PPU PhysX disabled for ATI too?

[imported_Scoop]

I'm glad Nvidia only makes overpriced GPUs nowadays so I can support ATI/AMD. I never had any interest in PhysX but this is ridiculous and just wrong towards people that bought a PPU.

 

[Extrem1st]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: crazylegs
How can this be good from a PR point of view for NV? :S

It just seems spitefull and if anything will result in a backlash from consumers, choosing to support a perceivably 'more open' ATI/AMD.

There are plenty of reasons to be aggravated at both of the companies decisions. People who are plainly aggravated/frustrated at the PhysX lock out should be equally as aggravated that AMD decided not to support PhysX. Business decisions are not always clearly understood by us because we do not have all the data.

We can look at something and say, "This sucks big time" but not know all the criteria that went into the decision. AMD made a business decision to not support PhysX. You can give very good arguments as to "why" they did this. Maybe AMD felt it would be harmful to their company in the long term. Or that Nvidia would make PhysX run worse on AMD hardware than it does on their own? Whatever. They are businesses. They compete. We are the consumers. We see the end results of the competition. This is where we are now, and there isn't a whole lot we can do to change it at this point in time.

You can vote with your dollars, but there is a line to cross. Do you buy what you want because it's truly what you want? Or do you buy just to spite one company over the other?
In that sense, some are truly the same as the corporations they despise.

yeah AMD should be blamed for nvidia's evil decisions :roll:

Competition is no excuse for false advertisement.

 

[Extrem1st]

Originally posted by: crazylegs

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: nismotigerwvu

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
Ah, the Demerjian clan.
How can I help?
PhysX has been disabled when ATI cards are present in the system. Why are any of you surprised? What would be the point of disabling only Nvidia GPU's running PhysX alongside an ATI card and still let PhysX PPU's do it? If they had, might as well have never blocked PhsyX in the first place.

And as for the people who purchased the Ageia PPU long before Nvidia bought the company? They should have been able to see the future and buy an Nvidia product instead right? And the very instant the buyout occured they should have set out and bought like 50 geforces right? Oy.....

The drama is strong with this one.

Yet he has made a valid point.

Your brain is just washed.

 

[Munky]

All the more reason to look forward to cross-platform standards like OpenCL, which will replace Nvidia's proprietary technology. Nvidia is only helping accelerate the process with these lock-outs.

 

[Extrem1st]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: dug777
That doesn't seem very fair or reasonable to me, and I struggle to see how anyone can say that it is, and believe it. In addition, given the points made about a PPU being a bit on the slow side these days, it just comes over as plain spiteful

Is it fair/reasonable that I can't play my XBOX games on a playstation?

Was it spiteful of Microsoft to restrict compatibility of XBOX game discs to my playing them only on Microsoft XBOX platforms?

What about the new PS3 that doesn't retain backwards compatibility with PS2 games whereas the older/original PS3 did? Was that fair and reasonable of Sony to do? Was it spiteful for them to do that?

Or was it simply a cost-cutting measure so they could get PS3 sales going again by lowering cost and sales price?

For some reason we can accept the world we live in, the corrals placed on consumers and our ability to access the products we purchase in other product segments, but when it crosses over into the desktop platform with discrete GPU's it becomes this holy ground where moralistic/ethical issues are battle worthy.

Lol only a retard would expect XBOX games to work properly on a PS.

And wtf does console have to do with PC? NOTHING.

 

[MrK6]

Originally posted by: munky
All the more reason to look forward to cross-platform standards like OpenCL, which will replace Nvidia's proprietary technology. Nvidia is only helping accelerate the process with these lock-outs.

That's a great viewpoint. I think that given this press, it will draw attention to the matter that an open standard/ solution is going to be necessary. What repercussions each company involved will face from the change will be interesting.

 

[MrK6]

Originally posted by: Extrem1st

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: dug777
That doesn't seem very fair or reasonable to me, and I struggle to see how anyone can say that it is, and believe it. In addition, given the points made about a PPU being a bit on the slow side these days, it just comes over as plain spiteful

Is it fair/reasonable that I can't play my XBOX games on a playstation?

Was it spiteful of Microsoft to restrict compatibility of XBOX game discs to my playing them only on Microsoft XBOX platforms?

What about the new PS3 that doesn't retain backwards compatibility with PS2 games whereas the older/original PS3 did? Was that fair and reasonable of Sony to do? Was it spiteful for them to do that?

Or was it simply a cost-cutting measure so they could get PS3 sales going again by lowering cost and sales price?

For some reason we can accept the world we live in, the corrals placed on consumers and our ability to access the products we purchase in other product segments, but when it crosses over into the desktop platform with discrete GPU's it becomes this holy ground where moralistic/ethical issues are battle worthy.

Lol only a retard would expect XBOX games to work properly on a PS.

And wtf does console have to do with PC? NOTHING.

While I wouldn't have put it like that, that is an extremely poor analogy and just belittles any point trying to be made. Honestly, you don't need to create an analogy to make a point - just state it.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Wow, just wow. Are they also disabled if a GMA is used in the system?

I've read something to the effect of PhysX being disabled even if there's an integrated ATI GPU (ie. it's not disabled in BIOS). Not sure how much truth there is in that as it was just some forum posting.

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: Extrem1st

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: dug777
That doesn't seem very fair or reasonable to me, and I struggle to see how anyone can say that it is, and believe it. In addition, given the points made about a PPU being a bit on the slow side these days, it just comes over as plain spiteful

Is it fair/reasonable that I can't play my XBOX games on a playstation?

Was it spiteful of Microsoft to restrict compatibility of XBOX game discs to my playing them only on Microsoft XBOX platforms?

What about the new PS3 that doesn't retain backwards compatibility with PS2 games whereas the older/original PS3 did? Was that fair and reasonable of Sony to do? Was it spiteful for them to do that?

Or was it simply a cost-cutting measure so they could get PS3 sales going again by lowering cost and sales price?

For some reason we can accept the world we live in, the corrals placed on consumers and our ability to access the products we purchase in other product segments, but when it crosses over into the desktop platform with discrete GPU's it becomes this holy ground where moralistic/ethical issues are battle worthy.

Lol only a retard would expect XBOX games to work properly on a PS.

And wtf does console have to do with PC? NOTHING.

You might want to re-read, or read the Forum usage terms of service you agreed to.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: Modular
you need to have satisfied customers, and those customers must come first. Decisions like this make me run to the red side.

These days it's about satisfying shareholders (and for the short term this might work)...one thing I don't like about publicly traded companies.

 

[GlacierFreeze]

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: Sylvanas

Originally posted by: Tempered81
Ya pretty soon if you play Batman with an ati card, it will just blow your computer up. We'll probably have to wait until the first game patch for that to happen.

Lol indeed.

Apologists will say ATI should have paid the developers to not have the game blow up when using their cards.

I lol'd hard.

 

[GlacierFreeze]

Originally posted by: MrK6

Originally posted by: Extrem1st

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: dug777
That doesn't seem very fair or reasonable to me, and I struggle to see how anyone can say that it is, and believe it. In addition, given the points made about a PPU being a bit on the slow side these days, it just comes over as plain spiteful

Is it fair/reasonable that I can't play my XBOX games on a playstation?

Was it spiteful of Microsoft to restrict compatibility of XBOX game discs to my playing them only on Microsoft XBOX platforms?

What about the new PS3 that doesn't retain backwards compatibility with PS2 games whereas the older/original PS3 did? Was that fair and reasonable of Sony to do? Was it spiteful for them to do that?

Or was it simply a cost-cutting measure so they could get PS3 sales going again by lowering cost and sales price?

For some reason we can accept the world we live in, the corrals placed on consumers and our ability to access the products we purchase in other product segments, but when it crosses over into the desktop platform with discrete GPU's it becomes this holy ground where moralistic/ethical issues are battle worthy.

Lol only a retard would expect XBOX games to work properly on a PS.

And wtf does console have to do with PC? NOTHING.

While I wouldn't have put it like that, that is an extremely poor analogy and just belittles any point trying to be made. Honestly, you don't need to create an analogy to make a point - just state it.

Analogies made on message boards are usually bad. His was really terrible... like brain dead terrible.

 

[Phynaz]

Originally posted by: Extrem1st

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: dug777
That doesn't seem very fair or reasonable to me, and I struggle to see how anyone can say that it is, and believe it. In addition, given the points made about a PPU being a bit on the slow side these days, it just comes over as plain spiteful

Is it fair/reasonable that I can't play my XBOX games on a playstation?

Was it spiteful of Microsoft to restrict compatibility of XBOX game discs to my playing them only on Microsoft XBOX platforms?

What about the new PS3 that doesn't retain backwards compatibility with PS2 games whereas the older/original PS3 did? Was that fair and reasonable of Sony to do? Was it spiteful for them to do that?

Or was it simply a cost-cutting measure so they could get PS3 sales going again by lowering cost and sales price?

For some reason we can accept the world we live in, the corrals placed on consumers and our ability to access the products we purchase in other product segments, but when it crosses over into the desktop platform with discrete GPU's it becomes this holy ground where moralistic/ethical issues are battle worthy.

Lol only a retard would expect XBOX games to work properly on a PS.

And wtf does console have to do with PC? NOTHING.

You may want to read some further writings of IDK before you start flaming him. He is one of the most respected and knowledgeable persons around here.

Behavior like this will get you a vacation from posting.

 

[GaiaHunter]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: zebrax2
2.) Yes they did removed the BC but in return they reduced the price of the console plus they didn't disabled the feature on previous versions of the console (the ones with BC)

I'm pretty sure the original PPU drivers still exist and have not had any of their features disabled.

You can still use your old PPU with its old drivers, nothing more than that was guaranteed when you bought the device from Ageia anyways.

And for all we know it is disabled in existing/future drivers because it costs money to continue to verify that future drivers with PPU integration (win7) do not introduce bugs that cause problems on AMd hardware.

So reducing the scope of PPU compatibility in future driver releases might have simply been done to reduce Nvidia's cost structure for future driver validation, not out of spite.

That was all my analogies to MS and Sony were intended to suggest. All this chatter about arms and foxes is really strawman arguing, feel free to do it but don't think it is going to convince me that Nvidia's decision here was based any less on simple economics, the same as employed by MS and Sony decision makers.

If your goal is to convince me that you feel any for-profit business entity is evil and spiteful for being competitive then rest-assured that you can convince that this is your opinion on capitalism.

Personally I see nothing more at play here than standard cost-cutting business decisions being made by a company that operates in a competitive market.

We don't have to like it, in fact the fact we weren't asked for input on the decision in advance of it being made/implemented pretty much tells you what Nvidia's decision makers think of our opinion on the matter. I personally don't like it, I would have liked to have seen Nvidia make more of an effort to maintain legacy compatibility even if it meant an elevated operating cost. But I'm not a shareholder, or an NV employee, so I can't fault NV for making decisions that best serve the interests they hold as a priority. But I don't think there was any spite in their decision making process.

And you can't blame the consumers for wanting more/higher quality at lower prices and venting their frustration/rage at the subject.

After all capitalism goes both ways - and it is why democracies fight hard (or should) to avoid monopolies from establishing and/or using anti-competitive tactics.

Also, if people see other than less mundane objectives/purposes in the recent nVidia actions, maybe that is because past actions taken by the company, don't you think? Especially considering the timing?

 

[T2k]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
Ah, the Demerjian clan.
How can I help?
PhysX has been disabled when ATI cards are present in the system. Why are any of you surprised? What would be the point of disabling only Nvidia GPU's running PhysX alongside an ATI card and still let PhysX PPU's do it? If they had, might as well have never blocked PhsyX in the first place.

A paid NV mouthpiece trying to make a laughably nonsensical excuse?
Color me surprised...


Please dial back your tendency to personally insult those you disagree with or you will earn yourself some time off from here.

Perknose
Senior AT Mod

 

[T2k]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: thilanliyan

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
Ah, the Demerjian clan.
How can I help?
PhysX has been disabled when ATI cards are present in the system. Why are any of you surprised? What would be the point of disabling only Nvidia GPU's running PhysX alongside an ATI card and still let PhysX PPU's do it? If they had, might as well have never blocked PhsyX in the first place.

It sounds like you're supportive of this!?? I hope not because then you think it's okay that NV just bricked the PPU cards that people bought when they have/had an ATI card? This PhysX thing is becoming a mess...if it can't survive without being artificially propped up by nV then I hope something better (better implemented and not limited in the way PhysX is currently being) will replace it.

It's a double edged sword really.

No, it's not. Stop confusing people with false claims - these PPUs were sold before Nvidia ever uttered the world "Physx" in your monthly 'orientation' webinars.

 

[T2k]

Originally posted by: Phynaz

Originally posted by: Extrem1st

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: dug777
That doesn't seem very fair or reasonable to me, and I struggle to see how anyone can say that it is, and believe it. In addition, given the points made about a PPU being a bit on the slow side these days, it just comes over as plain spiteful

Is it fair/reasonable that I can't play my XBOX games on a playstation?

Was it spiteful of Microsoft to restrict compatibility of XBOX game discs to my playing them only on Microsoft XBOX platforms?

What about the new PS3 that doesn't retain backwards compatibility with PS2 games whereas the older/original PS3 did? Was that fair and reasonable of Sony to do? Was it spiteful for them to do that?

Or was it simply a cost-cutting measure so they could get PS3 sales going again by lowering cost and sales price?

For some reason we can accept the world we live in, the corrals placed on consumers and our ability to access the products we purchase in other product segments, but when it crosses over into the desktop platform with discrete GPU's it becomes this holy ground where moralistic/ethical issues are battle worthy.

Lol only a retard would expect XBOX games to work properly on a PS.

And wtf does console have to do with PC? NOTHING.

You may want to read some further writings of IDK before you start flaming him. He is one of the most respected and knowledgeable persons around here.

Behavior like this will get you a vacation from posting.

He can be God himself but his analogy was plain stupid, idiotic and only showed his basic lack of understanding - in fact it comes dangerously close to the infamous worst-ever online analogy about Mac vs PC (the car-based one, typically used by the lowest-quality crop of Mac users...)

 

[Zstream]

Originally posted by: Idontcare
That was all my analogies to MS and Sony were intended to suggest. All this chatter about arms and foxes is really strawman arguing, feel free to do it but don't think it is going to convince me that Nvidia's decision here was based any less on simple economics, the same as employed by MS and Sony decision makers.

If your goal is to convince me that you feel any for-profit business entity is evil and spiteful for being competitive then rest-assured that you can convince that this is your opinion on capitalism.

No one is trying to convince you of anything, in fact, in the scheme of things no one cares about your global economic views.

The point people are trying to make is a very valid one. The topic was about PPU cards and ATI graphic cards running together. Nvidia does not allow this and will further alienate what ever Physx support they had with developers.

 

[imported_Shaq]

Nvidia owns the rights to PhysX. End of story. The PPU is too weak to run modern games anyway. I have tried it and performance was worse using it with 260 SLI.

 

[Kuzi]

Maybe AMD should disable the CPU when a game is started and the system detects an nV GPU

On a serious note, what nVidia is doing will only make them look worse to consumers. They seem really desperate.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: Shaq
Nvidia owns the rights to PhysX. End of story.

I don't think anyone is debating whether or not NVIDIA can impose a vendor lock out with regards to PhysX. Clearly, they have the technical and legal ability to do so. I thing we're debating whether or not they should.

From a business perspective, I personally find the move interesting because NVIDIA are essentially limiting the number of individuals that are able to adopt their technology. Given that the clear cut physics API winner has not yet been decided, it could potentially be a risky move.

From a consumer perspective, I feel their move short changes their existing customers regardless of whether or not NVIDIA broke any promises (implied or otherwise).

 

[HurleyBird]

Originally posted by: nitromulletI don't think anyone is debating whether or not NVIDIA can impose a vendor lock out with regards to PhysX. Clearly, they have the technical and legal ability to do so.

Oh, they have the technical ability to do so, but legal ability to get away with it is another matter altogether unless they can come up with a time machine and change the system requirements printed on the boxes of all the PPUs that were sold. And even then it would arguably be an actionable anti-competitive practice. Companies have been nailed for far, far less than what Nvidia has been alleged of doing with their standalone PPU units -- in terms of false advertising and anti-competitive practices, and anyone who doesn't think the EU would have a hay-day with this has no clue about how things work over there

 

[SRoode]

Originally posted by: Shaq
Nvidia owns the rights to PhysX. End of story. The PPU is too weak to run modern games anyway. I have tried it and performance was worse using it with 260 SLI.

Why disable it then?

 

[SRoode]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
I can understand it because I don't think ATI should benefit from Nvidia's labors and expense in PhysX development...

nVidia had no labor or expense in PhysX development... After it was developed (and marketed), they bought the company that did.

 

[imported_Shaq]

I believe they had to pay to port it to the GPU. I probably wouldn't have bothered disabling it since it is so slow. It may have been disabled generally when an ATI product is present and not specifically for the PPU and unintended. Although 8600GT is no longer supported and the PPU is slower than that so Nvidia could have dropped support for it altogether.