Apoppin called it -Nvidia 3D displays at bestbuy

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

railven

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2010
6,604
561
126
But it's not the same thing. Physx is something extra that the competitors don't have. Nvidia takes it away if you don't follow their rules (I do think taking it away if Nvidia is not the primary card is wrong though). What extra is AMD providing with their platform that you couldn't get from Intel that they could take away? Everything they have is either intrinsic to the platform or would cripple it if you took it away.

Nvidia treats physx the way they do because they think it makes them more money. Do you really think that AMD wouldn't act exactly the same way if they could? I just don't think they have the leverage to do so.

That is exactly what I am trying to say.

AMD controls the platform in the sense that they make the CPU, the chipsets, and have a say in how all that works within their ecosystem. Just as nVidia does with PhysX/CUDA. AMD doesn't have to directly create the technologies working within the ecosystem to limit them as how it was said in another thread nVidia manipulates the PCIE standard to lockout SLI on non-paying vendor's products.

So, the idea is that AMD would handicap their own system (and I'm not saying that is the brightest idea, but it is just an example) only when a non-AMD GPU device is found. And it doesn't have to be a complete OMG I went from 100 FPS to 10FPS. It could be subtle enough that an nVidia card on an AMD system doesn't beat the AMD card by much if at all.

To the masses this may not even bother them if they already have an AMD board and thus will just buy an AMD GPU versus buying a whole new board, processor, just to switch GPUs. To the enthusiasts of course it will make up their buying decisions. But the enthusiasts aren't the leading buyers from everything I've read. And if AMD continues to offer this price/perf feature and even discounts bundles I can see more people leaning towards them for the savings.

Does that make any sense?
 

Seero

Golden Member
Nov 4, 2009
1,456
0
0
Seero, you're entirely missing the point.
Did i? The article was about Eyefinity, you came back with Batman.
So tell us, Seero. Which company do you think "locks" things to their hardware only and which one is "open"?
IMO, both companies are "locking" what is rightfully owned by them via different means. To you, a physical lock (referring to the hardware interface at the back of the card) means open, but a software lock means not open. Neither is "open" in anyways. Both have patients that they need to pay fees to each others.

I won't go around and say this straight. I don't like Richard. He is a smart person and he knows what he is talking about. However, the things he said were engineered to mislead readers. Now this thread isn't about my opinion to him, so I'll leave it here.

Let me share one of my story with you if you don't mind. My friend has an old laptop. It works fine, but the battery isn't, he come to me and ask:
friend : "Hey bro, those battery from manufacturer are too expensive, do you think I can get one cheaper from china?"
me : "Yes you can, in fact there are battery repair shop in hong kong and they can repair it for under 30 bucks USD."
friend : "hook me up bro."
me : "Sure, but don't put your laptop on your lap afterwards."
friend : "Why?"
me : "Because it may explode."
friend : "What?"
me : "I said, it may explode."
friend : "What?"
me : "Why are you so suprise? If you want to be safe, get it from its manufacturer."
friend : "Will it explode too?"
me : "less likely."
friend : "What if it does blow up?"
me : "You sue the manufacturer."
friend : "but I don't want to get injured."
me : "Then don't it on your lap."
 

Lonyo

Lifer
Aug 10, 2002
21,938
6
81
Edit: I could have expressed this more simply.
A software lock is one which prevents something from doing what it would otherwise be capable of doing if the lock wasn't in place.
A "hardware lock" is something which prevents a card from doing something because it lacks the capability to do it. It physically can't, therefore it's not a lock, it's a 'deficiency' in the hardware.


Did i? The article was about Eyefinity, you came back with Batman.

IMO, both companies are "locking" what is rightfully owned by them via different means. To you, a physical lock (referring to the hardware interface at the back of the card) means open, but a software lock means not open. Neither is "open" in anyways. Both have patients that they need to pay fees to each others.

I won't go around and say this straight. I don't like Richard. He is a smart person and he knows what he is talking about. However, the things he said were engineered to mislead readers. Now this thread isn't about my opinion to him, so I'll leave it here.

