PhysX and non Nvidia GPU question

[tollingalong]

From Nvidia's patch notes:

NVIDIA GPU PhysX acceleration is not available if there is a non-NVIDIA graphics
processor in the system, even if it is not used for rendering.

My understanding is Nvidia disallows PhysX if Radeon drivers are installed. Does anyone know if this is a problem with iGPU cards such as the Intel HD 4600 and Integrated Radeons on AMD CPUs?

 

[Carfax83]

From Nvidia's patch notes:



My understanding is Nvidia disallows PhysX if Radeon drivers are installed. Does anyone know if this is a problem with iGPU cards such as the Intel HD 4600 and Integrated Radeons on AMD CPUs?

That's a good question. Based on what they've said, it's likely disabled as well because apparently, PhysX's physics simulation is closely tied to the rendering side and requires some sort of collaboration between the two at the driver level to work properly.

That said, I don't know how much sense it makes to use PhysX in a system with a iGPU as PhysX increases the amount of objects needing to be rendered, so performance would definitely be a major factor even if it were possible. ..

There used to be hacked drivers available for Radeon systems, but I'm not sure if they're even still around..

 

[Keysplayr]

And secondly, the chance is slim that your IGP will outperform the Nvidia discrete card anyway, so you should probably just use the Nvidia card for your primary renderer and PhysX if it is strong enough. So now that I've said that, you'll tell me that you have a GT210. 😉
Seriously, what Nvidia card are you speaking of?

 

[Techhog]

That's a good question. Based on what they've said, it's likely disabled as well because apparently, PhysX's physics simulation is closely tied to the rendering side and requires some sort of collaboration between the two at the driver level to work properly.

That said, I don't know how much sense it makes to use PhysX in a system with a iGPU as PhysX increases the amount of objects needing to be rendered, so performance would definitely be a major factor even if it were possible. ..

There used to be hacked drivers available for Radeon systems, but I'm not sure if they're even still around..

I just laughed so hard. I can't believe people actually fall for this when we know it's not true and that Nvidia is just trying to force people to only use their cards.

 

[Qbah]

I think the OP is asking if he can use his nVidia card and PhysX even if he's using the iGPU for other things, like additional screens. The wording seems to suggest you can't have other vendor drivers installed at all, even if you're using your nVidia card for gaming.

 

[Techhog]

I think the OP is asking if he can use his nVidia card and PhysX even if he's using the iGPU for other things, like additional screens. The wording seems to suggest you can't have other vendor drivers installed at all, even if you're using your nVidia card for gaming.

Yeah, this. Like I said, it's really stupid.

 

[BrightCandle]

If Nvidia is honestly disabling PhysX if you even install the drivers for your Intel iGPU (which most people do) then the market for PhysX is about to go down to zero. That is an incredibly short sighted move as most people have iGPUs in their machines, drivers installed but not used. Windows automatically installs Intel drivers and you have to actively remove it to change that, and I doubt people bother. They just killed their own technology entirely. Its going to cause a lot of support calls now that PhysX now wont work on 99% of computers.

PhysX does not need rendering state, as far as I know the main reason its tied to Nvidia is because it uses CUDA.

 

[Erenhardt]

PhysX does not need rendering state, as far as I know the main reason its tied to Nvidia is because it uses CUDA.

The main reason is marketing... Courtesy of nvidia.

 

[Techhog]

If Nvidia is honestly disabling PhysX if you even install the drivers for your Intel iGPU (which most people do) then the market for PhysX is about to go down to zero. That is an incredibly short sighted move as most people have iGPUs in their machines, drivers installed but not used. Windows automatically installs Intel drivers and you have to actively remove it to change that, and I doubt people bother. They just killed their own technology entirely. Its going to cause a lot of support calls now that PhysX now wont work on 99% of computers.

PhysX does not need rendering state, as far as I know the main reason its tied to Nvidia is because it uses CUDA.

