NV: Everything under control. 512-Fermi may appear someday. Yields aren't under 20%

[Voo]

I assure you I was quite right on the AIW not working when it is not the primary rendering card

Yeah and that's EXACTLY what was stated in the manual. So once again you have to resort to outright lies because otherwise it doesn't look too good? That's nice.

If we're at it.. where did Nvidia state that their GPU will only work as a PPU if used with a nvidia GPU? Oh that's right they didn't.

 

[Skurge]

Regarding what you bolded...

ATI sold their AIW part than later changed the requirements (after they took your money) to no Nvidia parts as the primary rendering card with their part after it had worked for many months? Because the manual clearly states that you cannot use any other card as the primary rendering unit. Seems to be not at all the 'exact same thing'.

Nvidia sold GeForce 8 series and above parts as Physx capable. They sold them to be used as parts for outputing graphics as well as to be used as stand alone PPU's. Later on, after they happily had your money, they changed the requirements to no AMD parts as the primary rendering unit... the same parts they sold without that requirement earlier and that worked fine.

Do you see the difference? One was sold and the manual stated that it had to be the primary rendering unit to have all functions. The other sold without said requirement, than changed that after they already had sold who knows how many for PPU functionality with AMD cards.

Watch him defect that question as usual.

 

[NoQuarter]

Watch him defect that question as usual.

With a 12 paragraph reply

 

[SlowSpyder]

With a 12 paragraph reply

I have no problem reading a long reply if there is some substance in the reply. But all I've seen lately from him regarding this is a lot of long winded spin.

Here is the link I posted in the other thread. Page 23, it clearly states that the AIW card must be the primary adapter for all functions to work.

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/media/i3d/01/A/man-migrate/MANUAL000039021.pdf

That is nothing like the Nvidia situation. Nvidia sold their parts with the ability to run Physx as stand alone units. In the Nvidia control panel you can choose the card to be a stand alone Physx-only unit, it's obvious they were meant to be able to do that. Nowhere did they state that you need Nvidia-only parts... they changed that requirement after they were happily selling cards and taking customer money. This is a very different situation than the ATI AIW parts.

 

[pyroluv]

Intel = best cpu / own physx
Amd = balance cpu/gpu
Nvidia = performance gpu and specialized in gpu/physx

To make a perfect platform:
Intel needs a gpu that performs as amd/nvidia
Amd needs physx
Nvidia needs a cpu that performs at least par with amd or better yet top with intel.

every vendor needs just 1 of the categories to make a perfect platform. but if one had it had who will it be? intel making a really good gpu , Amd getting physx or Nvidia getting a cpu?

 

[Skurge]

Intel = best cpu / own physx
Amd = balance cpu/gpu
Nvidia = performance gpu and specialized in gpu/physx

To make a perfect platform:
Intel needs a gpu that performs as amd/nvidia
Amd needs physx
Nvidia needs a cpu that performs at least par with amd or better yet top with intel.

every vendor needs just 1 of the categories to make a perfect platform. but if one had it had who will it be? intel making a really good gpu , Amd getting physx or Nvidia getting a cpu?

I don't think AMD needs physx, they just need to hurry up with bullet HW physics.
Or do you mean they need their own physics program like physx/havok?

 

[blanketyblank]

I thought AMD didnt renew Nvidia's license and any new AMD CPUs were to be off limit to Nvidia? Either way I didnt really care, just thought if they did that it is an example of AMD doing what he was proposing.

I thought it was the other way around with AMD and Intel having to pay Nvidia to license their SLI technology. I remember reading something about NVidia and Intel fighting each other on SLI since Intel made a mobo that was SLI compatible without license.

I always did find it strange that most of the SLI compatible MOBOs were AMD boards(or EVGA nV boards) while all the intel boards were AMD crossfire.

 

[NoQuarter]

I thought it was the other way around with AMD and Intel having to pay Nvidia to license their SLI technology. I remember reading something about NVidia and Intel fighting each other on SLI since Intel made a mobo that was SLI compatible without license.

I always did find it strange that most of the SLI compatible MOBOs were AMD boards(or EVGA nV boards) while all the intel boards were AMD crossfire.

Intel sold nVidia a license to make chipsets for the Intel platform in the past but no longer. nVidia now licenses their SLI to mobo makers who use Intel chipsets (not directly to Intel) since they can't make their own chipset for the platform.

nVidia also makes the nForce chipsets for the AMD platform that incorporate SLI. nVidia doesn't license SLI to the mobo manufacturers using AMD's own chipsets though (since nVidia has nForce..).


The reason why most SLI mobos are AMD boards is because of that.. the nForce chipset for AMD platform. Since Intel denied them a chipset license there was no one to make SLI Intel mobos and nVidia had to decide if it wanted to license SLI out to mobo manufacturers using Intel chipsets and there was nothing on the market for a while.

 

[pyroluv]

I don't think AMD needs physx, they just need to hurry up with bullet HW physics.
Or do you mean they need their own physics program like physx/havok?

Open source software physics engine is nice but will it be a standard for all gaming like back in the "half life 2" days? Nvidia and intel has their own physics and time will come that intel might make a gpu (larrabee) and use the same method like nvidia hardware physx. Game developers might be looking foward of using hardware instead of software physx.That leads amd/ati out of the game....
Any gpu card can run open software physics engine but only gpu accelerated physics cards can run hardware physics.

p.s. with the op title i think nvidia is doing good with their yields but adding more performance 512 sp would be a challenging task to deal with more heat and power usage.
I see alot of geforce 470 and 480 gtx out is because?
A) cards selling and restocking very quickly
B) Not much cards are sold, a surplus of cards instock

 

[BenSkywalker]

But someone posted right after you saying they had the card and that it worked...

They should let ATi know how they did it then, because ATi says it won't work.

So once again you have to resort to outright lies because otherwise it doesn't look too good?

What lie would that be? That ATi sells a part with stated functionality that will only work if it is the primary display device? That they failed to make note of this issue on the box? That the only reason they wouldn't support it is because they don't want to deal with the work on drivers that it would require?

One was sold and the manual stated that it had to be the primary rendering unit to have all functions.

For the 9600AIW, it wasn't listed in all of the manuals made for the different parts(AIWP springs to mind as one I owned that they wouldn't let work and it wasn't noted anywhere in the manual that shipped with the board).

Nvidia sold GeForce 8 series and above parts as Physx capable.

And ATi sold their parts as TVTuner/video capture parts.

They sold them to be used as parts for outputing graphics as well as to be used as stand alone PPU's.

If we're at it.. where did Nvidia state that their GPU will only work as a PPU if used with a nvidia GPU?

http://www.nvidia.com/object/physx_faq.html

Can I use an NVIDIA GPU as a PhysX processor and a non-NVIDIA GPU for regular display graphics?
No. There are multiple technical connections between PhysX processing and graphics that require tight collaboration between the two technologies. To deliver a good experience for users, NVIDIA PhysX technology has been fully verified and enabled using only NVIDIA GPUs for graphics.

 

[blanketyblank]

They should let ATi know how they did it then, because ATi says it won't work.



What lie would that be? That ATi sells a part with stated functionality that will only work if it is the primary display device? That they failed to make note of this issue on the box? That the only reason they wouldn't support it is because they don't want to deal with the work on drivers that it would require?



For the 9600AIW, it wasn't listed in all of the manuals made for the different parts(AIWP springs to mind as one I owned that they wouldn't let work and it wasn't noted anywhere in the manual that shipped with the board).



And ATi sold their parts as TVTuner/video capture parts.





http://www.nvidia.com/object/physx_faq.html

Liability is a matter of timing. That faq is only applicable to cards out after it was published assuming it constitutes notice in the first place if it was not with the package at the time of purchase. If you're going to use that to prove a point you also need to show when that faq showed up in relation to when physx cards were being sold.

