nVidia disables PhysX when ATI card present in Win7

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: solofly

Originally posted by: dadach

Originally posted by: reallyscrued


Keys: I really wish you stop getting nVidia cards for free. Reading your replies, I feel like it's made you unbelievably biased.

well it is his job to promote nvidia...what do you expect from him...objectivity on this matter?...he would be then spitting in the plate he eats from, biting the hand that feeds him, etc...

For everyone else let me give you a better picture of what he's saying...

Member of Nvidia Focus Group = Nvidia's Marketing Tool

Now, lets have the definition of what you think you are?

Oh, and remember this post of yours toward me a short while back?

"I think it's best that we don't speak to one another. You don't like me and I don't like you so whats the point. Stop quoting me and you don't have to worry about me bothering you."

Did something change your mind? Do you wish to engage? Why bait me if you don't wish to speak to me?

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: dadach

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: dadach

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: dadach

Originally posted by: reallyscrued


Keys: I really wish you stop getting nVidia cards for free. Reading your replies, I feel like it's made you unbelievably biased.

well it is his job to promote nvidia...what do you expect from him...objectivity on this matter?...he would be then spitting in the plate he eats from, biting the hand that feeds him, etc...

Heh, you ALWAYS resort to this childish stuff in the end.
It's not my job dudes, you all know this by now. Nvidia does not put food on my table, nor do they give me nearly as many GPU's as you believe. In my home, I have 7 PC's not including lappys. 2 out of those five rigs have GPU's in them from Nvidia. The rest of the rigs have GPU's I have purchased myself ranging from 8600GT to GTX275. At any rate, this really shouldn't matter to you, but you just keep making sure that it does. Stay Frosty.

So, you need to cut this shit out, now. It's pathetic. You are the last person to cry "objectivity". You have seen the past posts I have dug up from you regarding PhysX. Not you're crying that you can't have it the way you want it. I sympathize with those who really did appreciate what PhysX was and had an open mind about it back when, and tried an Nvidia GPU as a dedicated PhysX card. For them, I feel bad for. But for the others who repeatedly and relentlessly downplayed PhysX, called it a useless checkbox feature, "I'm not impressed" when content was clearly impressive, I don't have as much sympathy for now that complaints are arising from those very same folks.

@ reallyscrued: IMHO, those are the people who should "keep quiet on the matter".. those who thought PhysX sucked, or downplayed it. It should not matter that it is no longer available to them if it was such bullsh*t before. Get me?

I speak my mind about Nvidia's products because I really truly feel that Nvidia has much more to offer. They push technology, as a technology company should. They don't sit on their asses and let the world go by without them. They are always pushing and creating more and more things for gamers to get excited about. And not just gamers.

well you call it childish when it doesnt fit you, i call it logical that you will try to defend nvidia by any means possible, since they are the ones providing you the latest hardware that is otherwise expensive as hell if one wants to keep up...

It's childish anytime dude. And it's something you always seem to need to fall back to.

even others noticed it, not just me...so...

again, i am not mad at nvidia for disabling this when mixing the card, but i am truly ridiculing it about the usefulness of physx, like i did in those posts you dug up, and even then you failed to prove that i was wrong about it...way more people think that the feature is meh, than the others for whom that would be a decider to purchase nvidia...

The point of the posts dug up was never intended to prove you right or wrong, dadach. It was to show your stance on PhysX over the last year (give or take). And how it makes no sense for you to complain about it now. Just like now. You question the usefullness of PhysX. So what are we talking about here then? You feel it is useless, but have a problem now that you can't use it? A little contradictory and confusing to others, wouldn't you say?

like i said...im really not complainig, but rather making fun of...surely you can tell the difference


"clearly impressive"???...yeah right

I think it is. And you don't. Difference of opinion. I'm really not shocked.

and i dont even want to start on the fact that if one wants to have a full benefit it still has to run 2 nvidia cards...one for 3d and one for physx which is even more ridiculous
You can't even "start" on it because only one Nvidia card (G80 or better) is required to use PhysX. Your statement is false. Why would you think you need two or even three? Of course it does depend on how powerful a GPU you have, similar to any candy option in a games graphic menu. You didn't think it was ridiculous to have one ATI card and one NV physX GPU (well, at least not until after it was disabled). And probably don't think it even more ridiculous to have a NV physX card in a Crossfire system. Am I off base on this one? Or does the old double standard apply here. This is really too easy dadach. You accuse me of using any means possible to defend Nvidia, and then you come up with gems like this on your own.
:roll:

i said full benefit...max physx performance...to get that one needs 2 nvidia cards...unless you all of the sudden feel like physx is not important enough to run it at the best performance possible?

You mean the maximum fps? Like using SLI or crossfire like people have been doing the past several years to get the max performance possible? Different like that? These just keep getting better and better.

 

[dadach]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

You mean the maximum fps? Like using SLI or crossfire like people have been doing the past several years to get the max performance possible? Different like that? These just keep getting better and better.

its just your squirming that is getting worse...or are you saying that once there is max stress on the GPU for 3D, the physx capability do not suffer a hit?

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: dadach

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

You mean the maximum fps? Like using SLI or crossfire like people have been doing the past several years to get the max performance possible? Different like that? These just keep getting better and better.

its just your squirming that is getting worse...or are you saying that once there is max stress on the GPU for 3D, the physx capability do not suffer a hit?

Yeah, I'm the one that should be squirming right now. Not.

PhysX, as you WELL know, introduces performance hits. So does AA. So does AF. So does 3DVision. So does depth of field. So does shader quality. So does higher resolution.

And before PhysX ever existed, what did people do who's GPU's couldn't hack the framerates?
They upgraded, or doubled, even tripled up in some cases. Is there something new here that you're alluding to? Because you're running out of straws to grasp.

 

[dadach]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: dadach

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

You mean the maximum fps? Like using SLI or crossfire like people have been doing the past several years to get the max performance possible? Different like that? These just keep getting better and better.

its just your squirming that is getting worse...or are you saying that once there is max stress on the GPU for 3D, the physx capability do not suffer a hit?

Yeah, I'm the one that should be squirming right now. Not.

PhysX, as you WELL know, introduces performance hits. So does AA. So does AF. So does 3DVision. So does depth of field. So does shader quality. So does higher resolution.

And before PhysX ever existed, what did people do who's GPU's couldn't hack the framerates?
They upgraded, or doubled, even tripled up in some cases. Is there something new here that you're alluding to? Because you're running out of straws to grasp.

is this sinking to a new low for you? you are actually comparing AA, AF to Physx? im sorry to say but you are losing it in your attempts to justify this...unless you can show us where AA or AF can be run on a separate nvidia card

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: dadach

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: dadach

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

You mean the maximum fps? Like using SLI or crossfire like people have been doing the past several years to get the max performance possible? Different like that? These just keep getting better and better.

its just your squirming that is getting worse...or are you saying that once there is max stress on the GPU for 3D, the physx capability do not suffer a hit?

Yeah, I'm the one that should be squirming right now. Not.

PhysX, as you WELL know, introduces performance hits. So does AA. So does AF. So does 3DVision. So does depth of field. So does shader quality. So does higher resolution.

And before PhysX ever existed, what did people do who's GPU's couldn't hack the framerates?
They upgraded, or doubled, even tripled up in some cases. Is there something new here that you're alluding to? Because you're running out of straws to grasp.

is this sinking to a new low for you? you are actually comparing AA, AF to Physx? im sorry to say but you are losing it in your attempts to justify this...unless you can show us where AA or AF can be run on a separate nvidia card

You're off the tracks. Get yourself back on, then we'll talk.

 

[dadach]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr


You're off the tracks. Get yourself back on, then we'll talk.

LOL you just got owned...unless, and i ask again, you can show separate vga cards that run exclusively AA, AF, depth, shaderQ, like it can happen with physx

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: dadach

Originally posted by: Keysplayr


You're off the tracks. Get yourself back on, then we'll talk.

LOL you just got owned...unless, and i ask again, you can show separate vga cards that run exclusively AA, AF, depth, shaderQ, like it can happen with physx

Are you ignoring that I mentioned that we didn't need a second card to run PhysX? Because that's what it's looking like. Did you?

So you tell me. Are you talking about two or more cards, and if so, why.

Or are you talking about performance, in which case I gave examples of many items that eat up performance on a GPU. What is it that you want? I don't have a clue after your ring around the rosie. And after my apparent ownage? I'll be right back. I have to go and laugh for a while. You understand. :laugh:

 

[dadach]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: dadach

Originally posted by: Keysplayr


You're off the tracks. Get yourself back on, then we'll talk.

LOL you just got owned...unless, and i ask again, you can show separate vga cards that run exclusively AA, AF, depth, shaderQ, like it can happen with physx

Are you ignoring that I mentioned that we didn't need a second card to run PhysX? Because that's what it's looking like. Did you?

So you tell me. Are you talking about two or more cards, and if so, why.

Or are you talking about performance, in which case I gave examples of many items that eat up performance on a GPU. What is it that you want? I don't have a clue after your ring around the rosie. And after my apparent ownage? I'll be right back. I have to go and laugh for a while. You understand. :laugh:

what you need to do, again, is go back and read what i said...you seem to be good in going back and finding things...use it again this time...you will see that what i said is that Physx needs to be run on a separate card to get max performance, because it slows the main card down...to what i got a ridiculous reply about AA, AF that also slow down the main card, but they cannot be run separately can they?...maybe you can run triple sli + physx tests to see what is faster...triple sli with physx enabled, or double sli + one card only for physx...lets see how well the technology integrates...surely you have the resources to get these kinds of benchmarks


ah there we go:

At a resolution of 1600x1200 the results were close to the same. I found it interesting that a pair of GeForce GTX 280 video cards in SLI with a GeForce 9600 GT being used for PhysX performed better than a set of GeForce GTX 280 video cards in 3-way SLI.

thats just sad lol

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: dadach

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: dadach

Originally posted by: Keysplayr


You're off the tracks. Get yourself back on, then we'll talk.

LOL you just got owned...unless, and i ask again, you can show separate vga cards that run exclusively AA, AF, depth, shaderQ, like it can happen with physx

Are you ignoring that I mentioned that we didn't need a second card to run PhysX? Because that's what it's looking like. Did you?

So you tell me. Are you talking about two or more cards, and if so, why.

Or are you talking about performance, in which case I gave examples of many items that eat up performance on a GPU. What is it that you want? I don't have a clue after your ring around the rosie. And after my apparent ownage? I'll be right back. I have to go and laugh for a while. You understand. :laugh:

what you need to do, again, is go back and read what i said...you seem to be good in going back and finding things...use it again this time...you will see that what i said is that Physx needs to be run on a separate card to get max performance, because it slows the main card down...to what i got a ridiculous reply about AA, AF that also slow down the main card, but they cannot be run separately can they?...maybe you can run triple sli + physx tests to see what is faster...triple sli with physx enabled, or double sli + one card only for physx...lets see how well the technology integrates...surely you have the resources to get these kinds of benchmarks


ah there we go:

At a resolution of 1600x1200 the results were close to the same. I found it interesting that a pair of GeForce GTX 280 video cards in SLI with a GeForce 9600 GT being used for PhysX performed better than a set of GeForce GTX 280 video cards in 3-way SLI.

thats just sad lol

Are you really having trouble connecting these dots, dadach?

 

[dadach]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: dadach

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: dadach

Originally posted by: Keysplayr


You're off the tracks. Get yourself back on, then we'll talk.

LOL you just got owned...unless, and i ask again, you can show separate vga cards that run exclusively AA, AF, depth, shaderQ, like it can happen with physx

Are you ignoring that I mentioned that we didn't need a second card to run PhysX? Because that's what it's looking like. Did you?

So you tell me. Are you talking about two or more cards, and if so, why.

Or are you talking about performance, in which case I gave examples of many items that eat up performance on a GPU. What is it that you want? I don't have a clue after your ring around the rosie. And after my apparent ownage? I'll be right back. I have to go and laugh for a while. You understand. :laugh:

what you need to do, again, is go back and read what i said...you seem to be good in going back and finding things...use it again this time...you will see that what i said is that Physx needs to be run on a separate card to get max performance, because it slows the main card down...to what i got a ridiculous reply about AA, AF that also slow down the main card, but they cannot be run separately can they?...maybe you can run triple sli + physx tests to see what is faster...triple sli with physx enabled, or double sli + one card only for physx...lets see how well the technology integrates...surely you have the resources to get these kinds of benchmarks


ah there we go:

At a resolution of 1600x1200 the results were close to the same. I found it interesting that a pair of GeForce GTX 280 video cards in SLI with a GeForce 9600 GT being used for PhysX performed better than a set of GeForce GTX 280 video cards in 3-way SLI.

thats just sad lol

Are you really having trouble connecting these dots, dadach?

im sure its best for you to hide from this, unless you think that this pathetic try to change the subject and ignore the facts presented will help your cause

lets see:
it is a fact what i said before that physx does need a separate card to run to the full capability...furthermore it is just RIDICULOUS that a cheap ass 9600GT running physx + dual GTX280, outperform triple sli setup of GTX280...if i had that setup, i would feel cheated as hell...nice relationship does nvidia have for its customers LOL

now do you realize yet how much you got owned here, or are you still gonna deny it, and try to change the subject?...

 

[Keysplayr]

Yeah dadach. You win. You're a legend. I'll leave you alone to celebrate. /sarcasm.

 

[dadach]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
Yeah dadach. You win. You're a legend. I'll leave you alone to celebrate. /sarcasm.

what? and nvidia users do not get an explanation why is there so poorly implemented technology that punishes triple sli users who bought their hardware for the sole reason to have the fastest VGA system on the planet, and now to get the best performance, they have to disable one of ther mega-expensive cards, and use it (omg guess what) exclusively for running physx

my work is done here...good feeling for sure