Originally Posted by Rollo
The question was which standard developers prefer, not which is more efficient. Only two games currently released were given as examples of Bullet, I have around 15 PhysX games on my shelf. It's pretty obvious which developers prefer.
As far as "ye olde but some of those games are bad games!" argument goes, so what? The question is which developers prefer and obviously it's PhysX. I could say the same about Direct3d- 90% of the games aren't what I'd call "good games". Doesn't mean there's anything wrong with Direct3d.
Source? Here they are a couple months ago not only saying they have no plans to do it, but that developers aren't even asking them to do it:
so much *facepalms*..
The only thing why devs used physx in the first place was because NV shoved some big $$$ down their pockets, nothing more. Fact? yes.
And that physx info site is more like wikipedia, better check nvidia developer site again.
As for your trolling AMD 3d vision attempt, check this
here are some "specs"
640 to 768 CUDA cores
80 to 96 TMUs (depending on what the CUDA core count ends up being)
384-bit GDDR5 memory interface, 48 ROPs
Built on the 28 nm TSMC process
Products based on this will launch in the first quarter of 2012
1024 CUDA cores
512-bit GDDR5 memory interface, 64 ROPs
So far it looks weak, esp. GK104 (another 480gtx lol). GK100 is not gonna be released until Q4 2012 or even 2013, so its a fail too.
imo 28nm refresh will be better. AMD has better chance this time around, again.
And I ain't no AMD fanboy, im a technology fanboy and that's a big difference.