That's because a "physical lock" isn't a lock. ATI aren't preventing NV from supporting 3 outputs from one card, but nor can they add 3 outputs to an NV card, because that's not physically possible.
Your idea of a "lock" is stupid, it's like saying that older cards are "locked out" from running DX11. They aren't, they lack the hardware, that's not locking out, that's just not being capable.

A software lock prevents something from operating in a way which it normally should be able to. Code is unable to run because it gets disabled (locked out) when certain conditions are not met.
PhysX is software locked out because the hardware which can run it (A PPU or NV GPU) will not run it when an ATI graphics card is present. That's a software lock.

PhysX isn't locked out from ATI because NV decided that they would prevent the code running, it just can't run because it hasn't been coded to run on the hardware (the hardware is deficient in that sense, just like a DX10 GPU can't run DX11 code), but there is a software lock as mentioned where having capable hardware doesn't mean you can use it when an ATI card is present. You could argue that ATI could code a driver to run PhysX code on their GPU if it was allowed, and in this way there is another 'software lock', still not a hardware lock.

Equally 'Eyefinity' isn't locked from NV cards, it just can't physically run on them.
If there was a 'software lock' on Eyefinity, then Eyefinity modes in games (spanning non-standard resolutions when it has been added in specifically to support Eyefinity) would not be available when NV cards are detected, based on the software detecting this and locking the modes from use.
This isn't the case, if an NV card presents itself as displaying such a resolution, the resolution will work. Where the hardware is capable (such as in NV Surround) this open feature can then work on NV cards.

You seem to be confusing "hardware locking out" with "not being physically capable".
 
Last edited:

Gikaseixas

Platinum Member
Jul 1, 2004
2,836
218
106
That's because a "physical lock" isn't a lock. ATI aren't preventing NV from supporting 3 outputs from one card, but nor can they add 3 outputs to an NV card, because that's not physically possible.
Your idea of a "lock" is stupid, it's like saying that older cards are "locked out" from running DX11. They aren't, they lack the hardware, that's not locking out, that's just not being capable.

A software lock prevents something from operating in a way which it normally should be able to. Code is unable to run because it gets disabled (locked out) when certain conditions are not met.
PhysX is software locked out because the hardware which can run it (A PPU or NV GPU) will not run it when an ATI graphics card is present. That's a software lock.

PhysX isn't locked out from ATI because NV decided that they would prevent the code running, it just can't run because it hasn't been coded to run on the hardware (the hardware is deficient in that sense, just like a DX10 GPU can't run DX11 code), but there is a software lock as mentioned where having capable hardware doesn't mean you can use it when an ATI card is present. You could argue that ATI could code a driver to run PhysX code on their GPU if it was allowed, and in this way there is another 'software lock', still not a hardware lock.

Equally 'Eyefinity' isn't locked from NV cards, it just can't physically run on them.
If there was a 'software lock' on Eyefinity, then Eyefinity modes in games (spanning non-standard resolutions when it has been added in specifically to support Eyefinity) would not be available when NV cards are detected, based on the software detecting this and locking the modes from use.
This isn't the case, if an NV card presents itself as displaying such a resolution, the resolution will work. Where the hardware is capable (such as in NV Surround) this open feature can then work on NV cards.

You seem to be confusing "hardware locking out" with "not being physically capable".

+1
 

kevinsbane

Senior member
Jun 16, 2010
694
0
71
Let me get this straight...

Officially, PhysX works for all system setups, but only on the CPU. However, if there is an nvidia card present, it will run on the nvidia card. This will not work if there is an AMD gpu present.

Will the above work if there is an AMD gpu present, but not in use such as an integrated AMD gpu? From what I've heard, GPU physX will not run on that setup. Is this true?

Is this also true if there is an Intel GPU present? Ie, will GPU physX refuse to work if the user is running an i5 or i3 processor present, with the i5/i3 gpu either used or unused? Or Matrox?
 

golem

Senior member
Oct 6, 2000
838
3
76
Let me get this straight...

Officially, PhysX works for all system setups, but only on the CPU. However, if there is an nvidia card present, it will run on the nvidia card. This will not work if there is an AMD gpu present.

Will the above work if there is an AMD gpu present, but not in use such as an integrated AMD gpu? From what I've heard, GPU physX will not run on that setup. Is this true?

Is this also true if there is an Intel GPU present? Ie, will GPU physX refuse to work if the user is running an i5 or i3 processor present, with the i5/i3 gpu either used or unused? Or Matrox?

Not sure, but think it works if the Nvidia card is the primary card.
 

Teizo

Golden Member
Oct 28, 2010
1,271
31
91
Will the above work if there is an AMD gpu present, but not in use such as an integrated AMD gpu? From what I've heard, GPU physX will not run on that setup. Is this true?
As I posted before, I have an AMD mobo with the HD 4200 chipset, and GPU-Z reads my 460 as having PhysX enabled just fine. I don't have any PhysX games on my system, but PhysX is not being locked out.

If the AMD on board video driver was installed, maybe it would have potential conflicts, but running on board video along side a discrete gpu would be foolish anyway.
 

kevinsbane

Senior member
Jun 16, 2010
694
0
71
As I posted before, I have an AMD mobo with the HD 4200 chipset, and GPU-Z reads my 460 as having PhysX enabled just fine. I don't have any PhysX games on my system, but PhysX is not being locked out.

If the AMD on board video driver was installed, maybe it would have potential conflicts, but running on board video along side a discrete gpu would be foolish anyway.

Hm...

Google isn't helping much either...

http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=169839

Seems to say that even though it says PhysX is enabled, it doesn't actually offload PhysX to an Nvidia gpu.

http://www.evga.com/forums/tm.aspx?m=352911&mpage=1

That would seem to say that it SHOULD work... but no one there actually tested it...?

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia-physx-ati-gpu-disable,8742.html

Seems to say it won't work... but no tests, again.

Anyone with an i3/i5 processor (or older core 2 with integrated graphics) actually running PhysX care to comment?
 

golem

Senior member
Oct 6, 2000
838
3
76
That is exactly what I am trying to say.

AMD controls the platform in the sense that they make the CPU, the chipsets, and have a say in how all that works within their ecosystem. Just as nVidia does with PhysX/CUDA. AMD doesn't have to directly create the technologies working within the ecosystem to limit them as how it was said in another thread nVidia manipulates the PCIE standard to lockout SLI on non-paying vendor's products.

So, the idea is that AMD would handicap their own system (and I'm not saying that is the brightest idea, but it is just an example) only when a non-AMD GPU device is found. And it doesn't have to be a complete OMG I went from 100 FPS to 10FPS. It could be subtle enough that an nVidia card on an AMD system doesn't beat the AMD card by much if at all.

To the masses this may not even bother them if they already have an AMD board and thus will just buy an AMD GPU versus buying a whole new board, processor, just to switch GPUs. To the enthusiasts of course it will make up their buying decisions. But the enthusiasts aren't the leading buyers from everything I've read. And if AMD continues to offer this price/perf feature and even discounts bundles I can see more people leaning towards them for the savings.

Does that make any sense?

But the scenerio you're describing isn't the same thing as nvidia and physx. Physx is a enhancement that Nvidia takes away if it senses that an Nvidia GPU isn't the primary. You're describing taking away performance if an Nvidia GPU is used. I don't think this could fly legally if done out in the open, and it's a invitation to lawsuits if done on the sly, cuz sooner or later, it will be revealed.

But even if they could somehow do this, it might not work in the end anyway. Customers would just buy an intel system that works with both AMD and Nvidia CPUs. AMD just doesn't have the clout/marketshare to make something like this work.
 

Seero

Golden Member
Nov 4, 2009
1,456
0
0
But the scenerio you're describing isn't the same thing as nvidia and physx. Physx is a enhancement that Nvidia takes away if it senses that an Nvidia GPU isn't the primary. You're describing taking away performance if an Nvidia GPU is used. I don't think this could fly legally if done out in the open, and it's a invitation to lawsuits if done on the sly, cuz sooner or later, it will be revealed.

But even if they could somehow do this, it might not work in the end anyway. Customers would just buy an intel system that works with both AMD and Nvidia CPUs. AMD just doesn't have the clout/marketshare to make something like this work.
First of all, putting 2 video cards into the same machine is one thing, having mix video cards to generate output for a single display is another. SLI only works on Nvidia cards and CF only works on AMD cards. That means, those cards don't work together, but independently within the same system.

It is illegal if the presents of a Nvidia card will actually lowers the performance of an AMD card, and vice versa. If Nvidia allows their video card to act as a PPU, then it should work regardless of what cards being primary. Now Nvidia can do it, but decided not because not only they have to make sure their cards will work as a PPU with other vendor's video card as a prim., but also have to consider the performance of the primary card, but how can Nvidia ensure that when it isn't their product? Imagine the QQ you will see if AMD card's performance drops 10&#37; after using Nvidia card as a PPU while playing PhysX games. Richard always complaint about how Nvidia's code isn't good for AMD video cards because it was engineered that way, AMD fanboys believe it. When Richard says Nvidia's code are nothing special and will work on AMD video cards, AMD fanboys believe it. When Richard says Nvidia is preventing (blocking/locking) codes from getting into AMD video cards, AMD fanboys believe it. Imagine what he will say when AMD + Nvidia card as PPU < Nvidia + card as PPU.

Nvidia deliberately make the check easy to break, just like how CPU/GPU are made easy to OC. These are unsupported features and users are at their own risk. There are lots of Nvidia haters, but those who don't give a crap simply break the check and move on.

As to i3/i5 IGP, it causes problems when there exists an discrete video card if not disabled, let alone physX.

The claim is actually very simple. Let say I change the position of one of the key on your keyboard without telling you, then you probably won't find out until you press that key. When you find out, I was no where seen, but your boss is going to hunt you because of your work. In terms of hardware interface and programming, each bit is like a key, and there are millions of them. Nvidia code paths breaks from time to time because it is simply impossible to test every single combination. Those who assume things will work and the cause of bugs because "Things that can go wrong, will go wrong." I don't think that Nvidia's drivers are bug free under an all Nvidia gears environment, and the miracle of something works perfectly automatically sounds more like a joke to me.

Even today, people believed that it is very important for a clean install when it comes to video card drivers as not only they may impact video cards from a different vendor, but their own cards. Note that video cards are made universal long ago, bug still happens often. This is mean vendors are sabotaging each other with driver conflicts? I say it looks more like old bugs that was never fixed.

So I have 2 identical systems with different OSes. While the one with window 7 runs CIV 5 with Dx10/11, but the other with windows XP can't. You will say, XP doesn't support Dx10/11. Well, I don't see people saying that is illegal for Microsoft's action. In fact, directx only works on windows and not any other OS, what does that mean? Well we have been locked by microsoft for sometime now, didn't you get the memo? You can move to another OS, but those Dx games won't run, even though they used to run.
 

Creig

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,170
13
81
But the scenerio you're describing isn't the same thing as nvidia and physx. Physx is a enhancement that Nvidia takes away if it senses that an Nvidia GPU isn't the primary. You're describing taking away performance if an Nvidia GPU is used. I don't think this could fly legally if done out in the open, and it's a invitation to lawsuits if done on the sly, cuz sooner or later, it will be revealed.

But even if they could somehow do this, it might not work in the end anyway. Customers would just buy an intel system that works with both AMD and Nvidia CPUs. AMD just doesn't have the clout/marketshare to make something like this work.
The point is that Nvidia's attitude is, "It's our hardware and we'll do with it as we please. If we want to lock out GPU PhysX on any system that has an AMD card as the primary renderer, we can and we will".

AMD could just as easily say, "It's our chipset and we'll do with it as we please. If we want to prevent Nvidia video cards from operating on motherboards containing our chipsets, we can and will".

Neither statement sounds particularly appealing to me. It simply isn't in the best interest of us, the end users. It imposes artificial limitations on what we can do with our systems.

How can AMD lock out Nvidia from anything (hardware or software wise) when they don't spend the funds to come up with something that isn't a standard from someone else, that they could control?
AMD doesn't spend funds to come up with something that isn't standard from someone else? Hardly. They develop their own motherboard chipsets and motherboards. They develop their own line of TV tuner cards. They develop their own CPUs. They develop their own GPUs and video cards. Can you imagine how much they must spend to come out with all that? I can't. It must be in the billions. I would be highly surprised to learn that Nvidia spends more on R&D than AMD.

Speaking of chipsets, because the chipset controls virtually every function of the motherboard, it would be quite easy for AMD to lock out Nvidia cards from working on any AMD based system simply through the chipset drivers. And you know what? If AMD ever did that I would be saying the exact same things about them that I'm saying about Nvidia now.

I don't want my upgrade options to be artificially limited because somebody somewhere said, "Even though it works just fine, I don't want my hardware operating alongside their hardware. So I'm simply not going to allow it". Which is exactly what Nvidia is doing with GPU PhysX right now. And I suspect 3D Vision is being artificially restricted to Nvidia hardware in the same way.
 

SirPauly

Diamond Member
Apr 28, 2009
5,187
1
0
I would understand if nVidia locked out standards but what you're complaining about is features and abilities where there are no standards. It seems to me they're protecting, leveraging and supporting their features. Hopefully, there will be awareness and competition so standards may be forged so the chaos and division may end. Trying to force idealism where none exists in a corporate culture is like banging your head against the wall.
 

taltamir

Lifer
Mar 21, 2004
13,576
6
76
As I posted before, I have an AMD mobo with the HD 4200 chipset, and GPU-Z reads my 460 as having PhysX enabled just fine. I don't have any PhysX games on my system, but PhysX is not being locked out.

If the AMD on board video driver was installed, maybe it would have potential conflicts, but running on board video along side a discrete gpu would be foolish anyway.

there is no conflict, there is an artificial lock which nvidia openly admits it places there on purpose.
The only way to bypass it is to use cracked drivers (which I do not condone) or that one now outdated driver (257.15 beta) that accidentally did not include the DRM.
If you are right, then a second way to bypass it is by not installing the AMD drivers at all (useful for AMD IGP), can you please check the nvidia control panel for it rather then GPUz?
 
Last edited:

Teizo

Golden Member
Oct 28, 2010
1,271
31
91
If you are right, then a second way to bypass it is by not installing the AMD drivers at all (useful for AMD IGP), can you please check the nvidia control panel for it rather then GPUz?
It is available on both control panels. If I select cpu rather than gpu in the PhysX option, GPU-Z reads GPU PhysX disabled, or not enabled. If I select auto or gpu, then GPU-Z reads PhysX enabled.

And I can understand why people are a bit upset over nVidia not allowing their cards to be used solely as PhysX processors when an AMD card is present since technically it should work, but then I can't blame nVidia for wanting to protect itself either, and since nVidia has no control over what the AMD display driver does, I can understand why they would lock out PhysX from a support stand point since it opens the door for allot of potential bugs. They could, however, allow it and then not support it, so to speak though. But, in the business world it is important to gain as much marketing advantage as possible. PhysX, since it is capable of running on cpus (especially quad core) just fine, and the list of games using it isn't big, isn't really a big advantage though...but it is one that nVidia does not want to give up nonetheless, even though some people are going to be peeved about it. And, as mentioned, I can see why some would too as people who bought an nVidia card to begin with but decided to buy an AMD card later on would like to be able to put that nVidia card to use still rather than just put it up for retirement in the closet when it is perfectly capable of being used in the W7 OS envirnoment.
 

Dribble

Platinum Member
Aug 9, 2005
2,076
611
136
I suspect nvidia don't really mind too much if people use physx with an ati primary card and an nvidia one for physx but they don't want to support it officially. Official support would mean they have to test it with all those ati/nvidia combos and make it work if it doesn't - a lot of effort. Hence the reason it's not to hard with hacked drivers to break the lock, and nvidia don't really seem to be making it any harder when they quite easily could.
 
Last edited:

taltamir

Lifer
Mar 21, 2004
13,576
6
76
There is absolutely no way at all for it to cause additional bugs, the physX processing occurs completely separate to the DX processing.

Personally I think nvidia is hurting itself a whole lot by disallowing it. they are trying to leverage a monopoly that doesn't exist, they could have had an nvidia GPU in every computer as a physX card by now if they just stopped with the stupid premature monopolistic behavior, monopolistic behavior works only if you have a monopoly, otherwise it hurts you.

Which makes me GLAD they are doing it now, by behaving in such a way they are preventing the adoption of physX as a standard, which prevents future monopolistic behavior.
 
Last edited:

Creig

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,170
13
81
It is illegal if the presents of a Nvidia card will actually lowers the performance of an AMD card, and vice versa.
It is? What law is that? So was it illegal when Nvidia created the MSAA coding in Batman:AA that caused AMD cards to run slower than they should have while using FSAA?

If Nvidia allows their video card to act as a PPU, then it should work regardless of what cards being primary. Now Nvidia can do it, but decided not because not only they have to make sure their cards will work as a PPU with other vendor's video card as a prim., but also have to consider the performance of the primary card, but how can Nvidia ensure that when it isn't their product? Imagine the QQ you will see if AMD card's performance drops 10% after using Nvidia card as a PPU while playing PhysX games.
Except that there currently is no unusual performance hit evidenced. If you would read the TweakTown article I linked to (http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/3344/ati_radeon_hd_5870_5970_with_nvidia_physx/index.html), you'll see that there are no adverse issues reported while using the oops-we-forgot-to-lock-out-PhysX Nvidia 257.15 Beta ForceWare driver.

Removing the "all Nvidia" lock resulted in multiple PhysX sessions with a variety of Nvidia cards. Apparently it wouldn't take much at all for Nvidia to allow PhysX to work with an AMD card present. But they prefer to simply lock it out.


Richard always complaint about how Nvidia's code isn't good for AMD video cards because it was engineered that way, AMD fanboys believe it. When Richard says Nvidia's code are nothing special and will work on AMD video cards, AMD fanboys believe it. When Richard says Nvidia is preventing (blocking/locking) codes from getting into AMD video cards, AMD fanboys believe it. Imagine what he will say when AMD + Nvidia card as PPU < Nvidia + card as PPU.
OMG... Where's a facepalm smilie when you really need one...

You do know that it has been proven that the anti-aliasing lockout on Batman:AA was done through a vendor ID check, don't you? And that once the vendor ID was spoofed, AMD cards were able to use the in-game MSAA with no issues whatsoever?

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/293944-33-enable-msaa-batman-arkham-asylum-cheating-nvidia

Also, that Nvidia eventually gave Eidos permission to remove the Vendor ID lock in a patch? And that now AMD users have the same access to the in-game AA that Nvidia users do?

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=28857358&postcount=362

So to summarize, the AA actually was nothing special and does work just fine with AMD cards once the vendor ID check is removed.

If you're planning on going on a rant like that again in the future, please make sure to at least get your facts straight first.

Nvidia deliberately make the check easy to break, just like how CPU/GPU are made easy to OC. These are unsupported features and users are at their own risk. There are lots of Nvidia haters, but those who don't give a crap simply break the check and move on.
So in other words, you're saying that Nvidia only puts in these checks so that we can take them back out again? I'm having a tough time believing that one.


So I have 2 identical systems with different OSes. While the one with window 7 runs CIV 5 with Dx10/11, but the other with windows XP can't. You will say, XP doesn't support Dx10/11. Well, I don't see people saying that is illegal for Microsoft's action. In fact, directx only works on windows and not any other OS, what does that mean? Well we have been locked by microsoft for sometime now, didn't you get the memo? You can move to another OS, but those Dx games won't run, even though they used to run.
Isn't that the sort of same argument we were using while trying to explain to you why EyeFinity won't work on Nvidia cards?
 

taltamir

Lifer
Mar 21, 2004
13,576
6
76
It is illegal if the presents of a Nvidia card will actually lowers the performance of an AMD card, and vice versa.
It is? What law is that?

it is actually illegal, it is an anti competitive tactic explicitly disallowed in the USA, dating all the way back to the days of the bell telcom monopoly and the use of "compatible phones" from third parties on "their networks".

However, since nvidia is only harming itself with this behavior there is no way AMD will actually report it, yet... if physX every takes off and is a massive success... then and only then AMD will file a complaint which will result in heavy fines 5 to 10 years later. If physX complete dies, then AMD will report it. Until either happens it is better for AMD to keep mum.

So was it illegal when Nvidia created the MSAA coding in Batman:AA that caused AMD cards to run slower than they should have while using FSAA?
that is different then both the nvidia and AMD version of the story.
AMD says nvidia paid developer to disable AA in AMD cards.
nVidia says they personally wrote the code for AA implementation for the developer (who didn't want to spend money on doing it themselves) and AMD refused to do the same.
Tech sites say that the code nvidia provided includes a check for nvidia card, and if you disable it it works on AMD cards as well.
I don't know where you got your version...

if what AMD says is true then it is definitely illegal, if what nvidia says is true its most likely isn't (consult a lawyer to be sure, I am not 100&#37; certain about that)
 
Last edited:

golem

Senior member
Oct 6, 2000
838
3
76
The point is that Nvidia's attitude is, "It's our hardware and we'll do with it as we please. If we want to lock out GPU PhysX on any system that has an AMD card as the primary renderer, we can and we will".

AMD could just as easily say, "It's our chipset and we'll do with it as we please. If we want to prevent Nvidia video cards from operating on motherboards containing our chipsets, we can and will".

Neither statement sounds particularly appealing to me. It simply isn't in the best interest of us, the end users. It imposes artificial limitations on what we can do with our systems.

Doesn't matter if it's appealing to you or not. And again, as has been said multiple times. It's not the same thing. Physx is a feature that Nvidia has sole control over, it's their technology. A video card working in a PCIe slot if it follows the PCIe standard is not something that AMD can turn off. So no even if AMD wanted to stop Nvidia cards working on their motherboards, they can't. So giving them credit not not doing something they can't do anyway makes sense in what way?

AMD doesn't spend funds to come up with something that isn't standard from someone else? Hardly. They develop their own motherboard chipsets and motherboards. They develop their own line of TV tuner cards. They develop their own CPUs. They develop their own GPUs and video cards. Can you imagine how much they must spend to come out with all that? I can't. It must be in the billions. I would be highly surprised to learn that Nvidia spends more on R&D than AMD.
It's very nice that AMD does R&D, but my question was what STANDARDS do they come up with that they control? Their tuner cards and motherboard use what standard that AMD created that others would want to use? I'm not aware of any. Since AMD doesn't create standards (not talking about spending funds on R&D here) or even features that COMPETITORS could or would want to use. How can you give them credit for not locking others out when no one really wants in?
 
Last edited:

Outrage

Senior member
Oct 9, 1999
217
1
0
It's very nice that AMD does R&D, but my question was what STANDARDS do they come up with that they control? Their tuner cards and motherboard use what standard that AMD created that others would want to use? I'm not aware of any. Since AMD doesn't create standards (not talking about spending funds on R&D here) or even features that COMPETITORS could or would want to use. How can you give them credit for not locking others out when no one really wants in?

x86-64 is one example.
 

Outrage

Senior member
Oct 9, 1999
217
1
0
that would be rather stupid to do, since then they wouldent be able to make x86 cpu's anymore.

But they could turn of 64 bit extensions when a nvidia card is detected if they wanted to.
 

taltamir

Lifer
Mar 21, 2004
13,576
6
76
Doesn't matter if it's appealing to you or not. And again, as has been said multiple times. It's not the same thing. Physx is a feature that Nvidia has sole control over, it's their technology. A video card working in a PCIe slot if it follows the PCIe standard is not something that AMD can turn off. So no even if AMD wanted to stop Nvidia cards working on their motherboards, they can't. So giving them credit not not doing something they can't do anyway makes sense in what way?
They most certainly CAN, it is as easy as a firmware level vendor check.
It is just illegal and very stupid to do so.

PS. nvidia? they put a "key" (a password basically) in SLI capable mobos and their driver's DRM make it refuse to run SLI mode unless it is present.
Also illegal AND stupid, also something that no competitor in their right mind would complain about.
 

golem

Senior member
Oct 6, 2000
838
3
76
that would be rather stupid to do, since then they wouldent be able to make x86 cpu's anymore.

But they could turn of 64 bit extensions when a nvidia card is detected if they wanted to.

It's worse than stupid. It's illegal if they had a cross licensing agreement with Intel at the time.

Lawsuit. The chip is marketed as 64 bit processor when used with a 64 bit O/S, not a 64 bit processor unless you are using a Nvidia GPU. Well they could market it as such, but then sales would probably drop.
 
Last edited: