ATM, nvidia is still trying to use Physx to sell gpus, if you care enough about physx to throw your old nvidia card into a system, they're hoping you'll care enough to just buy a new nvidia card as well.
Keysplayr
Elite Member
- Jan 16, 2003
- 21,219
- 55
- 91
Yeah, it's unavoidable though. What can I do. I did say that it is a bummer Nv is supposedly doing this. But I also said I could understand why they are supposedly doing this. I say supposedly until we all hear it officially from Nv. That email looked pretty convincing, but that's really it for now.
Now, HurleyBird, what bothers me is that the contrary of what you posted doesn't equally sicken you. A vendor who will "not add" functionality. If you're going to let yourself be sickened by things, let them all sicken you with the proper weight. No?
I'm not apologizing for anybody. Is this a good business move for NV? I have no idea. It seems rather radical, but who knows what goes on behind the board room doors. I sure don't. Could be a new wave of PhysX titles coming out? I'm not certain. May be designed to entice more people to buy Nvidia if that's the case. And whether it is right or wrong depends on where you are standing. If you're a consumer with an ATI card and want to also run PhysX, not so hot a place to be standing. If you're Nvidia, which is a corporation, and new PhysX titles are on the way, then it might be a good place to be.
So, you can keep your respect points bud, that is not what this is about. It's my annoyance, that over the last year or more, folks have been downplaying, belittling, diminishing the importance of what they would call a checkbox feature. PhysX. A gimmick that is useless. Some of these folks were/are ATI product users. Their cards could not support PhysX, so it was useless to them. Now, all of a sudden, PhysX will be totally unavailable to them, and will no longer have the ability to use a NV GPU as a dedicated PhysX processor.
UPROAR!
Why? When they didn't think PhysX was even worthy to be mentioned prior to this.
Yet I'm seeing that more people than I thought, actually purchased lower end NV cards to run what they couldn't run before. It annoys me, because contrary to what they state in the forums about PhysX, they still acquired NV cards to run PhysX. Apparently, they DID feel they were missing out on something. No matter how small/minor or large a scale PhysX was incorporated into a game, they still wanted it.
I just don't know why they couldn't be a bit more honest in their attitude towards PhysX when all those threads were mainstream.
So, if I appear a bit annoyed, this is why. It's hypocritical to rage about something that is denied them, when they stated they thought it was worthless to them previously.
This isn't a blanket statement guys, so apologies to all those who never took this approach.
I'm not sure how many people actually bought a 2nd low end card to do PhysX but in my case (and SSChevy and MarkVenice mentioned this as well) I had the 8800GT from before to try it out. In fact my last 3 cards were nV (7900GTO, 8800GTS 640, 8800GT) before this 4870. So I could have even kept my GTS 640 and used that for PhysX but at the time I sold it, it wasn't something even worth considering. I think I've spent enough money on their cards lately to not be forced to buy another higher end card. 
Konakona hit on exactly my line of thinking. ATI+nV PhysX is such a small niche at least right now that nV has more to lose by doing this. If I have the opportunity to try PhysX I'm much more likely to buy a higher end PhysX supporting card next time if I find it's a great feature (at the same time I can see why they think this is smart business wise). Anyway, if this IS true so be it...I won't be able to try PhysX.
Konakona hit on exactly my line of thinking. ATI+nV PhysX is such a small niche at least right now that nV has more to lose by doing this. If I have the opportunity to try PhysX I'm much more likely to buy a higher end PhysX supporting card next time if I find it's a great feature (at the same time I can see why they think this is smart business wise). Anyway, if this IS true so be it...I won't be able to try PhysX.
WelshBloke
Lifer
- Jan 12, 2005
- 33,147
- 11,321
- 136
People have nV cards left over from upgrades. Although they won't work for PhysX, my last few gaming cards before the 4870 were: 7900GTX, 6800, 5700, 4200, gf3, gf2.
I haven't bought a second card for PhysX, but then I haven't bothered to install anything in my Vista boot either, I still do my gaming in the dark ages of DX9 and XP.
That doesn't stop me from seeing this as an "outrage" against those who have paid nvidia for cards that nvidia is (allegedly?) disabling out of spite.
Who's in an 'uproar'? I think this is a bad move on Nvidia's part if they really want widespread Physx adoption. For me, as of right now I don't consider Physx in my purchasing decision. Like I said, once they have a killer app things could certainly change, but as of now I don't care if I can or can't use Physx.
I think most people will buy based on price/performance ratio regardless of featuers like DX10.1 or Physx. So if AMD has a better card in a given price range that's the card I'm going to buy. That doesn't mean that later on I wouldn't ever want to buy an Nvidia card for Physx, but Nvidia will lose that sale.
I don't know, maybe this will push some people to buy Nvidia for their next upgrade, maybe this will hurt Physx adoption. I guess we'll have to wait and see. I would think Nvidia would first let Physx really get some traction before doing something like this, I see this hurting them more than helping personally.
I think most people will buy based on price/performance ratio regardless of featuers like DX10.1 or Physx. So if AMD has a better card in a given price range that's the card I'm going to buy. That doesn't mean that later on I wouldn't ever want to buy an Nvidia card for Physx, but Nvidia will lose that sale.
I don't know, maybe this will push some people to buy Nvidia for their next upgrade, maybe this will hurt Physx adoption. I guess we'll have to wait and see. I would think Nvidia would first let Physx really get some traction before doing something like this, I see this hurting them more than helping personally.
Not adding functionality != taking functionality away.
1. Functionality was there before and people were able to get it working.
2. PhysX was originally designed as a standalone card, no "driver incompatability" existed back then with Radeon cards. An Nvidia card doing physics is doing completely different work than an ATI card doing graphics. They don't need to touch at all. All of this 'driver incompatability' is BS. It's not like both cards are doing graphics, or both cards are doing physX. They are operating in completely seperate domains. If there are some 'quirks' using both cards together it's because Nvidia them there in the first place.
Nice Straw man blanket statement. I think most people are ticked off because they have an old Nvidia card they want to use for CUDA and Physics, or are planning to upgrade to Evergreen and will at that point put the old card in that place (like me). However, even if someone beleives beleives Nvidia overexagerates the importance of phsyX, it doesen't make them a hyporcrite for wanting to use an old Nvidia card to get additional features in games that support it. PhsyX isn't going to sway my purchasing decision one way or the other, but, you know, it would be nice to have for the occasions when it actually is useful.
Mem
Lifer
- Apr 23, 2000
- 21,476
- 13
- 81
I think the point is they paid for an Nvidia card but can't use it for PhysX because of Nvidia not AMD,as you said bad for the consumer, anyway I would be annoyed too if I had paid for hardware where I can't use the features(regardless of the product in question).
Sometimes Keysplayr with all due respect you sound like an Nvidia salesman and I don't know if you are being serious or joking sometimes.
Another factor is lot of gamers have both Nvidia and AMD/ATI cards(I know I do) lying around and I guess curiousity gets the better for some,you can't blame owners for trying it out since they do own Nvidia products and have the right to try it IMHO regardless if PhysX is good or bad in some people's opinion.
I think if you ask any sensible gamer they would prefer PhysX if its available on both sides,I know I would hate to be restricted to Nvidia only,yes we are going over old ground but I thinks its plain enough .
Keysplayr
Elite Member
- Jan 16, 2003
- 21,219
- 55
- 91
Originally posted by: Mem
I think the point is they paid for an Nvidia card but can't use it for PhysX because of Nvidia not AMD,as you said bad for the consumer, anyway I would be annoyed too if I had paid for hardware where I can't use the features(regardless of the product in question).
Sometimes Keysplayr with all due respect you sound like an Nvidia salesman and I don't know if you are being serious or joking sometimes.
Another factor is lot of gamers have both Nvidia and AMD/ATI cards(I know I do) lying around and I guess curiousity gets the better for some,you can't blame owners for trying it out since they do own Nvidia products and have the right to try it IMHO regardless if PhysX is good or bad in some people's opinion.
I think if you ask any sensible gamer they would prefer PhysX if its available on both sides,I know I would hate to be restricted to Nvidia only,yes we are going over old ground but I thinks its plain enough .
Or, you could think I sound like an Nvidia salesman because you think I should? Predetermined due to my affiliation is more likely. I understand that, but I really don't care about that stuff.
Yes, it is a bad situation all those people who bought Nvidia GPU's for use for PhysX. I can only be sympathetic with them. Maybe they can sell them and get a bit of cash back.
Annoying for them.
Keysplayr
Elite Member
- Jan 16, 2003
- 21,219
- 55
- 91
AFAIK, and if I understand you correctly, as of the new 190 series drivers, any Nvidia GPU whether it be integrated or discreet that has under 32 sp's and under 256MB of memory at it's disposal, could not be utilized for PhysX anyway. I can no longer use my 8400GS as a dedicated PhysX GPU. I have expressed my dissappointment to Nvidia over this. I went back to the 186s for the time being so I could still use it.
And, I would think that if you had a 790GX board, and you wanted to use the IGP as the PhysX processor, if it meets the criteria I listed above, it probably would not work with an ATI card in the system as the primary if what I'm getting out of all this is correct.
Did this answer your ques?
Mem
Lifer
- Apr 23, 2000
- 21,476
- 13
- 81
Originally posted by: Keysplayr
Originally posted by: Mem
I think the point is they paid for an Nvidia card but can't use it for PhysX because of Nvidia not AMD,as you said bad for the consumer, anyway I would be annoyed too if I had paid for hardware where I can't use the features(regardless of the product in question).
Sometimes Keysplayr with all due respect you sound like an Nvidia salesman and I don't know if you are being serious or joking sometimes.
Another factor is lot of gamers have both Nvidia and AMD/ATI cards(I know I do) lying around and I guess curiousity gets the better for some,you can't blame owners for trying it out since they do own Nvidia products and have the right to try it IMHO regardless if PhysX is good or bad in some people's opinion.
I think if you ask any sensible gamer they would prefer PhysX if its available on both sides,I know I would hate to be restricted to Nvidia only,yes we are going over old ground but I thinks its plain enough .
Or, you could think I sound like an Nvidia salesman because you think I should? Predetermined due to my affiliation is more likely. I understand that, but I really don't care about that stuff.
Yes, it is a bad situation all those people who bought Nvidia GPU's for use for PhysX. I can only be sympathetic with them. Maybe they can sell them and get a bit of cash back.
Annoying for them.
I give you the benefit of the doubt this time ,(sort of person I'm
) anyway I don't see what Nvidia would be losing if they did allow the Nvidia/AMD PhysX combo,you would still need to buy an Nvidia PhysX card so that would be good for Nvidia plus probably more sales too due to that ie Nvidia/AMD combo for PhysX or did they miss that possible market area?
Keysplayr
Elite Member
- Jan 16, 2003
- 21,219
- 55
- 91
That is what it appears to be. There is nothing that is good about this. Or at least that is obvious to the likes of us. Like I mentioned, we have no way of knowing "why" this is being done. To the end user, it makes zero sense. It looks like the gun is pointed at their own foot. "Looks".
So, I would agree with you. At least with the info we have. And that isn't much.
lopri
Elite Member
- Jul 27, 2002
- 13,314
- 690
- 126
Well, say on a scenario as below.
1. A user purchases a Phenom II and a 790GX board as well as a brand new GTX 285. (a 790GX board can have as many as 3 physical x16 slots)
2. S/he also has a 8800 GT from a previous build and intends to use it for Physix.
3. The 790GX's BIOS has its on-board GPU activated by default, but if a discrete GPU is detected it will be given a priority (but doesn't turn the IGP off).
4. The user puts the system together and installs Windows 7. Windows 7 comes with in-box Forceware and Catalyst (very up-to-date, surprisingly) and will recognize both vendors' cards. However, it may not be actually seen to the user unless s/he checks Device Manager.
5. Now the user installs ForceWare with a GTX 285 and a 8800 GT. ForceWare might detect (or not?) the IGP, in this case, Radeon HD 3300.
Does Physx work in the above scenario? I know it's imaginary, but just out of curiosity.
1. A user purchases a Phenom II and a 790GX board as well as a brand new GTX 285. (a 790GX board can have as many as 3 physical x16 slots)
2. S/he also has a 8800 GT from a previous build and intends to use it for Physix.
3. The 790GX's BIOS has its on-board GPU activated by default, but if a discrete GPU is detected it will be given a priority (but doesn't turn the IGP off).
4. The user puts the system together and installs Windows 7. Windows 7 comes with in-box Forceware and Catalyst (very up-to-date, surprisingly) and will recognize both vendors' cards. However, it may not be actually seen to the user unless s/he checks Device Manager.
5. Now the user installs ForceWare with a GTX 285 and a 8800 GT. ForceWare might detect (or not?) the IGP, in this case, Radeon HD 3300.
Does Physx work in the above scenario? I know it's imaginary, but just out of curiosity.
Maybe if you uninstalled the Catalyst IGP drivers (I've never used an AMD chipset with with IGP, are the drivers part of the chipset for IGP, or the regular Catalyst install?) than disabled the 'unknown' device in Device Manager would the Nvidia drivers be smart enough to still know the AMD device is there?
Or could you turn off the IGP in the bios?
I guess it looks like losing that IGP (say you had multiple monitors) is just the cost of using Physx in that scenario..?
Qbah
Diamond Member
- Oct 18, 2005
- 3,754
- 10
- 81
In the email the nhq-something guy got from nVidia it was said that since they've been doing all the research, testing, driver writing and all related actions with PhysX, they have the right to select what it can work with - and since they're also the biggest GPU maker, they made it so that only when an nV GPU is doing the rendering, PhysX can be utilized. It's a very direct but understandable stance. Also, nobody ever said it will be supported, it just happened to work.
Makes me wonder if a person has a GTX285 for example and a HD3450 for additional screens (I know it's asking for trouble, but I guess it can happen), will they still be able to run PhysX? I mean the GTX285 will do both 3D and PhysX, but based on what I read, it's enough there's an ATi card in the system to block PhysX... A confirmation would be nice
Finally, what's the big deal? If great PhysX titles will show up, we'll be well into next gen anyway or on the brink of changing. Might give people a reason to go green this round... Seriously, I don't really see the big deal here. Right now people aren't really missing on anything (what? 3-4 games with extra fluff?). And more than half have a GTX-class card anyway**. It's only a selected few that loose... Good reason for them to sell those nVidia cards lying around
**that is my wild assumption and no, I don't have any links to support my claim.
Makes me wonder if a person has a GTX285 for example and a HD3450 for additional screens (I know it's asking for trouble, but I guess it can happen), will they still be able to run PhysX? I mean the GTX285 will do both 3D and PhysX, but based on what I read, it's enough there's an ATi card in the system to block PhysX... A confirmation would be nice
Finally, what's the big deal? If great PhysX titles will show up, we'll be well into next gen anyway or on the brink of changing. Might give people a reason to go green this round... Seriously, I don't really see the big deal here. Right now people aren't really missing on anything (what? 3-4 games with extra fluff?). And more than half have a GTX-class card anyway**. It's only a selected few that loose... Good reason for them to sell those nVidia cards lying around
**that is my wild assumption and no, I don't have any links to support my claim.
Nemesis 1
Lifer
- Dec 30, 2006
- 11,366
- 2
- 0
Man interesting thread to say the list(least). I haven't agreed with NV in anything for years. But I got to say . I think NV has to do this to survive.
I do believe Most here understand that AMD /Intel are moving towards platiforms. If that occurs. NV is screwd. I really don't like NV because of how they do business but they do make great gpus. I don't want them gone .
Lets say Intels larrabee is just A bit slower than AMD/Nv . But Intels game from project offset is a Monster success story. AMD cpus will not play this game nor will NVs. I hope you all understand what that implies. I do exspect Intel to give AMD the compiler they need later. After the point is made . NV is not getting that compiler and they couldn't use it anyway. VLIW. Ya don't have to be real smart to know Intel is using VLIW.
So whats NV suppose to do ? They have to fight for there livies. For first time ever I am in NV corner on this one. Open your eyes people! Find out Intels First game is priority intel platform only . I will have INTEL . I not slapping at anybody here . But the future arrives sooner than later . Larrabee is a wake up call. Intel has the lock on this thing . Anyone using native VLIW will be sucking up to Intel . ARM /ATI/ Imagination . Apple is a oddman in . There OS Snow is strange , Really its strange . I completely don't get Apple but there in intels corner . Its the OS thats confussing as All hell.
I do believe Most here understand that AMD /Intel are moving towards platiforms. If that occurs. NV is screwd. I really don't like NV because of how they do business but they do make great gpus. I don't want them gone .
Lets say Intels larrabee is just A bit slower than AMD/Nv . But Intels game from project offset is a Monster success story. AMD cpus will not play this game nor will NVs. I hope you all understand what that implies. I do exspect Intel to give AMD the compiler they need later. After the point is made . NV is not getting that compiler and they couldn't use it anyway. VLIW. Ya don't have to be real smart to know Intel is using VLIW.
So whats NV suppose to do ? They have to fight for there livies. For first time ever I am in NV corner on this one. Open your eyes people! Find out Intels First game is priority intel platform only . I will have INTEL . I not slapping at anybody here . But the future arrives sooner than later . Larrabee is a wake up call. Intel has the lock on this thing . Anyone using native VLIW will be sucking up to Intel . ARM /ATI/ Imagination . Apple is a oddman in . There OS Snow is strange , Really its strange . I completely don't get Apple but there in intels corner . Its the OS thats confussing as All hell.
akugami
Diamond Member
- Feb 14, 2005
- 6,210
- 2,552
- 136
From my perspective, bad move. Again, with new tech, you want to increase the chances of it being used by the industry. There is a certain "chicken & egg" mentality that goes with pushing a new tech. Users won't adopt it unless there are games that use PhysX. Developers won't do anything game changing aside from adding a bit of extra fluff unless there is a wide user base. For nVidia to artificially limit the user base seems like a stupid move.
Forget integrated GPU's since they are not the target market for stuff like multi-GPU setups and extra add-on cards. Let's just look at the discrete GPU market. ATI owns 1/3 of the market. If someone came into a board meeting and said,"I got a bright idea. Let's impose limits so that 1/3 of the possible overall market can't use the new products we're pushing." One would imagine he'd get a lot of funny looks.
While one can also take the view that if PhysX hits it big, forcing the market to buy only nVidia cards is going to pay off big time. The problem with that view is PhysX is not yet compelling enough of a feature to shift consumers into buying only nVidia. At least not yet. And it'll have a tougher time with nVidia limiting the potential market.
This is assuming that the market share numbers stay the same. ATI has been competitive lately and at its height, ATI had about 40% of the market. This would make the nVidia only PhysX lock-in look like a boneheaded move by nVidia. While an uphill battle, it's not out of the question for ATI to return to those numbers if they remain competitive. They've built some good will and positive mind share with the 4xx0 series and our wallets hope ATI has a competitive 5xx0 series. It won't happen in just a product cycle but if ATI can get strong products in the 5xx0 series as well as whatever their next new GPU's will be, it's not out of the realm of possibility.
Again, it's an uphill battle but an example of another company once thought to have been finished shows that things can change dramatically. That company is Nintendo, once thought to have been fodder for acquisition by Microsoft or at the least restructure to become a games developer in the vein of Sega.
With all due respect Keys, your opinion seems to be that PhysX currently offers something compelling. I disagree. All articles so far as well as many videos showing off PhysX hasn't swayed me so far. If anything, these articles just go to show physics acceleration is still in its infancy and that while it is interesting, it is currently not ready to be a main feature. It is very much a checkbox feature.
I believe a lot of people realize that physics acceleration will change in the future. There's almost no question it will be a compelling feature in the future. However, just because a lot of people are excited by the future possibilities of physics acceleration doesn't mean we're currently excited by PhysX in its current state. There is a difference. After all, there's a possibility that Havok or some other form of physics acceleration will dominate.
The problem to a lot of folks who are saying PhysX is not a compelling feature at the moment is that should it become a compelling feature, they don't want to be locked out just because they have an ATI card. For them, the fact that nVidia seems to be covertly but actively locking out use of an ATI card as the primary GPU along with an nVidia card as a PhysX accelerator stinks.
There are a lot of folks with 8800's or 9800's sitting in the closet even though they bought ATI in this round of the GPU upgrades. They're not happy that they're locked out. My brother has 9800 GTX's from an SLI config before he upgraded to a 4870x2. They're sitting in his closet. If PhysX was compelling, and it worked with my 4870, I'd put it in right now. And my previous card was an 8800 GTS before I sold it.
akugami
Diamond Member
- Feb 14, 2005
- 6,210
- 2,552
- 136
Very very possible but I think that nVidia caught wind of it and seems to be actively making sure that it doesn't work instead of just giving it a nod and wink and saying that officially it's not supported.
Again, it's only my opinion but I think that was a stupid move on their part to actively exclude an ATI+nVidia combo.
Elfear
Diamond Member
- May 30, 2004
- 7,165
- 824
- 126
+1
The whole thing just leaves a sour taste in my mouth with the way Nvidia does business. I've had just as many Nvidia cards over the years (maybe more) than I have ATI cards since bang for the buck trumps brand loyalty in my book. However, with the way I see Nvidia running things lately, if both Nvidia and ATI offered cards that performed and cost the same, I'd probably pick the ATI card. I'm probably not alone in that sentiment either and it just strikes me that Nvidia isn't winning many customers with the business strategy they've taken.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter