Answers from Nvidia for top 5 this week.

[BenSkywalker]

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.

They are free to make a device that is designed to run a MS OS or they won't get a license. PhysX runs on systems not using anything nVidia other then PhysX. That is a profound difference. This is why PhysX is a more open gaming standard then DirectX. Step outside of the narrow realm of MS dictated gaming and you'll see there is a much, much larger market.

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.

DirectX is likely the least open standard available today for gaming in terms of the major players.

Why would AMD license PhysX?

They are the last hold out. Nintendo, Sony, MS, nVidia- only one of the major players in gaming hardware has no support for PhysX. Take Dragon's Age as an example. It is a game that is using PhysX on every platform it is releasing for- PS3, 360 and the PC. One company involved in those platforms doesn't offer some level of support, ATi. Who does that really hurt?

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.

While that would be great for PC exclusives, it doesn't help with the actual gaming market. Reality is right now most titles are ports, this isn't going to change anytime soon. So let's say CoD6 decides they need a physics API. They are going to sell ~6 Million copies each on the PS3 and 360 and ~3 Million copies on the PC. What physics standard are they going to use? The one that runs for 13.5 million copies of the game, or the one that only runs on 3 million(new additions to DX won't run on the 360)?

You can try and be as idealistic as you'd like, but that is exactly the type of situation that developers are looking at right now. Honestly, for the broader gaming market Havok is easily superior to a potential DX physics solution on a market basis as it runs on far more hardware. DX is simply too proprietary and closed to make real inroads in the actual gaming market. Sure, for PC exclusive offerings a DX native physics solution would be ideal, it would allow developers to leverage GPU power in a way that the consoles would have trouble with. Problem with that is twofold, the big one is they didn't do it with DX11, second which is caused by the first is more then likely by the time they do get it done the next gen will be right around the corner and end up wiping out any potential they could have built up(why swap development to this newly released standard that I'm going to have to replace in six months when the next gen SDKs come out).

 

[Qbah]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

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.

They are free to make a device that is designed to run a MS OS or they won't get a license. PhysX runs on systems not using anything nVidia other then PhysX. That is a profound difference. This is why PhysX is a more open gaming standard then DirectX. Step outside of the narrow realm of MS dictated gaming and you'll see there is a much, much larger market.

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.

DirectX is likely the least open standard available today for gaming in terms of the major players.

And that has exactly how much to do with video cards for the PC? Zero. How is that in any way relevant? Gaming can be found on many platforms. We're talking about PC now. So we're talking about Windows. PhysX is a non-issue everywhere else, as everything else is a complete platform. Something that DirectX tries to be (and is) for the PC. Something that PhysX for the PC tries to unbalance.

Why would AMD license PhysX?

They are the last hold out. Nintendo, Sony, MS, nVidia- only one of the major players in gaming hardware has no support for PhysX. Take Dragon's Age as an example. It is a game that is using PhysX on every platform it is releasing for- PS3, 360 and the PC. One company involved in those platforms doesn't offer some level of support, ATi. Who does that really hurt?

The difference being it's not nVidia that's making the standards for the PC, it's Microsoft (via DirectX). nVidia is trying to push PhysX on the PC - gaming on the PC is governed by Windows and Microsoft, not nVidia.

Xbox360, PS3, Wii - those are platforms. So is Windows with DirectX. PhysX is not part of the Windows platform (it's not part of DirectX), it's an additional feature created by a 3rd party developer. And artificially blocked from the competition.

As for DAO, it's running the version that will run fine on a CPU ("software" PhysX). It can also be run on the GPUs that support it, but it will run fine on the CPU. Luckily Bioware isn't alienating a lot of the market by utilizing GPU PhysX - they're building a game for Microsoft Windows (as a platform, amongst other platforms) and not nVidia cards.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: Qbah

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

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.

They are free to make a device that is designed to run a MS OS or they won't get a license. PhysX runs on systems not using anything nVidia other then PhysX. That is a profound difference. This is why PhysX is a more open gaming standard then DirectX. Step outside of the narrow realm of MS dictated gaming and you'll see there is a much, much larger market.

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.

DirectX is likely the least open standard available today for gaming in terms of the major players.

And that has exactly how much to do with video cards for the PC? Zero. How is that in any way relevant? Gaming can be found on many platforms. We're talking about PC now. So we're talking about Windows. PhysX is a non-issue everywhere else, as everything else is a complete platform. Something that DirectX tries to be (and is) for the PC. Something that PhysX for the PC tries to unbalance.

Why would AMD license PhysX?

They are the last hold out. Nintendo, Sony, MS, nVidia- only one of the major players in gaming hardware has no support for PhysX. Take Dragon's Age as an example. It is a game that is using PhysX on every platform it is releasing for- PS3, 360 and the PC. One company involved in those platforms doesn't offer some level of support, ATi. Who does that really hurt?

The difference being it's not nVidia that's making the standards for the PC, it's Microsoft (via DirectX). nVidia is trying to push PhysX on the PC - gaming on the PC is governed by Windows and Microsoft, not nVidia.

Xbox360, PS3, Wii - those are platforms. So is Windows with DirectX. PhysX is not part of the Windows platform (it's not part of DirectX), it's an additional feature created by a 3rd party developer. And artificially blocked from the competition.

As for DAO, it's running the version that will run fine on a CPU ("software" PhysX). It can also be run on the GPUs that support it, but it will run fine on the CPU. Luckily Bioware isn't alienating a lot of the market by utilizing GPU PhysX - they're building a game for Microsoft Windows (as a platform, amongst other platforms) and not nVidia cards.

Bingo!

 

[BenSkywalker]

And that has exactly how much to do with video cards for the PC? Zero. How is that in any way relevant? Gaming can be found on many platforms. We're talking about PC now.

List off the top 20 games that came out this year for the PC that weren't ports. I know you can easily post 20, it's the quality of titles on that list that will be interesting. You honestly want to deny the staggering impact that actual gaming market has on what we see on PCs?

The difference being it's not nVidia that's making the standards for the PC, it's Microsoft (via DirectX). nVidia is trying to push PhysX on the PC - gaming on the PC is governed by Windows and Microsoft, not nVidia.

MS is doing such a good job governing it too, aren't they? Look at their own best selling games of the last few years, GoW2, Halo3, Halo ODST and how well they sold on the PC, oh wait, that's right, MS never released them on the PC. Must be that dedication they have to the platform.

Xbox360, PS3, Wii - those are platforms. So is Windows with DirectX. PhysX is not part of the Windows platform (it's not part of DirectX), it's an additional feature created by a 3rd party developer. And artificially blocked from the competition.

One company does not license it, the rest do.

As for DAO, it's running the version that will run fine on a CPU ("software" PhysX). It can also be run on the GPUs that support it, but it will run fine on the CPU. Luckily Bioware isn't alienating a lot of the market by utilizing GPU PhysX - they're building a game for Microsoft Windows (as a platform, amongst other platforms) and not nVidia cards.

You are absolutely right about its' performance, it will run fine on the CPU. This is the point, PhysX is a flexible standard that runs across all the platforms. DirectX is not. You are being a bit dishonest with yourself if you think Bioware is devoting their development to releasing a game for Windows. The PC release was delayed by about half a year for the benefit of the consoles. Bioware will wisely screw over the PC market in an instant if they fear the console market will be upset, that is simply smart business. Blizzard is the last player in the industry that has demonstrated they are dedicated to the PC space.

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: 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.

The Sega Dreamcast licensed Microsoft APIs (and may have even run DirectX under WindowsCE). Microsoft was at least open to it at one point, and may still be if the other companies were interested.
In the same way, there's no guarantee that nvidia wouldn't change the terms of the Physx licensing agreement later to lock ATI out. Nvidia has a serious conflict of interest in producing Physx, the same that Intel and AMD have serious conflicts of interest in licensing chipset development to nvidia because they produce their own. (though since AMD does not own hypertransport, nvidia probably could still legally produce chipsets for amd)

You are absolutely right about its' performance, it will run fine on the CPU. This is the point, PhysX is a flexible standard that runs across all the platforms. DirectX is not. You are being a bit dishonest with yourself if you think Bioware is devoting their development to releasing a game for Windows.

It doesn't run 'fine' on the cpu, as physx does not support quad core cpus. Right now, gpu accelerated physx is still in an infantile stage, and if nvidia wants it to take off, they either need it to work on ati systems in some way (even if it's using a secondary nvidia card), or take advantage of quad core (and greater) cpus so performance isn't abysmal without an nvidia gpu.

And this thread is getting so side tracked.

 

[Blazer7]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

Why would AMD license PhysX?

They are the last hold out. Nintendo, Sony, MS, nVidia- only one of the major players in gaming hardware has no support for PhysX. Take Dragon's Age as an example. It is a game that is using PhysX on every platform it is releasing for- PS3, 360 and the PC. One company involved in those platforms doesn't offer some level of support, ATi. Who does that really hurt?

Originally posted by: Qbah

As for DAO, it's running the version that will run fine on a CPU ("software" PhysX). It can also be run on the GPUs that support it, but it will run fine on the CPU. Luckily Bioware isn't alienating a lot of the market by utilizing GPU PhysX - they're building a game for Microsoft Windows (as a platform, amongst other platforms) and not nVidia cards.

DAO uses PhysX but only for arrow flight and collision and if there's no dedicated PhysX HW it will run on the CPU. Expect the differences in quality/performance to range from negligible to none.

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: nOOky
Me too. Does anyone from nvidia ever peruse forums like this and give credence to any of our complaints or concerns? I ask because it's a popular enthusiast site. When reviewing newegg's user reviews for example, manufacturers have started to respond now to individual concerns. I would think marketing/development/driver teams would use some of the info here for improvement.

that's why wreckage is here.

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

They are free to make a device that is designed to run a MS OS or they won't get a license.

There?s a DirectX implementation on Linux/BSD. Sure, Microsoft might not allow WGA for their programs (e.g. Office) on it, but that in no way stops anyone getting hardware accelerated DirectX on non-MS platforms.

Step outside of the narrow realm of MS dictated gaming and you'll see there is a much, much larger market.

Narrow? Windows runs on what, 90% of the world?s computers? That?s likely a far bigger unit count than all of the current consoles combined.

~77 million PCs shipped in Q3 2008 alone:
http://www.isuppli.com/News/Pa...-First-Time-in-Q3.aspx.

52.62 million for the Wii as of June 09.
30.2 million for XBox 360 as of April 2009
24.6 million for PS 3 as of August 09.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...-selling_game_consoles

So 107.42 million units in total, but let?s be generous and say 150 million in total. The PC beats that in just two quarters.

Granted, not everyone plays games on the PC, but the potential market size is vastly bigger than the current consoles combined.

DirectX is likely the least open standard available today for gaming in terms of the major players.

I can?t agree there given the sheer count of systems that use it.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

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

Wine can only run DirectX if you have windows installed on another partition. Of course I already linked to you how Windows is blocking it.

It can't run DX10 or 11 at all.

DirectX 10 is proprietary and will only work with a Microsoft Operating System.

OK, I know you are just intentionally spreading misinformation in order to push you own agenda. But it's just too easy to prove you wrong. I will give you credit for following AMDs marketing scheme to the letter.

PhysX is more open than DirectX -
It runs on more operating systems and hardware than DirectX. <-These are what we call facts.

Wow the zoners are trying hard to spread FUD here.

I can?t agree there given the sheer count of systems that use it.

So because more people use Communism, it's the most open form of Government. That's essentially what you are saying.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: Wreckage
So because more people use Communism, it's the most open form of Government. That's essentially what you are saying.

Jesus, I didn't know that BFG was a red, that changes everything, thank you for exposing him Mr McCarthy.

 

[v8envy]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Wine can only run DirectX if you have windows installed on another partition. Of course I already linked to you how Windows is blocking it.

The native DirectX APIs are not required. There definitely no need for a windows partition. If you have a Windows license you have the option of downloading and installing the microsoft implementation of DirectX runtime under Wine, but this is not required for many current games. In fact, installing microsoft DirectX under today's Wine can break you about as much as it helps.

The DX10 API implementation is maturing at a pretty good clip and should be usable by the time DX11 becomes mainstream. Wine's DX10 implementation is the basis of the original DX10 on XP hacks.

You know how I know this? Because I run Windows games under Linux on a hard drive that's completely Windows free.

 

[TheMeanestGuest]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

OK, I know you are just intentionally spreading misinformation in order to push you own agenda.

I found this amusing.

Anyways, regardless of any merits GPU accelerated PhysX may in fact possess or not possess, I am doubtful of it becoming any sort of de facto standard.

It may be around, and potentially be an option if NV decides to continue support in the next couple years. I merely have a feeling that something else will supplant it.

 

[bryanW1995]

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:

ROTFLMAO

wreckage, you are GREAT!!!

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: 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.

try superbiiz/zzf. they have had stock since day one, check out hotdeals forum. in fact, they had a 5850 for $244 shipped 2 days ago. I checked 24 hrs later and it was still there, too.

Just because newegg is OOS doesn't mean that there are no cards available.

 

[MagickMan]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995

try superbiiz/zzf. they have had stock since day one, check out hotdeals forum. in fact, they had a 5850 for $244 shipped 2 days ago. I checked 24 hrs later and it was still there, too.

Just because newegg is OOS doesn't mean that there are no cards available.

You missed my next post where I showed that they were indeed out of stock. I checked for 58x0s last week, they were all out. I checked again 2 days later, same thing. I checked last night, same. Just now, same.

So, because I can play whack-a-mole and maybe find a card that's selling for well over MSRP that's good? Now it's too late, I'm irritated over the whole thing, and I'm going to wait to see what Fermi has to offer.

 

[jrphoenix]

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.

DirectX is likely the least open standard available today for gaming in terms of the major players.



What does this mean?? I don't think I am the only one that realizes that 99.999% of PC gaming is done on the Windows OS. Least open standard for gaming for major players? Who are the major players? Most that coded for Open GL have moved to direct X because of a better feature set and no cost to the programmers that I know of???? Is this wrong?

