How much of a role will physx play

[NoQuarter]

The truth is, its absolutely a shame that ATI doesn't adopt Physx... standardization takes times and support from the industry as a whole (ati + nvidia). its this kind of fanboi mentality that you just displayed "ATI is ALWAYS right" crap that made it "ok" for ATI to not adopt, and to go as far as releasing drivers to "block" people's effort to try to hack to enable the techonology.

Wow.. it's Nvidia's drivers that block GPU accelerated Physx. The Nvidia drivers detect an ATI card and shut it off. The hack works by tricking the Nvidia driver into not detecting an ATI card, ATI has nothing to do with it.

It's not a shame that ATI doesn't adopt Physx, it's a shame that Nvidia bought it up to horde the tech. If Ageia still owned it then Nvidia and ATi could have both adopted it without risk and there would actually stand a chance of becoming widespread.

Nvidia for one never said ATI could use PhysX for free, that would be a licensing deal. They said ATI could use CUDA for free, which would be the easiest way to get Physx onto the platform.

I already stated this before but this would be the worst mistake ATI could make. Imagine if they licensed Physx from Nvidia for 1 penny per card, and soon all games used Physx GPU accelerated physics.

Then Nvidia raises the licensing fee to 5 bucks a card (this is about the cost to license SLI for a mobo, which is just a string in BIOS to implement). Now everyone would expect Physx, and ATI has to pay Nvidia to keep making hardware. If Nvidia jacked the price up to $10 a card it'd basically make ATI non-competitive and that's definitely in their interest (but not Ageia's).

 

[Seero]

Wow.. it's Nvidia's drivers that block GPU accelerated Physx. The Nvidia drivers detect an ATI card and shut it off. The hack works by tricking the Nvidia driver into not detecting an ATI card, ATI has nothing to do with it.

It's not a shame that ATI doesn't adopt Physx, it's a shame that Nvidia bought it up to horde the tech. If Ageia still owned it then Nvidia and ATi could have both adopted it without risk and there would actually stand a chance of becoming widespread.

Nvidia for one never said ATI could use PhysX for free, that would be a licensing deal. They said ATI could use CUDA for free, which would be the easiest way to get Physx onto the platform.

I already stated this before but this would be the worst mistake ATI could make. Imagine if they licensed Physx from Nvidia for 1 penny per card, and soon all games used Physx GPU accelerated physics.

Then Nvidia raises the licensing fee to 5 bucks a card (this is about the cost to license SLI for a mobo, which is just a string in BIOS to implement). Now everyone would expect Physx, and ATI has to pay Nvidia to keep making hardware. If Nvidia jacked the price up to $10 a card it'd basically make ATI non-competitive and that's definitely in their interest (but not Ageia's).

First of all, Nvidia's driver doesn't work on ATI hardware, and ATI hardware can't accelerate PhysX since day 1. Nvidia did release a driver which disable PhysX when another video card is present. Now lets play fair, why will Nvidia want their video card to act as a PPU? It was never the intention to begin with. While it is a bad news for people who jump ship and still wanna use their old card for something, it is worst for those who bought a cheap Nvidia card as a PPU on their AMD setup. Do you really think Nvidia is being bad here? or just trying to protect the value of its properties?

If Nvidia never bought Ageia, then PhysX won't have been where it is, and everyone will need to buy a PPU for it. Either way, no PhysX for ATI users for free.

You said it, it is really ATI's decision not to adopt PhysX, and therefore ATI user can't enjoy GPU accelerated PhysX. If adopting such technology is not wise, then why will giving it out for free is? What is the purpose of a product if it doesn't do any good towards the company? Won't it be great if video card cause 1 dollar to buy and both Nvidia and ATI pay the rest? In fact, will it be better if everything is free? Sorry, the world don't work like that.

Nvidia bought Ageia for PhysX, Intel bought Havok for Physics, and what does ATI bought? Nothing. Thus Nvidia is to be blame as Nvidia is the reason ATI user can't use PhysX. ATI user can use Havok, thus is runs much better than PhysX in any aspects, thus PhysX will die off.

In short, typical communism.

 

[NoQuarter]

First of all, Nvidia's driver doesn't work on ATI hardware, and ATI hardware can't accelerate PhysX since day 1. Nvidia did release a driver which disable PhysX when another video card is present. Now lets play fair, why will Nvidia want their video card to act as a PPU? It was never the intention to begin with. While it is a bad news for people who jump ship and still wanna use their old card for something, it is worst for those who bought a cheap Nvidia card as a PPU on their AMD setup. Do you really think Nvidia is being bad here? or just trying to protect the value of its properties?

If Nvidia never bought Ageia, then PhysX won't have been where it is, and everyone will need to buy a PPU for it. Either way, no PhysX for ATI users for free.

You said it, it is really ATI's decision not to adopt PhysX, and therefore ATI user can't enjoy GPU accelerated PhysX. If adopting such technology is not wise, then why will giving it out for free is? What is the purpose of a product if it doesn't do any good towards the company? Won't it be great if video card cause 1 dollar to buy and both Nvidia and ATI pay the rest? In fact, will it be better if everything is free? Sorry, the world don't work like that.

Nvidia bought Ageia for PhysX, Intel bought Havok for Physics, and what does ATI bought? Nothing. Thus Nvidia is to be blame as Nvidia is the reason ATI user can't use PhysX. ATI user can use Havok, thus is runs much better than PhysX in any aspects, thus PhysX will die off.

In short, typical communism.

None of this makes any sense, I'm not sure it's worth even breaking down. The fact you think this is somehow communism or something here should be free just goes to show you have no idea how companies even make money off this stuff to begin with.

 

[jinsaotomex4]

Until PhysX starts doing things other than eyecandy it won't matter a whole lot.

 

[NIGELG]

First of all, Nvidia's driver doesn't work on ATI hardware, and ATI hardware can't accelerate PhysX since day 1. Nvidia did release a driver which disable PhysX when another video card is present. Now lets play fair, why will Nvidia want their video card to act as a PPU? It was never the intention to begin with. While it is a bad news for people who jump ship and still wanna use their old card for something, it is worst for those who bought a cheap Nvidia card as a PPU on their AMD setup. Do you really think Nvidia is being bad here? or just trying to protect the value of its properties?

If Nvidia never bought Ageia, then PhysX won't have been where it is, and everyone will need to buy a PPU for it. Either way, no PhysX for ATI users for free.

You said it, it is really ATI's decision not to adopt PhysX, and therefore ATI user can't enjoy GPU accelerated PhysX. If adopting such technology is not wise, then why will giving it out for free is? What is the purpose of a product if it doesn't do any good towards the company? Won't it be great if video card cause 1 dollar to buy and both Nvidia and ATI pay the rest? In fact, will it be better if everything is free? Sorry, the world don't work like that.

Nvidia bought Ageia for PhysX, Intel bought Havok for Physics, and what does ATI bought? Nothing. Thus Nvidia is to be blame as Nvidia is the reason ATI user can't use PhysX. ATI user can use Havok, thus is runs much better than PhysX in any aspects, thus PhysX will die off.

In short, typical communism.

For all that's holy can you not learn to type in proper English?

 

[konakona]

As consumer-unfriendly as it is, nv has all the rights to do anything they please with their tech / drivers and whatnot. Like you said, it's all about business; they are not some charity organization. In the same token, it would be completely idiotic and unfathomable for ATi to lock themselves in the competitor's tech (not physx per se, more like CUDA and inevitable nv-friendly optimization and/or crippling) for implementing physics on their cards. Intel owning Havok is quite irrelevant unless you still think LRB was a serious threat to ATi's higher-end discreet gpu segment.

 

[Seero]

For all that's holy can you not learn to type in proper English?

Compare to you, I am better at English.

 

[T2k]

absolutely wrong and lame response... typical lame fanboy mentality / response...

Havok is software based, its not going to beat Physx which is hardware based. not in a million years.

The truth is, its absolutely a shame that ATI doesn't adopt Physx... standardization takes times and support from the industry as a whole (ati + nvidia). its this kind of fanboi mentality that you just displayed "ATI is ALWAYS right" crap that made it "ok" for ATI to not adopt, and to go as far as releasing drivers to "block" people's effort to try to hack to enable the techonology.

had they adopted Physx and standardized it, the industry would be much better today. we would have games with much better physics and more interactive graphics, on the SAME hardware we are using now.

How about learning at least the basics of computer science before you call others "lame" and "fanboys" etc?

You're not making any sense... PhysX is nowhere hardware-based whatsoever. FYI it's a piece of code = software, which runs on hardware - this could be a PPU or a GPU with specific hardware built to accelerate or a general-purpose CPU, using 'brute force' and nothing else.

FWIW theoretically there's no quality difference, the limit is always your machine.

but instead of pushing a great technology, people such as you blindly agreed with the lame ATI to not adopt physx, and here we are buying more and more cpu cores to run physics in software, and get physics that isn't half as good.

Once again, the sheer lack of even basic information... it doesn't even make sense to correct you, seriously... here's one nugget: ATI asked NV for PhysX license and NV told them to go and take a hike.
Of course, ever since Nvidia keeps claiming they are ready to license... it's called bald-faced liar in my dictionary.

 

[T2k]

Compare to you, I am better at English.

 

[T2k]

None of this makes any sense, I'm not sure it's worth even breaking down. The fact you think this is somehow communism or something here should be free just goes to show you have no idea how companies even make money off this stuff to begin with.

Disengage.

 

[NIGELG]

 

[Dark4ng3l]

First of all, Nvidia's driver doesn't work on ATI hardware, and ATI hardware can't accelerate PhysX since day 1. Nvidia did release a driver which disable PhysX when another video card is present. Now lets play fair, why will Nvidia want their video card to act as a PPU? It was never the intention to begin with. While it is a bad news for people who jump ship and still wanna use their old card for something, it is worst for those who bought a cheap Nvidia card as a PPU on their AMD setup. Do you really think Nvidia is being bad here? or just trying to protect the value of its properties?

If Nvidia never bought Ageia, then PhysX won't have been where it is, and everyone will need to buy a PPU for it. Either way, no PhysX for ATI users for free.

You said it, it is really ATI's decision not to adopt PhysX, and therefore ATI user can't enjoy GPU accelerated PhysX. If adopting such technology is not wise, then why will giving it out for free is? What is the purpose of a product if it doesn't do any good towards the company? Won't it be great if video card cause 1 dollar to buy and both Nvidia and ATI pay the rest? In fact, will it be better if everything is free? Sorry, the world don't work like that.

Nvidia bought Ageia for PhysX, Intel bought Havok for Physics, and what does ATI bought? Nothing. Thus Nvidia is to be blame as Nvidia is the reason ATI user can't use PhysX. ATI user can use Havok, thus is runs much better than PhysX in any aspects, thus PhysX will die off.

In short, typical communism.

That has to be some of the craziest drivel I have ever read. Nvidia owns Physx and basically outside tech demos it's just one more graphical feature they can offer in some games that ATi can't. They can actually do whatever they want with their IP. Games that use physics in actual gameplay have no problem at all with Havok or other solutions right now. But the communism thing is way overboard.

 

[Seero]

That has to be some of the craziest drivel I have ever read. Nvidia owns Physx and basically outside tech demos it's just one more graphical feature they can offer in some games that ATi can't. They can actually do whatever they want with their IP. Games that use physics in actual gameplay have no problem at all with Havok or other solutions right now. But the communism thing is way overboard.

Well, you may not like the sound of the word communism, but that is what it is, everything must be shared, no proprietary, not even wealth. If you don't like the idea of communism, then you should not have a problem with proprietary stuff and things are not free.

If sharing your wealth and stuff isn't your cup of tea, then I fail to see why it is a problem with PhysX. If you don't think it does a lot, than by all mean state why or simply pass. However, saying that it is bad because ATI can't use it for free is a joke.

 

[NIGELG]

Well, you may not like the sound of the word communism, but that is what it is, everything must be shared, no proprietary, not even wealth. If you don't like the idea of communism, then you should not have a problem with proprietary stuff and things are not free.

If sharing your wealth and stuff isn't your cup of tea, then I fail to see why it is a problem with PhysX. If you don't think it does a lot, than by all mean state why or simply pass. However, saying that it is bad because ATI can't use it for free is a joke.

Make these types of posts go away....your analogy is simply put.... quite astounding.

 

[Dark4ng3l]

It's not bad because ATI cant use it for free. It's bad because for many reasons it will never become the standard and it's a feature that divides your customers into haves and have nots.

I don't know why you are criticizing me because I am FAR from a communist and as I said in the post you quoted they can do whatever they want with their IP, even if it's to the detriment of PC gamers as a whole.

 

[NoQuarter]

Agreed, I never said ATI should get to use it for free, it's just the way things turned out they cannot with any good sense use it because Nvidia bought it. If Ageia still owned PhysX (or NovodeX before them) they could license the IP to both ATI/Nvidia for some fee and it would all be great.

