You know, once upon a time, there was as add in card released specifically for physics processing. You didn't even need an Ageia graphics card to use it!Originally Posted by matty-hodgson
No, serious question. I'm sick to death of people saying the same thing over and over.
I really see no good reason at all why NVIDIA should provide PhysX for ATI users.
If you want PhysX, buy an NVIDIA card, it's part of the package
It's not a case of Nvidia giving something to ATI users at all.
CUDA in my eyes runs through the same problems as physx in that eventually the open solutions that have been mentioned by Aidanjt will overtake it and become the defacto method of computing on a GPU. Just another stop-gap nvidia bit of propietry tech.
All this would be fine if they gave up the whole 'we love gamers' sharade and came clean to the fact that they dont give a damn about users having the best experience they just want them to all use NVidia.
Without wanting to start an argument or anything, did they have their own graphics card?
You've got to feel sorry for the people who bought the Ageia card, they're pretty stuffed now if they run ATI cards.
I'm surprised I haven't heard anything about their customers taking legal action against nVidia.
They didn't need to, the PhysX library was graphics card agnostic. All nVidia did was move the PhysX backend from the PPU to a GPGPU. Nobody is asking them to support PhysX on ATi, merely that they don't disable PhysX when it detects drivers from another vendor. It'd be just like disabling D3D and OpenGL rendering on their card just because a card from another vendor is also present in the system. Unnecessary, and stupid. The only reason to do so is vendor lock-in, forcing the user to purchase a fat powerful GPU as a nVidia-only system for both graphics and physics processing.Without wanting to start an argument or anything, did they have their own graphics card?
What part of that is difficult to understand?
What's hard to understand about this?
If you want to use NVIDIA's PhysX, then use a NVIDIA card.
If you had people complaining about driver crashes all the time on forums then it's gonna make NVIDIA look really bad if the error code is something like "PhysX has stopped responding" isn't it?
We are talking about using a nVidia card for PhysX, that, *is* the problem.
Read my edit.
Irrelevant, the physx library and nVidia drivers would be accessing the nVidia card, not the ATi card. See my previous example regarding disabling graphics accel access with the presence of a 3rd party GPU. What if nVidia decides that PhysX should also be disabled if it detects a motherboard without SLi licensing 'just in case'? At what point does plain stupid and obviously greedy crap become unacceptable?
That's got nothing to do with the problem - we're all happy to use an nVidia card for PhysX. What we don't like is nVidia blocking even their own card when you have a product from a competitor in the system, which is just childish.
Er, no. Intel don't block their CPUs from working with nVidia cards when a large majority of windows crashes are caused by nVidia drivers. Should nVidia block the use of your card when you don't have an nVidia CPU, memory and motherboard as well?If you had people complaining about driver crashes all the time on forums then it's gonna make NVIDIA look really bad if the error code is something like "PhysX has stopped responding" isn't it?
Don't know about that... if someone comes onto Hexus and says "CoD4 keeps crashing, I tried downloaded three different releases off torrents", nobody thinks "stupid Infinity Ward", they think "stupid user".
Equally if someone came on and said "I used the registry hack to make ATI cards work with physx, but it keeps crashing", I'd think stupid user, they shouldn't expect it to work perfectly.
But that's not it - nVidia didn't just say it was unsupported and disable it, they've gone above and beyond to make sure that whatever you do, it won't work. That sounds like a completely different ballgame to me.
Also - I mentioned in one of the other threads, even if you have an ATI card that you don't use for gaming, say it's for a third monitor, you can't use physx. That's completely ridiculous.
Well, no. that's not right, cos the registry hack wouldn't have to happen, it'd just work out the box, then what would you blame? the registry hack.. oh wait, it didn't need to happen. so null point!
i agree there, that's stupid, childish, ridiculous, whatever you wanna call it, but the other way around i think it's right
Right from what possible aspect? There's no technological reason to do so what so ever. So we can only conclude that nVidia is attempting to force vendor lock-in. Which is clearly ethically unacceptable.
You're playing devils advocate far too much here, matty.
Its like Rollo never left!!
Biscuit (24-01-2010)
Eh? Sorry, lost you there mate :/
AFAIK PhysX does not use OpenGL or DX to process the physics effects it provides - I assume it uses libraries coded in CUDA (or something similar). So I'm intrigued: does CUDA get disabled completely too? I mean, how flaky are the PhysX libraries if NVidia are genuinely concerned about their stability in the presence of ATI hardware / drivers? Doesn't that suggest that there's serious problems with the implementation?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
SCAN.care@HEXUS
SCAN.care@HEXUS
SCAN.care@HEXUS
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
