nVidia disables PhysX when ATI card present in Win7

[ShawnD1]

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.

You're making it sound like it's this one in a million chance that you can run ATI and Nvidia hardware in the same computer at the same time but it's really more like 99% chance of it working.

Tom's Hardware: can I run ATI and Nvidia hardware in the same computer?

I have an ATI 1900XT for primary and secondary monitors and an Nvidia 6600GT for overlay graphics/third monitor and editor NTSC output and they work fine together on an Asus P5W DH, no problems whatsoever under either XP or Vista.

At one point I had a geforce2mx, voodoo 3 2000, and some misc. matrox card all in one computer running 4 displays (the gf2 was hooked up to a TV as well). I was able to run all the diplays without a hitch and when I went to start games windows automatically shutoff the other displays

There's no trickery involved here. Just install the drivers for both cards and both cards will work.


Nemesis, Wolfenstein is a Havok game, not a PhysX game.
http://game-on.intel.com/eng/games/wolfenstein/default.aspx

We found we had a lot of streaming work and lot of physics work consuming the CPU. We felt that processing power could be put to better use by concentrating on game play, AI code, and rendering. We had to write a whole new asset loading path to make streaming happen asynchronously and with very little interaction by the main thread. For physics, we turned turned to Havok Physics?, to provide the threading support for the simulation. We also had to significantly modify the game code to handle running the physics simulation synchronously.

- Dwight Luetscher
Raven's technical lead

 

[mmnno]

This is clearly an anti-consumer move, which is just plain bad. However:

1. It will be hacked
2. PhysX will be irrelevant by the time this decision actually matters
3. At least we have some form of hardware physics for cool stuff like Batman. I didn't see ATi moving very fast in that field.

It's unjustifiable, but I'm not really feeling the hate. Yawnable news imo.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
Because someone would use a 500.00 GTX295 as a secondary PhysX card, right?

Probably not. I'll give you that. Not really relevant though. The point is that you can't anyway, unless your other card is NVIDIA.

I'd like to know exactly how you think I'm mocking you. And focus group doesn't have a smidgeon of anything to do with it. I'd have bought the GTX295 anyway. And whatever else top end, or at least 2nd from top (which is my buying history) comes out.

IIRC, you were a solid second tier purchaser when it was your own dime... http://endeavorquest.net:8880/2900xtvs8800gts/index.htm Nothing wrong with that, just that paperweight schmaperweight regarding the loss of value is a little much from someone who gets their gear for free.

In the past, when someone bought a new card, their old one would usually be sold to recoup some of the money for their upgrade. Or, if they didn't need the money, they would keep it as a backup. Otherwise, it would go on eBay or FS/FT somewhere.

Yep, that's why the thought of being able to re-purpose the card as a discrete gpu was so appealing to some. NVIDIA was adding value to previously purchased products that were otherwise kinda worthless. This whole year NV has been fighting a value war with ATI, and here they actually had a value that ATI couldn't touch. What does NV do...? Screw it up.

Honestly guys, how many of you with ATI cards actually used your old NV card for discrete PhysX use? Maybe if ATI fans didn't slam PhysX as a useless feature constantly for the past year, and actually said they appreciated the extra value Nvidia provided as you stated above, "With the opportunity to use an NV card as a 'discrete Physics' card they just added value to a previous purchase.", that "good will" you mentioned may have materialized. But no, that didn't happen. With the exception of a rare few, and I do feel for them, PhysX has been slammed over and over again. That's fine and all, and it sucks for those users who genuinely appreciated it, but it probably really couldn't have hurt to show "good will" toward Nvidia as well. Then again, maybe that wouldn't have mattered at all from a business perspective.

That is the nature of "good will"... You don't have to take advantage of it, but it's there if you need it. NVIDIA was in a position to basically give all previous purchasers of their cards a 'free' PhysX card regardless of what card they used as their primary video card, but instead they choose to flex their muscle. They have the right to do it but IMO it's a myopic view.

With the introduction of G80, and ever since then, Nvidia has been a locomotive of innovation. Non stop. Excellent gaming performance and image quality, CUDA technology, PhysX, Tesla, 3DVision,
Pulled from another thread is:
"NVIDIA®® OptiX? engine for real-time ray tracing linky
NVIDIA®® SceniX? engine for managing 3D data and scenes linky
NVIDIA®® CompleX? engine for scaling performance across multiple GPUs linky
NVIDIA®® PhysX®® 64-bit engine for real-time, hyper-realistic physical and environmental effects" linky.

So tell me. Is Nvidia not pushing new technology for it's customers? Or does disabling discrete PhysX GPU when ATI card present wipe all of this out?
What kind of scale do you have?

NVIDIA is absolutely pushing technology, and they do make great stuff. I wouldn't buy it if I didn't honestly believe that.

What kind of scale do I have...? Not sure, it's all relative, and it depends on what the competition is offering. In the case of X58 vs. 780i, it wasn't a question. 780i has absolutely zero benefits over X58. The only benefit it had over X38/48 was SLI support, which I'm sure NV knew. The fact that NVIDIA made their chipsets SLI exclusive made X58 the only choice for video card enthusiast because it lets you use all that the industry has to offer. I'd have actually opted for a Phenom chipset (performance hit and all) that did the same over a Core2Duo/Quad chipset that did not support SLI and CF.

Speaking from a video enthusiast's perspective, X58 is the best thing to happen to PCs since multi-gpu made it's comeback. Ironic that it takes a cpu manufacturer to come up with a better video platform than either of the dominant video card manufacturers. Something is wrong with that IMO.

 

[SirPauly]

The only problem I have is how quick some are to blanket this as just anti-consumer -- yet, it seems, many disregard the resource/benefit point where data is lacking. The technical connections and collaboration point seems to be simply mocked and dismissed by many. And, ATI doesn't lift a finger and yet nothing seems to be pointed in this direction - dismissed by many.

Point finger -- be judge -- executioner - limited data.......hey, this sounds like forums, hehe!🙂

There are blame pies to me in many layered decisions and I think this is one of them. There is blame to go around. It's a lose-lose situation for nVidia in some mind-sets. It may be a combination of support, cost, developer, assurance and some leverage, too.

It was going to be tough going in my mind-set for ATI and nVidia to co-exist unless there is some type of agreement or team-work. Sadly, this isn't the case and even more division when it comes to PhysX and for some gamers is the consequence.

It sucks; it would be nice to see as many gamers and platforms have the choice to have more GPU dynamic gaming at this time, but the decision was made and nVidia decided what is best for their platform considering they have all the accountability and risk.

One can try to make an attempt to understand or point fingers.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1

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.

You're making it sound like it's this one in a million chance that you can run ATI and Nvidia hardware in the same computer at the same time but it's really more like 99% chance of it working.

No. Actually I said "more often than not" when regarding problems with both Nvidia and ATI drivers in the same system.
99% chance? Are you serious? Pull that out of thin air did you? Tell me dude. Why is it so important to run driver cleaner or a similar program when switching
from an ATI to and Nvidia card, or the other way around? I'll tell you why. It's to avoid as many driver conflicts as possible for a stable system. Hundreds. Hundreds of threads I recall where somebody had a problem with a new vid card. First question asked, "Are you coming from an ATI card? "Are you coming from and Nvidia card?". First suggestion always offered, "Run the uninstaller, then run Driver Cleaner". There are problems dude, and in no way shape or form in this universe does it equate to problems only 1% of the time. If it does work without any issues whatsoever, and there are many (on drugs of you think 99%), then that is the sheer luck of the configuration of the operating system/driver versions of those individuals.

Tom's Hardware: can I run ATI and Nvidia hardware in the same computer?

I have an ATI 1900XT for primary and secondary monitors and an Nvidia 6600GT for overlay graphics/third monitor and editor NTSC output and they work fine together on an Asus P5W DH, no problems whatsoever under either XP or Vista.

At one point I had a geforce2mx, voodoo 3 2000, and some misc. matrox card all in one computer running 4 displays (the gf2 was hooked up to a TV as well). I was able to run all the diplays without a hitch and when I went to start games windows automatically shutoff the other displays

There's no trickery involved here. Just install the drivers for both cards and both cards will work.

Is that right....

 

[SSChevy2001]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: ShawnD1

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.

You're making it sound like it's this one in a million chance that you can run ATI and Nvidia hardware in the same computer at the same time but it's really more like 99% chance of it working.

No. Actually I said "more often than not" when regarding problems with both Nvidia and ATI drivers in the same system.
99% chance? Are you serious? Pull that out of thin air did you? Tell me dude. Why is it so important to run driver cleaner or a similar program when switching
from an ATI to and Nvidia card, or the other way around? I'll tell you why. It's to avoid as many driver conflicts as possible for a stable system. Hundreds. Hundreds of threads I recall where somebody had a problem with a new vid card. First question asked, "Are you coming from an ATI card? "Are you coming from and Nvidia card?". First suggestion always offered, "Run the uninstaller, then run Driver Cleaner". There are problems dude, and in no way shape or form in this universe does it equate to problems only 1% of the time. If it does work without any issues whatsoever, and there are many (on drugs of you think 99%), then that is the sheer luck of the configuration of the operating system/driver versions of those individuals.

I got to agree with ShawnD1 here. Just yesterday alone i had catalyst 9.7 and tried 181.71 - 185.68 - 185.81 - 190.38 to see which drivers still work with ATI + PhysX Combo, and comparing / moving around the difference files for the block. Not once did I need any driver cleaner or run into any problem while switch drivers back and forth. I tested BAA which worked super smooth with PhysX on High, and UT3.

I got say with the new drivers ATi + PhysX combo actually worked great, which is a shame now that it's going to get blocked.

IMO problems come from people having to much crap on their PC's, registry cleaners, driver cleaners, unstable OC, .......

It's not sheer luck that they both work though.

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

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

True, they were offered it, but again I?m not convinced nVidia still wouldn?t have gone ahead. Again, CF was supported on NF4 but it was blocked by nVidia.

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

They won?t, but they can still block their own card. That means if you want to use a secondary nVidia card for extra performance, you can?t.

Blocking Crossfire is a different ballgame altogether.

It really isn?t. nVidia has a reference BIOS and even if their partners choose to completely deviate from it, nVidia can still block it with chipset drivers, drivers that are written by nVidia and required for the proper functionality of NF chipsets.

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.

Okay, I misunderstood the difference between the AIW and the standalone, so that was my mistake. But we still need evidence that the drivers are actively blocking the AIW and it?s not simply related to poor drivers that don?t work properly.

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Tell me dude. Why is it so important to run driver cleaner or a similar program when switching from an ATI to and Nvidia card, or the other way around?

It really isn?t; Driver Cleaner is one of the biggest perpetuated myths on the internet, similar to reinstalling Windows being a ?requirement? if you change video cards.

If it does work without any issues whatsoever, and there are many (on drugs of you think 99%), then that is the sheer luck of the configuration of the operating system/driver versions of those individuals.

Even if this were true (which it isn?t because ?luck? doesn?t come into it), how does this relate to disabling PhysX?

If the problem is with multiple GPU drivers like you claim, then why isn?t nVidia blocking their entire ForceWare driver from loading when it detects an ATi card? How does simply blocking PhysX solve the issues you claim happen unless you?re ?lucky??

The fact is, multi-vendor GPU systems are more common than you think, and the only recent spanner in the works was Vista because it didn?t support heterogeneous display drivers. But Windows 7 fixes that issue. Why would Microsoft go to all that trouble to update their driver model if the outcome was determined by ?luck??

Coming back to my example: is it reasonable for PhysX to be disabled on my GTX285 because my system also has a GMA?

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: SirPauly
The only problem I have is how quick some are to blanket this as just anti-consumer -- yet, it seems, many disregard the resource/benefit point where data is lacking. The technical connections and collaboration point seems to be simply mocked and dismissed by many. And, ATI doesn't lift a finger and yet nothing seems to be pointed in this direction - dismissed by many.

Point finger -- be judge -- executioner - limited data.......hey, this sounds like forums, hehe!🙂

There are blame pies to me in many layered decisions and I think this is one of them. There is blame to go around. It's a lose-lose situation for nVidia in some mind-sets. It may be a combination of support, cost, developer, assurance and some leverage, too.

It was going to be tough going in my mind-set for ATI and nVidia to co-exist unless there is some type of agreement or team-work. Sadly, this isn't the case and even more division when it comes to PhysX and for some gamers is the consequence.

It sucks; it would be nice to see as many gamers and platforms have the choice to have more GPU dynamic gaming at this time, but the decision was made and nVidia decided what is best for their platform considering they have all the accountability and risk.

One can try to make an attempt to understand or point fingers.

Seeing as Physx worked without a problem for people with AMD cards in the past I think it's pretty easy to see this is strictly a business decision on Nvidia's part. They could have easily left Physx coupled with an AMD card 'unsupported' if there was a hint of possibility that there could be a problem. Nvidia is trying to force you to buy their cards if you want Physx. The problem is that I don't think Physx in it's current state is near compelling enough to really impact someone's purchasing decision... obviously some people will want Physx and buy the Nvidia part, but most of us will still go for the best performing card in our price range whether that's AMD or Nvidia. Remember, Physx worked just fine with an AMD card until Nvidia disabled it.

 

[SirPauly]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

Originally posted by: SirPauly
The only problem I have is how quick some are to blanket this as just anti-consumer -- yet, it seems, many disregard the resource/benefit point where data is lacking. The technical connections and collaboration point seems to be simply mocked and dismissed by many. And, ATI doesn't lift a finger and yet nothing seems to be pointed in this direction - dismissed by many.

Point finger -- be judge -- executioner - limited data.......hey, this sounds like forums, hehe!🙂

There are blame pies to me in many layered decisions and I think this is one of them. There is blame to go around. It's a lose-lose situation for nVidia in some mind-sets. It may be a combination of support, cost, developer, assurance and some leverage, too.

It was going to be tough going in my mind-set for ATI and nVidia to co-exist unless there is some type of agreement or team-work. Sadly, this isn't the case and even more division when it comes to PhysX and for some gamers is the consequence.

It sucks; it would be nice to see as many gamers and platforms have the choice to have more GPU dynamic gaming at this time, but the decision was made and nVidia decided what is best for their platform considering they have all the accountability and risk.

One can try to make an attempt to understand or point fingers.

Seeing as Physx worked without a problem for people with AMD cards in the past I think it's pretty easy to see this is strictly a business decision on Nvidia's part. They could have easily left Physx coupled with an AMD card 'unsupported' if there was a hint of possibility that there could be a problem. Nvidia is trying to force you to buy their cards if you want Physx. The problem is that I don't think Physx in it's current state is near compelling enough to really impact someone's purchasing decision... obviously some people will want Physx and buy the Nvidia part, but most of us will still go for the best performing card in our price range whether that's AMD or Nvidia. Remember, Physx worked just fine with an AMD card until Nvidia disabled it.

That's your view and nothing is going to change it except more data for clarity - which is very limited, imho! You may be correct but for me would need more data to lean this way but certainly see this possibility. My view is very similar to MFA's at Beyond3d.

 

[mmnno]

Originally posted by: SirPauly
The only problem I have is how quick some are to blanket this as just anti-consumer -- yet, it seems, many disregard the resource/benefit point where data is lacking. The technical connections and collaboration point seems to be simply mocked and dismissed by many. And, ATI doesn't lift a finger and yet nothing seems to be pointed in this direction - dismissed by many.

Point finger -- be judge -- executioner - limited data.......hey, this sounds like forums, hehe!🙂

There are blame pies to me in many layered decisions and I think this is one of them. There is blame to go around. It's a lose-lose situation for nVidia in some mind-sets. It may be a combination of support, cost, developer, assurance and some leverage, too.

It was going to be tough going in my mind-set for ATI and nVidia to co-exist unless there is some type of agreement or team-work. Sadly, this isn't the case and even more division when it comes to PhysX and for some gamers is the consequence.

It sucks; it would be nice to see as many gamers and platforms have the choice to have more GPU dynamic gaming at this time, but the decision was made and nVidia decided what is best for their platform considering they have all the accountability and risk.

One can try to make an attempt to understand or point fingers.

