• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

PhysX and non Nvidia GPU question

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
MeldarthX said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, yes. I don't believe I've alluded to anything otherwise. It is all software restricted on purpose by Nvidia. That one beta driver release was accidental.
 
Carfax83 said:
I don't know why you think it's so far fetched.
Click to expand...
Because it's simple vendor lock-in, nothing more. Past community hacks already proved it worked without issue until they were locked out by updates from nVidia.

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..
Click to expand...
If I'm using a Radeon to render, I'm still locked out. What "balancing" does nVidia's driver do in that case, aside from sending all PhysX to the nVidia GPU?

Only a small percentage of people use a dedicated PhysX card..
Click to expand...
Are you saying artificial vendor lock-in is okay as long it stays under a certain percentage?
 
Anarchist420 said:
nvidia may have a screw loose, but amd is incompetent for not making a CUDA wrapper so that physx can work on their stuff.
Click to expand...
Actually it would be incredibly stupid for AMD to do that. Devoting engineering resources to support a competitor's technology which is completely out of your control is an extremely poor business decision.

This is exactly why nobody else will ever support Mantle.

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.
Click to expand...
🙄
 
BFG10K said:
Actually it would be incredibly stupid for AMD to do that. Devoting engineering resources to support a competitor's technology which is completely out of your control is an extremely poor business decision.

This is exactly why nobody else will ever support Mantle.

🙄
Click to expand...

BFG; 6 months time as the sdk will be out by then......Intel will support Mantle; I know a couple reasons why......in so much I'd bet you a new video card on it......
 
Techhog said:
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.
Click to expand...

imho,

I do think nVidia tries to optimize their drivers for their architectures and it would be difficult and expensive to Q&A their competitors' hardware and software iterations! This makes sense considering the vast amount of drivers, architectures, hardware from single, hybrid, multi-gpu, discrete and integrated!

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

Cuda is free -- PhysX would be less than pennies per GPU!
 
Nvidia doesn't want you to buy an amd card and keep your old one in for apex physx, they want you to buy a new nvidia gpu, that's the only real reason.

Nvidia put a lot of effort into physx and other gameworks stuff, but because it's not all going to work on amd cards it'll always be for optional non gamplay related effects, which is a shame. Then amd comes along, codes a few half baked effects, publishes the source code and cries nvidia should do the same for gameworks, yeah, phat chance. I love this industry.
 
Techhog said:
I just don't believe that. :/
Click to expand...

Actually that is precisely the reason why Nvidia doesn't support hybrid physx

What are we to do when we encounter a bug? Send it to AMD?

They simply disable physx if there's an AMD graphics card present.
But they are not going an extra mile and making sure you can't use physx.

You can still hack your way to hybrid physx as allways. So what's the big deal?
You want them to support hybrid? Not happening, if it works it works (quote from nvidia employee)

Far from me supporting their PhysX business model, but it is what it is.
And it's been like this for ages.
 
Will add my 2cents since i'm the only person that has posted so far that runs a Hybrid system.

It still works you just can't go to the newest NV drivers.

i'm using version 314.22
 
Makaveli said:
Will add my 2cents since i'm the only person that has posted so far that runs a Hybrid system.

It still works you just can't go to the newest NV drivers.

i'm using version 314.22
Click to expand...

That still works? I would have imagined that they would disable PhysX drivers if you didn't have a newer version of the Nvidia driver, but if that isn't the case that's good. Are there actually any performance issues with this old driver and newer PhysX games?
 
Flapdrol1337 said:
Thought it was fine as long as the game renders on an nvidia gpu.

As for the hybrid system, always have to wait a while after a driver releases I guess, until the new one is hacked.
Click to expand...

It's disabled if you have an AMD GPU present, regardless. I have a hybrid system and it doesn't work.
 
Noctifer616 said:
That still works? I would have imagined that they would disable PhysX drivers if you didn't have a newer version of the Nvidia driver, but if that isn't the case that's good. Are there actually any performance issues with this old driver and newer PhysX games?
Click to expand...

Which newer PhsyX games would that be?
 
iiiankiii said:
It's disabled if you have an AMD GPU present, regardless. I have a hybrid system and it doesn't work.
Click to expand...

This is what I was worried about.

My inquiry was if I have an iGPU will that affect PhysX on my Nvidia dGPU. From what I'm seeing if you have ANY Radeon drivers on your system weather it's iGPU or dGPU, PhysX is disabled. From what I can see it's working fine on my Intel iGPU+Nvidia dGPU solutions but not iGPU Radeon + dGPU Nvidia. If this was a QA or technical problem it wouldn't work on either AMD or Intel iGPU but it seems to work on Intel ONLY. I don't know about older drivers but this seems to happen with the newest drivers right now.

PhysX isn't going to sway my decision in being a new card but I'm really started to get disappointed with both companies.
 
SirPauly said:
imho,

I do think nVidia tries to optimize their drivers for their architectures and it would be difficult and expensive to Q&A their competitors' hardware and software iterations! This makes sense considering the vast amount of drivers, architectures, hardware from single, hybrid, multi-gpu, discrete and integrated!

Cuda is free -- PhysX would be less than pennies per GPU!
Click to expand...

First you say it would be difficult and expensive to QA PhysX on AMD hardware. Then you say that it would actually be only pennies per GPU.

Which is it?
 
Nvidias licence to AMD would be pennies per GPU, that is what Nvidia said. But that isn't an actual deal so who knows how much it would all really cost and to who.
 
Creig said:
First you say it would be difficult and expensive to QA PhysX on AMD hardware. Then you say that it would actually be only pennies per GPU.

Which is it?
Click to expand...
GPU physX is not getting much traction.

It does not look good anyway from a visual point of view.
 
Techhog said:
I just don't believe that. :/
Click to expand...

Same here. I'm quite sure it had required less resources from Nvidia to put a mark in the release notes saying something like "Stability only guaranteed when using systems with only Nvidia GPUs", rather than blocking it in the driver
 
Is it still possible to use the ancient original PhysX accelerator card (the one that was *NOT* a video card)?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814143055
14-143-055-02.jpg
 
Honestly, Nvidia should allow AMD users to add an Nvidia card to run PhysX. It would amount to more video card sales for them. I know it may not be much but locking out a small part of a market still hurts sales in the long run. Same with the Mantle situation. It hurts the perception of the company and in the end affects the reputation IMO.
 
BFG10K said:
If I'm using a Radeon to render, I'm still locked out. What "balancing" does nVidia's driver do in that case, aside from sending all PhysX to the nVidia GPU?
Click to expand...

My point in saying that was to show that collaboration does exist between the rendering and physics side.. Not for dedicated PhysX though apparently..

At any rate, you conveniently ignored the greatest reason why NVidia doesn't support hybrid systems with PhysX. The need for validation and QA, plus the fact that AMD doesn't want anything to do with the technology..

Are you saying artificial vendor lock-in is okay as long it stays under a certain percentage?
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying that dedicated PhysX users represent a minority so NVidia is mostly going to tune their software for people that will be using their GPU for both rendering and PhysX..

All this is moot though, because as I said, the biggest reason for the vendor lock in is because NVidia doesn't want to devote resources for validation and QA support for hybrid systems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top