|  | | Patch Re-Enables PhysX When ATI Card is Present | 
As you may or may not know, Windows 7 allows two display drivers to be used at once - like in Windows XP. Therefore, it is possible to use an Nvidia card for PhysX and ATI card for graphics rendering. Sadly, since the release of 186 graphics drivers, Nvidia has decided to block this feature anytime a Non-Nvidia GPU is present in the system (Even IGPs). In addition, for some incomprehensible reasons, the latest version of PhysX System Software also prevents PPU cards (such as BFG PPU) from working if a Non-Nvidia GPU is present. The following is Nvidia's explanation behind their actions:
"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. I'm sorry for any inconvenience caused but I hope you can understand."
As expected, this move by Nvidia received a lot of criticism from both consumers and even Nvidia's competitors. Luckily, a forum member by the name of GenL has released an experimental beta patch which intercepts disable-PhysX-if-Radeon-is-present-code. So far, according to user comments the patch delivers successful results. At this stage, the patch only works for PhysX GPU rendering and not PPU rendering. However, the developer claims that work is still in progress.
In response to these latest events, AMD has announced a joint open physics initiative with Pixelux Entertainment. “Proprietary physics solutions divide consumers and ISVs, while stifling true innovation; our competitors even develop code that they themselves admit will not work on hardware other than theirs,” said Eric Demers, chief technology officer for graphics at AMD. “By working with Pixelux and others to enable open support of physics on OpenCL and DirectX 11 capable devices we are taking the exact opposite approach.”
Nvidia was given the opportunity to comment on this article and explain its actions - but it refused. Apparently, Nvidia doesn’t care what you or anyone else thinks of them.
Last edited by Regeneration; October 12th, 2009 at 07:32 PM..
| | | | 153 Comments | | | Again I want to thank GenL on making this patch! Some of us only did some minor testing but he did all the work. Thanks again!! | | | | You can't stop the community, nVidia. | | | | no but microsoft could if they ever decided to disable driver testing mode. | | | | Great work GenL! Stick it to the man!! | | | | I love it when people stand up to corrupt company's like this. Its really sad that nvidia did this to people they just hurt them self's. there probably just to plain stupid to see it. GenL keep up the good work Im sure a lot of people will appreciate it. I would not be shocked if Microsoft did disable driver testing mode but if they do I hope people stand up and do something like this to over come it. I just got to say this (IN YOUR FACE NVIDIA) lol | | | | Nice work. Fuck of Nvidia, lol
This should be declared the antinvidia day. | | | | Morons, Nvidia just protects their rightfully owned property. How would you like if you invested millions and then see scumbags (and who claim to be "moraliy" right lol... pathetic) take advantage of your invested money and tech. | | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack87  Morons, Nvidia just protects their rightfully owned property. How would you like if you invested millions and then see scumbags (and who claim to be "moraliy" right lol... pathetic) take advantage of your invested money and tech. | Nvidia just protects their rightfully owned property? Would you mind explaining me why Ageia PhysX PPU is no longer working on systems powered by Radeon cards? I don’t remember they ever mentioned any kind of Radeon restriction in the minimum requirements.
If I bought Nike shoes and I would like to wear it with Adidas socks - I have the right to do so. If I bought an Nvidia card and I would like to use it only for PhysX rendering – I should have the right to do so as well. They never mentioned these new restrictions anywhere. They can't tell us something like: "You can't wear Nike shoes with Adidas socks".
Protecting your property is one thing. Taking an illegal and unfair advantage of your property to abuse consumers and to blacklist your competitor is another thing. As long as you have an Nvidia card, you should have access to their PhysX technology no matter what. Nvidia doesn’t have any right to come up with such abusive behavior. |
Last edited by Regeneration; October 5th, 2009 at 09:08 PM..
| Quote | | | | | Nobody is "taking advantage" of anything here. Customers who PAID for their Nvidia hardware can no longer utilize it for Physx if they upgrade their primary card to ATI (Nvidia says 'competitor' but there is no competitor but ATI). Nvidia is simply attempting to secure additional sales in the event the competitor releases a superior product (which has just happened... go figure). Nvidia is now worried that users will jump ship and buy the new ATI card while demoting their current Nvidia GPU, which they paid for, to Physx processing duties rather than purchase a new Nvidia card demoting their current, PAID FOR, Nvidia card to Physx processing. Key words here... PAID FOR. So now it's 'morally' correct to screw your customers unless they continue to give you money rather than allow them to use the original product with the original features they paid for.
Anyone who can't see through the PR muck here is flat out an IDIOT.
Here's the worst case scenario for Nvidia should they proceed in this direction.
Let's say that ATI continues to dominate the GPU scene for the next two years (likely less) while Nvidia scrambles to keep up all the while denying paying customers the ability to run Physx. Physx will, with absolute certainty, be dead within those two years because marketshare for performance products, what gamers crave, will shift heavily in ATI's favor and as such, nobody will give one good God damn f_ck about Physx anymore, since they can't run it anyways. Havoc will take the lead. No question.
Alternatively, Nvidia could allow Physx processing while an ATI card is present and continue to sell hardware (albiet far less) due to the Physx processing capabilities. This will provide the much needed revenue to continue R&D in effort to retake the performance market.
If Nvidia's PR and marketing team can't see this and truly think the majority of us are stupid enough to swallow the gibberish they feed us, well then good luck to them, they'll need it.
-Bill (who for the record uses only Nvidia hardware.. I only speak the truth) | | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack87 Morons, Nvidia just protects their rightfully owned property. How would you like if you invested millions and then see scumbags (and who claim to be "moraliy" right lol... pathetic) take advantage of your invested money and tech. | Yeah, we're morons here. lol
And when you insult people, mind your spelling, dumbass. | | | | I wonder why AMD is not suing these bastards. | | | | Because they don't care? If they sued, it would give some significance to physx, something physx just doesn't have. | | | | Either way it was wrong what Nvidia did. People bought their cards, and to disable a feature because an ATI card is present was anti-competetive to say the least. What if they have an ATi board with integrated graphics that can't be shut off? Or an All in wonder card just to use the TV tuner? I don't think Nvidia thought this all the way through.
Nvidia at onetime was a great company. But they need new leadership or they are going to end up in a world of finanical hurt. Especially if the GT300 chips fail to deliver consistantly. | | | | yet another reason why buying nvidia is deplorable | | | | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawk I wonder why AMD is not suing these bastards. | PPU owners should sue them. | | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by Regeneration PPU owners should sue them. | I would not be surprised if some company like ATi or Intel "help" some of them do just that. | | | | I see no one mentioned that this is SOP for MS | | | | i got a old physx card and ati cards, ive been vondering why the physx didnt work , now i know | | | | since all of you are stupid fanATIcs and many times you said that physx is useless and not important why do you care?
cut the bul...it !!! | | | | It is a litle crazy world, that spins around money. | | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by psefer since all of you are stupid fanATIcs and many times you said that physx is useless and not important why do you care?
cut the bul...it !!! | lol another braindead Nvidia fanboy. Go kiss some Nvida butt. YOU are the reason why they behave the way they do with their customers. | | | | Wow, ive been watching GenL's progress since day 1. This is indeed a breakthrough. Thanks a lot for this GenL and keep it up!!! | | | | NVIDIA = nvidiot
expensive, a lot of style...!!! | | | | Im getting tired of that FANboism wars you put out in all possible physx threads guys.
It wont change anything , both Ati and nVidia will continue to do how they do.
I droped the bithin long time ago, a waste of energy even thinking about it. | | | | You guys are idiots,you go on like AMD/ATI loves you,and they let you buy their cards out of kindness in their hearts.AMD would have done exactly the same if they could have and you are deluding yourself thinking otherwise."Stick it to the man" lol,AMD are driven by profit as is Nvidia,theyre not some kind of gentle Robin Hood company that steals from the rich and gives to the poor.You all act like they care about you personally ,like theyre going to show up at your house for coffee or something.They want your money and you eat it up like the moronic Fanboys you are and think that you have made the moral choice when buying amd/ati instead of evil intel/nvidia.Pathetic,i bet you would sacrifice a lamb in their honor if you could,at your little AMD altar  | | | | Thanks again GenL for your patch. The best thing nVidia could do to support PhysX is allowing their cards to work with ATI cards. If they keep limiting it, PhysX will be dead as soon as developers start to use open physics engines.