It's anti-consumer. It used to work, and an explicit, intentional change was made to render it unusable. It did not become unsupported, they just removed a previously existing capability. Do not even try to fudge that.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Tell me dude. Why is it so important to run driver cleaner or a similar program when switching from an ATI to and Nvidia card, or the other way around?

It really isn?t; Driver Cleaner is one of the biggest perpetuated myths on the internet, similar to reinstalling Windows being a ?requirement? if you change video cards.

If it does work without any issues whatsoever, and there are many (on drugs of you think 99%), then that is the sheer luck of the configuration of the operating system/driver versions of those individuals.

Even if this were true (which it isn?t because ?luck? doesn?t come into it), how does this relate to disabling PhysX?

If the problem is with multiple GPU drivers like you claim, then why isn?t nVidia blocking their entire ForceWare driver from loading when it detects an ATi card? How does simply blocking PhysX solve the issues you claim happen unless you?re ?lucky??

The fact is, multi-vendor GPU systems are more common than you think, and the only recent spanner in the works was Vista because it didn?t support heterogeneous display drivers. But Windows 7 fixes that issue. Why would Microsoft go to all that trouble to update their driver model if the outcome was determined by ?luck??

Coming back to my example: is it reasonable for PhysX to be disabled on my GTX285 because my system also has a GMA?

I'm not playing this game BFG. You're a smart guy. You know what I am talking about. No two PC's are the same. Even when cloned and identical hardware. The hardware isn't exactly the same. And stop making it sound like I'm saying this is the ONLY reason Nvidia disabled PhysX. I have said quite a few times that it was a business decision IMHO.
LUCK was perhaps the wrong adjective. What would be a proper term for this? Touch and go? 50/50? Flip a Coin?

Driver Cleaner hasn't helped anyone with driver problems? Can you sit there and say that?
Because even if you encounter one person who had success after running it, it's no myth.

 

[HurleyBird]

You're still avoiding that really inconvenient hard question that myself and others have been asking you. If the problem is the drivers not playing nice together, disabling features (especially non-graphics related features) isn't a solution at all. A real solution would be something like stopping your company's drivers from installing until the problematic drivers are uninstalled.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: HurleyBird
You're still avoiding that really inconvenient hard question that myself and others have been asking you. If the problem is the drivers not playing nice together, disabling features (especially non-graphics related features) isn't a solution at all. A real solution would be something like stopping your company's drivers from installing until the problematic drivers are uninstalled.

Say what? You mean any solution is better than the one that has actually happened? Why didn't I think of that? 🙂

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: mmnno

Originally posted by: SirPauly
The only problem I have is how quick some are to blanket this as just anti-consumer -- yet, it seems, many disregard the resource/benefit point where data is lacking. The technical connections and collaboration point seems to be simply mocked and dismissed by many. And, ATI doesn't lift a finger and yet nothing seems to be pointed in this direction - dismissed by many.

Point finger -- be judge -- executioner - limited data.......hey, this sounds like forums, hehe!🙂

There are blame pies to me in many layered decisions and I think this is one of them. There is blame to go around. It's a lose-lose situation for nVidia in some mind-sets. It may be a combination of support, cost, developer, assurance and some leverage, too.

It was going to be tough going in my mind-set for ATI and nVidia to co-exist unless there is some type of agreement or team-work. Sadly, this isn't the case and even more division when it comes to PhysX and for some gamers is the consequence.

It sucks; it would be nice to see as many gamers and platforms have the choice to have more GPU dynamic gaming at this time, but the decision was made and nVidia decided what is best for their platform considering they have all the accountability and risk.

One can try to make an attempt to understand or point fingers.

It's anti-consumer. It used to work, and an explicit, intentional change was made to render it unusable. It did not become unsupported, they just removed a previously existing capability. Do not even try to fudge that.

You've fudged it enough on your own. It was never "supported" in the first place. It just happened to work "sometimes". And yes, they flat out removed it. Stated why.

AMD should not have gone with Havok exclusively. Should have at least attempted to utilize PhysX on their GPU's. I think they might be paying the price for that now. But, we'll see what happens. PhysX has plenty of time to build momentum, and if it does get to be the size of a freight train, well you know what it's like to stop one of those. The immediate future is going to be extremely interesting.

 

[HurleyBird]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: HurleyBird
You're still avoiding that really inconvenient hard question that myself and others have been asking you. If the problem is the drivers not playing nice together, disabling features (especially non-graphics related features) isn't a solution at all. A real solution would be something like stopping your company's drivers from installing until the problematic drivers are uninstalled.

Say what? You mean any solution is better than the one that has actually happened? Why didn't I think of that? 🙂

We'll, that's a dishonest answer if I've ever seen one. You're the one who has been defending Nvidia's non-solution to an unrelated problem by playing the driver instability card over and over again -- it's up to you to explain the connection between drivers not playing nice together and disabling a non-graphics feature as opposed to a real solution. Nvidia, on the other hand, hasn't mentioned driver instability at all, and the official word on their website is that ATI cards are completely incapable of the "intricate connections" between Nvidia physX and Nvidia graphics cards.

 

[SirPauly]

Originally posted by: mmnno

Originally posted by: SirPauly
The only problem I have is how quick some are to blanket this as just anti-consumer -- yet, it seems, many disregard the resource/benefit point where data is lacking. The technical connections and collaboration point seems to be simply mocked and dismissed by many. And, ATI doesn't lift a finger and yet nothing seems to be pointed in this direction - dismissed by many.

Point finger -- be judge -- executioner - limited data.......hey, this sounds like forums, hehe!🙂

There are blame pies to me in many layered decisions and I think this is one of them. There is blame to go around. It's a lose-lose situation for nVidia in some mind-sets. It may be a combination of support, cost, developer, assurance and some leverage, too.

It was going to be tough going in my mind-set for ATI and nVidia to co-exist unless there is some type of agreement or team-work. Sadly, this isn't the case and even more division when it comes to PhysX and for some gamers is the consequence.

It sucks; it would be nice to see as many gamers and platforms have the choice to have more GPU dynamic gaming at this time, but the decision was made and nVidia decided what is best for their platform considering they have all the accountability and risk.

One can try to make an attempt to understand or point fingers.

It's anti-consumer. It used to work, and an explicit, intentional change was made to render it unusable. It did not become unsupported, they just removed a previously existing capability. Do not even try to fudge that.

It may be anti-consumer or it may be for the consumers benefit.

If nVidia disabled this and there was no added costs for offering a "good" experience for current and future PhysX applications - then I would agree.

If nVidia disabled this and there were added costs for offering a "good" experience for current and future PhysX applications -- then I may disagree.

What is the fine line where the cost/benefit ratio may be too high?

You seem to have the answers -- what are they? Probably doesn't matter at all to some-- just that it worked and now it doesn't -- case closed.

Personally desire answers for many questions posed -- anyone can offer sweeping blanket views - heck the forums are littered with judges and executioners. Heck, things are just black and white -- right or wrong in a world of shades of gray and levels of blame for many.

 

[SirPauly]

Double post, some how, sorry!🙁

 

[SirPauly]

Originally posted by: HurleyBird

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: HurleyBird
You're still avoiding that really inconvenient hard question that myself and others have been asking you. If the problem is the drivers not playing nice together, disabling features (especially non-graphics related features) isn't a solution at all. A real solution would be something like stopping your company's drivers from installing until the problematic drivers are uninstalled.

Say what? You mean any solution is better than the one that has actually happened? Why didn't I think of that? 🙂

We'll, that's a dishonest answer if I've ever seen one. You're the one who has been defending Nvidia's non-solution to an unrelated problem by playing the driver instability card over and over again -- it's up to you to explain the connection between drivers not playing nice together and disabling a non-graphics feature as opposed to a real solution. Nvidia, on the other hand, hasn't mentioned driver instability at all, and the official word on their website is that ATI cards are completely incapable of the "intricate connections" between Nvidia physX and Nvidia graphics cards.

Maybe I missed reading this:

For a variety of reasons - some development expense some quality assurance and some business reasons NVIDIA will not support GPU accelerated Physx with NVIDIA GPUs while GPU rendering is happening on non- NVIDIA GPUs. I'm sorry for any inconvenience caused but I hope you can understand.

They're offering three distinct areas for their reasoning based on a small data response:

Developing costs.

Quality Assurance.

Business reasons.

What are their developing costs and what does this encompass?

Quality Assurance and what testing does nVidia do for quality Assurance?

Business reasons - What business reasons?

We can speculate all we want but doesn't make it so factually. It is misleading to me to jump to conclusions and talk as fact in my mind-set. Hearts may be in the right place and really care for the consumer but this doesn't make it fact -- it just doesn't.

nVidia claims there are multiple technical connections that need a tight collaboration between the GPU and GPU Physics for a "good" experience -- meaning to me, that ATI's GPU's will run but considering there isn't a tight collaboration -- they may not run well and may take developing costs to offer quality assurance.

Does anyone know how these connections communicate on the nVidia platform?

Does anyone know how nVidia optimizes for their platform?

Does anyone know what future PhysX content may do for their platforms?

Is there differences with an ATI GPU?

There is a possibility that nVidia may be using leverage in my mind-set but doesn't mean I should ignore other aspects and raise questions for more data and clarity.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: HurleyBird

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: HurleyBird
You're still avoiding that really inconvenient hard question that myself and others have been asking you. If the problem is the drivers not playing nice together, disabling features (especially non-graphics related features) isn't a solution at all. A real solution would be something like stopping your company's drivers from installing until the problematic drivers are uninstalled.

Say what? You mean any solution is better than the one that has actually happened? Why didn't I think of that? 🙂

We'll, that's a dishonest answer if I've ever seen one. You're the one who has been defending Nvidia's non-solution to an unrelated problem by playing the driver instability card over and over again -- it's up to you to explain the connection between drivers not playing nice together and disabling a non-graphics feature as opposed to a real solution. Nvidia, on the other hand, hasn't mentioned driver instability at all, and the official word on their website is that ATI cards are completely incapable of the "intricate connections" between Nvidia physX and Nvidia graphics cards.

Hurley, why would I bother giving you any answer? It's all dishonest to you.

And this is a big "waitaminute" moment, isn't it. Did I come and flat out say that Nvidia disabled PhysX for ATI inhabited systems because of driver conflicts? I think you're skimming this thread. If you had read it in it's entirety, you'd probably not be asking these questions and know where this current driver conversation originates from. Don't skim. Read. Even just page 1 of this thread should give you some missing links.

 

[MODEL3]

Wai, wait a minute, wait a minute, ...
wait a minute, wait a minute, ... he, WAIT A MINUTE!

 

[HurleyBird]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
Did I come and flat out say that Nvidia disabled PhysX for ATI inhabited systems because of driver conflicts?

No, of course not. To your credit you said early on that this might be a business decision, and that it seemed like a bad one if that were true. That doesen't change the fact that for the last few pages you've been defending Nvidia's decision based on your argument that multiple drivers create instabilities. So, the question remains: How is disabling features any kind of solution when the problem is the basic fact that the computer has multiple graphics drivers. BFG and I are waiting for the answer...

Originally posted by: KeysplayrI think you're skimming this thread. If you had read it in it's entirety, you'd probably not be asking these questions and know where this current driver conversation originates from. Don't skim. Read. Even just page 1 of this thread should give you some missing links.

Come on keys, you know I've been here since the beginning of the thread, and no, I haven't been skimming at all. Nice non-reply though.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: HurleyBird

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
Did I come and flat out say that Nvidia disabled PhysX for ATI inhabited systems because of driver conflicts?

No, of course not. To your credit you said early on that this might be a business decision, and that it seemed like a bad one if that were true. That doesen't change the fact that for the last few pages you've been defending Nvidia's decision based on your argument that multiple drivers create instabilities. So, the question remains: How is disabling features any kind of solution when the problem is the basic fact that the computer has multiple graphics drivers. BFG and I are waiting for the answer...

Originally posted by: KeysplayrI think you're skimming this thread. If you had read it in it's entirety, you'd probably not be asking these questions and know where this current driver conversation originates from. Don't skim. Read. Even just page 1 of this thread should give you some missing links.

Come on keys, you know I've been here since the beginning of the thread, and no, I haven't been skimming at all. Nice non-reply though.

So then tell me how we came to discuss drivers. I'll let you answer your own questions. And I'd like it if you stopped the condescending attitude, baiting, and trolling. I get it. You like ATI, I like Nvidia. Arch enemies, right? :roll:

 

[dadach]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: dadach

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
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.

to go out and spend time on this just proves you are trying too hard...
Umm. It proves that I went and got some quotes of yours. Nothing more, nothing less.


i did have both cards in my win7 machine, and 8800gt was used for physx (main was 4980)...i was able to enable it, and thats how it should be...
Says who? You? All the other guys/gals who have primary ATI graphics cards and want PhysX to? Of course that's how you feel. "It should be". Because if it isn't, you're sunk.

Maybe Nvidia was getting annoyed that ATI had some sort of repreave for not supporting PhysX via a discrete Nvidia GPU running PhysX. Maybe it's the announcement that Larrabee wont be here til 2011, and that is probably synonamous with Havok in 2011 as well. Long time for one competitor to have an advantage over another. Long time for more PhysX games to emerge.

if nvidia changed it all of the sudden, THAT IS WHAT I CALL bullshit, not the fact that im losing anything...and no, i dont think i am missing anything yet, because as you could have seen in your research, we are still waiting for the games...or maybe some new ones came out in last 2 months? i didnt really have time to check it

You call it bullshit. Big business probably calls it something else. If you don't think your missing anything, then why all the fuss? The answer is, OF COURSE your missing something. Whether you think it's a miniscule feature or a tremendous one. You're still missing it regardless. And you know that. And that's why you are angry. I don't blame you as a consumer, but like Akugami aptly put it, Nvidia, ATI, Intel, all in it for the business. That's what corporations do. I hope this doesn't shatter any illusions you had of these big companies.

that is my point...they disabled it, yet people will not miss anything by it...it is funny as hell...and i am not angry at all, but i am just laughing my ass of at the idiots at nvidia 🙂

now if it was some important feature, i might be annoyed, but for all important features ati works without any trouble 😉

also i did not see you answer my question about physx games that came out lately which would make this nvidia move a bit more not hilarious

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: dadach

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: dadach

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
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.

to go out and spend time on this just proves you are trying too hard...
Umm. It proves that I went and got some quotes of yours. Nothing more, nothing less.


i did have both cards in my win7 machine, and 8800gt was used for physx (main was 4980)...i was able to enable it, and thats how it should be...
Says who? You? All the other guys/gals who have primary ATI graphics cards and want PhysX to? Of course that's how you feel. "It should be". Because if it isn't, you're sunk.

Maybe Nvidia was getting annoyed that ATI had some sort of repreave for not supporting PhysX via a discrete Nvidia GPU running PhysX. Maybe it's the announcement that Larrabee wont be here til 2011, and that is probably synonamous with Havok in 2011 as well. Long time for one competitor to have an advantage over another. Long time for more PhysX games to emerge.

if nvidia changed it all of the sudden, THAT IS WHAT I CALL bullshit, not the fact that im losing anything...and no, i dont think i am missing anything yet, because as you could have seen in your research, we are still waiting for the games...or maybe some new ones came out in last 2 months? i didnt really have time to check it

You call it bullshit. Big business probably calls it something else. If you don't think your missing anything, then why all the fuss? The answer is, OF COURSE your missing something. Whether you think it's a miniscule feature or a tremendous one. You're still missing it regardless. And you know that. And that's why you are angry. I don't blame you as a consumer, but like Akugami aptly put it, Nvidia, ATI, Intel, all in it for the business. That's what corporations do. I hope this doesn't shatter any illusions you had of these big companies.

that is my point...they disabled it, yet people will not miss anything by it...it is funny as hell...and i am not angry at all, but i am just laughing my ass of at the idiots at nvidia 🙂

So you're speaking for everybody then.. Were you elected their spokesperson? And I'm glad you're not angry. It sure shows.

now if it was some important feature, i might be annoyed, but for all important features ati works without any trouble 😉

Ah, those important features. How could I forget those. Ummm... what were they again?

also i did not see you answer my question about physx games that came out lately which would make this nvidia move a bit more not hilarious

I guess BAA would be the latest inception of PhysX games. Whether it's hilarious or not is up to you. You speak for the masses, some sort of election I missed. What do you think?