Answers from Nvidia for top 5 this week.

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
New questions are being selected today for next weeks answers.

Keys can you maybe keep a compiled list of pre-existing submitted questions so we can avoid duplicates, also might help to denote which questions have no chance in hell of being submitted or answered.

Personally I'd really like to read NV's response to my SOI/GlobalFoundries question, do I need to resubmit the same question on a weekly basis until it is answered or are you keeping track somewhere of all submitted questions?

edit: can't believe question #5 actually beat out so many other technically-oriented questions that were submitted here last week. Top 5?

 

[Keysplayr]

IDC, I am keeping a comprehensive list of all questions asked. We really had 5 technical questions for the week, excluding the Bret Favre and the company coffee stylings.

 

[Idontcare]

:thumbsup: thanks for replying/confirming, sounds good to me.

I bet there are going to be a lot of folks interested in purchasing the program/hardware used to answer question #5 though :laugh: In the vegas area at least.

 

[MegaWorks]

more like top 5 cherry picked questions answered. I believe if a company really gives a shit about it's clientele it would do it's best to answer a few questions. Anyway good job keys! :thumbsup:

 

[Stoneburner]

Eagles? HAHAHHAHAHAHHA. I guess Nvidia really has lost its collective mind.

 

[BlueAcolyte]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Eagles? HAHAHHAHAHAHHA. I guess Nvidia really has lost its collective mind.

Stop making fun of me

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: MegaWorks
more like top 5 cherry picked questions answered. I believe if a company really gives a shit about it's clientele it would do it's best to answer a few questions. Anyway good job keys! :thumbsup:

They sort of are "cherry picked" in a way. Myself and the other group members go through all of the collected questions, take note of what we think is the most asked and most critical questions, and they will usually get the top vote. So, in that sense, they definitely are cherry picked. In the sense of most asked and most critical. By critical, I mean what folks seem to want to know about the most. Don't worry though. Over the course of a few weeks there will already be a vast amount of information that accumulates and chances are that your questions will be answered without having to wait too long. So, if you don't see an answer to your particular question, do lose heart, it will eventually get answered as long as it isn't about unreleased products, which they cannot comment on.

Error8: I know you want to know with all of your heart, as well as a whole bunch of others, when Fermi will be here. I can't tell you. Nvidia can't tell you. That is just the way it has to be for now. I know you understand why.

 

[Hauk]

This may be one you can answer Keys, if not..

Exploring this config:
One Fermi for primary rendering and one GTX 250/260 for Physx.
Is this a fully compliant DX 11 setup or does the Physx card have to be DX 11 as well?

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

DirextX isn't an open standard either.

I don?t agree there. Any IHV is free to implement DirectX on their hardware without influence, blocking or prevention by Microsoft, and there are no fees for doing so either, AFAIK.

Furthermore, Microsoft doesn?t make video cards so there?s no conflict of interest with them controlling DirectX, unlike PhysX which is controlled by a company that also makes money from their own video cards. Also Microsoft doesn?t actively block DirectX on selected video cards depending on what other video cards are in the system.

DirectX also has multiple third parties providing input for its direction, unlike PhysX which is a proprietary standard solely driven by nVidia.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
I don?t agree there. Any IHV is free to implement DirectX on their hardware without influence, blocking or prevention by Microsoft, and there are no fees for doing so either, AFAIK.

Really I wonder why Apple does not use it.

I also wonder why Linux has so much trouble with it.

Can you clarify why they are having problems?

How about the PS3? No issues there either?

Odd because all those systems support PhysX but not DX.

 

[happy medium]

Originally posted by: Hauk
This may be one you can answer Keys, if not..

Exploring this config:
One Fermi for primary rendering and one GTX 250/260 for Physx.
Is this a fully compliant DX 11 setup or does the Physx card have to be DX 11 as well?

I already asked this 5 posts up from yours.

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Really I wonder why Apple does not use it.

They chose not to.

I also wonder why Linux has so much trouble with it.

Whoever maintains the Linux kernel has decided not to implement it. But it?s still around with Wine/Crossover games, and it supports hardware acceleration.

Does PhysX have GPU acceleration on Linux? How about on MacOS X? How about on any of the consoles?

Odd because all those systems support PhysX but not DX.

They support PhysX on the software side and anyone can do the same with DirectX too if they implement a software rasterizer.

The XBox has DirectX hardware acceleration like Windows. Does it have hardware accelerated PhysX?

Windows has multiple vendors that provide hardware accelerated DirectX. Does the same apply to PhysX?

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Originally posted by: Idontcare

DirextX isn't an open standard either.

I don?t agree there. Any IHV is free to implement DirectX on their hardware without influence, blocking or prevention by Microsoft, and there are no fees for doing so either, AFAIK.

Furthermore, Microsoft doesn?t make video cards so there?s no conflict of interest with them controlling DirectX, unlike PhysX which is controlled by a company that also makes money from their own video cards. Also Microsoft doesn?t actively block DirectX on selected video cards depending on what other video cards are in the system.

DirectX also has multiple third parties providing input for its direction, unlike PhysX which is a proprietary standard solely driven by nVidia.

Last I heard, Microsoft charges for DirectX every time one of their operating systems are sold. So while they may not directly charge developers to license DX ("AFAIK") , the licensing costs are surely absorbed by the end user. And those OS's arent cheap.

Does not Xbox/360 use DirectX? Does not MS make money from their own Xbox consoles?

Do you think that developers have no input on PhysX? It's widely known that Nvidia works very closely with it's devs to make things as best they can, including PhysX content. To say that third parties do not have any input is pretty out there.

PhysX. The proprietary standard that is readily licensable and usable to anyone who wants it. Try not to make it sound like the doors are closed, when it's just a screen door where the breeze can blow in and out freely if desired. If somebody want's PhysX, they can license it. Nothing is stopping anyone from doing so. This was made plainly clear.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
They chose not to.

Now I know you are just trolling.

DirectX is only supported on proprietary Microsoft operating systems.

You know this. You are intentionally spreading false information.

Just awful BFG, just awful. :thumbsdown:


As for your comment on wine...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine_%28software%29

Microsoft has generally not made public statements about Wine. However, the Microsoft Update software will block updates to Microsoft applications running in Wine. On February 16, 2005, Ivan Leo Puoti discovered that Microsoft had started checking the Windows registry for the Wine configuration key and would block the Windows Update for any component. Puoti wrote, "It's ... the first time Microsoft has acknowledged the existence of Wine."[28] The Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA) system also checks for existence of Wine registry keys. The WGA FAQ states that WGA will not run in Wine by design, as Wine does not constitute "genuine Windows".[29] When WGA validation detects Wine running on the system, it will notify users that they are running non-genuine Windows and disallow genuine Windows downloads for that system.

I don't want to drag this off topic any further, but hey it's good to see you with your red glasses on again BFG. :roll:

 

[yh125d]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: BFG10K
They chose not to.

Now I know you are just trolling.

DirectX is only supported on proprietary Microsoft operating systems.

You know this. You are intentionally spreading false information.

Just awful BFG, just awful. :thumbsdown:


As for your comment on wine...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine_%28software%29

Microsoft has generally not made public statements about Wine. However, the Microsoft Update software will block updates to Microsoft applications running in Wine. On February 16, 2005, Ivan Leo Puoti discovered that Microsoft had started checking the Windows registry for the Wine configuration key and would block the Windows Update for any component. Puoti wrote, "It's ... the first time Microsoft has acknowledged the existence of Wine."[28] The Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA) system also checks for existence of Wine registry keys. The WGA FAQ states that WGA will not run in Wine by design, as Wine does not constitute "genuine Windows".[29] When WGA validation detects Wine running on the system, it will notify users that they are running non-genuine Windows and disallow genuine Windows downloads for that system.

I don't want to drag this off topic any further, but hey it's good to see you with your red glasses on again BFG. :roll:

Are you seriously this oblivious?


Physx is only supported on proprietary Nvidia hardware


It goes both ways



And yes there definitely is a difference between directx being "proprietary" and physx being proprietary. With DX, it sort of just became that way, because that's just how the market evolved. With Physx, nvidia is making clear and concise efforts to entirely forbid anyone else from using their IP so that only they can profit from it. Not that I blame them, but come one, you have to see a difference there

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: yh125d


Are you seriously this oblivious?


Physx is only supported on proprietary Nvidia hardware


It goes both ways

Actually PhysX will run on Intel cpus, AMD cpus, PS3, Xbox, Wii, iPhone, etc.

Although I never called it an "open standard", so I don't see your point.

And yes there definitely is a difference between directx being "proprietary" and physx being proprietary.

Only to those willing to bend the term.... a lot.

With DX, it sort of just became that way, because that's just how the market evolved.

No, DX was a proprietary standard from the start. Locked to a MS operating system. It's always been that way. Nothing has changed.

With Physx, nvidia is making clear and concise efforts to entirely forbid anyone else from using their IP so that only they can profit from it. Not that I blame them, but come one, you have to see a difference there

Actually they offer Physx up to anyone. In fact the only thing it won't run on is an ATI GPU. Unlike DX which will ONLY run on a MS operating system. So yeah I see the difference. While PhysX is not an open standard, it is far more open than DX. Clearly.

Hey BFG, I know I've already proven you wrong, but if you would like to use your "mod powers" to split this topic onto its own. That would be good. :beer:

 

[tviceman]

I've got a question: when fermi based GPUs's are released, will there be a top to bottom range of graphics cards released or will the initial batch focus on high end performance?

 

[Nox51]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: yh125d


Are you seriously this oblivious?


Physx is only supported on proprietary Nvidia hardware


It goes both ways

Actually PhysX will run on Intel cpus, AMD cpus, PS3, Xbox, Wii, iPhone, etc.

Although I never called it an "open standard", so I don't see your point.

Originally posted by: Blazer7

3. Is it true that NVIDIA has offered to open up PhysX to ATi without stipulation so long as ATi offers its own support and codes its own driver, or is ATi correct in asserting that NVIDIA has stated that NV will never allow PhysX on ATi gpus? What is NVIDIA?s official stance in allowing ATi to create a driver at no cost for PhysX to run on their GPUs via OpenCL?

Jason Paul, GeForce Product Manager: We are open to licensing PhysX, and have done so on a variety of platforms (PS3, Xbox, Nintendo Wii, and iPhone to name a few). We would be willing to work with AMD, if they approached us. We can?t really give PhysX away for ?free? for the same reason why a Havok license or x86 license isn?t free?the technology is very costly to develop and support. In short, we are open to licensing PhysX to any company who approaches us with a serious proposal.

So much for PhysX being an open standard.

"Hello JC,

Ill explain why this function was disabled.

Physx is an open software standard any company can freely develop hardware or software that supports it. Nvidia supports GPU accelerated Physx on NVIDIA GPUs while using NVIDIA GPUs for graphics. NVIDIA performs extensive Engineering, Development, and QA work that makes Physx a great experience for customers. For a variety of reasons - some development expense some quality assurance and some business reasons NVIDIA will not support GPU accelerated Physx with NVIDIA GPUs while GPU rendering is happening on non- NVIDIA GPUs. I'm sorry for any inconvenience caused but I hope you can understand.

Best Regards,
Troy
NVIDIA Customer Care"

You never did, Nvidia did, assuming the quothes above to be correct.

Now the difference between you and Nvidia is rather small so I think we can safely take it as if you said it.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by: tviceman
I've got a question: when fermi based GPUs's are released, will there be a top to bottom range of graphics cards released or will the initial batch focus on high end performance?

Initial Fermi based cards will be high end only. Im guessing that the mid and low end will be filled up by GT200 derivatives at 40nm (low end has already been replaced with GT218/GT216 based cards). These would have DX10.1, and will fill in the gap til the mid/low range Fermi's hit the shelves.

 

[AnandThenMan]

Smart marketing by Nvidia. Ask the community to field questions, then cherry pick the answers as a form of damage control. Nvidia's marketing arm is doing their job. Of course the one question everyone wants answered, when will Fermi actually be available, is not answered or addressed.

As for PhysX being "available to anyone that wants to develop for it" this is a blatant lie. No terms, conditions, contracts, or otherwise exist to allow AMD to hardware accelerate PhysX content. Nvidia claims they are open to any "reasonable offer" from AMD, but it is not AMD's job to push PhysX into the market. If Nvidia wants to make PhysX available on ALL hardware with specific acceleration, they can and will. Plus how would Nvidia even structure a PhysX agreement with AMD? Per GPU sold=PhysX tax? A yearly payment? And what is to stop Nvidia from introducing new features and performance refinements that will always have AMD a step behind? Nvidia thinks AMD and all us end users are blithering fools to believe that Nvidia would make sure AMD would accelerate PhysX content to the same level of performance as Nvidia. AMD would essentially have a gun put to their head, no corporation in their right mind would do something like that. And don't forget, Nvidia already took the low down tactic of disabling PhysX if ANY ATI hardware is detected, all under the false pretense of "quality control". Yet we are to believe that Nvidia would be perfectly happy to let AMD hardware accelerate PhysX titles (and wildly outperform Nvidia currently because they have no answer to the 5800 series)

Nvidia is doing what they do best, trying to blow smoke up everyone's ass. Nice try, but insulting and degrading. How about STFU, stop rebranding over and over again, stop the artificial crippling of competitors hardware (again under the pretense of "quality control") and just get on with making fast, affordable hardware. I can read 1000 questions and answers spammed across multiple forums, but that doesn't do me or anyone else any good. Talk is cheap.

 

[T2k]

Truly "meh."

And the mindless bickering of all the tools (Wreckage etc) claiming PhysX is just like DirectX - ROLMAO! - is simply pathetic.

As always, mind you.

 

[MagickMan]

Originally posted by: AnandThenMan
Yet we are to believe that Nvidia would be perfectly happy to let AMD hardware accelerate PhysX titles (and wildly outperform Nvidia currently because they have no answer to the 5800 series)

Personally, I wish AMD had an answer for the 58x0 cards, instead of "out of stock" and retailer price gouging for the relatively few that are actually getting out. This trickle launch of theirs is crap and isn't much better than having no cards at all.

 

[AnandThenMan]

It's hardly a "trickle launch" tens of thousands of cards have already been sold. ~November 3 re/e-tailers should have stock again. Plus the 5770/5750 cards are plentiful, no price gouging on those they are selling at list price on Newegg.com etc. I bought the 5870@slightly over list, as did many other people I know, you're exaggerating.

I do agree that the shortage sucks. But don't even suggest that demand outstripping supply compares to having no product at all. And beats $650 for a flagship product, which we saw not too long ago.

 

[MagickMan]

Sorry, but the 57x0 cards are less than impressive. Maybe good for a HTPC or a very casual gamer, but most would be just as well off buying a 4890 or a GTX 260.

Right now I'm seeing zero 58x0 cards at all the major etailers, and the ones that seem to be making it to market are now selling for $30-50 over MSRP. A supposed "tens of thousands" of cards is obviously not enough to make much of a difference. So, yeah, in that regard it's still a trickle launch. Right now AMD has a chance to really hurt NV, but they're stumbling coming out of the gate and don't have nearly enough product to meet the demands of 1% of the video card market (enthusiast gamers). We'll see what happens on Nov 3rd, but my bet is it's more of the same: very limited quantities and hefty markups. They could have sold 3x as many cards by now if there had been better planning.

 

[AnandThenMan]

Sorry, but you're not making any sense.