nVidia disables PhysX when ATI card present in Win7

[SirPauly]

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
You feel Nvidia should not have disabled something that was never intended to work or be supported in the first place. Am I right? The fact that it worked at all, and not in every situation mind you, was probably sheer luck. Happenstance. Never intended to work nor was it ever advertised to work with an ATI card as a primary in the system. It's not how it was designed or intended to work.

And it's sheer luck, happenstance, that memory made by different companies works together, hard drives, etc... I can even run printers from different companies on my pc at the same time. It is absolutely absurd to even try to defend Nvidia on this one. They clearly put code in on purpose to disable their card from working when it detected other hardware in the PC.

Nvidia might as well put an asterisk on the box of all of their products: *We may disable PhysX from working on your system at our leisure without warning.

I don't think it is that easy considering the potential of complexity to create drivers for GPU's and GPU Physics -- considering nVidia may write them to get the most out of their hardware over-all - while still offering a good and stable experience. I think creating stable drivers and getting the most out of them is very hard work and takes great resources that many take for granted.

 

[akugami]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
You feel Nvidia should not have disabled something that was never intended to work or be supported in the first place. Am I right? The fact that it worked at all, and not in every situation mind you, was probably sheer luck. Happenstance. Never intended to work nor was it ever advertised to work with an ATI card as a primary in the system. It's not how it was designed or intended to work.

PhysX working on a Geforce card is pure luck? Comeon now you make it seem as if it's running on the ATI card. I know what you're trying to say but the fact is, is that it's not anything extraordinary that it was running in the first place...since PhysX IS designed to run on nV cards. The Ageia cards worked fine regardless of the primary GPU so it's hard to believe the same functions couldn't be pulled off in this case. This is plain and simple a "business" move...whether it's actually good for business is debatable.

Is that really what I said Thilan? Really? That its sheer luck that physx runs on a nvidia gpu? Why did you opt to take what I said to mean that?

Isn't that what you said? That Physx working (on an Nvidia GPU, since that's what it runs on) was 'probably sheer luck' when used in a system with an AMD GPU. That's how I took what you said.

Obviously it wasn't luck, it worked, than Nvidia decided to pull the rug out. Good thing they care about their customers who spent money on an Nvidia GPU to run Physx. :laugh:

Just to keep things in perspective, we can't conclusively say that this was done by nVidia. We need someone more knowledgeable about such issues to investigate and chime in.

While I lean towards this issue being a conscious effort by nVidia, at this time, we can't really say one way or the other with the information at hand.

My own feelings are that this was a business decision by nVidia. While it is minor issue now because PhysX and other physics acceleration is in it's infancy, it has the potential to be a huge issue later.

If PhysX becomes the dominant physics acceleration standard, we might find ourselves paying out the rear as we're steered towards nVidia only if we want the best full featured GPU's. As others have stated, vendor lock-ins do not benefit consumers. In this case, we'd probably return to the Geforce 8xx0 days and how expensive those GPU's were.

 

[yusux]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: yusux

Originally posted by: thilan29
http://www.ngohq.com/graphic-c...i-card-is-present.html

That sucks...the most they should have done is say "we won't support it" and just leave it to people to hack n slash physx if they really wanted to. I had it working with a spare 8800GT in Mirror's Edge and some tech demos so it does work sometimes in Win7. Some posters are actually questioning the legality of this...could this actually be illegal?

I wonder if this will affect people who run multiple cards for multiple monitors (ie. someone who wants to run PhysX that has multiple monitors)?

When u bought the 8800 gt, did they advertise it was physx capable anywhere on the box and on the website you bought it from? It they did then this is probably illegal to somepoint as it is a form of false advertisement.

It's also a DirectX capable card as well. But run it in a Linux system.

DirectX belongs to Microsoft, not Linux. And what does DirectX has to do with PhysX? STOP trolling the topic.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
Is that really what I said Thilan? Really? That its sheer luck that physx runs on a nvidia gpu? Why did you opt to take what I said to mean that?

That is why I said:
"I know what you're trying to say but the fact is, is that it's not anything extraordinary that it was running in the first place..."

I know what you're trying to say (that it wasn't intended to work in this manner) BUT it IS running as intended (ie. on the nV GPU). The way you said it sounded like there was something extraordinary going on when really there isn't. As before the PhysX is running on the nV GPU. What is happenstance about PhysX running on the nV GPU...regardless of what the primary GPU is? Did they ever state (before they blocked it) that you HAVE to have a primary nV GPU as well? I've never seen a statement like that but if you have could you please point me to it?

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
You feel Nvidia should not have disabled something that was never intended to work or be supported in the first place. Am I right? The fact that it worked at all, and not in every situation mind you, was probably sheer luck. Happenstance. Never intended to work nor was it ever advertised to work with an ATI card as a primary in the system. It's not how it was designed or intended to work.

PhysX working on a Geforce card is pure luck? Comeon now you make it seem as if it's running on the ATI card. I know what you're trying to say but the fact is, is that it's not anything extraordinary that it was running in the first place...since PhysX IS designed to run on nV cards. The Ageia cards worked fine regardless of the primary GPU so it's hard to believe the same functions couldn't be pulled off in this case. This is plain and simple a "business" move...whether it's actually good for business is debatable.

Is that really what I said Thilan? Really? That its sheer luck that physx runs on a nvidia gpu? Why did you opt to take what I said to mean that?

Isn't that what you said? That Physx working (on an Nvidia GPU, since that's what it runs on) was 'probably sheer luck' when used in a system with an AMD GPU. That's how I took what you said.

Obviously it wasn't luck, it worked, than Nvidia decided to pull the rug out. Good thing they care about their customers who spent money on an Nvidia GPU to run Physx. :laugh:

Ah, god. It's hand holding time I see. SHEER LUCK that the TWO cards; ATI and Nvidia worked together in a system each with their own drivers STABLE enough for them both to work together. And it seems it did this only occasionally. Not because they were MADE to work together in this fashion.

Not trying to insult or anything, but what is with the playing stupid routine?

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
Is that really what I said Thilan? Really? That its sheer luck that physx runs on a nvidia gpu? Why did you opt to take what I said to mean that?

That is why I said:
"I know what you're trying to say but the fact is, is that it's not anything extraordinary that it was running in the first place..."

I know what you're trying to say (that it wasn't intended to work in this manner) BUT it IS running as intended (ie. on the nV GPU). The way you said it sounded like there was something extraordinary going on when really there isn't. As before the PhysX is running on the nV GPU. What is happenstance about PhysX running on the nV GPU...regardless of what the primary GPU is? Did they ever state (before they blocked it) that you HAVE to have a primary nV GPU as well? I've never seen a statement like that but if you have could you please point me to it?

You know as well as anybody, that more often than not, systems with both NV and ATI drivers at the same time do not play well together. That is why we have programs like driver cleaner to remove all possible remnants of old drivers ESPECIALLY when changing from NV to ATI to NV. The "happenstance" was not that PhysX ran on the NV GPU. The "happenstance" was that it ran on the NV GPU while utilizing an ATI as the primary graphics card, WITHOUT issues. Which didn't happen either.

I can tell you for damn sure, that NV didn't state, or advertise, that you could use an ATI card for the primary card with the NV GPU running Phsyx.

People just tried it. Worked for some, not for others, probably due to their rigs software configurations, old driver remnants, the usual suspects.

 

[thilanliyan]

About the drivers working together...since Win7 was designed with this in mind...what's so surprising that it works well? It even works in XP (although probably less often than in Win7). The only reason it doesn't work in Vista is because it was blocked.

I agree mixing drivers could be a problem though...in my own case there were no BSODs or anything like that and no anomalies...but it could happen.

I wish I could test it more (Arkham Asylum uses PhysX and Apex I think) with older drivers but the way my WC radiator and sound card are set up, it's a pain to use the 2nd PCI-e slot now.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
You feel Nvidia should not have disabled something that was never intended to work or be supported in the first place. Am I right? The fact that it worked at all, and not in every situation mind you, was probably sheer luck. Happenstance. Never intended to work nor was it ever advertised to work with an ATI card as a primary in the system. It's not how it was designed or intended to work.

PhysX working on a Geforce card is pure luck? Comeon now you make it seem as if it's running on the ATI card. I know what you're trying to say but the fact is, is that it's not anything extraordinary that it was running in the first place...since PhysX IS designed to run on nV cards. The Ageia cards worked fine regardless of the primary GPU so it's hard to believe the same functions couldn't be pulled off in this case. This is plain and simple a "business" move...whether it's actually good for business is debatable.

Is that really what I said Thilan? Really? That its sheer luck that physx runs on a nvidia gpu? Why did you opt to take what I said to mean that?

Isn't that what you said? That Physx working (on an Nvidia GPU, since that's what it runs on) was 'probably sheer luck' when used in a system with an AMD GPU. That's how I took what you said.

Obviously it wasn't luck, it worked, than Nvidia decided to pull the rug out. Good thing they care about their customers who spent money on an Nvidia GPU to run Physx. :laugh:

Ah, god. It's hand holding time I see. SHEER LUCK that the TWO cards; ATI and Nvidia worked together in a system each with their own drivers STABLE enough for them both to work together. And it seems it did this only occasionally. Not because they were MADE to work together in this fashion.

Not trying to insult or anything, but what is with the playing stupid routine?

Errrr, I wasn't playing stupid. I said exactly what you did. That it was probably sheer luck (in your opinion) that the Nvidia card ran Physx when it was coupled with and AMD graphics card. I don't think that was the case personally, the Nvidia card just ran the physics calcs, the AMD card output the graphics. It obviously did work. I don't understand why you think I was being or playing stupid, I said what you said... that you felt it was luck that Physx ran when an AMD card handled graphics duty. I guess I don't see why you have a problem with what I said.

Also, no one has addressed the scenario that I proposed earlier. Say you bought an AMD Radeon 48x0 to use in your Intel based system for HD and it's 7.1 audio ability. Later AMD removes that capability when it decects an Intel chipset. People would be pretty pissed right? You paid for a piece of hardware that is advertised to have certain features, you bought it and used it to enjoy those features, then they remove it after the fact. I don't get how the pro-Nvidia crowd can think that would be ok? I know I'd think that was a shit move on the part of the hardware maker regardless of what company created the part.

But again, luckily for Nvidia that population is probably very small so there won't be a huge uproar over it. I think most people who use Physx do so because they have an Nvidia card anyway, it's not yet to the point that I see a lot of people buying add-in cards just to run it, though obviously there are at least some people who do

 

[SlowSpyder]

Looks like it's official. I know Keys mentioned that we don't know for sure if it's truely even the case that the Nvidia GPU won't work as a Physx card with an AMD GPU working as the display adapter, but it looks like Nvidia has it on their FAQ for Physx.

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

I'm not sure if that was already verified, but just figued I'd post it incase it hasn't.

 

[SirPauly]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
You feel Nvidia should not have disabled something that was never intended to work or be supported in the first place. Am I right? The fact that it worked at all, and not in every situation mind you, was probably sheer luck. Happenstance. Never intended to work nor was it ever advertised to work with an ATI card as a primary in the system. It's not how it was designed or intended to work.

PhysX working on a Geforce card is pure luck? Comeon now you make it seem as if it's running on the ATI card. I know what you're trying to say but the fact is, is that it's not anything extraordinary that it was running in the first place...since PhysX IS designed to run on nV cards. The Ageia cards worked fine regardless of the primary GPU so it's hard to believe the same functions couldn't be pulled off in this case. This is plain and simple a "business" move...whether it's actually good for business is debatable.

Is that really what I said Thilan? Really? That its sheer luck that physx runs on a nvidia gpu? Why did you opt to take what I said to mean that?

Isn't that what you said? That Physx working (on an Nvidia GPU, since that's what it runs on) was 'probably sheer luck' when used in a system with an AMD GPU. That's how I took what you said.

Obviously it wasn't luck, it worked, than Nvidia decided to pull the rug out. Good thing they care about their customers who spent money on an Nvidia GPU to run Physx. :laugh:

Ah, god. It's hand holding time I see. SHEER LUCK that the TWO cards; ATI and Nvidia worked together in a system each with their own drivers STABLE enough for them both to work together. And it seems it did this only occasionally. Not because they were MADE to work together in this fashion.

Not trying to insult or anything, but what is with the playing stupid routine?

Errrr, I wasn't playing stupid. I said exactly what you did. That it was probably sheer luck (in your opinion) that the Nvidia card ran Physx when it was coupled with and AMD graphics card. I don't think that was the case personally, the Nvidia card just ran the physics calcs, the AMD card output the graphics. It obviously did work. I don't understand why you think I was being or playing stupid, I said what you said... that you felt it was luck that Physx ran when an AMD card handled graphics duty. I guess I don't see why you have a problem with what I said.

Also, no one has addressed the scenario that I proposed earlier. Say you bought an AMD Radeon 48x0 to use in your Intel based system for HD and it's 7.1 audio ability. Later AMD removes that capability when it decects an Intel chipset. People would be pretty pissed right? You paid for a piece of hardware that is advertised to have certain features, you bought it and used it to enjoy those features, then they remove it after the fact. I don't get how the pro-Nvidia crowd can think that would be ok? I know I'd think that was a shit move on the part of the hardware maker regardless of what company created the part.

But again, luckily for Nvidia that population is probably very small so there won't be a huge uproar over it. I think most people who use Physx do so because they have an Nvidia card anyway, it's not yet to the point that I see a lot of people buying add-in cards just to run it, though obviously there are at least some people who do

I think it sucks that an ATI user can't enjoy a GPU PhysX discrete card. It would be nice to see more gamers enjoy dynamic content but can't blanket the decision just on locking out or leverage based on such limited data.

The key is nVidia has offered their reasons -- need someone with some technical background to chime in where the pitfalls may be.

 

[akugami]

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.

What a load of bull. If nVidia wanted to, they could improve the drivers specifically to allow other GPU's acting as the main video card while the nVidia GPU does PhysX only. The fact that it worked previously gives the lie to this statement. I'm not saying ATI+nVidia(PhysX) worked well but then the drivers were never programmed with that specifically in mind. I'm sure if they wanted to they could code specifically to allow this. Unless of course you're saying it's not possible. In which case, nVidia's driver team is inept.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: SirPauly


I think it sucks that an ATI user can't enjoy a GPU PhysX discrete card. It would be nice to see more gamers enjoy dynamic content but can't blanket the decision just on locking out or leverage based on such limited data.

The key is nVidia has offered their reasons -- need someone with some technical background to chime in where the pitfalls may be.

You do realize that it worked fine before, right? There have been plenty of people using Win7 (and I guess XP as well) that had AMD GPU's pushing their graphics with an Nvidia GPU running as a PPU. Nvidia could have easily stated that not using an Nvidia graphics adapter as both a GPU and PPU would not be supported in any way, but instead they just turned off that ability and screwed over people who paid for an Nvidia part to run Physx along with their AMD GPU.

 

[Pantalaimon]

Wouldn't this also affect people who has a motherboard with onboard ATI graphics? I mean what if some users would like to use 3 monitors and use the onboard grahics to power the 3rd monitor and a normal NVIDIA card to power the other two?

 

[MrPickins]

This is bad for the consumer, bad for Nvidia, and seriously bad for PhysX.

 

[DaveSimmons]

I wonder if ATI is secretly happy that nVidia is shooting themselves in the foot like this, and in doing so making an open standard seem more attractive than before.

 

[HurleyBird]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

You know as well as anybody, that more often than not, systems with both NV and ATI drivers at the same time do not play well together. That is why we have programs like driver cleaner to remove all possible remnants of old drivers ESPECIALLY when changing from NV to ATI to NV. The "happenstance" was not that PhysX ran on the NV GPU. The "happenstance" was that it ran on the NV GPU while utilizing an ATI as the primary graphics card, WITHOUT issues.

Well, now you?re just being intellectually dishonest. Disabling PhysX, or any other feature for that matter, is not a real solution if the problem is the general instability involved with running multiple graphics drivers in a system. That?s about as asinine as saying ?Systems that run two different display drivers tend to be unstable. To fix this we are going to disable Anti-Aliasing in our driver when our competitors driver is detected!?. A real solution would be to stop the driver from installing altogether when another company?s display driver is detected. Not to mention that Nvidia?s official word on the subject has nothing to do with incompatibilities due to running multiple display drivers -- it?s some BS that there is intricate communications involved between PhysX and graphics that only Nvidia cards can do.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: yusux
DirectX belongs to Microsoft, not Linux. And what does DirectX has to do with PhysX? STOP trolling the topic.

PhysX belongs to nVidia, not AMD. Stop trolling.

 

[dadach]

wow...this pretty much shows how much of a crap company nvidia is...and LOL@keysplayers poor attempts to justify this bullshit...the fact is...a system with 2 nvidia cards runs PHYSX better than a system with single nvidia card running both 3D and PHYSX...so ONE nvidia card is INTENDED to run only PHYSX...therefore there should be no problem at all to run ATI card as a primary one, and PHYSX on some nvidia cards...but no, the green team had to go out and be assholes once again...pathetic crybabies LOL

 

[SirPauly]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

Originally posted by: SirPauly


I think it sucks that an ATI user can't enjoy a GPU PhysX discrete card. It would be nice to see more gamers enjoy dynamic content but can't blanket the decision just on locking out or leverage based on such limited data.

The key is nVidia has offered their reasons -- need someone with some technical background to chime in where the pitfalls may be.

You do realize that it worked fine before, right? There have been plenty of people using Win7 (and I guess XP as well) that had AMD GPU's pushing their graphics with an Nvidia GPU running as a PPU. Nvidia could have easily stated that not using an Nvidia graphics adapter as both a GPU and PPU would not be supported in any way, but instead they just turned off that ability and screwed over people who paid for an Nvidia part to run Physx along with their AMD GPU.

Based on what testing? You? A handful of people?

 

[SirPauly]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

Originally posted by: SirPauly


I think it sucks that an ATI user can't enjoy a GPU PhysX discrete card. It would be nice to see more gamers enjoy dynamic content but can't blanket the decision just on locking out or leverage based on such limited data.

The key is nVidia has offered their reasons -- need someone with some technical background to chime in where the pitfalls may be.

You do realize that it worked fine before, right? There have been plenty of people using Win7 (and I guess XP as well) that had AMD GPU's pushing their graphics with an Nvidia GPU running as a PPU. Nvidia could have easily stated that not using an Nvidia graphics adapter as both a GPU and PPU would not be supported in any way, but instead they just turned off that ability and screwed over people who paid for an Nvidia part to run Physx along with their AMD GPU.

No, I actually don't. Just because a few posters say so -- doesn't make it so in the content intended and future PhysX coming down the pipe-line that may be more complex. Does anyone know what the added costs and resources used? Does anyone know this? I don't know how nVidia's drivers over-all communicate with each other and the optimizations they use and how ATI's drivers may differ. Does this matter with GPU Physics? nVidia offers tight collaboration and multiple connections. What do I know of all the content intended? Do you? I try not to offer blanket views -- just try to see points-of-views and raise more questions.

This in my mind-set looks like it was going to be a lose-lose situation for ATI without ATI support.. nVidia is a company and one can't expect them to spend all the resources -- have all the accountability -- have all the risk. It's nVidia's responsibility to make sure PhysX offers a "good" experience first and can only guarantee it with nVidia systems according to them.

You can't expect a company with Windows 7 launch coming to simply offer "at your own risk" with ATI -- because for the gamers that may have problems -- some forums may knee-jerk and blame nVidia for sabatoge and trying to lock out ATI this way. It still is nVidia's responsibility and accountability here - not yours or mine.

nVidia is in a lose-lose situation no matter what to some mind-sets. PhysX Sucks; PhysX will die; it's not an open standard; the CPU can do it; nvidia misleads; Laughable content; fluttering leaves and cloth. Take another hit now and move forward. It's sucks; it would be nice to see more dynamic content for ATI users but it's not my call.

Personally would desire to see more data with nVidia's answers for clarity. I think it sucks though that ATI users can't enjoy more dynamic content.

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

Call up ATi and ask them about that. Ultimately it was there choice not to support the API on their GPUs in the first place.

This has nothing to do with ATi given nVidia is blocking it. Not to mention that I?m not at all convinced ATi supporting PhysX would?ve made a shred of difference. They supported CF on nVidia?s chipsets, yet nVidia still blocked it.

It's the same hardware that is on their stand alone TV tuner boards that works just fine with other vendors GPUs. Given we are talking about mixing differing functionality across multiple GPUs we are talking about the same thing here.

I?ve read this several times and I still cannot understand what you?re even replying to.

My point is that having a problematic driver is not the same thing as actively blocking something that worked before on the basis of competition being detected. That and the Voodoo 2 is essentially invisible as far as 2D hooks go, so as far as the ATi card is concerned it?s essentially not even in the system.

Your example is quite frankly ludicrous, especially since Amber has demonstrated that relevant hardware co-exists with her ATi card just fine, contrary to your claims of driver lock-out on ATi?s side.

You have a good point, nV stopping other hardware from running on their platform would be rather underhanded if they were to exploit legal pressures and pull licensing agreements out from under their partners. Kind of exactly like what AMD did to nVidia.

Which license(s) are you referring to? Evidence please?

Where did all the nV AMD chipsets go?

Straight from nVidia?s CEO, as posted earlier in this thread: http://www.pcper.com/article.p...=734&type=expert&pid=4

?Some examples of that would be when AMD merged with ATI--that deal caused us to rethink our go-to-market strategy. We used to build chip sets completely top to bottom for every AMD microprocessor. When AMD bought ATI, it became a less logical decision to make. And so we decided that we would change our strategy from investing on AMD chip sets top to bottom to focusing on the Intel platform.

So let?s see evidence of your claims that AMD is locking out nVidia through licensing. Thanks.

Seriously man, double standard much? On a technical basis it can work as the chipset supports it and the hardware does, it is a limitation of the BIOS.

Kind of like ULi you mean? Oh that?s right, that was blocked at nVidia?s driver level. So no, it?s nothing to do with a BIOS limitation.

As was posted earlier: http://www.nforcershq.com/nvid...sables-ulis-sli-patch/

Forceware 81.98 and later has a new code that will detect the SLI patch and disable two cards to run in SLI mode.

So if nVidia disables previously working SLI at their ForceWare driver level, how exactly do you envision the BIOS as being the issue here?

AMD shutting nV out of their chipset business is OK, and ATi refusing to support the standard when given the option is OK, but nV not allowing a potential nightmare on the
driver side to function isn't OK? Hypocrisy running a bit on the steep side today?

You?ve been repeatedly asked to provide evidence of your claims but you?ve failed to do so. You?ve also been shown multiple examples of nVidia locking out the competition, and also Amber has demonstrated that nVidia cards can in fact be installed with an ATi AIW while retaining full functionality of said card.

Your claims are fictional until you provide relevant evidence to back them.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: dadach
wow...this pretty much shows how much of a crap company nvidia is...and LOL@keysplayers poor attempts to justify this bullshit...the fact is...a system with 2 nvidia cards runs PHYSX better than a system with single nvidia card running both 3D and PHYSX...so ONE nvidia card is INTENDED to run only PHYSX...therefore there should be no problem at all to run ATI card as a primary one, and PHYSX on some nvidia cards...but no, the green team had to go out and be assholes once again...pathetic crybabies LOL

My attempts to justify bullshit? Does it look like I'm the only one who thinks there are reasons other than "just to lock ATI out" for Nvidia to do this? There are many pages here with members having opinions for both.

Your "logic" above in bold, is very flawed. And most interesting is the keyword "should" that you used. As mentioned, a handful of people tried this type of setup. Mixed results. It either worked, or didn't. Worked in a demo/title while not working in others.

Some previous quotes from you regarding PhysX:

Wreckage:
"Well so far CUDA and PhysX have been very successful."


dadach:
"just the fact that they exist, does not make them successful...it would be nice if they actually had something to offer besides just being there"

dadach:
"ok, cuda as you say is not a waste, but to me as a gamer physx had 0 value...i tried gtx260 and it was nice as far as speed and iq goes, except for the huge wow (the game i play the most) slowdown bug...that and i also had to manually edit the drivers Oo to get the card to recognize my philips LCD TV...physx games count, even thoguht the technology is out for like, what 3 years is ridiculously low...so thats too much problems for a card that is suppose to be superior to their counterparts, where i had lot less problems...the whole point is that physx now is not worth it, and is not one of nvidia strong points...as soon as it becomes one, you wll see me 1st with secondary NV physx card in my machine"

dadach:
"its a bonus to have usefulness if some games actually come out...we are still waiting"

dadach:
"that really says a lot doesnt it...one game...in normal circumstances you would give me a list of 10 games that are worth a damn, no?"

dadach:
"grrr...single drivers for everything...mixing nvidia and ati...bad, bad"

hell i might just pick one up for 150$ here and see how it works

btw keys i wouldnt mind having nvidia gfx, if only every time i stuck one in my computer, i didnt feel dissapointed with image quality...tried everything in drivers image enhance, etc, etc, and everytime i put ati back in, its like i have bough all new monitor...weird, since some people are saying that nvidia actually has better IQ"


Keysplayr:
"I think that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. IQ between both ATI and NV are pretty much even. And yeah, mixing ATI and NV may not be a happy situation, but if you are willing to take a chance and see, that would be great."


The "mixing nvidia and ati...bad, bad" quote makes me wonder if you had forgotten you had posted it. Do you not still feel that mixing is bad, bad? If you thought that then, why don't you think it now? And also, do you feel that you are missing very important PhysX content now that you can't run it? Or do you still feel that it is "0 value". If not the latter, what made you change your mind? Why is PhysX important to you now?

Yes, I am asking these questions already knowing the answers. But I'd like you to prove the answers I already have in my head, wrong.

 

[BenSkywalker]

It appears I was mistaken about the licensing issue, read misinformation on that somewhere.

This has nothing to do with ATi given nVidia is blocking it.

The fact that it doesn't work on ATi GPUs natively is where ATi comes into play, they were offered it.

Not to mention that I?m not at all convinced ATi supporting PhysX would?ve made a shred of difference.

So now nVidia is going to block ATi using ATi's drivers....?

Kind of like ULi you mean? Oh that?s right, that was blocked at nVidia?s driver level. So no, it?s nothing to do with a BIOS limitation.

Blocking SLI is a very different issue then blocking CF. SLI requires nV drivers to work, so it is trivial for nV to block useage of their technology using their drivers. Blocking Crossfire is a different ballgame altogether.

and also Amber has demonstrated that nVidia cards can in fact be installed with an ATi AIW while retaining full functionality of said card.

Amber never even claimed it did in any way whatsoever(look at what she said again), if she looked into at all she knows full well it does not work. What she accurately stated is that the stand alone tuner parts would work with nV GPU's- which is exactly the same situation that we are dealing with on the nV side. Everyone that has tried it reports that the stand alone PPU still works fine with an ATi GPU. The All In Wonder tuner will not work if you are using a nV GPU for display, despite the box listing it as a supported feature. This is exactly the same thing as the PhysX issue. ATi is blocking functionality of their hardware for people that own it because they are using another vendors part.

 

[dguy6789]

Quite possibly the dumbest thing ATI could do would be to support PhysX. That would mean that Nvidia cards would be the king of GPU accelerated physics no matter what. Nvidia would artificially make it run poorly on ATI cards even if they were capable of running it much better than Nvidia cards. There is absolutely NO one who can blame ATI for not accepting it. Blame Nvidia for making it a choice that is impossible to take. When Intel created PCI and PCI Express, they didn't make it work only on Intel boards, they made it open. That's why PCI and PCI Express exist on AMD and Intel platforms today. Nvidia is not doing that with PhysX. Nvidia offering ATI the chance to use physX is the same as offering them to put on a leash.

It's pretty obvious that ATI doesn't want that to happen. GPU physics might become something big in the future, but it would be the stupidest thing to make PhysX be that default API, especially with Nvidia's behavior regarding it.

It is rather humorous to see various people actually defending Nvidia on this, or even trying to put any kind of blame on ATI.

The bottom line if that I can buy an Nvidia card with an advertised feature on the box and Nvidia has removed that feature from select users on purpose(anyone who says they had to is an idiot) without any warning on the box that they would do that.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Quite possibly the dumbest thing ATI could do would be to support PhysX. That would mean that Nvidia cards would be the king of GPU accelerated physics no matter what. Nvidia would artificially make it run poorly on ATI cards even if they were capable of running it much better than Nvidia cards. There is absolutely NO one who can blame ATI for not accepting it. Blame Nvidia for making it a choice that is impossible to take.

ATi decided to back Intel's proprietary and far less advanced Havok. If ATi showed that they were dedicated to supporting open standards only that would be one thing, as it stands right now Intel is trying to sue AMD out of business- and that is the company AMD decided to hop in bed with at the first chance. Given the choices that AMD made it is without a hint of doubt entirely reasonable to question why they did not support PhysX. Sadly, they instead claim they are behind industry standards while exclusively offering support for their largest competitors proprietary physics API. Intel is currently in the process of taking AMD to court to remove their x86 license, there is no doubt what lengths Intel will go to to hurt AMD, and that is the company the fell all over themselves to align themselves with. Why not also support PhysX?

The bottom line if that I can buy an Nvidia card with an advertised feature on the box and Nvidia has removed that feature from select users on purpose(anyone who says they had to is an idiot) without any warning on the box that they would do that.

You mean defend nVidia and ATi? ATi has been doing that exact same thing, exactly that same thing for years.