It is that simple. ATI could work with the F@H Team to develop a ATI Client but they don't, or they won't.It's not necessarily that simple. ATI's and Nvidia's architectures are radically different and what works well on one doesn't necessarily work well on the other.
So it's Nvidia and Intel's fault that ATI won't develop it's own Physics Processing Software. Why should Nvidia or Intel be responsible for enabling features for ATI.Puddle Jumper said:Any gpu, whether it's from ATI, Nvidia, or Intel is capable of supporting physics processing provided the physics engine is implemented using a vendor agnostic api like OpenCl or DirectX compute. The problem is no companies have done that, Nvidia didn't want anyone else to be able to use Physx so they implemented it using a proprietary api, CUDA, that can only run on their cards and then they crippled the cpu version so they could use Physx as a marketing tool. There was a rumor that Havoc was going to be released for OpenCL but when Intel canceled larrabee they no longer had a incentive to move forward with it.
Nvidia's dominance of the gpgpu market is a direct result of trying, something ATI doesn't want to do. A more mature OpenCL complier. When you have less features to code for it's easy to say more mature, ATI saves more money by not offering advanced software research and development. That's why I haven't bought an ATI product since the X800XT.Puddle Jumper said:Nvidia's dominance of the gpgpu market is little more than marketing. Also for the record I have heard that ATI has the more mature OpenCL compiler.