physx on ati

[evolucion8]

Originally posted by: KeysplayrIf AMD had supported PhysX from the beginning, rest assured PhysX would have already become the standard. I believe it still will, but just take longer without AMD's support. AMD opted to hold back the tech industry with this move for their own business reasons. Similar to Nvidia's business reasons for locking out PhysX in systems with ATI cards present.

Both companies are guilty of this bad behavior of not adopting newer technology and stagnating the progress, while PhysX today is something irrelevant for many gamers, it is stepping into the right direction of more inmersive games, and was a mistake for ATi not to adopt it, but also was a mistake for nVidia for not to adopt DX10.1, which also would help for performance improvements which DX10 badly needed it, ATi did the same with DX9.0c with the X800 series, and DX9c adoption took longer that it supposed to.

Locking PhysX out of ATi was also a bad decision, but its also understandable from a marketing/sales point, after all both companies are here for a profit, not to do us a favor.

 

[Keysplayr]

The DX10.1 issue, if one could even stretch the truth enough to call it that, is about to become moot. Both camps will have their DX11 hardware out soon enough. That ends that rather pitiful argument. PhysX, however, is just getting warmed up.

Whether locking ATI out of PhysX was a bad decision or not remains to be seen. But even you can figure out what is most likely going to happen this coming year. From a business standpoint, I don't think Nvidia could have made a better decision than it did. IMHO, which undoubtedly differs from your own.

 

[Dribble]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
Disagree. Explain the new smoke effects in Batman. I've never seen another game that does this. Character walks through smoke, and the smoke swirls around him and actually creates eddies behind him in the charaters wake. You will see newer, more innovative uses of PhsyX as time goes on and new games are released. Especially with more powerful hardware with higher capabilities on the immediate horizon.

As I said I think nvidia are expanding the library of effects, it's obviously just a new one they added, perhaps for batman, but now it exists others will be able to use it too. It was an obvious effect to add as lots of games have smoke. It's likely the physx team wrote demo's with volumetric smoke years ago. Perhaps it was deemed too physx intensive to use in an actual game until now? (the recommended physx card for batman is a 9800GTX+ I think, I bet that's partly due to the compute intensive nature of swirly smoke).

 

[WelshBloke]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: WelshBloke

Originally posted by: Keysplayr


If you "want" PhysX capability in your system, You'll need at least one Nvidia GPU. AMD made a choice. They will not support PhysX technology. Nvidia put all the capital, research, any and all resources into PhysX technology. Work with many game developers to further the tech. And always working to improve this tech. Why should AMD, with it's negative stance towards PhysX technology, benefit from Nvidia's labors by being able to run PhysX with a dedicated Nvidia GPU? That was a free ride for an unsupportive AMD.
If AMD had supported PhysX from the beginning, rest assured PhysX would have already become the standard. I believe it still will, but just take longer without AMD's support. AMD opted to hold back the tech industry with this move for their own business reasons. Similar to Nvidia's business reasons for locking out PhysX in systems with ATI cards present.

Given that Nvidia seems to have arbitrary and changeable rules about which of its own cards it will allow to work with PhysX why do you think it would have been a good idea for ATI to get involved?

Do you think Nvidia would have shown more respect to ATI users than its own ones?

Why would you think it "arbitrary"? You mean the change of minimum GPU specs in order to run PhysX to 32 shaders and 256MB? That is exactly in line with my recent PhysX testing and a correct assessment of required GPU power. Nothing arbitrary about that.

And why do you think that had anything to do with ATI? If ATI HAD gotten involved way back when, I'm sure that right now, there would be a minimum spec to run PhysX for their cards as well. And you can be damn sure there wouldn't be a lock out.

Should Nvidia show "more" respect to ATI users than it's own users? This soap opera you see playing out is a result of ATI denying, or could not provide it's own users of this technology.
Could have been several reasons why this is. Their "political stance" wouldn't let them. They actually "couldn't" get PhysX to run on their hardware behind closed doors, and opted to publicly state that Havok will be the way they wish to go. Not out of choice. Who knows?
Could be many other reasons.

Yeah but NV/ATI don't stop their GPU's from running games if they think the performance wont be high enough, why should they do it for PhysX. If the hardware can run it it should be up to the end user to decide weather its fast enough. Its arbitrary because they have picked a performance level, its not like lower level hardware cant physically run it.

My point is it has nothing to do with ATI. Even if ATI had got on board with PhysX earlier NV still own and control it. NV have shown they are happy to stop it working on their own hardware why would ATI think they would play fair with thiers.

You seem to assume that NV would have been happy to let ATI have some control over PhysX, I would be inclined to assume otherwise. You've already seen NV stop PhysX working if theres an ATI card present, why do you think they'd be happy to let it run with no NV card there.

 

[Keysplayr]

I'll ignore all but the last sentence because there aren't any other ways left to explain the same answers for you. But as for the last sentence, that,s a question you should have known the answer to, but...

Because they would be earning license fees from AMD. What else makes a corporation happy besides earning money?

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
Nvidia doesn't lack support for true discrete PhysX cards. Just not with ATI cards.

I have a PCI X-Fi sound card. It works on any system with a compatible PCI slot and compatible OS - regardless of cpu, memory, or video card used. The reason for this is because it is a discrete sound card.

If NVIDIA either won't or isn't able to have PhysX capable cards function regardless of the video card used, they don't support a discrete PhysX card. They have a NVIDIA proprietary add on card for their primary video card, or something... I dunno... It's not a discrete PhysX card. Theoretically, a discrete PhysX card should be able to perform the required calculations with any or without a video card at all. That's the way other discrete cards work.

Your ASUS P6T also has ADI AD2000B 8-channel premium onboard audio that probably has just as good audio reproduction as your X-Fi, but you choose not to use it. It sits there. Wasted silicon. Most modern motherboards have onboard audio. A discrete audio card really isn't required, but more of a "want" than anything else.

If you "want" PhysX capability in your system, You'll need at least one Nvidia GPU. AMD made a choice. They will not support PhysX technology. Nvidia put all the capital, research, any and all resources into PhysX technology. Work with many game developers to further the tech. And always working to improve this tech. Why should AMD, with it's negative stance towards PhysX technology, benefit from Nvidia's labors by being able to run PhysX with a dedicated Nvidia GPU? That was a free ride for an unsupportive AMD.
If AMD had supported PhysX from the beginning, rest assured PhysX would have already become the standard. I believe it still will, but just take longer without AMD's support. AMD opted to hold back the tech industry with this move for their own business reasons. Similar to Nvidia's business reasons for locking out PhysX in systems with ATI cards present.

My choice to run the X-fi over the onboard ADI audio has no relevance whatsoever to NVIDIA not having a discrete PhysX card... The X-fi is not dependent upon the ADI, unlike the add on PhysX card is upon the NVIDIA graphics card.

You can look at it as not providing ATI with a free ride, I look at as NVIDIA reducing value in their own product by not allowing users of an ATI video card to use their existing NV card to run PhysX.

If you "want" PhysX capability in your system, You'll need at least one Nvidia GPU.

This also isn't correct. If you want to run PhysX, you'll need a NVIDIA gpu and only a NVIDIA gpu. Your statement implies that one can add a NVIDIA gpu to any system to enable PhysX (as you would any discrete card), when we both know this is false.

 

[zagood]

Looking back on the history of PhysX and the point we're at now, it's too bad Aegia wasn't able to tough it out and continue development/partnering on their own. That way we could have a discrete card that (hypothetically) would work just as well with ATi, nV, etc. There's just too much conflict between the two for any type of new standard to be accepted as the norm without a 3rd party (a la MS with DX) plus popular demand forcing it down their throats.

I can't even say that PhysX on a GPU is a more elegant solution than another add-in card. In general a GPU has more power than the old Ageia PPU, but the size of the driver package needed to run it is just as bad if not worse than having a completely separate program.

Of course, game developers are to blame since they didn't make anything cool out of it in the first place

 

[plonk420]

i'm late to the thread, but in case you don't know, a C & D order can have serious threats that most will agree to, most of which include not discussing ANYTHING further about capabilities (or the C & D threat itself), or passing on anything like code. also serious repercussions for breaking the terms of the order.

but yeah, greedy fucking nvidia (and possibly ati as well).

but also, coder should have opensourced it. it would be legal SOMEWHERE. just look at the Hymn/Requiem project...

i hope that there will always be a safe haven, SOMEWHERE on earth, like the Antiguas for Slysoft... freedom to tinker, etc.

edit: not saying the devs were C&D'd, but the complete dropping off the map made me think that something like that happened...

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
Because they would be earning license fees from AMD. What else makes a corporation happy besides earning money?

haha that makes me think of Better Off Ted

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
Nvidia doesn't lack support for true discrete PhysX cards. Just not with ATI cards.

I have a PCI X-Fi sound card. It works on any system with a compatible PCI slot and compatible OS - regardless of cpu, memory, or video card used. The reason for this is because it is a discrete sound card.

If NVIDIA either won't or isn't able to have PhysX capable cards function regardless of the video card used, they don't support a discrete PhysX card. They have a NVIDIA proprietary add on card for their primary video card, or something... I dunno... It's not a discrete PhysX card. Theoretically, a discrete PhysX card should be able to perform the required calculations with any or without a video card at all. That's the way other discrete cards work.

Your ASUS P6T also has ADI AD2000B 8-channel premium onboard audio that probably has just as good audio reproduction as your X-Fi, but you choose not to use it. It sits there. Wasted silicon. Most modern motherboards have onboard audio. A discrete audio card really isn't required, but more of a "want" than anything else.

If you "want" PhysX capability in your system, You'll need at least one Nvidia GPU. AMD made a choice. They will not support PhysX technology. Nvidia put all the capital, research, any and all resources into PhysX technology. Work with many game developers to further the tech. And always working to improve this tech. Why should AMD, with it's negative stance towards PhysX technology, benefit from Nvidia's labors by being able to run PhysX with a dedicated Nvidia GPU? That was a free ride for an unsupportive AMD.
If AMD had supported PhysX from the beginning, rest assured PhysX would have already become the standard. I believe it still will, but just take longer without AMD's support. AMD opted to hold back the tech industry with this move for their own business reasons. Similar to Nvidia's business reasons for locking out PhysX in systems with ATI cards present.

My choice to run the X-fi over the onboard ADI audio has no relevance whatsoever to NVIDIA not having a discrete PhysX card... The X-fi is not dependent upon the ADI, unlike the add on PhysX card is upon the NVIDIA graphics card.

You can look at it as not providing ATI with a free ride, I look at as NVIDIA reducing value in their own product by not allowing users of an ATI video card to use their existing NV card to run PhysX.

If you "want" PhysX capability in your system, You'll need at least one Nvidia GPU.

This also isn't correct. If you want to run PhysX, you'll need a NVIDIA gpu and only a NVIDIA gpu. Your statement implies that one can add a NVIDIA gpu to any system to enable PhysX (as you would any discrete card), when we both know this is false.

What are you doing Nitro? You know damn well that I meant at least one Nvidia card in the context omeaning WITHOUT any ATI cards present in the system. Nvidia locking out ATI for PhysX is the talk of the forums right now. Do you think there are many people who do not know about it in this forum that you should feel the need to warn them of the implications of my post above? Don't go off the deep end on us now after all this time.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

What are you doing Nitro? You know damn well that I meant at least one Nvidia card in the context omeaning WITHOUT any ATI cards present in the system. Nvidia locking out ATI for PhysX is the talk of the forums right now. Do you think there are many people who do not know about it in this forum that you should feel the need to warn them of the implications of my post above? Don't go off the deep end on us now after all this time.

Fair enough, but by the same token you also know what I meant by "discrete PhysX card".

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

What are you doing Nitro? You know damn well that I meant at least one Nvidia card in the context omeaning WITHOUT any ATI cards present in the system. Nvidia locking out ATI for PhysX is the talk of the forums right now. Do you think there are many people who do not know about it in this forum that you should feel the need to warn them of the implications of my post above? Don't go off the deep end on us now after all this time.

Fair enough, but by the same token you also know what I meant by "discrete PhysX card".

Ok, so the point you wish to make is that it is a discrete PhysX card only under certain circumstances? Like only if there is another Nvidia card in the system? No ATI cards allowed?
That's fine, but I know this has been well covered in these forums here already.

 

[EliteSentinel]

nVidia will get sued for this

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Ok, so the point you wish to make is that it is a discrete PhysX card only under certain circumstances? Like only if there is another Nvidia card in the system? No ATI cards allowed?
That's fine, but I know this has been well covered in these forums here already.

No, the point I wish to make is that it's *NOT* a discrete PhysX card.

Originally posted by: EliteSentinel
nVidia will get sued for this

I don't see what for. It's their tech, they don't have to make it open. We also don't have to use it.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Ok, so the point you wish to make is that it is a discrete PhysX card only under certain circumstances? Like only if there is another Nvidia card in the system? No ATI cards allowed?
That's fine, but I know this has been well covered in these forums here already.

No, the point I wish to make is that it's *NOT* a discrete PhysX card.

System with a primary Nvidia card and a dedicated PhysX card. What is this card?

System with a primary ATI card and a Nvidia card. What is this card?

Call it what you want, but when you have an all Nvidia setup, for example a GTX275 in the primary slot, and say any Nvidia GPU 8600GT or greater in the secondary slot for PhysX, that card is a discrete PhysX card because that is it's intended use. You can call it a GeForce GPU that also happens to do PhysX. But that would be incorrect. The only function that second card could have when it pertains to gaming, is PhsyX. Of course, it can also be used in multi monitor situations.

Not really interested in the semantics thereafter.

 

[EliteSentinel]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
Nvidia doesn't lack support for true discrete PhysX cards. Just not with ATI cards.

I have a PCI X-Fi sound card. It works on any system with a compatible PCI slot and compatible OS - regardless of cpu, memory, or video card used. The reason for this is because it is a discrete sound card.

If NVIDIA either won't or isn't able to have PhysX capable cards function regardless of the video card used, they don't support a discrete PhysX card. They have a NVIDIA proprietary add on card for their primary video card, or something... I dunno... It's not a discrete PhysX card. Theoretically, a discrete PhysX card should be able to perform the required calculations with any or without a video card at all. That's the way other discrete cards work.

Your ASUS P6T also has ADI AD2000B 8-channel premium onboard audio that probably has just as good audio reproduction as your X-Fi, but you choose not to use it. It sits there. Wasted silicon. Most modern motherboards have onboard audio. A discrete audio card really isn't required, but more of a "want" than anything else.

If you "want" PhysX capability in your system, You'll need at least one Nvidia GPU. AMD made a choice. They will not support PhysX technology. Nvidia put all the capital, research, any and all resources into PhysX technology. Work with many game developers to further the tech. And always working to improve this tech. Why should AMD, with it's negative stance towards PhysX technology, benefit from Nvidia's labors by being able to run PhysX with a dedicated Nvidia GPU? That was a free ride for an unsupportive AMD.
If AMD had supported PhysX from the beginning, rest assured PhysX would have already become the standard. I believe it still will, but just take longer without AMD's support. AMD opted to hold back the tech industry with this move for their own business reasons. Similar to Nvidia's business reasons for locking out PhysX in systems with ATI cards present.

Because people paid for the green card, it doesn't matter if they want to use it to render graphics or calculate physics. It's their card they should be allowed to use it anyway they want to.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
System with a primary Nvidia card and a dedicated PhysX card. What is this card?

A second video card that can accept the offloading of PhysX tasks from the primary video card. I think NVIDIA has invented a new type of add on card here that is dependent upon the vendor of the primary video card. There may not be a name for this yet, but 'discrete' it's not.

System with a primary ATI card and a Nvidia card. What is this card?

...useless for PhysX.

Not really interested in the semantics thereafter.

Of course you're not. You've been trying to quell this topic since the thread started. The topic isn't very relevant to you as an end user anyway. Your graphics card choice is probably pretty much mapped out for the foreseeable future, and I'm pretty sure PhyX compatibility is not really a question.

My situation is a little different... I have a NVIDIA card that wasn't exactly cheap, that isn't worth jack compared to what I paid for it, but it would run PhysX like a bat outta hell as a discrete card. Additionally, I ponied up for an X58 platform because I didn't want to be bound to either SLI/Crossfire if I want to go with a multi-card setup. Now, NVIDIA is either forcing me to once again be bound to NVIDIA or make my video card that could be a badass PhysX card worthless. Yes, I am a little PISSED!

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
System with a primary Nvidia card and a dedicated PhysX card. What is this card?

A second video card that can accept the offloading of PhysX tasks from the primary video card. I think NVIDIA has invented a new type of add on card here that is dependent upon the vendor of the primary video card. There may not be a name for this yet, but 'discrete' it's not.

System with a primary ATI card and a Nvidia card. What is this card?

...useless for PhysX.

Not really interested in the semantics thereafter.

Of course you're not. You've been trying to quell this topic since the thread started. The topic isn't very relevant to you as an end user anyway. Your graphics card choice is probably pretty much mapped out for the foreseeable future, and I'm pretty sure PhyX compatibility is not really a question.

My situation is a little different... I have a NVIDIA card that wasn't exactly cheap, that isn't worth jack compared to what I paid for it, but it would run PhysX like a bat outta hell as a discrete card. Additionally, I ponied up for an X58 platform because I didn't want to be bound to either SLI/Crossfire if I want to go with a multi-card setup. Now, NVIDIA is either forcing me to once again be bound to NVIDIA or make my video card that could be a badass PhysX card worthless. Yes, I am a little PISSED!

I'd like to know how you think I am trying to "quell" this topic. It's common knowledge by everyone now. All you're doing is venting about it, needlessly so, but that is your right to do so. And, you're not being forced to do anything. If you feel there are better products, you should buy them. I don't think a next gen Nvidia primary card that would allow you to utilize your GTX280 as a PhysX card, will cause you to regret that decision well into the hereafter. Nvidia makes great GPUs so I don't think you'll be "pissed" then.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

I'd like to know how you think I am trying to "quell" this topic. It's common knowledge by everyone now. All you're doing is venting about it, needlessly so, but that is your right to do so. And, you're not being forced to do anything. If you feel there are better products, you should buy them. I don't think a next gen Nvidia primary card that would allow you to utilize your GTX280 as a PhysX card, will cause you to regret that decision well into the hereafter. Nvidia makes great GPUs so I don't think you'll be "pissed" then.

It's about the lack of choice, obviously.

You see, I'm already a NVIDIA customer (have been for years). However, clearly the dollars that I spent on my NVIDIA card last year and the years before mean nothing to NVIDIA now. Don't get me wrong, I don't think ATI or anyone is going to be handing out freebies to anyone who buys their cards, but NVIDIA is actively and deliberately reducing the usable value of a product that I previously purchased unless I choose them for my next upgrade.

That is a lack of choice, and it annoys me because (as I mentioned) I specifically bought into a platform that didn't make me switch out motherboards if I wanted to flip between SLI or Crossfire.

I'd like to know how you think I am trying to "quell" this topic.

You are right now by marginalizing my concerns, as you did earlier in this thread with Pelu. The only answer you have is that we should buy NVIDIA.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

I'd like to know how you think I am trying to "quell" this topic. It's common knowledge by everyone now. All you're doing is venting about it, needlessly so, but that is your right to do so. And, you're not being forced to do anything. If you feel there are better products, you should buy them. I don't think a next gen Nvidia primary card that would allow you to utilize your GTX280 as a PhysX card, will cause you to regret that decision well into the hereafter. Nvidia makes great GPUs so I don't think you'll be "pissed" then.

It's about the lack of choice, obviously.

You see, I'm already a NVIDIA customer (have been for years). However, clearly the dollars that I spent on my NVIDIA card last year and the years before mean nothing to NVIDIA now. Don't get me wrong, I don't think ATI or anyone is going to be handing out freebies to anyone who buys their cards, but NVIDIA is actively and deliberately reducing the usable value of a product that I previously purchased unless I choose them for my next upgrade.

That is a lack of choice, and it annoys me because (as I mentioned) I specifically bought into a platform that didn't make me switch out motherboards if I wanted to flip between SLI or Crossfire.

I'd like to know how you think I am trying to "quell" this topic.

You are right now by marginalizing my concerns, as you did earlier in this thread with Pelu. The only answer you have is that we should buy NVIDIA.

Well, obviously your concerns are about PhysX capability, no? So should I then suggest you buy an ATI card? Is that what you think I should be doing? Could you be any less rational?

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
Well, obviously your concerns are about PhysX capability, no? So should I then suggest you buy an ATI card? Is that what you think I should be doing? Could you be any less rational?

No, my concerns are not really about PhysX capability. Clearly this can be obtained by purchasing all NVIDIA hardware. Not very complex to understand.

My concern is the PhysX lock out. This irks me because I planned my system carefully and spent additional money to keep my platform as flexible as possible. It irks me even more so because it seems that the culprit of most of the limitations I encounter always seems to be NVIDIA.

I mean, c'mom Intel had to forcibly prevent NVIDIA from making chipsets for their cpus for them to open up SLI to non-NV chipsets. Even then, NVIDIA was trying to force their NF200 chip on motherboard manufacturers when X58 has two perfectly good PCIe 2.0 16x lanes. Luckily, the big motherboard names wouldn't play along with that.

How dickish does a company have to get before you start taking notice?

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
Nvidia locking out ATI for PhysX is the talk of the forums right now.

...and why do you think that is?

I get that their job is to try to make money, but my job is to keep mine. I have no qualms paying for quality gear, but I don't appreciate being manipulated into buying stuff.

...is that irrational to you?

 

[Tempered81]

http://rage3d.com/board/showpo...336007626&postcount=44

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
Well, obviously your concerns are about PhysX capability, no? So should I then suggest you buy an ATI card? Is that what you think I should be doing? Could you be any less rational?

No, my concerns are not really about PhysX capability. Clearly this can be obtained by purchasing all NVIDIA hardware. Not very complex to understand.

Then what are we talking about here?
If your concerns are not about PhysX capability, then nothing should "irk" you. You can go right out and get two NV cards for SLI or Two ATI cards for Crossfire. Or whatever you want.

 

[lavaheadache]

I just wanna chime in here too. I think it is BS that just having an ati card in your system locks out physx. I'm a multi monitor user and need to have a second card regardless. With windows 7 and xp being able to load different vendor drivers, it is utter bs that I would lose my physx functionality with say an hd3650 for secondary monitors. Hell, even having an ATi intergrated graphics enabled would lock out Physx.


I really do think Nvidia should be a little more perceptive to this. I understand not freely allowing an ATi card to be able to use the API but c'mon...... I paid for my nvidia card and I wanna be able to use it for purposes stated that i could use it for on the box, regardless of what it is in tandem with.

 

[evolucion8]

Originally posted by: nitromullet

How dickish does a company have to get before you start taking notice?

Probably when nVidia starts to delete threads and ban users who compliant about their products, every decision that nVidia had made lately put it so close to Apple's behavior.

nVidia = The Apple of the graphics card.

Besides of the NF200 chipsets and some other stuff, also early with the TWIMTBP program, games optimized for it, where severely handicapped in performance when an ATi card was used, Doom 3 for example, and even today like in Lost Planet which runs so pathetticly slow on ATi hardware for no reason, something's fishy down there.

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: evolucion8

Originally posted by: nitromullet

How dickish does a company have to get before you start taking notice?

Probably when nVidia starts to delete threads and ban users who compliant about their products, every decision that nVidia had made lately put it so close to Apple's behavior.

nVidia = The Apple of the graphics card.

Besides of the NF200 chipsets and some other stuff, also early with the TWIMTBP program, games optimized for it, where severely handicapped in performance when an ATi card was used, Doom 3 for example, and even today like in Lost Planet which runs so pathetticly slow on ATi hardware for no reason, something's fishy down there.

why are you complaining? I would be upset (and have been before) when TWIMTBP titles DIDN'T perform better on nvidia hardware. What's the freakin' point of that if there's no difference? If the the dev takes nvidia's money to slap the logo up there, the least they could do is to throw nvidia end-users a few bones.