Nvidia Pushes PhysX For PlayStation 3

@ Matthew - That was exactly my point ;) And perhaps I did take my point a little far..

Someone else could easily see each of those points differently and argue them to the hilt (I've heard them all before anyway!), but that doesn't make them any more valid to the other person.

To be honest I think they're both excellent consoles with their own merits, so if one person prefers one over the other then it's pretty hard to argue that point.

Back on topic - @prag fest, you refer to Havok as a "software physics engine" (implying that PhysX is a "hardware" physics engine), which is wildly inaccurate. Havok and PhysX are just physics APIs. Both will run on a CPU in software and both can be significantly accelerated by using a massively parallel processor with a more limited instruction set (i.e. a GPU).

The distinction between a "hardware" engine and a "software" engine is very, very hazy these days - GPUs no longer just accelerate fixed functions - they offer a wide bank of highly programmable processors which happen to be optimised for certain mathematical functions. Those functions are (by design) very useful for a graphics engine, but you can use them for many other purposes (e.g. physics, folding@home, probably AI in the future). Any highly parallel task is a potential candidate for porting to run on a GPU using CUDA/OpenCL/CTM or whatever.

In all honesty, Havok and PhysX effectively expose more or less identical functionality in different ways. Either would likely be a competent industry standard, but for now they are competing for dominance to become that standard. It is a landgrab, and there isn't time for Havok or PhysX to grow organically - both APIs need support from big industry players, hence the Nvidia/PhysX partnership and Intel's acquisition of Havok. Getting the support of a console manufacturer would be a massive coup, hence why Nvidia is pushing for PhysX on PS3.