Does Nvidia Phys-x work with ATI?

Heeter

Overclocked Like A Mother
Joined
Jul 8, 2002
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
 

ZeroHour

ho3 ho3 ho3
Joined
Mar 22, 2004
Messages
1,118
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
 

rotjong

OSNN Senior Addict
Joined
Jan 24, 2004
Messages
573
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.
 

Heeter

Overclocked Like A Mother
Joined
Jul 8, 2002
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
 

Petros

Thief IV
Joined
May 19, 2003
Messages
3,038
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.
 

rotjong

OSNN Senior Addict
Joined
Jan 24, 2004
Messages
573
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
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.
 

Heeter

Overclocked Like A Mother
Joined
Jul 8, 2002
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
 

rotjong

OSNN Senior Addict
Joined
Jan 24, 2004
Messages
573
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
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

Overclocked Like A Mother
Joined
Jul 8, 2002
Messages
2,732
Thanks again for clearing that up as well, rotjong


Heeter
 

Aprox

OSNN Veteran Addict
Political User
Joined
Aug 25, 2004
Messages
2,738
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)
 

Terrahertz

Extinction Agenda
Political User
Joined
Apr 10, 2002
Messages
972
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?
 

chastity

Moderator
Staff member
Political User
Joined
Jul 20, 2002
Messages
2,279
Glad to you fine folks have found it useful
 

Petros

Thief IV
Joined
May 19, 2003
Messages
3,038
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?
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:

Aprox

OSNN Veteran Addict
Political User
Joined
Aug 25, 2004
Messages
2,738
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
 

Petros

Thief IV
Joined
May 19, 2003
Messages
3,038
Also, PhysX and Havok might be irrelevant anyways with DX11. The DX11 spec includes standards for GPU accelerated physics.

Feature - DirectX 11: A look at what's coming | bit-tech.net
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:

profquatermass

OSNN Junior Addict
Joined
Jan 11, 2006
Messages
36
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.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Latest profile posts

Perris Calderon wrote on Electronic Punk's profile.
Hey ep!

All good with me, applying for microsoft mvp right now, should have done this a while ago.

Notifications don't work, I only found your response by comming back to hunt up some threads, if you want, give me your email address so we can keep in touch easier, mine is perriscalderon at gmail
Perris Calderon wrote on Electronic Punk's profile.
Ep, glad to see you come back and tidy up...did want to ask a one day favor, I want to enhance my resume , was hoping you could make me administrator for a day, if so, take me right off since I won't be here to do anything, and don't know the slightest about the board, but it would be nice putting "served administrator osnn", if can do, THANKS

Been running around Quora lately, luv it there https://tinyurl.com/ycpxl
Electronic Punk wrote on Perris Calderon's profile.
All good still mate?
Hello, is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me ...

Forum statistics

Threads
61,976
Messages
673,272
Members
89,047
Latest member
satyaa