- Jan 16, 2003
It wasn't really a question ,Thilan. Just a plain old statement. Every single standard out there started out as an idea, before it became a standard.Originally posted by: thilan29
Okay I really don't know the answer to this:Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
A standard has to be an idea, before it could be a standard.
What would ATI have to pay nV to be able to use PhysX?
If the answer is something other than nothing then I see a problem with it (ie. I'm not sure but does MS charge ATI or nV to use Direct3D?).
Are you sure it won't cost ATI anything? To me it doesn't make a whole lot of business sense for nV to charge absolutely nothing...PhysX is one of their selling points and they lose that if they give it away to ATI for free.Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
If games use physx and they license from Nvidia to use it then fine, ATI will have to jump in and no it won't cost ATI a penny. The developers will be paying NV for the license.
Also, Intel has some sway in this as well. I'm sure Intel has more cash to spread around for adoption of whatever method they choose so until they've picked a side I doubt we'll see a "winner".
It would probably behoove NV to work with AMD to get PhysX going on ATI hardware. This was evident in the fact that NV provided SDK's to AMD. It wasn't because NV was trying to be "nice" about the whole thing. It's a business decision that could benefit their company.
Nvidia wants PhysX everywhere, just as they want CUDA everywhere.
cmdrdredd is most likely correct ( I can't say for sure of course) that developers would have to license PhysX from NV.
And in the end, you shouldn't really care if NV charged AMD a PhysX license fee. Not our concern and really has no place in our end user lives.