Yes, it uses CUDA. However, there's no excuse for disabling it because a system has another GPU in not from Nvidia. I really have to wonder if they really get more money like this, or if it would help them more if they let you use an Nvidia PhysX card along with an AMD main card, especially with the low end eroding away like it is. I know that's not the exact issue at hand, but still.

If Nvidia disables PhysX because of IGPs, they have a screw loose.

 

[Noctifer616]

If Nvidia disables PhysX because of IGPs, they have a screw loose.

Nvidia disabled PhysX when a non-Nvidia GPU was doing graphics. It was possible a few years back to have an AMD card to the rendering and a Nvidia card is used as a dedicated PhysX card.

However, they didn't like this and disabled that in drivers. However, far as I know they never noted this in driver notes, so I assume this is just an official entry on something that happened years ago.

 

[Anarchist420]

Yes, it uses CUDA. However, there's no excuse for disabling it because a system has another GPU in not from Nvidia. I really have to wonder if they really get more money like this, or if it would help them more if they let you use an Nvidia PhysX card along with an AMD main card, especially with the low end eroding away like it is. I know that's not the exact issue at hand, but still. If Nvidia disables PhysX because of IGPs, they have a screw loose.

nvidia may have a screw loose, but amd is incompetent for not making a CUDA wrapper so that physx can work on their stuff. i hate nvidia for going out of their way to cripple double precision performance by damaging hardware (i consider it damaged if there is no technically possible way to enable double precision when the hardware was originally there) and for making bad or mediocre drivers, but i hate AMD even more because they dont invent anything.

 

[Noctifer616]

nvidia may have a screw loose, but amd is incompetent for not making a CUDA wrapper so that physx can work on their stuff.

They are blocking PhysX on their hardware when an AMD GPU does the graphics. Do you honestly think they wouldn't make a change in the PhysX driver that prevents AMD from running PhysX on AMD hardware even if CUDA could run on AMD?

 

[Techhog]

They are blocking PhysX on their hardware when an AMD GPU does the graphics. Do you honestly think they wouldn't make a change in the PhysX driver that prevents AMD from running PhysX on AMD hardware even if CUDA could run on AMD?

Yeah. They'd probably just force AMD to pay a hefty royalty (like $10+) on every GPU and APU sold.

 

[tviceman]

From Nvidia's patch notes:



My understanding is Nvidia disallows PhysX if Radeon drivers are installed. Does anyone know if this is a problem with iGPU cards such as the Intel HD 4600 and Integrated Radeons on AMD CPUs?

Intel IGP drivers won't interfere. Not sure what would happen if running on an AMD APU.

 

[BrightCandle]

Nvidia's claim is that they would sell the royality for PhysX and CUDA to AMD for cents on a card. AMD however has no interest in licencing the technology and has decided to do nothing on hardware physics instead.

But you guys are missing the point, if the driver statement is to be believed is the biggest own goal Nvidia has ever pulled, they have literally turned off PhysX on everyone's computer, all but the X79 and really old computers have iGPUs. PhysX would be dead if this is the case, so I suspect its not actually the case at all. I suspect all it really means is if you have an AMD GPU then physX is disabled as has been the case for a long time.

 

[Noctifer616]

Nvidia's claim is that they would sell the royality for PhysX and CUDA to AMD for cents on a card. AMD however has no interest in licencing the technology and has decided to do nothing on hardware physics instead.

Why is that? OpenCL can run on a GPU and there are OpenCL physics engines (GTA 5 uses Bullet). Is it possibly because running graphics and compute workloads at the same time on the same hardware just isn't as efficient as having dedicated hardware? Devs talk about improved performance with Asynchronous Compute, so it is perhaps a limitation of current APIs on PC?

 

[notty22]

This is just bad wording, and people have discussed it before, with older driver versions, like here.
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1794191
As long as a Nvidia card is rendering the graphics, other drivers didn't stop physx as mentioned by some posters in that thread, same as today.
I have a 4670k myself with IGP, latest beta, 2 gtx 460's, can make one dedicated to physx or run sli and physx from either.

 

[Carfax83]

I just laughed so hard. I can't believe people actually fall for this when we know it's not true and that Nvidia is just trying to force people to only use their cards.

I don't know why you think it's so far fetched. Most PhysX users use their primary rendering card to run PhysX, so the driver has to balance the GPU's resources between rendering and PhysX computations..

Only a small percentage of people use a dedicated PhysX card..

 

[Carfax83]

If Nvidia is honestly disabling PhysX if you even install the drivers for your Intel iGPU (which most people do) then the market for PhysX is about to go down to zero. That is an incredibly short sighted move as most people have iGPUs in their machines, drivers installed but not used.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I interpreted the OP's post as asking whether he could use his IGP as the main renderer, whilst using a dedicated PhysX card.

As long as the IGP isn't used for rendering, it shouldn't be an issue. But if it is, then that could be problematic.

 

[Techhog]

I don't know why you think it's so far fetched. Most PhysX users use their primary rendering card to run PhysX, so the driver has to balance the GPU's resources between rendering and PhysX computations..

Only a small percentage of people use a dedicated PhysX card..

Because people have used an Nvidia card for PhysX with an AMD primary card before. It's the driver that's stopping it.

 

[Carfax83]

Because people have used an Nvidia card for PhysX with an AMD primary card before. It's the driver that's stopping it.

Yes they did, but saying it's just for marketing purposes is myopic.

PhysX has changed over the years to add new features and capabilities, and as I said, the PhysX driver's main responsibility is to balance between the rendering and PhysX computations which definitely requires collaboration with the rendering GPU.

Also, if NVidia were to officially allow a dedicated PhysX card in non NVidia systems, they would need to provide some level of support and validation. How do you expect them to do that, when AMD is their competitor and have turned their backs on the technology?

 

[thilanliyan]

Nvidia's claim is that they would sell the royality for PhysX and CUDA to AMD for cents on a card. AMD however has no interest in licencing the technology and has decided to do nothing on hardware physics instead.

The same reason why nVidia wouldn't try to use Mantle (it is controlled by a competitor), is probably the same reason why AMD wouldn't want to use PhysX/CUDA. The cost of the royalty is not that relevant...what is stopping nVidia or AMD from crippling performance when a competitor is using their product to make their own products look better?

 

[Techhog]

Yes they did, but saying it's just for marketing purposes is myopic.

PhysX has changed over the years to add new features and capabilities, and as I said, the PhysX driver's main responsibility is to balance between the rendering and PhysX computations which definitely requires collaboration with the rendering GPU.

Also, if NVidia were to officially allow a dedicated PhysX card in non NVidia systems, they would need to provide some level of support and validation. How do you expect them to do that, when AMD is their competitor and have turned their backs on the technology?

I just don't believe that. :/

 

[Keysplayr]

Intel IGP drivers won't interfere. Not sure what would happen if running on an AMD APU.

Pretty sure PhysX won't run on an Nvidia GPU without the primary GPU needing to be an Nvidia GPU. So, you either have Nvidia GPU rendering and PhysX, or an Nvidia Primary GPU rendering and the secondary Nvidia GPU running PhysX.
This will not stop a primary AMD or Intel GPU, integrated or otherwise, from rendering normally.

 

[MeldarthX]

Pretty sure PhysX won't run on an Nvidia GPU without the primary GPU needing to be an Nvidia GPU. So, you either have Nvidia GPU rendering and PhysX, or an Nvidia Primary GPU rendering and the secondary Nvidia GPU running PhysX.
This will not stop a primary AMD or Intel GPU, integrated or otherwise, from rendering normally.

We know that's not the cause with the beta driver released by Nvidia that allowed AMD users to run a secondary card nvidia card as a physx card. it worked just fine with that driver.

Soon as it was found; they pulled the driver fast as they could......but it proved it could be done without any major hacks......and its simply driver disabling check to stop it from running on other systems.