Also mens rea is a very important element in law.
The difference between murder and manslaughter is intent.
NVidia purposely chose to break compatibility for their part.
ATI neglected to build drivers for the AIW card or purposely chose not to build new drivers.

The results may be the same, but if this was a homicide ATI could be guilty of manslaughter while NV could be guilty of first degree murder.

 

[NoQuarter]

http://www.nvidia.com/object/physx_faq.html

I actually read the cached physx faq the first time this conversation happened and they didn't add that requirement to the FAQ until they disabled PhysX w/AMD in the 186 patch.

 

[Lonyo]

They should let ATi know how they did it then, because ATi says it won't work.

What lie would that be? That ATi sells a part with stated functionality that will only work if it is the primary display device? That they failed to make note of this issue on the box? That the only reason they wouldn't support it is because they don't want to deal with the work on drivers that it would require?

For the 9600AIW, it wasn't listed in all of the manuals made for the different parts(AIWP springs to mind as one I owned that they wouldn't let work and it wasn't noted anywhere in the manual that shipped with the board).

And ATi sold their parts as TVTuner/video capture parts.

http://www.nvidia.com/object/physx_faq.html

So, are you saying that what ATI did was bad (and therefore what NV is doing is bad) or that what ATI did was acceptable and also what NV are doing is acceptable?

Because either you think ATI doing it was fine, or you think what NV are doing is not fine.
Unless you think ATI doing it was bad, and NV doing it is now fine. In which case most people would call that a double standard.

The card you are focusing on (the 9600) was released before 2002, so unsurprisingly people aren't complaining 8 years later. Maybe the same thing happened with later cards and you don't have experience of it, or maybe it didn't. NV are still producing PhysX cards and blocking their use, which might be why it's a relevant issue.

 

[Keysplayr]

So, are you saying that what ATI did was bad (and therefore what NV is doing is bad) or that what ATI did was acceptable and also what NV are doing is acceptable?

Because either you think ATI doing it was fine, or you think what NV are doing is not fine.
Unless you think ATI doing it was bad, and NV doing it is now fine. In which case most people would call that a double standard.

The card you are focusing on (the 9600) was released before 2002, so unsurprisingly people aren't complaining 8 years later. Maybe the same thing happened with later cards and you don't have experience of it, or maybe it didn't. NV are still producing PhysX cards and blocking their use, which might be why it's a relevant issue.

Probably doesn't think anything of it, good or bad, but was showing how both companies conduct similar practices at one time or another. AMD just jumped on the renaming bandwagon again. Now all you guys have to argue about is which one is MORE evil.
Because that matters to some. Believe it or not.

 

[Skurge]

Probably doesn't think anything of it, good or bad, but was showing how both companies conduct similar practices at one time or another. AMD just jumped on the renaming bandwagon again. Now all you guys have to argue about is which one is MORE evil.
Because that matters to some. Believe it or not.

Oh you show up just when you find something to use against AMD, renaming is crap whether AMD or nV do it. its deceptive to consumers.

And you seem to have avoided every counter argument and just took a swipe at AMD.

 

[SlowSpyder]

For Christ sake Ben, I know you are not this dense.

The AIW parts stated in the manual that it has to be the primary rendering unit to get all functionality. So if you bought the part and read the manual you knew what to expect. If that wouldn't work for you than you could return it.

Nvidia sold GeForce parts with the ability to use it as a stand alone PPU for Physx. They changed the requirements later, after they took your money, to require only Nvidia hardware. They added that information to their website later on.

This isn't rocket science.

 

[Keysplayr]

Oh you show up just when you find something to use against AMD, renaming is crap whether AMD or nV do it. its deceptive to consumers.

And you seem to have avoided every counter argument and just took a swipe at AMD.

There is no counter argument. Both sides of this "argument" is a dead end.
Back and forth forever without resolution trying to pound your opinions into each others head and make them stick. All we really should be doing, is expressing our opinions and discussing them. Try once, maybe twice to make somebody see things your way, or allow yourself to see things the others way. This rarely happens as most are set in their ways.
I've been posting on and off in this thread. I didn't just "show up".

 

[SlowSpyder]

How is it in the best interest of their customers? Let's say I'm running an AMD 5870 for my main card and a 9800GTX+ for Physx. Nvidia advertised the 9800GTX+ as a Physx capable part. Then they release a driver that cuts off that ability. My card is now a paper wieght in my PC, it's worthless. Nvidia has my money, I bought the card to use it as it was advertised to do (and yes, Nvidia did create the part to be able to be used as a PPU only, otherwise why would they have the option in the driver to select the card as a Physx only part?).

How is that in the best interest of their customers? They have my money. I bought a part to use it as it was made to function. Now it doesn't work because Nvidia had a hissy fit.

You never answered this even though I mentioned it in several posts. Tell me, how would you feel about AMD's business tactics if their next driver release disabled 3D capabilities and HTPC abilities when an Intel chipset/CPU is detected? Also, keep in mind it worked fine for months. The Radeon is advertised to have certain functions but AMD just disables those functions when an Intel chipset/CPU is detected... would that be something that is in the best interest of their customers?

Why wouldn't Nvidia just leave that as an unsupported configuration? As in it may work, but you are on your own if you have problems? I don't see how you can possibly say this is in the best interest of their customers... all they have done is hurt some of their customers and tarnished their reputaion in the gaming world.

I just want to ask you again, Keys. Do you think it's good for competition if AMD did what I bolded? Do you think that AMD would be screwing their customers if they did that? Do you think companies doing this type of thing are good for PC gaming?

 

[YBS1]

Ben, the problem with your argument about the ATI All-In-Wonder card (and I don't know the specifics, if works, doesn't work as a non primary device etc.) is that it is in fact an All-In-Wonder card. It was made and sold with the expectation that it would be your single do it all video device, consolidating 2D and 3D graphics, tv tuning, radio(?) and video capture to one card rather than multiple ones. That's the whole point of an all in one card. ATI makes a wide range of other tv tuner type devices which do in fact work with non-ATI primary rendering devices. You know this and everyone else in this thread knows this. You're being intentionally obtuse.

 

[Keysplayr]

You're of course referring to PhysX. Now SlowSpyder, I don't know how many times we have to go over my opinion about this, but as it appears so deeply important to you, here it is yet again.
Nvidia owns PhysX, it is theirs to do with what they wish. Disabling PhysX (and NV gave their reasons for this whether you agree with it or not) when an AMD card is present as the graphics renderer, and not an Nvidia card, isn't good from the perspective of a gamer with an AMD card as the primary renderer. Also. Nvidia cards were never ever advertised to work alongside AMD cards. In fact, I don't recall there ever being an advertisement from any vendor in a cards specs to be a dedicated PPU. Only that they HAD PhysX capability. Do you recall anything like that? If you can show me a direct advertisement showing that I'd appreciate it. Like I said, Nvidia owns PhysX. AMD doesn't own 3D abilities as your AMD/Intel 3D HTPC example suggests.
Plain and simply, It's bad for AMD customers who purchased an Nvidia card for the sole purpose of running PhysX alongside their AMD card. But judging from the consensus in this forum about how important PhysX are to them (like worse than liver and onions to most in here) I would count on there being many people who went out and bought an Nvidia card just for PhysX, but more likely just tried to use one of their older PhysX capable cards to try and run it.
In the end, SS, this probably won't ease your mind at all, but it's not just about us. AMD,Nvidia, Intel, all want to make as much money as possible and look for different ways to make their products more desirable. PhysX is but just one way.
Batman AA would be another. I'm sure there will be more in the future.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Ben, the problem with your argument about the ATI All-In-Wonder card (and I don't know the specifics, if works, doesn't work as a non primary device etc.) is that it is in fact an All-In-Wonder card. It was made and sold with the expectation that it would be your single do it all video device, consolidating 2D and 3D graphics, tv tuning, radio(?) and video capture to one card rather than multiple ones. That's the whole point of an all in one card. ATI makes a wide range of other tv tuner type devices which do in fact work with non-ATI primary rendering devices. You know this and everyone else in this thread knows this. You're being intentionally obtuse.

But it clearly states in the manual that you have to use the AIW card as your primary rendering unit to have all functionality. So anyone doing research would likely find that out before they bought. If they bought the card and read the manual the would find out at that point, then they could return the part if it wasn't going to work for them. This is not deceitful on ATI's part. They are clearly stating what is required for full functionality.

Nvidia did not do this. They sold the GeForce cards as Physx PPU capable. They LATER changed the requirements, after they sold untold numbers of these parts as PPU's, to require Nvidia-only video cards. They disabled functionality and posted new requirements without ever providing that information until they disabled the functionality, but had no problems selling the cards earlier.

What really doesn't make sense to me is that if they are hurting the adoption of Physx by doing this, if anything. Now a substantial portion of the market (some of whom may have been using Physx with their AMD cards) can no longer use it.

I can't imagine any other company doing this. Could you imagine Intel making their i7's only allow single channel ram if they detect an Nvidia graphics card? Could you see AMD disabling 3D capablility on their Radeons when they detect their cards are being used with a non-AMD platform? These are extreme examples, but are in principal pretty much the same thing as Nvidia did. Sell a part that has worked, change the requirements and block out the functionality after they've sold the parts.

Luckily for Nvidia, the overall population of PC gamers using a Radeon as their primary card with a GeForce as a PPU was never likely all that high in the first place. So because of that there was never really any uproar over this. But I think this is a good example of why Physx won't take off. Nvidia owns it, and I think they have scared gamers with their tactics involving it.

 

[Lonyo]

You're of course referring to PhysX. Now SlowSpyder, I don't know how many times we have to go over my opinion about this, but as it appears so deeply important to you, here it is yet again.
Nvidia owns PhysX, it is theirs to do with what they wish. Disabling PhysX (and NV gave their reasons for this whether you agree with it or not) when an AMD card is present as the graphics renderer, and not an Nvidia card, isn't good from the perspective of a gamer with an AMD card as the primary renderer. Also. Nvidia cards were never ever advertised to work alongside AMD cards. In fact, I don't recall there ever being an advertisement from any vendor in a cards specs to be a dedicated PPU. Only that they HAD PhysX capability. Do you recall anything like that? If you can show me a direct advertisement showing that I'd appreciate it. Like I said, Nvidia owns PhysX. AMD doesn't own 3D abilities as your AMD/Intel 3D HTPC example suggests.
Plain and simply, It's bad for AMD customers who purchased an Nvidia card for the sole purpose of running PhysX alongside their AMD card. But judging from the consensus in this forum about how important PhysX are to them (like worse than liver and onions to most in here) I would count on there being many people who went out and bought an Nvidia card just for PhysX, but more likely just tried to use one of their older PhysX capable cards to try and run it.
In the end, SS, this probably won't ease your mind at all, but it's not just about us. AMD,Nvidia, Intel, all want to make as much money as possible and look for different ways to make their products more desirable. PhysX is but just one way.
Batman AA would be another. I'm sure there will be more in the future.

ATI owns their hardware and the drivers which allow 3D to work on their cards.

Also, did you ever consider WHY some people think hardware PhysX is stupid and not worth onions? Hey, most of the arguments are because it... only works with NV hardware. Maybe they would find hardware PhysX more important, useful, or likely to gain traction if it was more open to work with whatever hardware they chose to purchase for the other features of a game.

That's not to say that hardware PhysX should necessarily run on ATI graphics cards. Hell, in its first iteration it required a separate card, so requiring a separate card now (NV graphics card) would in effect be no different, but trying to control the choice a user has of their graphics if they want physics to run a specific way is stupid and not in any way, shape or form beneficial for consumers, no matter how much pro-NV spin you want to try and throw at it.

 

[SlowSpyder]

You're of course referring to PhysX. Now SlowSpyder, I don't know how many times we have to go over my opinion about this, but as it appears so deeply important to you, here it is yet again.
Nvidia owns PhysX, it is theirs to do with what they wish. Disabling PhysX (and NV gave their reasons for this whether you agree with it or not) when an AMD card is present as the graphics renderer, and not an Nvidia card, isn't good from the perspective of a gamer with an AMD card as the primary renderer. Also. Nvidia cards were never ever advertised to work alongside AMD cards. In fact, I don't recall there ever being an advertisement from any vendor in a cards specs to be a dedicated PPU. Only that they HAD PhysX capability. Do you recall anything like that? If you can show me a direct advertisement showing that I'd appreciate it. Like I said, Nvidia owns PhysX. AMD doesn't own 3D abilities as your AMD/Intel 3D HTPC example suggests.
Plain and simply, It's bad for AMD customers who purchased an Nvidia card for the sole purpose of running PhysX alongside their AMD card. But judging from the consensus in this forum about how important PhysX are to them (like worse than liver and onions to most in here) I would count on there being many people who went out and bought an Nvidia card just for PhysX, but more likely just tried to use one of their older PhysX capable cards to try and run it.
In the end, SS, this probably won't ease your mind at all, but it's not just about us. AMD,Nvidia, Intel, all want to make as much money as possible and look for different ways to make their products more desirable. PhysX is but just one way.
Batman AA would be another. I'm sure there will be more in the future.

Nvidia sold GeForce parts as PPU capable. In Nvidia's drivers you have the option to dedicate a GeForce as a stand-alone PPU. This would indicate that GeForce parts can be used as dedicated PPU's.

Nvidia never sold GeForce parts and advertised them as working with AMD cards, I'm sure you are correct about that. But they never stated that you can't do that either, at least not until they changed the specs/requirements. That arguement seems a little silly to me. I think that would be like Intel happily selling their SSD's for a year, then one day disabling their functionality as say a boot drive when an AMD platform is detected. Then Intel defends themselves by saying, "Hey, Intel SSD technology is ours, we can do what we want with it since we own it. We never said that it'll work with an AMD platform even though we sold it as a hard drive."

 

[Madcatatlas]

You are talking to walls, lets face it, thats what nVidia focus members are. In a discussion where your objective i the correct one, if it differs from the nVidia point of view, its wrong or it will be ignored because the wall has no counter.

It could be exampled with religion really, you are not going to convert a churchman like Benskywalker to become an ateist. Its just not going to happen. He will on the other hand call YOU a churchman and a churchgoer ( look this up, he has said it twice as far as i can see from his recent posts) for bringing arguments that differ with his own.

In the end, Keys is very much right in that this discussion has no end. Discussions around religion also have no end. Some people mage gpus/hardware a thing of religious proportions. Its not worth it. For both camps, the end goal is to make money and to profit, increasing their marketshare.

We can argue the ethics, but if 50% thinks "this", and 50% thinks "that", we wont get anywhere, anytime soon.

 

[MrK6]

You are talking to walls, lets face it, thats what nVidia focus members are. In a discussion where your objective i the correct one, if it differs from the nVidia point of view, its wrong or it will be ignored because the wall has no counter.

It could be exampled with religion really, you are not going to convert a churchman like Benskywalker to become an ateist. Its just not going to happen. He will on the other hand call YOU a churchman and a churchgoer ( look this up, he has said it twice as far as i can see from his recent posts) for bringing arguments that differ with his own.

In the end, Keys is very much right in that this discussion has no end. Discussions around religion also have no end. Some people mage gpus/hardware a thing of religious proportions. Its not worth it. For both camps, the end goal is to make money and to profit, increasing their marketshare.

We can argue the ethics, but if 50% thinks "this", and 50% thinks "that", we wont get anywhere, anytime soon.

Good analogy. As long as it's pointed out who are the shills and how ridiculous their arguments are, the details aren't important. We don't need new or uninformed folks of the community buying into that propaganda bullshit.