Nvidia Disables PhysX in Presence of ATI GPU

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]khimera2000[/nom]thats the question of the hour... will future games use physx(nvidia), havok(intell), OpenCL, or some DX11 flavor... any way you cut it it should be intresting... i'm hoping for opencl or dx11 for platform Independence.[/citation]

blizzards big titles are going to use HAVOK; SC2 and Diablo 3. I thought ATI had HAVOK but it was owned by intel and nvidia had physx
 
[citation][nom]rvbeppler[/nom]I have a nVidia card (GeForce GTS 250) on an AMD chipset (AMD 770). Am I in trouble?[/citation]
No. You will be fine as long as you're only using the nVidia card for graphics (ie you're monitors are plugged into the nVidia card and not into any graphics ports on the motherboard).
 
[citation][nom]Matt87_50[/nom]thats gay![/citation]
Excuse me, I take offense to using that phrase in that manner. Next time think before you post/speak.
 
I usually buy gfx card with best bang for the buck on my budget. Living in Switzerland, Nvidia for some reason has been way more expensive than the ATI's. Even though I used to like Nvidia I can only want to stay away more and more from them.
 
Although having both ATI and Nvidia hardware inside a PC is unlikely
Click to expand...

I don't think it is as unlikely as you might think. I for instance have a motherboard with an NVIDIA chipset and an ATI video card. I'd imagine having a PhysX card and an ATI video card would almost as likely as having an NVIDIA card with that PhysX.
 
Well i just build a new pc x58 and got a 5870. All this does is take away the only shot they had of me buying a nivida gpu. If the wanted another sell why not let us use it.
 
BOOOOOO!!!!!

But seeing as PhysX appears to be dying anyway...this will probably only accelerate its demise, speeding up its eventual porting into OpenCL.

Sorry NVidia, I've supported you guys while you've sweated a bit against ATi, even buying a couple of your cards explicitly for the purposes of using NVidia PhysX and ATi graphics together when Win7 releases...but this ploy isn't going anywhere with me. As an owner of NVidia products, I'm pretty disappointed.
 
PhysX will die out within 5 years or so. Why? There are free equivilents open to developers which are both easier to use and will be compatible with a larger customer base.

Hmm... get PhysX, pay Nvidia a licensing fee, and make your game only run at its best for half your consumers, or use OpenCL for free and ensure everyone can use it. There's no reason any sane developer would opt for PhysX over OpenCL. Unless there's a major overhaul, PhysX is dead.
 
Yeah, that's why this move doesn't make sense. Regardless of how you feel about the future of physX, you've got to agree that the more people use it the more likely it is to be fully adopted. Not to mention, this option allowed them to make money with people who they would not normally (ATI customers). Maybe a couple of years ago it looked like they were on the verge of taking out ATI, but now it is clear they are here to stay and compete equally, which makes a Physics program only for their cardsa hopeless failure. Either they will let it run on ATI, or it will slowly die out as the open (or Havok) Physics programs improve.
 
Don't make me bitch slap you, nVidia!

If you really want to make PhysX something useful (and considering the fact that my GTS 250 does have PhysX built in, I want it used!) do what you did to your own GPU's for ATI, too! If somebody's got the requisite 256 MB of VRAM, let them use the technology, nvidia GPU or not. Doing the same for CUDA couldn't hurt either.
 
[citation][nom]ravewulf[/nom]Excuse me, I take offense to using that phrase in that manner. Next time think before you post/speak.[/citation]

Would you prefer he call it heterosexually challenged? :)
 
ravewulf Why should he/I care about what offends you? If you get offended because the choices you made that's your problem not his/mine. I suggest you get over it the world doesn't revolve around you.

And I think this is pretty stupid of nvidia. While this maybe rare, and doesn't really effect most of use that simply use ATI/Nvidia for w/e reason. You're still gonna lose those people that want to do things this way. Because ATI isn't pissing on them YOU are. Who do you think their gonna stick with? Lack of common sense ftw!
 
[citation][nom]khimera2000[/nom]thats the question of the hour... will future games use physx(nvidia), havok(intell), OpenCL, or some DX11 flavor... any way you cut it it should be intresting... i'm hoping for opencl or dx11 for platform Independence.[/citation]

While I mostly agree, I'm not sure what the standard Physics Api will be. DX11 and OpenCL don't offer physics by themselves - just physics making tools. Perhaps Physx and Havok will both use DX11 or OpenCL ? I herd a rumor about a Microsoft Direct Physics - this can solve a lot of problems.
 
[citation][nom]schizofrog[/nom]First, I care about PhysX as I do about every other componant and software regarding my graphics. The development of PhysX and Havok's engine is all for better and more realistic environments and greater detail to effects. With a question like that you might as well go back 20 years and ask 'Who cares about 3D graphics?'Second, Why do nVidia need DX11 hardware right now? Windows 7 is the only software that is capable to use it and that is not even released yet (officially, not counting RC and BETA) No games are going to be developed fully for a long time to come. DiRT2 is only going to use slight graphic enhancements, thats all.[/citation]

You stated, "look back 20 years and ask who cares about 3D Graphics."

Then in your next statement you said, "Why does nVidia need DX11 now? Windows 7 is the only software that is capable to use it and that is not even released yet (officially, not counting RC and BETA) No games are going to be developed fully for a long time to come. DiRT2 is only going to use slight graphic enhancements, thats all."

I say go back to 1995 and ask, "Who needs DirectX 9."
 
it would be nice if havok worked with opencl, it would at least open the potability of the engine to work with any video card they might even use it to drive cpu sells. perhaps Microsoft will come out with there own physics engine although i have my doubts at least until a "next gen" console release. I'm pretty certain that what ever standard "next gen" console adopt will probably become a significant part of the PC side.

I do hate how PC games development is being crippled by console projects.
 
"Nvidia supports GPU accelerated Physx on NVIDIA GPUs while using NVIDIA GPUs for graphics. NVIDIA performs extensive Engineering, Development, and QA work that makes Physx a great experience for customers."
Unless that customer also owns an ATI card. They've already given you their damn money, the least you can do is support them like every other customer.
Instead, we get:
"Hello, paying customer. I see that in addition to paying us your money for our product, you also bought a product from our competitor. NO SOUP FOR YOU!"
 
Can anyone say "backlash"?

If you sell a card, even if only to accelerate PhysX, it means you made some profit.
If you sell no card that means you made zero profit.

How does that help nVidia's business model?!

And let's not discuss ethics here: if you pay for a product, you expect it to work fully. Now the manufacturer comes and disables functionality?!
Sure, why not? Next step: skip nVidia hardware altogether. Further helping the winning business model...
 
This also brings up a question... why is it starting to take so damn long for Nvidia to make drivers? its been almost 2 months. And woot Nvidia for keeping PhysX to them selves. But didnt that also just cut out a bit of market for them?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom