Answers from Nvidia for top 5 this week.

[MagickMan]

Originally posted by: AnandThenMan
Sorry, but you're not making any sense.

Ok, I'll make it simple for you.

Johnny wants a new 5870, but there aren't any at Newegg. So, he checks TigerDirect. Nope, none there either. How about zipzoomfly? Nada. Superbiiz? Zilch. But wait, low-and-behold there's one on Amazon... for $420. He also finds a few on ebay, they start around $430 and head north to $500. Disgruntled, he hears that in a week some retailers will be getting more in, so he puts in his request for notification and waits. Will he get a new card? Will they ask for more than the $379 MSRP? Will they be gone before he gets home from work? Who knows? He does know one thing for sure, however, buying a 5800 series ATI card is getting to be a pain in the ass. Hey, there's a GTX 295 at Newegg for $459, it's a little faster than the 5870, has more memory, costs ~$40 more. There's no DX11 support, but only a couple games are using that anyway. Hmmm... he starts to think about this.

Yes, it's been a trickle launch, ATI knew there would be high demand, and they also knew there weren't enough cards to go around. So, instead of waiting a short while to make sure they could properly supply the channel, they decide to rush and throw the few cards they could scrape together out to select vendors. They wanted to beat the news about Fermi, and they did, but it hasn't been a very clean launch. It's safe to say they cared more about headlines and less about supply lines. Personally, I'm not for NV or ATI, I own cards with GPUs from both companies (a GTX260 in this machine and a 4770 in my HTPC), but I can say that this hasn't been pretty, not in the least.

 

[Blazer7]

There was no chance in hell that AMD could have met the demand on launch. Being the sole supplier of DX11 cards for now, they would have to have enough cards to do what? Cover all of the enthusiast/high-end market? I don't think that this was ever a possibility. However that doesn't mean that this was not a hard launch. I would say that they did pretty good.


*** edit ***

BTW I think that Fry's still has some 58x0 in stock.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: 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.

Did you have a question?

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: 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.

Cool attack!!

Did you have a question also?

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

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?

So because nVidia and ATi charge money for their video cards, does that mean OpenGL isn?t an open standard either? How about USB, SATA or PCIe? Are those not open standards because you have to pay for a motherboard?

By your reasoning anything that costs money isn?t an open standard, and that?s clearly false. That?s not what we?re talking about when we refer to open standards.

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.

They don?t have input in the same way IHVs do with DirectX. IHVs build the devices that will accelerate DirectX, and compete with each at the same time.

Furthermore, Microsoft imposes absolutely no licensing or control over a new IHV entering the market and trying to compete in DirectX space. DirectX is an open standard on Windows, and any IHV is free to implement a device driver for it. That?s the same situation for OpenGL on Windows too.

There?s also a DirectX software rasterizer, and this is akin to PhysX?s feature of running on the CPU.

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.

I never argued it wasn?t licensable, I simply argued the nonsensical claim that it?s just as open as DirectX is, because it isn?t.

 

[Red Irish]

Seems like a useless exercise that Nvidia will use as a free marketing opportunity, whilst failing to clearly address the legitimate concerns of many users, particularly with regards to their highly questionable recent marketing practices (physX), but we knew that from the outset anyway.

 

[Qbah]

If Microsoft was pushing PhysX as part of their Windows platform, I would be the first one to praise nVidia for following the standards and laughing at ATi for having a sub-par offering. Microsoft says what is standard for Windows. Windows being the platform for PC Gaming - thanks to Microsoft everything has been structured and out of the chaos of 3Dfx days we have received DirectX - a library of technologies a current generation of games use. All the developers know what to use to have their application fully supported on current generation hardware (provided by AMD and nVidia now). Or technologies used a bit into the future.

If anything PhysX is making a huge mess in the market. It's something extra that only nVidia runs NOW (who the hell cares for iPhone? or CPU PhysX running at 1FPS? those are useless arguments for the PC!). We're talking about PC gaming here - the target market for graphics cards. You want to play PC games? You do it under Windows. Yes, I know the Mac runs 3 games and Linux another 2. I (as most gamers) don't care - Windows runs thousands of games. How can one even compare the proprietary nature of DirectX (yes, it's only for Windows as 99% of all the games!) to PhysX? It hasn't been proposed by Microsoft, the entity that says what is standard for Windows (DirectX). When it was introduced by Ageia, it ran together with other vendors just fine. Sure, it was an extra, but everyone having a GRAPHICS CARD could use it - be it ATi or nVidia. Seriously, how hard is this simple fact to understand? I'm beginning to think some of the nVidia-die-hard fans are brain dead.

EDIT: No, I don't have a question. Just commenting.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

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?

So because nVidia and ATi charge money for their video cards, does that mean OpenGL isn?t an open standard either? How about USB, SATA or PCIe? Are those not open standards because you have to pay for a motherboard?

Everything costs money. The licensing costs for all of these things you mentioned are collected, somewhere at some stage. Whether or not something is directly paid for or not is not always obvious. Mosts costs are incorporated into the purchase prices. Like when MS sells an operating system. The R&D that went into DX development is paid for by selling the OS. OpenGL, USB, SATA, PCIe are just serve to dilute and confuse this discussion. Can we not go of on infinite tangents and keep this simple? DX and PhysX open or not open. Why not?

By your reasoning anything that costs money isn?t an open standard, and that?s clearly false. That?s not what we?re talking about when we refer to open standards.

Anything that costs a corporation money, has to be recovered, else that corporation will fail. Just because you don't see a physical contract between devs and MS for a DX license, doesn't mean MS isn't getting paid for it's R&D on DX. I've explained how that is. Do you acknowledge that? Do you argue that MS does not incorporate ALL of it's R&D costs (every part of Windows OS) into the final retail cost of the OS? These corporations are here to make money dude. A lot of money.
And my reasoning? You mean that anybody who wants to use PhysX can license it? What's wrong with that? How is that closed? Nvidia has just finished saying that ATI could license PhysX if they wanted to. There is no stopping them.

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.

They don?t have input in the same way IHVs do with DirectX. IHVs build the devices that will accelerate DirectX, and compete with each at the same time.

Two completely unrelated topics in the same two sentences. You don't know WHAT input is given in either case. So what if IHV's build the devices? Licensing fees are still paid via the OS sale.

Furthermore, Microsoft imposes absolutely no licensing or control over a new IHV entering the market and trying to compete in DirectX space. DirectX is an open standard on Windows, and any IHV is free to implement a device driver for it. That?s the same situation for OpenGL on Windows too.

You keep going in this circle. So I have to follow you around the merry go round. Licensing fees are transparent for DX. They are collected through the sale of the OS. OMFG broken record. LOL.

There?s also a DirectX software rasterizer, and this is akin to PhysX?s feature of running on the CPU.

That's wonderful. And doesn't change anything at all.

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.

I never argued it wasn?t licensable, I simply argued the nonsensical claim that it?s just as open as DirectX is, because it isn?t.

So your definition is if one can see a physical licensing transaction. If you can't see it, it doesn't exist, and the product is open automatically?
Because you can visibly see a licensing transaction if someone licenses PhysX. You can't see it for DirectX, but it's there and MS gets it's money one way or another. From the user.
Call PhysX what you want. Open, closed, proprietary. It doesn't matter. What "does" matter is it is licensable. To AMD, to Intel, to Shirley Temple. That doesn't sound like Nvidia wants to keep PhysX to itself and only to itself. It sounds like Nvidia will license it to whomever wishes to use it. And you call this closed compared to DX because you can't see a licensing contract for DX. Not intended to be insulting here, but that is a bit naive.

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

DirectX is only supported on proprietary Microsoft operating systems.

PhysX is only supported on the proprietary PhysX SDK.

See, both of us can use bold tags. :roll:

You know this. You are intentionally spreading false information.

Just awful BFG, just awful. :thumbsdown:

Puh-lease, stop your nonsensical shenanigans.

Your claim is baloney given we can see Wine and Crossover Games running DirectX games under hardware acceleration on Linux/BSD platforms. Does the same apply to PhysX on Linux/BSD?

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.

Well it?s a good thing that Linux doesn?t have a registry then, huh?

That and blocking WGA in Microsoft applications such as Office doesn?t change the fact that DirectX hardware acceleration is available on both the XBox and Linux/BSD platforms, so I?m not convinced you even understand what you quoted.

I notice I never got an answer from you about PhysX. How many setups allow GPU accelerated PhysX? I count one: nVidia on Windows. That?s pretty ironic given you were calling DirectX ?proprietary? because it?s tied to Windows.

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

Hardware accelerated DirectX runs on Windows, XBox and Linux/BSD. It also runs on multiple vendors like nVidia, ATi, S3, Matrox, and similar.

Furthermore, the DirectX reference rasterizer runs on the CPU.

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

But nVidia did. Are you saying you disagree with their claim that it?s an open standard?

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

DirectX is a lot more open and more of a standard than PhysX for reasons that I?ve already explained repeatedly.

I take it you weren?t around during the 1990s when every IHV tried to push their own proprietary 3D API (e.g. Glide, S3Metal, Rredline), and did nothing but fragment the PC gaming market? The same arguments supporting PhysX were also given for these propriety APIs (i.e. the vendors want the best possible gaming experience for users, and want to push the envelope to enable things that weren?t possible before).

And yet we saw what a bad idea they all were, and why DirectX was one of the best things to happen to PC gaming. DirectX made 3D acceleration on Windows an open standard that benefitted everyone.

Had those APIs gotten their way, you?d be buying a different video card depending on the games you wanted to play, which is not unlike PhysX now.

And again, the argument we?re given today (?ATi should just license PhysX?) is no different to asking Rendition to license Glide back in the day. That?s not the solution to this problem. The solution is for DirectX to implement hardware accelerated physics.

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.

Why should I split it (honest question)? Is this thread not about discussing the answers nVidia gave us?

They told us they?ve dropped support for the PPU and GPU PhysX when ATi cards are detected, and have no plans to re-allow it, yet they continue to tell us that PhysX is an open standard.

 

[Qbah]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
(...)
Everything costs money. The licensing costs for all of these things you mentioned are collected, somewhere at some stage. Whether or not something is directly paid for or not is not always obvious. Mosts costs are incorporated into the purchase prices. Like when MS sells an operating system. The R&D that went into DX development is paid for by selling the OS. OpenGL, USB, SATA, PCIe are just serve to dilute and confuse this discussion. Can we not go of on infinite tangents and keep this simple? DX and PhysX open or not open. Why not?

By your reasoning anything that costs money isn?t an open standard, and that?s clearly false. That?s not what we?re talking about when we refer to open standards.

Anything that costs a corporation money, has to be recovered, else that corporation will fail. Just because you don't see a physical contract between devs and MS for a DX license, doesn't mean MS isn't getting paid for it's R&D on DX. I've explained how that is. Do you acknowledge that? Do you argue that MS does not incorporate ALL of it's R&D costs (every part of Windows OS) into the final retail cost of the OS? These corporations are here to make money dude. A lot of money.
And my reasoning? You mean that anybody who wants to use PhysX can license it? What's wrong with that? How is that closed? Nvidia has just finished saying that ATI could license PhysX if they wanted to. There is no stopping them.

(...)

Actually, that has given me a new question.

"What has nVidia added to PhysX since its introduction to the PC market?". Just to explain what I mean - every new version of DirectX brings something new to the table. Did PhysX add new features since it was developed by Aegia?

For me it looks like nVidia's only cost has been making it run on their hardware using CUDA. I'm sure it's a substantial cost, don't get me wrong, but shouldn't that be included in the price of the card? Also, does Intel or AMD pay a license for allowing their CPUs to run PhysX (regardless of its performance)?

If AMD would license PhysX, would they get drivers running on their hardware from nVidia? Or just the permission to develop a PhysX-enabled driver? Surely you can see those two are clearly distinct and mean drastic difference in licensing costs?

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: BFG10K


They [Nvidia] told us they?ve dropped support for the PPU and GPU PhysX when ATi cards are detected, and have no plans to re-allow it, yet they continue to tell us that PhysX is an open standard.

