Nvidia: We Didn't Bribe Anyone to Use PhysX

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]RogerDeath[/nom]But by selling their GPUs with the PhysX functionality, aren't they in essence selling PhysX?[/citation]
But by selling their GPUs with the gmaing functionality, aren't they in essence selling games?
 
[citation][nom]pei-chen[/nom]But by selling their GPUs with the gmaing functionality, aren't they in essence selling games?[/citation]

And because the GPUs with gaming abilities that sell games and while the games have hacks, aren't they selling hacks as well?
 
Everything you hear out of nVidia HQ is a lie. this is what happens when you rape the trust of your customers - nobody believes anything they say now except a few who still make money from their lies.
 
[citation][nom]jacobdrj[/nom]Why is PhysX any different than, say, MMX?[/citation]

Intel sold/gave the rights to AMD so they could use MMX. Has nVidia done that with PhysX? No, they blocked their PhysX if an ATI card was detected (even worse, any other vendor maybe).

Cheers!
 
I can see why developers would chose to use Nvidia and PhysX.
1. Nvidia holds more of the market share
2. ATI has had problems in the past (speaking from experience)
 
So in theory, MMX is no different technologically, in that it has become an extension or 'instruction set'. The issue comes down to intellectual property rights. However, what is to stop AMD from developing their own physics engine, and is it even necessary? Can not a normal GPU/CPU emulate physics by dedicating a core to it?
 
[citation][nom]jacobdrj[/nom]So in theory, MMX is no different technologically, in that it has become an extension or 'instruction set'. The issue comes down to intellectual property rights. However, what is to stop AMD from developing their own physics engine, and is it even necessary? Can not a normal GPU/CPU emulate physics by dedicating a core to it?[/citation]

ATI already doing it, HAVOK
 
"At the end, we are selling GPUs, not PhysX."

And in the absence of any worthy GPU in the last 6 months (Fermi anyone?) maybe they should indeed turn to selling PhysX (sarcasm)
 
[citation][nom]darkguset[/nom]ATI already doing it, HAVOK[/citation]
except AFAIK Havok is cross-platform and is owned but Havok the company, which is owned by Intel, not ATi
 
Wasn't it the new Batman game that had the highest level of textures locked out on ATI cards, and ATI remedied the situation by removing the ATI tags in the drivers so the game would have higher graphics capabilities ??? I seem to vaguely remember something like that
 
No, just a small useless piece of software that only works on Nvidia hardware.
Click to expand...
Lies. PhysX can work using the CPU too... but , ofc, runs much faster on a NVIDIA GPU.

Sadly, AMD does not offer an easy to use and professional alternative to PhysX. We must rely on 3rd party APIs like Newton or Bullet which much less functionality and tools than PhysX.

So, developers use PhysX because is very good and AMD is not interestered in middleware at all.
 
I don't understand why Nvidia blocked physx on systems with ATI cards. You still need an Nvidia card to run physx. If someone wants to use a 5870 for gaming and a 9800GT for physx, Nvidia should like that, after all, people still buy the 9800GT...
 
[citation][nom]broketechjunkie[/nom]I don't understand why Nvidia blocked physx on systems with ATI cards. You still need an Nvidia card to run physx. If someone wants to use a 5870 for gaming and a 9800GT for physx, Nvidia should like that, after all, people still buy the 9800GT...[/citation]
That could cause potential problems with drivers, I believe the official response of nvidia on this issue is they don't want to have qa testing to avoid these problems with the competition's cards
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom