Does Nvidia Phys-x work with ATI?

Discussion in 'Graphics Cards' started by Heeter, Apr 14, 2010.

  1. Heeter

    Heeter Overclocked Like A Mother

    Messages:
    2,732
    Hi all,


    Just wondering, I have an ATI5770 DX11 video card. I have the latest ATI display driver installed. I also have Nvidia's Phys-x installed as well. Is it doing anything for my ATI card.

    I am purchasing Metro2033 from steam, and was reading that it needs phys-x to run with DX11.

    Does ATI even support phys-x at all?

    Do I even need phys-x at all with DX11?


    Heeter
     
  2. ZeroHour

    ZeroHour ho3 ho3 ho3

    Messages:
    1,118
    Location:
    Scotland
    ATI does not support it as far as I am aware.
    DX11 based physics stuff could be accelerated but not many games use it yet tbh.
    No you dont nessarily need it if games pick up the dx approach but nvidia could throw cash to make physics only for nvidia. I am also not sure if dx11 physics is better/faster then cuda/phys-x
     
  3. rotjong

    rotjong Moderator

    Messages:
    573
    Location:
    The far side of nowhere
    In terms of improving your gaming experience, no, having the PhysX drivers installed will do nothing for ATI card owners. Given ATI's use of Havok it just doesn't make sense for ATI to want to use NVIDIA's PhysX. More importantly you must have the PhysX drivers installed even if you can't make use of PhysX in a game. Try uninstalling the drivers and then play a game like Batman Arkham Asylum or Watchmen: The End is Nigh. The game will bomb out and not work. Even when not using an NVIDIA card or PhysX the PhysX drivers must be present which is absolute ****, in my opinion. Another driver to have to install for absolutely no good reason.

    I am looking forward to OpenCL-based physics but in the meantime I hope to see more developers use Havok.
     
  4. Heeter

    Heeter Overclocked Like A Mother

    Messages:
    2,732
    Awesome,

    Thanks for your clarification, rotjong. I was trying to figure out why I need Phys-x, even though I have an ATI card. Sounds like this Metro2033 is setup like one of those games you mentioned.

    That explains it clearly.

    Thanks again,

    Heeter
     
  5. ZeroHour

    ZeroHour ho3 ho3 ho3

    Messages:
    1,118
    Location:
    Scotland
    Well I have nvidia so I hope more use PhysX so there :D
     
  6. Petros

    Petros Thief IV

    Messages:
    3,038
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest
    Nvidia has ensured that in nearly every TWIMTBP game that uses PhysX, the game will crash if you do not have the PhysX drivers installed, regardless of whether or not you have a card that needs them.

    This is a very consumer-unfriendly move, forcing someone to install a driver that their card won't even use, and is an abuse of their market position.
     
  7. rotjong

    rotjong Moderator

    Messages:
    573
    Location:
    The far side of nowhere
    No problem. Glad to help.

    Yeah, Metro 2033 uses PhysX. Happy happy joy joy. Pardon my twirling my finger in the air and rolling my eyes. :rolleyes:

    It would seem that the game ask whether or not the user has PhysX enabled on the system and the drivers have to be installed to give the response. For ATI users with PhysX installed it's set to "No acceleration". So, the game asks and is told that PhysX is disabled and then it moves along. What it should do is check for the PhysX drivers and if they are missing as well as the user not having an NVIDIA videocard then the game should intelligently move along and handle the game without PhysX.

    Making everyone install PhysX drivers is pointless, annoying, and overly invasive. If the shoe was on the other foot and it was ATI doing this rather than NVIDIA then you can bet there would be an enormous outcry. I'm actually surprised that I haven't heard more people take issue with this PhysX absurdity.
     
  8. Heeter

    Heeter Overclocked Like A Mother

    Messages:
    2,732
    You would think think that we would hear that ATI would be up in arms over this.
    But I do think that it is ATI's responsibility to push HAVOC onto games themselves. Both Phys-x and HAVOC is written on both the same open source code, isn't it?


    Heeter
     
  9. rotjong

    rotjong Moderator

    Messages:
    573
    Location:
    The far side of nowhere
    They aren't the same.

    PhysX was created by Ageia who used it with add-in cards for systems. NVIDIA acquired Ageia and the technologies which they have incorporated into their newer cards.

    Havok was a competing physics engine created by a company of the same name. Intel acquired Havok in 2009. ATI put support behind Havok. It's also been used in non-gaming software. I had heard that Havok was ported to OpenCL but I have no idea how well it worked.

    In short, two technologies created by different companies.
     
    Heeter likes this.
  10. Heeter

    Heeter Overclocked Like A Mother

    Messages:
    2,732
    Thanks again for clearing that up as well, rotjong


    Heeter
     
  11. Aprox

    Aprox Moderator Political User

    Messages:
    2,737
    Location:
    California, USA
    I'm not sure if this was covered, but I wanted to add this. PhysX is more than just a driver for the hardware acceleration of physics. PhysX falls back to CPU calculation if you don't have your Nvidia GPU setup to perform HW accelerated physics.

    The reason ATI users still need the PhysX driver is because the game is still using PhysX to perform physics calculations, it's just relying on your CPU to do it instead of your GPU. PhysX is a runtime physics library, it just also supports HW acceleration for improved performance or enhanced effects if you have compatible hardware to go with it. (ie. Nvidia)
     
  12. Terrahertz

    Terrahertz Extinction Agenda Political User Folding Team

    Messages:
    972
    Location:
    New York
    Agree with some of your points rotjong but Nvidia is a company just like AMD/ATI pushing their product for their bottom line. If AMD/ATI would get off their laurels and push Havoc just as much as Nvidia has with Phys-x then the support would have to be mutual instead of this one sided approach. Metro devs wanted to showcase dedicated physics in their game and as crappy as some feel about it Nvidia is the only one who is being ambitious with this. Also correct me if I'm mistaken but isn't there a hack that allows you to run an ATI card with phys-x?
     
  13. chastity

    chastity Moderator Political User

    Messages:
    2,273
    Location:
    Arizona near the Grand Canyon
  14. Terrahertz

    Terrahertz Extinction Agenda Political User Folding Team

    Messages:
    972
    Location:
    New York
    Ahh that's it. Love ya Chastity
     
  15. Heeter

    Heeter Overclocked Like A Mother

    Messages:
    2,732
    Thanks Chastity


    Heeter
     
  16. chastity

    chastity Moderator Political User

    Messages:
    2,273
    Location:
    Arizona near the Grand Canyon
    Glad to you fine folks have found it useful
     
  17. Petros

    Petros Thief IV

    Messages:
    3,038
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest
    I am not impressed by a company pushing their "us-only" proprietary technology. No matter how hard they push it, there's nothing especially virtuous about a corporation fervently expanding its own brand name. The fact that Nvidia disables their own customers' graphics cards just because the customer has chosen to use a different brand as their main card is clearly an affront to consumers.

    The head editor at NGOHQ actually made a PhysX wrapper for ATI, but when he announced it, Nvidia made him a part of their developer program. He never again breathed a word about the wrapper. Nvidia demonstrated that it only wants PhysX running on its own hardware, rendering any percieved commitment to GPU physics to be purely self-serving. So long as they keep encouraging developers to use only Nvidia proprietary technology, they are only benefiting stockholders and not consumers.

    Mildly related:
    Hybrid PhysX Patch 1.03 includes fix for reverse gravity timebomb from Nvidia.
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2010
  18. Aprox

    Aprox Moderator Political User

    Messages:
    2,737
    Location:
    California, USA
    As much as I agree with your moral stance Petros I have to just say that I think that it's terribly naive to think -any- corporate entity would do differently. (I'm not calling you naive btw) Nvidia just happens to be a position to do this, and get away with it. You know damn well AMD would do the same thing to make more money. It's just the nature of big business to try and make money.

    The only saving grace I can think of is that if a company makes more money then they have more to spend on engineering and making the next product better or invest into other cool technology. Public companies rarely ever just sit on piles of cash if they have places to spend it.

    Also, PhysX and Havok might be irrelevant anyways with DX11. The DX11 spec includes standards for GPU accelerated physics.

    http://www.bit-tech.net/bits/2008/09/17/directx-11-a-look-at-what-s-coming/2
     
  19. Petros

    Petros Thief IV

    Messages:
    3,038
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest
    I'm looking forward to this. While DirectCompute is not an open or non-proprietary standard, it is GPU-agnostic. Microsoft has no interest in locking out or screwing over any graphics company, so they are a fairly neutral third party from which consumers can benefit in this case. ATI and Nvidia can both ride that train!

    Also, wether or not ATI would do the same thing if they were in that position is irrelevant. Sure, lots of corporations do wrong when given the opportunity, but that doesn't mean we should ignore (or worse, excuse) it.
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2010
  20. profquatermass

    profquatermass OSNN Junior Addict

    Messages:
    36
    Location:
    Livingston, Scotland
    There speaks someone who has no idea how software works.

    If you add a function into a program that calls upon hardware to enhance the game then these need libraries. If the hardware isn't there, the program still needs to call the libraries installed (even if all the library does is check that the hardware isn't there and tells the program so) or the program crashes.