Does Nvidia Phys-x work with ATI?

[Aprox]

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.

Absolutely. If you feel the need to boycott a specific company because of unfair treatment of consumers, particularly their own. Then knock yourself out.

This whole discussion is kind of a moot point however, because games that have PhysX physics still work on systems with ATi graphics cards, albeit using CPU calculation instead of GPU calculation. Do you honestly expect Nvidia to put forth the money and time to R&D to ensure their own GPU acceleration works with ATI cards? Also, would you expect a company with a unique feature that can be a selling point willingly shoot themselves in the foot by giving the capability to the competition for free after put out the money to develop it for their own products? Just food for thought

 

[Sazar]

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.

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

I would have to disagree.

If you look at the way AMD has typically functioned, it has been a lot more open and worked towards open-standards. Nvidia has typically worked towards closed standards.

Keep in mind that people who purchased cards for Physx usage, per the original company information as well as what Nvidia said back in the day, have now been locked out due to Nvidia specifically targetting functionality to work ONLY when the GPU detected is an Nvidia card.

That is absolutely bogus because it has been proven that the little hack that allows a Physx card/gpu to be used with an AMD card is something that definitely works. There is no reason for Nvidia to lock out this functionality.

Also, note that the vast majority of top tier games are still deing developed and released using Havok, an open-standard.

If the secondary card operates and pushes the Phsyx portion of the game, what does it matter what the GPU is? Tweak it further for your own card if you must, but there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that the GPU detect would disable the Nvidia product that is working as the physics accelerator.

If I, as a consumer, purchase an Nvidia card or a Physx card for that functionality, I should be free to use it how I see fit. Nvidia has already received my money. They should not be able to force the consumer to only purchase Nvidia gpu's for graphics purposes in order to benefit from any Physx functionality.

 

[Terrahertz]

Good post Sazar.

 

[Aprox]

I would have to disagree.

If you look at the way AMD has typically functioned, it has been a lot more open and worked towards open-standards. Nvidia has typically worked towards closed standards.

Keep in mind that people who purchased cards for Physx usage, per the original company information as well as what Nvidia said back in the day, have now been locked out due to Nvidia specifically targetting functionality to work ONLY when the GPU detected is an Nvidia card.

That is absolutely bogus because it has been proven that the little hack that allows a Physx card/gpu to be used with an AMD card is something that definitely works. There is no reason for Nvidia to lock out this functionality.

Also, note that the vast majority of top tier games are still deing developed and released using Havok, an open-standard.

If the secondary card operates and pushes the Phsyx portion of the game, what does it matter what the GPU is? Tweak it further for your own card if you must, but there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that the GPU detect would disable the Nvidia product that is working as the physics accelerator.

If I, as a consumer, purchase an Nvidia card or a Physx card for that functionality, I should be free to use it how I see fit. Nvidia has already received my money. They should not be able to force the consumer to only purchase Nvidia gpu's for graphics purposes in order to benefit from any Physx functionality.

Admittedly I was unaware that PhysX card owners have been screwed over since Nvidia aquired PhysX. And I agree with you that there is no excuse for that.

That aside for the moment the reason it matters what GPU is doing the PhysX calculation is because if they artificially limit it to Nvidia cards then they are more likely to make money on people purchasing their cards for that purpose. That much is pretty obvious. While I'm not endorsing the behavior I simply understand why they are doing it. Perhaps I'm not as upset about it as some because I run Nvidia myself. If I was an ATi user and wanted to see the GPU enhanced physics then yeah I could see being a bit more upset about it.

As to your last comment, why not? PhysX is their product. They own it, maintain it and continue develop it further using their money. I honestly don't see why you expect them to open the pandora's box of support for other manufacturers products. In doing so they would not be able to ensure that PhysX would be properly presented to the end user on anything but their own hardware. It's a similar approach that Apple uses with their products and software. I completely understand the frustration, but I think it's silly to cry about it. You don't buy a high end Lamborghini then complain when you can't use a high end part designed for a equally high performing Ferrari. If you wanted that, you should have bought a Ferrari.

 

[ElementalDragon]

Another thing that begs to be pointed out about the whole PhysX thing is that.... it wasn't NVidia's primary intention to have PhysX only be usable with their hardware. After they initially purchased Ageia and obtained the rights to PhysX, they ran the idea past ATI of them also using PhysX, and ATI said no. So it's not so much NVidia trying to claim the market as much as they possibly can, and more NVidia doing what they're doing because they have the ability to, unlike ATI.

Also.... I could see Havok being comparable to PhysX if there were even any REMOTE signs of a hardware-based Havok physics engine.... but i haven't heard a peep about that in MONTHS.

 

[Petros]

After they initially purchased Ageia and obtained the rights to PhysX, they ran the idea past ATI of them also using PhysX, and ATI said no.

That story doesn't jive with documented events. Someone had already created a wrapper for PhysX to run on ATI, then Nvidia invited him into their developer program...after that, he mysteriously never said a word about the wrapper again.

Also, Nvidia disables even their own cards if an ATI card is used as the primary rendering device. That is also a fact. Nvidia has no interest in Physx and ATI working in the same machine. Maybe they did before or maybe they didn't, but it is crystal clear today that they do not want ATI and physx being anywhere near each other.

 

[Terrahertz]

Looks like I haven't been in the loop the way I should. Learned much from the posts in this thread.

 

[Sazar]

Admittedly I was unaware that PhysX card owners have been screwed over since Nvidia aquired PhysX. And I agree with you that there is no excuse for that.

That aside for the moment the reason it matters what GPU is doing the PhysX calculation is because if they artificially limit it to Nvidia cards then they are more likely to make money on people purchasing their cards for that purpose. That much is pretty obvious. While I'm not endorsing the behavior I simply understand why they are doing it. Perhaps I'm not as upset about it as some because I run Nvidia myself. If I was an ATi user and wanted to see the GPU enhanced physics then yeah I could see being a bit more upset about it.

This behavior is completely anti-competitive and should, theoretically be illegal.

As to your last comment, why not? PhysX is their product. They own it, maintain it and continue develop it further using their money. I honestly don't see why you expect them to open the pandora's box of support for other manufacturers products. In doing so they would not be able to ensure that PhysX would be properly presented to the end user on anything but their own hardware. It's a similar approach that Apple uses with their products and software. I completely understand the frustration, but I think it's silly to cry about it. You don't buy a high end Lamborghini then complain when you can't use a high end part designed for a equally high performing Ferrari. If you wanted that, you should have bought a Ferrari.

The GPU acceleration can be done separately from the graphics.

Remember Nvidia themselves came forth and suggested users buy lower-end Nvidia cards to accelerate physics in games and use a different card as their primary GPU.

Your analogy fails because Ferrari and Lamborghini are both designing all aspects of the products they are selling.

Physx is an api installed in games at the behest/money infusion of Nvidia and typically is available to TWIMTBP games. The hardware has been proven to be able to run independently of the graphics card previously. There is no reason to now go ahead and BLOCK those cards from working with new drivers simply because Nvidia wants to force users to buy their GPU's.

Also, I am not crying about it. There are many user-created work-arounds that allow the use of a Physx card (be it a gpu or dedicated card) with an AMD product.

 

[Aprox]

I feel my analogy still stands, as you are just nitpicking at it. There are many aftermarket parts you can buy for a car, bike, skateboard, etc that might only work with a specific company's product. Yet you can tweak it, break it, modify it to make it work with something else sure, That's not really the point of the example. I'm simply saying that you if are interested in a specific feature that a company A offers, it's foolish imho to then buy company B's product and then expect the company A to put out the effort to allow it work with the company B's product's too. Also, see below.

Perhaps everyone is taking it a tad too personal? Perhaps Nvidia isn't actively trying to screw ATI users in hopes they buy Nvidia. Perhaps they are just protecting the appearance of their product (In this case PhysX) by limiting it to hardware platforms they can guarantee it will work properly with. I find that a bit more believable than the idea that Nvidia is ran by a bunch of evil people who want to proactively shun ATi users for simply being ATi users.

So what's the problem then? Sounds like anyone ambitious enough will figure out a way to get what they want. I see no harm in Nvidia's QA stance in regards to limiting what hardware can run GPU accelerated physics out the box. It's both a protection of their IP and a way to safegard the marketability of PhysX to developers.

 

[ElementalDragon]

Petros: and that doesn't comply to your pointed out information how? NVidia offered PhysX to ATI.... ATI said no..... you think NVidia will welcome with open arms a hack to get PhysX working on ATI's cards when they don't want it? It's basically a way of sticking it in ATI's face. Not a single hint of a GPU-based Havok physics engine coming around anytime soon.... yet PhysX is becoming more and more used.

Same thing with the ATI + Nvidia GPU thing. PhysX runs off of NVidia's CUDA. Why exactly would NVidia want people buying the best ATI card they can possibly buy, and then squandering off with an 8600GT or something for PhysX processing to use alongside the ATI card? ATI didn't want it.... so why should they have the ability to use it?

Harsh? Yes. But I wouldn't doubt NVidia is doing it to try to get ATI to possibly reconsider. Everyone keeps talking about OpenCL or whatever..... Unified GPU-based physics....... Well, what exactly do you think it would have been if ATI weren't a bunch of stubborn idiots in the first place?

 

[Sazar]

I feel my analogy still stands, as you are just nitpicking at it. There are many aftermarket parts you can buy for a car, bike, skateboard, etc that might only work with a specific company's product. Yet you can tweak it, break it, modify it to make it work with something else sure, That's not really the point of the example. I'm simply saying that you if are interested in a specific feature that a company A offers, it's foolish imho to then buy company B's product and then expect the company A to put out the effort to allow it work with the company B's product's too. Also, see below.

Perhaps everyone is taking it a tad too personal? Perhaps Nvidia isn't actively trying to screw ATI users in hopes they buy Nvidia. Perhaps they are just protecting the appearance of their product (In this case PhysX) by limiting it to hardware platforms they can guarantee it will work properly with. I find that a bit more believable than the idea that Nvidia is ran by a bunch of evil people who want to proactively shun ATi users for simply being ATi users.

So what's the problem then? Sounds like anyone ambitious enough will figure out a way to get what they want. I see no harm in Nvidia's QA stance in regards to limiting what hardware can run GPU accelerated physics out the box. It's both a protection of their IP and a way to safegard the marketability of PhysX to developers.

I am not nit-picking. I am blatantly saying your analogy doesn't work

If you want to use an analogy, game-makers game is the vehicle, the GPU drives that vehicle.

Also, how is this regarding QA when 3'rd party programmers are able to get full functionality in Physx games with AMD GPU's and Nvidia cards driving the physics?

This is why I LOVE Havok, as it works on all cards and is not proprietary.

We've had previous examples of proprietary code-paths for Nvidia hardware, from the dark-days of the NV30. Do we really want to return to that kind of crap?

 

[chastity]

Well it seems there is nasty in the file I mentioned.

Hybrid PhysX Mod Package Contained Trojan

It has come to our attention that the Hybrid PhysX Mod from NGOHQ.com posted earlier this month contained the Infostealer.Gampass trojan. According to Symantec, Infostealer.Gampass specifically targets video game credentials, log-ins and passwords. I would recommend uninstalling this and doing a full scan on your computer. I would also recommend that you avoid downloading anything from sites that do not scan files before offering them to the general public. We apologize to anyone that may have downloaded the Hybrid PhysX Mod after we posted that link. Thanks to Theron E. for the heads up.

Infostealer.Gampass | Symantec

 

[Aprox]

Doh! That really sucks... I wonder who it was planted by.

 

[Petros]

Petros: and that doesn't comply to your pointed out information how? NVidia offered PhysX to ATI.... ATI said no.....
[...]

Unified GPU-based physics....... Well, what exactly do you think it would have been if ATI weren't a bunch of stubborn idiots in the first place?

First off, an carte blanche offer of physx from Nvidia to ATI has never happened to my knowledge. The closest thing is Nvidia claiming in the news that anyone can have it. This is one of those things that gets repeated so often that people actually believe it. ATI has been pursuing open initiatives and/or brand agnostic solutions; their efforts will also benefit Nvidia customers when they come to fruition. Perhaps their indiscretion in not embracing a closed standard from their largest competitor is justifiable.

The ati physx wrapper was killed long before ATI breathed a word about physx. And that guy that got snapped up into the Nvidia developer program when he was about to release a PhysX-on-ATI wrapper? The last thing he ever said about its release was this:

I've been asked by a few sources to delay Update #2 for several days.

And Physx on ATI was never heard from again.

 

[ElementalDragon]

Petros:

| Nvidia offers PhysX support to AMD / ATI | bit-tech.net

Doesn't necessarily say that they DID offer it to ATI.... but doesn't necessarily say they didn't, either. Also doesn't say that ATI didn't have the option to use it.

The idea of it being offered or not aside.... Would PhysX have been a "closed standard" if ATI had used it? Not really a closed standard if the only two ACTUAL video card manufacturers are able to use it, is it?

And uuh..... about the physx wrapper guy........ DUH!! If you had a piece of software that could boost game performance tenfold.... but only worked on an Intel CPU for some odd reason... and you were selling the software for $30..... and someone made a workaround for it that allowed it to work on an AMD CPU, and didn't charge anything for the software even though it's pretty much entirely your software.... would you just say "oh well, let him do what he wants"? Probably not.

and if you ask me.... that whole thing with the guy making the wrapper being accepted into their developer program and not being heard from again.... sounds way too "I've been struck with a subpoena and am not allowed to discuss the matter"-ish.