That said Nvidia could certainly let ATI use it for free and then charge developers a fee to use it just like how Physx and Havok used to make most of their money and this would be a successful business model for any GPU accelerated physics middleware vendor.

Nvidia is operating in a physics welfare state now to sell graphics cards. They've completely subsidized Physx to use it as a marketing point and if anything the consumer is paying a $20 premium for Nvidia cards with Physx instead of developers paying licensing fees like they used to because they're trying to provide dev incentive to adopt the tech.


Also any point about Nvidia GPU's not being meant to be used as PPU's is meaningless because Nvidia themselves set them up to act as a PPU if you have a dedicated Nvidia card for it. They could sell more cards if the drivers played ball with ATI and help get Physx penetration at the same time but they are more afraid of people having the option of buying ATI and Nvidia instead of just Nvidia.

 

[Wag]

Let's discuss the PC version of Just Cause 2. It has "CUDA Enhancements" for Nvidia cards yet it doesn't specifically call it "PhysX". Isn't it tantamount to the same thing?

What's that all about?

 

[NoQuarter]

Let's discuss the PC version of Just Cause 2. It has "CUDA Enhancements" for Nvidia cards yet it doesn't specifically call it "PhysX". Isn't it tantamount to the same thing?

What's that all about?

Well, the GPU accelerated PhysX API is just a set of functions written in CUDA, and CUDA runs on Nvidia cards. I imagine they just wrote another function in CUDA that specifically calculates bobbing wave motion with a highly parallel algorithm. It's not part of the PhysX API but is written in the same language.

It also seems like another effect that is overcalculated for the sake of calculating just to use the GPU over CPU.. I don't see why you couldn't create a passable effect with the CPU by just elevating different nearby points in the water. Don't get me wrong I'm all for extra effects, but they should be able to be done more efficiently than that.

 

[Rezident]

Physx was very unimpressive in most games until I saw Mirror's Edge, it was very nice in that. Of course I played the game on my 4890 (after 8800 GTX died) and I didn't actually miss the Physx at all. No Physx actually makes no difference in the game.

I played batmanm AA on my 4890 and felt I was missing out on all the allegedly amazing Physx. So when I was finished I swapped in an Nvidia card and was totally underwhelmed. I had been led to believe that the Scarecrow levels were totally different with Physx, but it didn't make any difference to the ATI playthrough.

I think Physx is a gimmick, sometimes a pretty gimmick, but just a gimmick nonetheless. You'd have to be totally biased to buy a gpu based on it. It's proprietary which is bad for us, we need open source physicis (e.g. havok) or none at all.

 

[biostud]

couldn't physX be made to support openCL or compute shaders via a software layer?

 

[SirPauly]

Search on the bit-tech.net interview with Richard Huddy from AMD Developer Relations. Maybe he is lying but he claims nvidia refused to license to them (ATI).

There is probably some truth to that statement to me but also disingenuous, too. Why would AMD desire to license PhysX, when it is using Cuda? There is no way in hell AMD would do this in my mind-set but what about this: AMD ported Havok to OpenCL, using their own resources, so one may believe that AMD had a desire to port PhysX to OpenCL, and asked nVidia something like this, " We will do all the work if you will allow us to port PhysX to OpenCL!"

nVidia doesn't have a desire to do this at this time so told AMD to go whistle. AMD could say that nVidia doesn't desire to license PhysX to AMD.

This is what I believed what happened. AMD can license PhysX but AMD can't the way it is offered and tried to work with nVidia to find a way for both parties to agree. nVidia may of refused to budge.

Neither party is telling a lie but leaving parts out.

 

[Juncar]

Can people stop calling everything they don't agree with socialism or communism? Its all just business decisions, there should be no place in the graphics section for politics.

 

[Genx87]

couldn't physX be made to support openCL or compute shaders via a software layer?

afaik Nvidia is working on that.

 

[sandorski]

Can people stop calling everything they don't agree with socialism or communism? Its all just business decisions, there should be no place in the graphics section for politics.

Agreed. It's more like something Hitler would do, not a Commie....


j/k

 

[Outrage]

NVIDIA has no plan to move from CUDA to either OpenCL or DirectCompute as the implementation engine for GPU acceleration. Instead we are working to support developers and implement killer effects.

If we make our GPUs more desirable because they do incredible things with PhysX, then we have done a great job for our customers and made PC gaming more compelling.

Nvidias vision for the future is to have a nvidia gpu in every gaming pc. Good for them, bad for the consumer.