Sorry, Keys, but you really have no answer for this; however, if you persist in trying to find one, your integrity and objectivity will be called into question.

 

[Keysplayr]

"Why should I split it (honest question)? Is this thread not about discussing the answers nVidia gave us?

They told us they?ve dropped support for the PPU and GPU PhysX when ATi cards are detected, and have no plans to re-allow it, yet they continue to tell us that PhysX is an open standard."

And yet anyone can license it and use it if they so desire. So shall we meet in the middle of the road and say that it's closed if not licensed? Open when licensed?

Maybe it can't be classified as totally open or totally closed? Somewhere in the middle? Or is it just on or off?

I personally don't think so. If it's not totally closed, and usable by others, it's not closed.

Closed, to me, means that nobody else can touch it. Ever. No licensing available.
But that's just me.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
"Why should I split it (honest question)? Is this thread not about discussing the answers nVidia gave us?

They told us they?ve dropped support for the PPU and GPU PhysX when ATi cards are detected, and have no plans to re-allow it, yet they continue to tell us that PhysX is an open standard."

And yet anyone can license it and use it if they so desire. So shall we meet in the middle of the road and say that it's closed if not licensed? Open when licensed?

Maybe it can't be classified as totally open or totally closed? Somewhere in the middle? Or is it just on or off?

I personally don't think so. If it's not totally closed, and usable by others, it's not closed.

Closed, to me, means that nobody else can touch it. Ever. No licensing available.
But that's just me.

So if I bought a Nvidia card to handle Physx and use an ATI product as my main card, is it open or closed?

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Qbah

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
(...)
Everything costs money. The licensing costs for all of these things you mentioned are collected, somewhere at some stage. Whether or not something is directly paid for or not is not always obvious. Mosts costs are incorporated into the purchase prices. Like when MS sells an operating system. The R&D that went into DX development is paid for by selling the OS. OpenGL, USB, SATA, PCIe are just serve to dilute and confuse this discussion. Can we not go of on infinite tangents and keep this simple? DX and PhysX open or not open. Why not?

By your reasoning anything that costs money isn?t an open standard, and that?s clearly false. That?s not what we?re talking about when we refer to open standards.

Anything that costs a corporation money, has to be recovered, else that corporation will fail. Just because you don't see a physical contract between devs and MS for a DX license, doesn't mean MS isn't getting paid for it's R&D on DX. I've explained how that is. Do you acknowledge that? Do you argue that MS does not incorporate ALL of it's R&D costs (every part of Windows OS) into the final retail cost of the OS? These corporations are here to make money dude. A lot of money.
And my reasoning? You mean that anybody who wants to use PhysX can license it? What's wrong with that? How is that closed? Nvidia has just finished saying that ATI could license PhysX if they wanted to. There is no stopping them.

(...)

Actually, that has given me a new question.

"What has nVidia added to PhysX since its introduction to the PC market?". Just to explain what I mean - every new version of DirectX brings something new to the table. Did PhysX add new features since it was developed by Aegia?

For me it looks like nVidia's only cost has been making it run on their hardware using CUDA. I'm sure it's a substantial cost, don't get me wrong, but shouldn't that be included in the price of the card? Also, does Intel or AMD pay a license for allowing their CPUs to run PhysX (regardless of its performance)?

If AMD would license PhysX, would they get drivers running on their hardware from nVidia? Or just the permission to develop a PhysX-enabled driver? Surely you can see those two are clearly distinct and mean drastic difference in licensing costs?

It would seem that every new PhysX title progresses a bit more than the one before it. Compare Mirrors Edge to Batman: AA. More content like reactive smoke/mist is new. I think as devs progress, we will see more and more exploited abilities of running PhysX on GPUs. As anything else, progress is inevitable.

What do you think it costs Nvidia to work with devs to produce these PhysX titles? It's not free for Nvidia. It costs time and resources. And the licensing is probably just for running PhysX on GPUs. Not sure about that, but it seems logical.