What major palyers are you refering to?

 

[MagickMan]

Originally posted by: 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.

Says you. Personally, I believe they could have. People who care about bleeding edge GPUs that have brand new features are a very tiny segment of the market.

 

[ZimZum]

Originally posted by: MagickMan

Originally posted by: 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.

Says you. Personally, I believe they could have. People who care about bleeding edge GPUs that have brand new features are a very tiny segment of the market.

This is completely ignoring the OEM market which is HUGE. Dell could buy ATI's entire supply run and thats just Dell. With Windows 7 launch plus it being this close to Christmas the demand is simply going to outstrip the supply. I dont see how this problem could be avoided, ATI/NV aren't Intel. They don't have 15 silicon wafer fabrication facilities at their disposal.

 

[Blazer7]

Originally posted by: MagickMan

Originally posted by: 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.

Says you. Personally, I believe they could have. People who care about bleeding edge GPUs that have brand new features are a very tiny segment of the market.

So you believe that a company with a 3rd of the high-end/enthusiast market should be in a position to provide an abundance of cards to meet the demand of the entire high-end/enthusiast market at launch even tho this is a brand new tech in a new process? Is that it?


*** edit ***

Have you checked with Fry's? As I've already mentioned before I believe they still have some 58x0 cards in stock.

 

[AnandThenMan]

Originally posted by: MagickMan

People who care about bleeding edge GPUs that have brand new features are a very tiny segment of the market.

Then what the hell are you moaning about? The 57xx cards are plentiful, available everywhere. So what is the problem? You bitch and complain about AMD's supposed failures, then say the top end is only 1% of the market, then complain that this 1% is not available and AMD has again failed.

Like I said, you make no sense at all, and are only here to complain and pour cold water on anything that doesn't fit your narrow idea of how things should be. And yea go ahead and wait for Fermi while the rest of the gaming world enjoys their new hardware.

 

[MagickMan]

Originally posted by: AnandThenMan

Originally posted by: MagickMan

People who care about bleeding edge GPUs that have brand new features are a very tiny segment of the market.

Then what the hell are you moaning about? The 57xx cards are plentiful, available everywhere. So what is the problem? You bitch and complain about AMD's supposed failures, then say the top end is only 1% of the market, then complain that this 1% is not available and AMD has again failed.

Like I said, you make no sense at all, and are only here to complain and pour cold water on anything that doesn't fit your narrow idea of how things should be. And yea go ahead and wait for Fermi while the rest of the gaming world enjoys their new hardware.

Need a tissue? Stop trying to be insulting and just have a conversation. I'm making perfect sense, you're just being purposely obtuse.

They have failed at supply for such a, comparatively, tiny launch. Care to comment on that in a rational way?

 

[MagickMan]

Originally posted by: Blazer7

Originally posted by: MagickMan

Originally posted by: 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.

Says you. Personally, I believe they could have. People who care about bleeding edge GPUs that have brand new features are a very tiny segment of the market.

So you believe that a company with a 3rd of the high-end/enthusiast market should be in a position to provide an abundance of cards to meet the demand of the entire high-end/enthusiast market at launch even tho this is a brand new tech in a new process? Is that it?


*** edit ***

Have you checked with Fry's? As I've already mentioned before I believe they still have some 58x0 cards in stock.

Yes, I believe they could have done a much better job than they have.

I don't have a local Fry's and they have none online.

 

[Blazer7]

Originally posted by: MagickMan

Yes, I believe they could have done a much better job than they have.

ok, so they should have had enough cards to meet the demand of the entire market at launch. That makes sense.

I don't have a local Fry's and they have none online.

Lucky you.

 

[MagickMan]

Originally posted by: Blazer7

Originally posted by: MagickMan

Yes, I believe they could have done a much better job than they have.

ok, so they should have had enough cards to meet the demand of the entire market at launch. That makes sense.

I don't have a local Fry's and they have none online.

Lucky you.

I'm not the only person irritated over this, have you checked out the other comments on this forum? AMD wanted to get "something" out so they could trump NV, but they failed at providing anywhere close to the amount needed to supply the small number of online sites whom they selected to sell the initial offerings. They jumped the gun and are now aggravating the people whom they hoped to attract to their premium line. That's not especially good.

Waiting a little while would have improved supplier stocks AND allowed them to perhaps implement Eyefinity over CF. Blah, they could have done better.

 

[Blazer7]

I didn't say that you were the only one. What I did say was that that's kinda normal given the circumstances. A new high-end product on a new manufacturing process from one company only. Well, there's no way that under those circumstances the total of the market could be satisfied. You may be irritated because you can't get your hands on one but the fact is that even with the current conditions some cards are still out there waiting for a buyer.

Waiting would have improved stocks but even with a launch with twice the cards AMD would still fail to meet the demand.