX543MP4+ (4 module, about 2x faster than the iPad 2's SGX543MP2 GPU, which is no slouch). It should be incredibly fast for a handheld.
Using BD-based Trinity would make the PS4's performance weak even compared to Wii 2.
Vita is the PSP successor based on a quad core ARM Cortex A9 processor and a PowerVR SGX543MP4+ (4 module, about 2x faster than the iPad 2's SGX543MP2 GPU, which is no slouch). It should be incredibly fast for a handheld.
Sony is not going with BD in PS4.
Zoomer said:
A PC architecture is developer friendly. The second statement had to do with Trinity's (dual/quad core Bulldozer based Fusion chips) competitiveness against Wii 2 and XBN GPU architecture.
Reinventing the wheel for toolsets and other code optimized for PPC to x86 isn't going to happen.
A PC architecture is developer friendly. The second statement had to do with Trinity's (dual/quad core Bulldozer based Fusion chips) competitiveness against Wii 2 and XBN GPU architecture.
Trinity uses a Cayman-based IGP and the shared memory architecture will likely not be faster against even Wii 2's HD4000 series GPU in speed. I took Sony's statement as a move more towards the XB360 and Wii 2 architecture: just multi-core CPU + GPU, not specialized Cell with CPU + multiple SPEs + GPU, and not that Sony would pull a XBox 1 (basically was a PC in console form factor).
What benefit would Sony get from using Trinity? Certainly not a significant CPU performance lead or anything even approaching last generation mid-level graphics performance (i.e. HD 5770 will still be much faster than Trinity's IGP). I doubt the PS4 would burn anywhere near 70-80W on the CPU portion alone, which is what Trinity would bring at near competitive performance. It's going to use a newer POWER/PPC architecture (with SMT... aka "HyperThreading" since that works well on consoles).
I don't see how you could come to that conclusion. Hundreds of millions of chips sold for incredibly easy to produce tech (afterall, it's relatively low transistor count on old tech; very mature and very easy to fab).