I think if AMD licensed PhysX from NV, it would be AMD's responsibility to get it to run on their own hardware. There would be assistance by NV of course, but I'm not so sure how deep into AMD's intellectual property AMD would want Nvidia privy to. After all, who knows AMD's own hardware better than AMD? I'm certain Nvidia would give all their SDK's to AMD as part of the license agreement. Along with any other tools needed.

But I really can't speak for the corporate end of this. I don't know what would be involved and what transpires. It would be old hat though for AMD and Nvidia who are probably quite used to cross licensing practices.

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Everything costs money. The licensing costs for all of these things you mentioned are collected, somewhere at some stage. Whether or not something is directly paid for or not is not always obvious. Mosts costs are incorporated into the purchase prices. Like when MS sells an operating system. The R&D that went into DX development is paid for by selling the OS. OpenGL, USB, SATA, PCIe are just serve to dilute and confuse this discussion. Can we not go of on infinite tangents and keep this simple? DX and PhysX open or not open. Why not?

You brought up the issue of cost, and now you want to dodge the issue and pretend it was me that brought it up, and that it?s irrelevant? That tactic is what?s known as a strawman argument, my friend.

Again, you stated PhysX is somehow as open as DirectX because Windows costs money. Using that same reasoning, the only thing that can be called an open standard is something that?s completely free. The Glide API was free. So was Rredline. Does that make them open standards? Are you going to claim Glide was an open standard, but DirectX isn?t?

Two completely unrelated topics in the same two sentences. You don't know WHAT input is given in either case. So what if IHV's build the devices? Licensing fees are still paid via the OS sale.

How are they unrelated? nVidia builds the SDK, the hardware that runs it, and controls the licensing. Microsoft only builds the SDK, but has no control over the hardware that runs it because there are no licensing fees. That?s a big difference.

Any IHV can implement DirectX without licensing or restriction from Microsoft. Does the same apply to PhysX?

You keep going in this circle. So I have to follow you around the merry go round. Licensing fees are transparent for DX. They are collected through the sale of the OS. OMFG broken record. LOL.

Okay, let?s try it another way.

When I use PhysX, I have to buy the platform (OS & hardware), and my vendor has to pay for a PhysX license.

When I use DirectX, I only have to buy the platform.

Furthermore, if I use Linux/BSD then I don?t even need to buy Windows, so Microsoft doesn?t get any of my money.

Tell me, how do I get GPU accelerated PhysX without buying an nVidia card, and without my vendor paying nVidia licensing for it? Because I can do that with DirectX.

Call PhysX what you want. Open, closed, proprietary. It doesn't matter. What "does" matter is it is licensable. To AMD, to Intel, to Shirley Temple.

It matters a lot because you run into the situation we have now where nVidia GPUs/PPUs are being artificially disabled because it no longer suits the company you purchased them from to give you PhysX, something you?ve already paid for in the first place.

Tell me, if I?ve paid for a PhysX license by buying a PPU, how on Earth can it be justifiably disabled now because I have an ATi card in the system? The PPU is a discrete AIB whose sole purpose of existence is to provide hardware agnostic hardware acceleration of PhysX on Windows.

Again, Microsoft can?t and would never do something like this, and that?s the big difference between open and proprietary. The actions we?re seeing from nVidia are more than just semantic arguments over the definition of ?standard?.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: BFG10K


They [Nvidia] told us they?ve dropped support for the PPU and GPU PhysX when ATi cards are detected, and have no plans to re-allow it, yet they continue to tell us that PhysX is an open standard.

Sorry, Keys, but you really have no answer for this; however, if you persist in trying to find one, your integrity and objectivity will be called into question.

If it is your mission to enable my integrity and objectivity to be called into question, have at it. I'm quite used to it and it really doesn't have any weight on my opinions.
So, knock yourself out. :thumbsup:

And to the point, I don't see it becoming any clearer. If AMD wanted to license PhysX, it can. There is nothing, repeat, nothing stopping AMD from doing as such except themselves.
Do you understand this? Doesn't matter what their reasoning is for NOT doing it. They can if they "want" to. But they don't "want" to. And that is pretty clearly their choice.

PhysX is NOT closed to them if they opt to license it. So, that is my answer. Whether or not you accept it is totally up to you. My statements are 100% truthful and accurate. If you think that calls my objectivity and integrity into question, I'd like to know how.

Ball in your court. Have fun.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
"Why should I split it (honest question)? Is this thread not about discussing the answers nVidia gave us?

They told us they?ve dropped support for the PPU and GPU PhysX when ATi cards are detected, and have no plans to re-allow it, yet they continue to tell us that PhysX is an open standard."

And yet anyone can license it and use it if they so desire. So shall we meet in the middle of the road and say that it's closed if not licensed? Open when licensed?

Maybe it can't be classified as totally open or totally closed? Somewhere in the middle? Or is it just on or off?

I personally don't think so. If it's not totally closed, and usable by others, it's not closed.

Closed, to me, means that nobody else can touch it. Ever. No licensing available.
But that's just me.

So if I bought a Nvidia card to handle Physx and use an ATI product as my main card, is it open or closed?

Totally blocked. Short of the hack. But that doesn't make PhysX closed. AMD has the option to license it and use it. But won't. So who really makes PhysX closed to their users?
I'm sorry dude, but as long as PhysX is licensable, it aint closed.

 

[Idontcare]

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.

I don't understand what it is about the part of my post you quoted which you are disagreeing with.

Are you saying you believe DirectX IS an open standard?

If this were true then it should be easily provable by any number of links to Microsoft stating it as such, I searched before making my post and could not find any such "open standard" statements from Microsoft. Can you link to them please?

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: BFG10K


They [Nvidia] told us they?ve dropped support for the PPU and GPU PhysX when ATi cards are detected, and have no plans to re-allow it, yet they continue to tell us that PhysX is an open standard.

Sorry, Keys, but you really have no answer for this; however, if you persist in trying to find one, your integrity and objectivity will be called into question.

If it is your mission to enable my integrity and objectivity to be called into question, have at it. I'm quite used to it and it really doesn't have any weight on my opinions.
So, knock yourself out. :thumbsup:

And to the point, I don't see it becoming any clearer. If AMD wanted to license PhysX, it can. There is nothing, repeat, nothing stopping AMD from doing as such except themselves.
Do you understand this? Doesn't matter what their reasoning is for NOT doing it. They can if they "want" to. But they don't "want" to. And that is pretty clearly their choice.

PhysX is NOT closed to them if they opt to license it. So, that is my answer. Whether or not you accept it is totally up to you. My statements are 100% truthful and accurate. If you think that calls my objectivity and integrity into question, I'd like to know how.

Ball in your court. Have fun.

I have no mission to call your integrity or objectivity into question.

I think you fail to consider those customers who own an ATI card and who bought a Nvidia card to handle PhysX prior to the lock out. I think that this is not a direction that we as customers want the industry to take. I do not want pc gaming to become a question of which video card manufacturer speaks to the developer first or pays the developer more in order to have the competitor's product handicapped. I think that by justifying Nividia's recent moves you are lending support to a situation wherein the customer and the industry as a whole will suffer. Moreover, I think that you are aware of this.

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Totally blocked. Short of the hack. But that doesn't make PhysX closed. AMD has the option to license it and use it.

Why should AMD license anything when the user is trying to run PhysX on the nVidia card they?ve already paid for to get PhysX in the first place? Why should AMD license anything for a PPU to work?

Should my sound card stop working until nVidia pays a fee to Creative?
Should my HD stop working until Western Digital pays Gigabyte a fee?
Should my PSU stop working until Thermaltake pays my local electrical company a fee?

It?s like attaching a trailer to your car, but the car won?t start until the trailer maker pays the car maker a fee. I?ve already purchased a car, and the trailer has absolutely nothing with it functioning or not.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Totally blocked. Short of the hack. But that doesn't make PhysX closed. AMD has the option to license it and use it.

Why should AMD license anything when the user is trying to run PhysX on the nVidia card they?ve already paid for to get PhysX in the first place? Why should AMD license anything for a PPU to work?

Should my sound card stop working until nVidia pays a fee to Creative?
Should my HD stop working until Western Digital pays Gigabyte a fee?
Should my PSU stop working until Thermaltake pays my local electrical company a fee?

It?s like attaching a trailer to your car, but the car won?t start until the trailer maker pays the car maker a fee. I?ve already purchased a car, and the trailer has absolutely nothing with it functioning or not.

Exactly, if PhysX runs on Nvidia products, it should run on Nvidia products irrespective of whether or not an ATI card is installed in the system.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Furthermore, Microsoft imposes absolutely no licensing or control over a new IHV entering the market and trying to compete in DirectX space. DirectX is an open standard on Windows

So someone serving a life sentence is free in their jail cell? Is that honestly your stance?

Hardware accelerated DirectX runs on Windows, XBox and Linux/BSD. It also runs on multiple vendors like nVidia, ATi, S3, Matrox, and similar.

Furthermore, the DirectX reference rasterizer runs on the CPU.

When will MS allow Sony, Nintendo and Apple to license DirectX? nVidia allows them all to, and offered ATi the same. PhysX runs on both the Wii and the 360, and neither of them have any nV hardware at all. As a software platform, PhysX has a substantial edge in terms of gaming systems that can run it currently being used.

Any IHV can implement DirectX without licensing or restriction from Microsoft.

That is a flat out no way around it lie. Sony, Nintendo and Apple are not allowed to license DirectX. You have to make sure to stack up your conditionals before you say something like that, DirectX requires a very draconian requirement in order to be able to use it. PhysX does not.

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

That is a flat out no way around it lie. Sony, Nintendo and Apple are not allowed to license DirectX. You have to make sure to stack up your conditionals before you say something like that, DirectX requires a very draconian requirement in order to be able to use it. PhysX does not.

What are you talking about? Any of those vendors are free to build a video card with a DirectX driver, and they?ll receive hardware acceleration without restriction or license requirement from Microsoft.

You can?t do that with PhysX, and that?s my point. That?s what makes one an open standard while the other isn?t.

 

[Blazer7]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

?....The solution is for DirectX to implement hardware accelerated physics......

+1 :thumbsup:

Originally posted by: Qbah

If AMD would license PhysX........

Why would AMD license PhysX? When nV first introduced PhysX there was no problem with ATi cards, nV didn't asked for royalties and everything was working fine for the end user. Afterwards nV decided to block Physx for ATi users and we finally got down to royalties.

What do you think the guys at AMD think of this?

nV is their arch-rivals, they have full control over PhysX, they have already used their muscle once, what will they do next? I believe that this is more than a good motive for AMD to keep away from anything that nV has full control of.

However physics is the future for any manufacturer that wants to stay in this market and since AMD doesn't own PhysX nor Havoc, the only thing that can really ?save? them is as BFG mentioned, implementation of HW accelerated physics in DX. In case that this doesn't happen and AMD is cornered and have no choice but to support either PhysX or Havoc, Havoc would seem as the best choice. intel's market share alone is probably enough to make Havoc the dominate physics std and since intel can't compete in the discrete card market with AMD (at the moment) this is a no brainer. So don't hold your breath expecting AMD to ask nV for a license.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Totally blocked. Short of the hack. But that doesn't make PhysX closed. AMD has the option to license it and use it.

Why should AMD license anything when the user is trying to run PhysX on the nVidia card they?ve already paid for to get PhysX in the first place? Why should AMD license anything for a PPU to work?

Should my sound card stop working until nVidia pays a fee to Creative?
Should my HD stop working until Western Digital pays Gigabyte a fee?
Should my PSU stop working until Thermaltake pays my local electrical company a fee?

It?s like attaching a trailer to your car, but the car won?t start until the trailer maker pays the car maker a fee. I?ve already purchased a car, and the trailer has absolutely nothing with it functioning or not.

But you have to "pay" for a trailer hitch in order to be able to tow a trailer in the first place. Very rarely does a car come with a trailer hitch as a standard option. Trucks do sometimes, and SUV's, but you still have to pay for the option. "Tow package" comes to mind. I just bought a Ford Escape last year and it had a light tow package which costs extra. Everything costs somebody some money, somewhere, someway, somehow. NO getting around it.