Nvidia halts PhysX support... 32 replies

Please wait...

DarkKrucifix7

Geek on the Internets

50 XP

26th February 2007

0 Uploads

568 Posts

0 Threads

#1 9 years ago

...If an ATi card is detected.

Nvidia disables PhysX when ATI card is present

WOW nVidia....reverting back to childlike squabbles, now?




>Omen<

Modern Warfare

50 XP

1st January 2005

0 Uploads

7,395 Posts

0 Threads

#2 9 years ago

I think you ought to reread that and pay attention to the parts I highlighted in bold text.

"Physx is an open software standard any company can freely develop hardware or software that supports it. Nvidia supports GPU accelerated Physx on NVIDIA GPUs while using NVIDIA GPUs for graphics. NVIDIA performs extensive Engineering, Development, and QA work that makes Physx a great experience for customers. 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."

First and foremost important to note there is that PhysX is an open software standard ANYONE is free to use and hardware/software develop for. So 1) Nvidia is not keeping ATI from using it, and 2) they are commited (and understandably so) to focusing on the QA of THEIR development of the standard. They shouldn't be expected to do ATI's work for them even if they are hurting more financially and struggle to be as good at driver writing.

As also highlighted in bold, it is quite an expense as well and they have business commitments to developers to make sure PhysX works properly. I think it pretty absurd to blame them for not wanting to guarantee the game developers it will work well on ATI product when much of it has to do with how ATI makes their hardware and writes their drivers.

So here's the possible scenarios as I see it. ATI either takes a similar path and starts developing their hardware and softare around Nvidia's PhysX packages/installers for games, or they go another route waiting to see if Nvidia will port PhysX to OpenCL as has been discussed already. Many think the latter is a much better scenario, as OpenCL is a pretty bilateral approach.

Slashdot | NVidia Considering Porting PhysX To OpenCL




*The.Doctor

Trust me, I'm a Doctor

102,440 XP

25th November 2003

0 Uploads

9,964 Posts

0 Threads

#3 9 years ago

Meh, PhysX doesn't make much of a difference in anything besides benchmark scores and tech demo's anyways. ATI is still able to keep right with Nvidia's performance even without PhysX, so i don't see that being much of a problem for them.




>Omen<

Modern Warfare

50 XP

1st January 2005

0 Uploads

7,395 Posts

0 Threads

#4 9 years ago

Except that PhysX has been marketed or intended so much as a performance boosts as an effects enhancement. Saying ATI can perform as well without it is kinda missing the point.




Sgt. D. Pilla

Uber Geek

50 XP

23rd October 2007

0 Uploads

3,473 Posts

0 Threads

#5 9 years ago
Except that PhysX has been marketed or intended so much as a performance boosts as an effects enhancement. Saying ATI can perform as well without it is kinda missing the point.

Agreed. Besides, most benchmarks you come across Doc are without a PhysX dedicated card in place, thus it doesn't lessen the load. (That made way more sense when I was thinking it...) Put a nVidia GPU in place and dedicate it to PhysX and you'll see a rather large performance boost. Do the same with ATi and again you see a large performance boost. ATi keep up with nVidia in benchmarks as they both do physics rendering on the cards (Be it Havoc or PhysX); it's not until you get a dedicated physics card in there (agian Havoc or PhysX) that you'll see the performance increase - which ultimatlely would show which card(s) are better at their physics work. IMHO nVidia would win by a hair here, simple as PhysX seems to be more of a monopoly then Havoc is (thus more money behind it) But this is purerly me putting two monopoly companies together (nVidia and PhysX).




>Omen<

Modern Warfare

50 XP

1st January 2005

0 Uploads

7,395 Posts

0 Threads

#6 9 years ago
Sgt. D. Pilla;4974403...this is purerly me putting two monopoly companies together (nVidia and PhysX).

Yeah, you'd said before you think Nvidia is a monopoly, and you were wrong then too. ;)




Sgt. D. Pilla

Uber Geek

50 XP

23rd October 2007

0 Uploads

3,473 Posts

0 Threads

#7 9 years ago

I still fail to see how so... 90% of games are optimized for nVidia, nVidia supply in 90% of situations the hardware the games are developed on. 'nuff said.




Mr. Pedantic

I would die without GF

234,620 XP

8th October 2006

0 Uploads

23,127 Posts

0 Threads

#8 9 years ago

From Wikipedia:

In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos / μονος alone or single + polein / πωλειν, to sell) exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it

To my knowledge, AMD still has enough power in the GPU market to dictate price points, performance, value for money, etc. Case in point, RV770.

And I thought we'd established that Havok is supported in more games than PhysX...?

I think this is a pretty pathetic move, but it's probably not going to make that much difference.




Sgt. D. Pilla

Uber Geek

50 XP

23rd October 2007

0 Uploads

3,473 Posts

0 Threads

#9 9 years ago
And I thought we'd established that Havok is supported in more games than PhysX...?

We did, but we can't deny we hear more about and see more "PhysX" places, they spend a lot more on advertising them Havok do, thus they are more of a monopoly in my books. Same goes for nVidia.




Mr. Matt VIP Member

#BanRadioActiveLobster

356,136 XP

17th June 2002

6 Uploads

33,633 Posts

778 Threads

#10 9 years ago
Sgt. D. Pilla;4975191We did, but we can't deny we hear more about and see more "PhysX" places, they spend a lot more on advertising them Havok do, thus they are more of a monopoly in my books. Same goes for nVidia.

I see more Apple Mac advertisements on TV than I do Windows Vista advertisements. According to your logic, this must mean that Apple holds a monopoly. It doesn't work like that. Oftentimes, a company is doing well enough that they simply don't need much marketing spend, at least not for a while. Other times, a company may be doing so poorly that they desperately pump as much money as they can into their marketing department hoping to increase consumer awareness. And during difficult economic times, such as those we are experiencing now, both successful and failing companies might slash their marketing budget, as that tends to be the first thing to go when money becomes tight - there is a large amount of debate at the moment as to whether or not this is a good idea at all, in fact. Advertising has little to do with market share. Advertising can effect market share, sure, but you can't determine the market share of a company based on the amount of advertisements they put out. That's like saying I can determine the exact weight of a person depending on how many crisp packets I can find in their waste bin. And neither nVidia nor ATI hold a 'monopoly' over anything, as has already been pointed out.