Which developer would want to use a hardware accelerated physics engine that only works on 60-65% of the market, if there is another engine that works on 100%?. Unless paid by nVidia, of course. | | | | Can we start a different thread for Genl's Physx on PPU/ATi card systems project please...kind of losing track whats happening on this thread. | | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by lol AMD would have done exactly the same if they could have and you are deluding yourself thinking otherwise | Oh, another cretin that must have a crystal ball that foretells the future/alternate realities, would you be so kind to share some lottery numbers with us? | | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack87 Morons, Nvidia just protects their rightfully owned property. How would you like if you invested millions and then see scumbags (and who claim to be "moraliy" right lol... pathetic) take advantage of your invested money and tech. | And what about my hard earned cash that went into my PPU, which now doesn't work due to me having an ATI video card? THAT is crap..and theft, unless they want to buy my PPU back ?? | | | | Great job on the 'fix' - only thing that makes sense is nVidia is trying to get press for the phsyx crap - using the any press is good press bit. Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered I see no one mentioned that this is SOP for MS | MS? never seen or heard of them locking their software down so it doesn't work if other software is intalled... or hardware - that sounds like some OTHER OS company.. can't remember the name kinda small company not worth mentioning.. Pear?... Orange?? Banana?? something like that anyways.... | | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by nCaine Im getting tired of that FANboism wars you put out in all possible physx threads guys.
It wont change anything , both Ati and nVidia will continue to do how they do.
I droped the bithin long time ago, a waste of energy even thinking about it. | its not fanboyism when its true.
Fact: AMD have failed to maintain an active developer network.
Fact: AMD have failed to address critical driver faults.
Fact: AMD are the ones that refused PhysX.
Fact: All the idiots are still thinking OpenCL can be better then CUDA, even though nvidia's propietary pushing of the CUDA arch allows for faster development and improvement. CUDA has C++ now ffs, OpenCL doesn't.
FACT
ATI, Good hardware, bad support, drivers that have crippling flaws in the Dx and Ogl texture standards, has Execs that like to bitch when they themselves drop the ball. (Infact, it took ATI to get to 9.9 to fix Flickering in MCM2 on Win7.... and thats not even an accelerated section of the game just the menu)
Nvidia, Good hardware, good support, texture formats are supported to the letter, Driver bugs are usually rare, and mostly isolated to out of spec cards (nvidia maintains a set of timings in the drivers which can cause issues with pre o/c boards), Execs only bitch when they are bitched at. older games have issues with 16bpp dithering, but nothing that hooking the texture format and forcing 32bpp can't fix.
Both vendors have 8bit palette issues in Win7 with Ddraw games, but with nvidia chips it can be worked around with compatibility settings most often, while ATI requires the end tasking of explorer.exe.
ATI: Minimal control over game quality.
Nvidia: Profile per game allowing you to adjust quality and even allowing you to enable AA on games which don't typically support AA otherwise due to nonstandard rendering techniques or DFR.
ATI: making fanboys jiz their pants by showing off a 6 screen tech that only people as rich as bill gates can actually manage to use.
Nvidia: Pissing off noobs by creating a mock up of Fermi and only telling people after the conference was over.
ATI: Microsofts Whores.
Nvidia: Maintains Innovation, and actually drives the Graphic Industry.
Many people don't seem to realise that without nvidia and opengl, many of today's techniques would not have been adopted into DirectX, S3TC for instance.... known as DXTC in DirectX | | | | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by squall_leonhart its not fanboyism when its true. | Fanboys tend to lose objectivity and instead of protecting consumers, they protect corporations. I saw many fanboy comments on many sites – defending Nvidia for their “business move”. It makes me sick. | | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered Great job on the 'fix' - only thing that makes sense is nVidia is trying to get press for the phsyx crap - using the any press is good press bit.
MS? never seen or heard of them locking their software down so it doesn't work if other software is intalled... or hardware - that sounds like some OTHER OS company.. can't remember the name kinda small company not worth mentioning.. Pear?... Orange?? Banana?? something like that anyways.... |
unless you count the fact that MSFT at one point didn't support installation on EFI based systems..... | | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by squall_leonhart its not fanboyism when its true.
....
ATI: Microsofts Whores.
Nvidia: Maintains Innovation, and actually drives the Graphic Industry.
Many people don't seem to realise that without nvidia and opengl, many of today's techniques would not have been adopted into DirectX, S3TC for instance.... known as DXTC in DirectX | Hmm... no "fanboyism" showing through in that first one. Nope. None at all.
S3TC did not come from nvidia. It came from S3. Making an argument about a company's "techniques" and innovation while referencing a technology developed by a completely different company definitely gave me a good laugh this morning though! Thanks! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S3_Texture_Compression | | | | Your grasp on history shows what a douche you are.
S3 might have created it, however it was nvidia that pushed for its adoption into the OpenGL standard and for it to be used with DX. | | | | squall_leonhart wrote:
"Fact: AMD are the ones that refused PhysX."
Why would AMD put in resources to support a product that is controlled by their largest competitor, who can (and which they now shown) at anytime simply turn it off... Makes no sense at all.
"Fact: All the idiots are still thinking OpenCL can be better then CUDA, even though nvidia's propietary pushing of the CUDA arch allows for faster development and improvement. CUDA has C++ now ffs, OpenCL doesn't."
Intel, AMD, and Nvidia all support OpenCL, only NVidia supports "C for CUDA". The company I work for was an early adopter of CG shading language, and I can tell you that we wont to do the same mistake of going with a vendor specific language/API again. | | | | | | Quote: |
Why would AMD put in resources to support a product that is controlled by their largest competitor, who can (and which they now shown) at anytime simply turn it off... Makes no sense at all.
| Stops the emo whiny b****ing that seems to spew from ATI's execs Quote: |
Intel, AMD, and Nvidia all support OpenCL, only NVidia supports "C for CUDA". The company I work for was an early adopter of CG shading language, and I can tell you that we wont to do the same mistake of going with a vendor specific language/API again.
| CG Shading did what Microsofts API at the time could not.
Khronos has only recently (like August recently) started working on C++ for OpenCL.
Secondly.
Its not Proprietary once more then the people who own it are supporting it. | | | | I was going to email Numbvidia to complain about them incapacitating my Ageia PPU but can't even find an email address for them......show how much they value customer opinion. | | | | You know, games should not have any vendor-specific features. Nvidia pays to developers to make them include nvidia-specific features like PhysX, also they want ads at the streets (Bionic Commando, Burnout Paradise etc).
Nvidia lies too much. They don't tell you that your fresh Core i7 can handle PhysX as fast as their mid-end cards if they'd keep original optimizations by Ageia engineers.
They don't tell you that your nvidia GPU/ageia PPU will be useless if you will go non-green.
They lying to press regarding their new chip (telling it was real, telling they don't have problems with production)
I'd say that nvidia became a lying marketing machine. And i don't think something would change my mind. Quote:
Originally Posted by squall_leonhart Nvidia: Maintains Innovation, and actually drives the Graphic Industry.
Many people don't seem to realise that without nvidia and opengl, many of today's techniques would not have been adopted into DirectX, S3TC for instance.... known as DXTC in DirectX | So why they don't want to support all features of WDDM 1.1, blocking their card from running on hybrid configurations? I thought they are fans of hybrid configurations like these and like CPU+GPGPU (OMG intel/amd!) clusters. Is it a part of their "innovation" plan?
They said once that dx10.1 doesn't matter, but now they are readying dx10.1 GPUs. Thanks to their money, we were unable to play Assassin's Creed with dx10.1. Deleting dx10.1 support is a path to innovation too? Quote:
Originally Posted by squall_leonhart Its not Proprietary once more then the people who own it are supporting it. | Its execution is limited by hardware vendor of GPU... and you are calling it "not proprietary"? | | | | They are just helping ATI keep to its stance of "We don't want no damn PhysX". Quote: |
They said once that dx10.1 doesn't matter, but now they are readying dx10.1 GPUs. Thanks to their money, we were unable to play Assassin's Creed with dx10.1. Deleting dx10.1 support is a path to innovation too?
| That was never proven, and the developers are on record saying it was removed as there was to much that had to be changed in order for the Dx10.1 path to work (which it never did, there were effects missing.)
DirectX 10.1 is a joke. anyone who's ever rendered a sprite can see that easily. Especially when Nvidia can already pull off 100% Dx10.1 capability using Driver level work arounds such as GBuffer multipass. | | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by technogiant I was going to email Numbvidia to complain about them incapacitating my Ageia PPU but can't even find an email address for them......show how much they value customer opinion. | submit it using the nvidia FaQ site or the vista improvement survey thing. | | | | "Stops the emo whiny b****ing that seems to spew from ATI's execs"
Are you serious?..
What company would have taken the decision to go with a non standard API that is fully under the control of the main competitior (who does not even make any substantial profit on the API but on the hardware they sell)?
"CG Shading did what Microsofts API at the time could not."
Yes, the reason why we at the time choose to go with CG was that there was no good alternative. This time I think Khronos (and Microsoft) got in to the game before NVidia got enough dominance to counter the drawback (from a developers point of view) of vendor lock-in.
"Khronos has only recently (like August recently) started working on C++ for OpenCL."
And C++ is the silver bullet?
The importance of C++ on GPUs will in the beginning be marginal at the best, and AFAIK only Fermi (and of course Larrabee) supports C++ and neither is on the market yet.
"Secondly.
Its not Proprietary once more then the people who own it are supporting it."
Please elaborate! | | | | lmao squall_leonhart is fanboy saying oohh poor nvidia...
ppl paid good money for physx feature and got ripped off | | | | Paying money for physx, indicates people are morons. Its only proprietary while nvidia are the only ones using it, once it gets leased to another software/hardware corp it becomes no different to AMD licensing the SSE extensions from Intel.
Which... btw, i have not heard anyone crying like a baby, because AMD only has the licensing rights to 10% of SSE4 atm. | | | | We all know what would have happened if ATi had agreed to use CUDA.....Nvidia being the owner would alter it not only to optimise for their architecture but also to make it work less well on ATi cards and so give themselves a market advantage.....they could not be trusted to play fair as they have proven with the latest physx driver episode.....no it is far better that an independent committee such as Khronos oversees this. | | | | | | Nv against ATI?! it is Nv against customers. | | | | Many thanks for the patch, great work.
I detest fan boys; they detract from the point at hand.
This is immoral and bad business practice | | | | You guys are overanalyzing all this shit way too much
bottom line is nvidia doesnt give a shit about its customers or 'innovation' only their profit margin, ATI right now is just trying to survive they have a huge debt and nvidia is determined to sink them by brining out all sorts of propriety BS to get gamers to abandon ati while ati actually seems to be trying to bring out some open standards.
Thats all there is to it, fuck nvidia. <-period. | | | | Quote: |
We all know what would have happened if ATi had agreed to use CUDA.....Nvidia being the owner would alter it not only to optimise for their architecture but also to make it work less well on ATi cards and so give themselves a market advantage.....they could not be trusted to play fair as they have proven with the latest physx driver episode.....no it is far better that an independent committee such as Khronos oversees this.
| Impossible, actually.
Licensing grants ATI protection against this.
CUDA is just an API within the Driver, that makes use of the hardware present, so if ATI licensed rights to cuda it would be allowed to adapt it where required to attain maximal performance on their hardware.
Knowing ATI though, nvidia would make a major update to the api and ATI users wouldn't see it till 12 months later. | | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by blindartist You guys are overanalyzing all this shit way too much
bottom line is nvidia doesnt give a shit about its customers or 'innovation' only their profit margin, ATI right now is just trying to survive they have a huge debt and nvidia is determined to sink them by brining out all sorts of propriety BS to get gamers to abandon ati while ati actually seems to be trying to bring out some open standards.
Thats all there is to it, fuck nvidia. <-period. | Exactly why ATI needs to stop crying like little girls and get their hands dirty.
Its one thing to make hardware to play games, but its entirely another thing to support the hardware to play games. | | | | No wonder why Nvidia come up with stuff like this... brainwashed dudes like Jack, psfer, squell support them... | | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by squall_leonhart Exactly why ATI needs to stop crying like little girls and get their hands dirty.
Its one thing to make hardware to play games, but its entirely another thing to support the hardware to play games. | I dont disagree with you there, they need to start pushing the hardware and supporting developers more, throw some money and get their logo on some games while working with developers to get them utilizing their hardware, hell I dont think Ive seen the ATI logo on a game since roller coaster tycoon 3. | | | | On the contrary rather than ATi getting involved Nvidia should be stopped.....they are using their substantial financial advantage to influence games developers and so disadvantage ATi....it is anti competetive. |
Last edited by technogiant; October 5th, 2009 at 08:15 PM..
| Quote | | | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by squall_leonhart That was never proven | There are too much things which were never proven about nvidia doings, don't you think?
You'll say that Batman limiting AA on non-nvidia cards is also not a proven issue? Who really needs a proofs while everything is already can be seen between lines?
Nvidia says: Quote: |
We worked closely with Eidos to add AA and QA the feature on GeForce. Nothing prevented AMD from doing the same thing.
| I say: nvidia made developers to add a check like: Quote:
invoke getdeviceid
if deviceid=VEN_10DE then allowAA=1
else allowAA=0
end if
| Am i wrong?
According to fudzilla (based on nvidia response, i believe): Quote: |
Nvidia's excuse for not showing GT300, Fermi based board is that they want to hide some things from the red green competition.
| I say: they were like "Damn let's find some reason to make them shut up about fake Fermi already!"
Am i wrong?
You can ask proofs of these, but maybe then we will ask proofs of every single "fact" you posted here?
It's so easy to speculate with facts, but should you really go this far just to exonerate actions of someone who lies a lot? | | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by technogiant On the contrary rather than ATi getting involved Nvidia should be stopped.....they are using their substantial financial advantage to influence games developers and so disadvantage ATi....it is anti competetive. | The thing is that the manufacturers need to support the developers, especially to keep pc gaming afloat, and they know that without PC gaming they are boned, nvidia is especially screwed if pc gaming takes a nosedive as ATI still has some foothold in the console market which is probably why nvidia is so much more aggressive in throwing money at developers, no games means no one needs video cards.
I dont dissagree that nvidia needs to stop sabotaging ATI, the two companies would do much better if they co-oprated, but ATI needs to start spending more money supporting developers and getting their hardware used by them, nvidia's "The way its ment to be played" campaign is probably the single biggest reason they are #1 in sales, if ATI brough their logo to a few games they might see some more people taking interest | | | | People started using old NV cards to cheaply add physx to ATI systems and Nvidia got scared.
That's all there is to it. | | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered People started using old NV cards to cheaply add physx to ATI systems and Nvidia got scared.
That's all there is to it. | So just disallow PhysX on these old-low-budget-PhysX-capable products. That would solve the problem without stirring up the entire world. Nvidia doesn't have the right to suddenly come up one day and claim: "You can't wear Nike shoes with Adidas socks anymore". That's antitrust. Besides, you make the rules BEFORE you sell the product, not AFTER.
And what's the excuse for blocking legacy Ageia products (ASUS PhysX P1 and BFG Tech AGEIA PhysX PPU) from working on systems powered by ATI hardware? I don't see any restriction on the minimum requirements and it doesn't work anymore on ATI systems. |
Last edited by Regeneration; October 5th, 2009 at 09:42 PM..
| Quote | | | | | Doesn't look like NVidia is going to attempt to do any to block this patch. Maybe this new development will encourage Regeneration to grow a pair and release his Physx on ATI work?
Nah. | | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by squall_leonhart Paying money for physx, indicates people are morons.
Its only proprietary while nvidia are the only ones using it, once it gets leased to another software/hardware corp it becomes no different to AMD licensing the SSE extensions from Intel.
Which... btw, i have not heard anyone crying like a baby, because AMD only has the licensing rights to 10% of SSE4 atm. | Well, the SSE-failure could really be seen as an argument against licensing of proprietary technology instead of open standards. Just because AMD and Intel are forced by contract to share technology does not mean that they wont try to screw each other over. http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=719
I couldn't care less if it where ATI, Intel, NVidia or ARM that controlled the API. For me it is better if they work together on open standards such as OpenCL. | | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered Doesn't look like NVidia is going to attempt to do any to block this patch. Maybe this new development will encourage Regeneration to grow a pair and release his Physx on ATI work? | After these events, don't expect me to support Nvidia or their technology. If this is the direction they are headed, all I can do is condemn them and their selfish actions. The best thing for consumers at this stage is to let PhysX rest-in-peace. We are better off without it.
It took me months, but only now I realized that we shouldn't help Nvidia standardize PhysX. We should ignore and boycott it until it either dies or opens up for everyone . If I were GenL, I’d remove the patch and tell everyone to ignore PhysX. A good PC game would remain good with or without PhysX. |
Last edited by Regeneration; October 6th, 2009 at 01:01 AM..
| Quote | | | | | I say: nvidia made developers to add a check like:
uh No, and you can check with the developers yourself.
They added the check willingly, on their own because ATI never ensured the game would work with their drivers or hardware.
the developers just ensured ATI users couldn't enable a possibly game breaking feature. | | | | comeo n squall dont be naive, of course nvidia paid off the dev's to disable it, you know better then that | | | | just like ATI payed off Bungie to disable Active Camo on Nvidia?
right.... no.
ATI didn't provide proof that their cards would work with AA in this UT3 based game, so this UT3 based game doesn't allow in game AA on ATI hardware. | | | | look.. neither ati nor nvidia are truly honest in their marketing strategies.. period..
they both have their dark sides...
BUT i have to understand the nvidia point in trying to protect their investment!
Nvidia was the one spending their money buying ageia...
nvidia is the one working and spending more money with developers that use physX the best way and and\or as much they can to improve games...
all of Nvidia money is to better improve games in the pc platform (so far in ati and nvidia platform)
cause im tired of consoles fanboys saying consoles are better then pc's!!
Kids nowdays just want consoles..
and many are far away from pc gaming experience or knowledge!
if you ask them who is nvidia will hey know?
or if you ask them who is ati will they know?
But if you ask them who is Intel... i bet most will know...
if you ask them who sony is...(PS) bet they will know..
if you ask them who is microsoft .. (xbox) they will know also...
if youask who is nintendo... i am sure they will know....
nvidia now says NO!
that she will not support ati platforms any longer...
can we blame this act at this stage??
ATI must invest also... their free ride on nvidia's back with physX is over!
no one is innocent here!
ATI must invest along with game developers ( vs "twimtbp")
ATImust also invest in their own software (vs PhysX (nvidia) and Havok (intel))
ATI must also invest and reach new horizons (vs fermi (nvidia) vs larrabee (intel))
ATI must stop complaining... and start spending money...
whats at stake here? mostly... pc platform is!!
ati has a lot to lose also if pc platform fades cause their radeons will become useless if kids dont want a pc to play!
i have friends over theyr 20's who dont have a clue who is nvidia or ati or what is a radeon.. or what is a geForce.. BUT THEY KNOW CONSOLES!!
and they know what they have to do in order to play pirated games in consoles..
still is not many that will pay in order to someone open up their consoles and "chip" them in order to play pirated games... thats why consoles have more profit..
cause any one of us can download and patch a game to play it on a pc!
no hardware change needed in pc platform...
Sony will win... with ps
microsoft will win with xbox..
nintendo will win with the amazing wii
pc's wont win if games don't start to improve on desktop gfx card!
the darn games are imported straight from a console platform to a pc platform with out many improvements...
cause pc's are dying no one is willing to invest due to piracy %...
so developers do minor changes in order for games to be able to run in pc's..
but no programing is made to perfect the game to run better on that particular geforce gen.. or radeon gen..
so how could we not hear that console gfx are same or better then desktop ones??
and here nvidia is trying to change that with "twimtbp"...
actually taking the darn game from the guts of a console.. and invest in it in order to run better with better looking in a pc!!
nvidia and ati must start defending their investments!!
consoles manufactures like sony and nintendo and microsoft do it.. why shouldn't nvidia?? |
Last edited by ObliVioN_; October 6th, 2009 at 02:25 AM..
| Quote | | | | | I am chucking my 9800GT in the garbage! I am done with them! | | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by squall_leonhart just like ATI payed off Bungie to disable Active Camo on Nvidia?
right.... no.
ATI didn't provide proof that their cards would work with AA in this UT3 based game, so this UT3 based game doesn't allow in game AA on ATI hardware. | AA? were talking physx | | | | Seriously? Why would ATI care if their cards locked Physx? It's not their product?
Now, if you, as a rightful owner, found that a card you bought for Physx now no longer did it because nvidia decided to "lock out people using other rendering engines," well, that sounds more like class action lawsuit material. There's allot more to that. Especially those people that own Physx cards that no longer work with their ATI video cards.
Personally, I've been in and around this whole industry a long time (both companies at one point or another were clients), and this has to be the slimiest thing I've seen since both companies were caught cheating on 3DMark.
Neither of them are angels. Just one more reason why I wish 3dfx hadn't been boneheads insisting "who would ever want a 32-bit GPU?"
*sigh*
~noc~ | | | | Quote: |
comeo n squall dont be naive, of course nvidia paid off the dev's to disable it, you know better then that
| You're talking AA there. | | | | ATI isn't getting any 'free ride' ObliVioN_, to use hardware Physx a purchase contributing to Nvidia has been made at some point, whether or not their current rendering GPU is ATI or Nvidia. For Nvidia to not be engaging in antitrust here they would need to disable the dedicated PPU functionality across the board (i.e. including their own hardware) and allow PhysX processing on only the primary rendering GPU.
And regarding software piracy:
PC Gaming is not dying nor is it on the verge of dying. People use consoles simply because they require less end user interaction (i.e. people are lazy). It's far easier to pop in a disc and go. With this in mind, piracy on the PC is not nearly as rampant as the industry would have us believe and here's why: most people are lazy and for the most part are pretty stupid. If you need proof, download a pirated game and give it to someone and watch them try to get it working. They'll be lost when they install the game and it tells them to insert the correct disc or to enter the cd-key at which point they will just give up (or ask you since you gave them the disc). As such, these same people are certainly not capable of downloading the illegal software themselves... they simply don't even know where to begin and are totally confused even if you were to point them in the right direction. Now that same stupid person can walk into a retailer, buy a legal copy, go home and install it and play with no problems because everything is prepared for them (they're lazy). Of all the people that I know, only two of them know how to obtain, install, and successfully run an illegally copied program; and one of them is me, the other is almost lost unless it is pirated game software specifically and even then has a rediculous fear of viruses.
Now take this, turn it into a statistic and you'll find no more video game pirates on the PC platform than you do on the console platform (proportionally). | | | | There were less pirates using the old CDKey + cdcheck, now a days, the protection is harder to crack / easier to bypass. | | | | There were also less pirates before the .torrent outbreak... now all those stupid people can have some form of access point (if they can even figure out what to do once they've gotten the intended app). Piracy was moot when IRC ruled the scene but the industry still cried about it. CDKey's and checks were just as easy imo (every cracked app came with an illegal key/.exe). Ultimately what the PC industry wants is numbers closer to console numbers which will simply never happen because of the lazy/stupid factor and rather than see this for what it is they desire somewhere to place blame. It's all quite a silly game. | | | | Nvidia is really not worth the time I invested into reading this thread.
I never had a problem with the Nvidas logos on the game intros, they gave some dosh so why the hell not. If Nvida's contribution can make the game shine a little more, why the hell not? It's sad when features get cut from ATI, but when you invest money, there are interests and that's they way the cookie crumbles lol
Game developers should be into it for sales, not for bribe, but odds shifted recently, hadn't you noticed. Various hardware manufacturers like to bribe their way and ATI is behind on the schedule. This is no laughing matter, PC gaming should try and keep up in these murky waters.
Of course, this doesn't relate to what Nvidia is doing. They are trying to lock down the practically only open platform, for ffs! How could anyone even try to justify that and not come off as a fanboy? | | | | open platform?
physx or AA?
its implementation that matters, not the technology. | | | | Well for the PPU it takes the complete piss really, but for using a Nvidia card for physx with ati GPU i can sort of understand.
Nvidia our covering there backs i think, lets just say you buy a shiny new ati card and run nvidia card for physx, all of a sudden your machine blue screens with a graphics issue. it keeps happening, you email ati and they blame the nvidia card ect ect there are many senarios this could happen.
Nvidia to me sound like they are covering themselfs legally, but taking support away from the PPU's could leave them open for legal issues...
sorry about grammer posted from phone... ps AMD dragon platform user | | | | I'm talking about Nvidia blocking physx on systems where ATI is present. This is what matters not various bullshit. I don't give a fuck about some console port not having AA or having it blocked.
PC users always had this right to use what ever piece of hardware they could find, no matter the brand. If you have a socked to plug it in, it should work. But no, now Nvidia comes along and wants to rob people of their most basic right. Thy should start producing consoles /sarcasm | | | | Creative soundcards anyone?  "IF not xfi THEN disable hardware acceleration" Similar thing except one company involved. | | | | NV finds this a problem, because not too many are going to buy a new NV card for PhysX, what they do instead is use OLD CARD THEY ALREADY HAVE and wouldn't otherwise have any use for.
The moral problem here is that the customer does have NV product, but they cannot use it because they have SOMETHING ELSE AS WELL in their computer.
What a load of crap. But everyone knows that already. Oops.. meant nearly everyone.. there always are the few who fall through the cracks and are "different" <-- that's not a compliment sir(s), have a nice day. | | | | And if things were reversed, ATI would have never let nvidia gfx users use the tech in the first place.
Consider it karmic balance. | | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by ObliVioN_ actually taking the darn game from the guts of a console.. and invest in it in order to run better with better looking in a nvidia pc!! | Fix'd. Quote:
Originally Posted by squall_leonhart ATI didn't provide proof that their cards would work with AA | Quote from AMD Senior Manager Critizies Nvidia's TWIMTBP Program : Quote: |
Additionally, the in-game AA option was removed when ATI cards are detected. We were able to confirm this by changing the ids of ATI graphics cards in the Batman demo. By tricking the application, we were able to get in-game AA option where our performance was significantly enhanced. This option is not available for the retail game as there is a secure rom.
| While ati spending money on dx11 titles these days, they will work on nvidia hardware without problems, you know it. Developers won't disable that possible-game-breaking feature, even if they won't be given gt300 samples to test them before releasing the game. | | | | One side of the story (the lazy side).
Unlike you, i go to the devs when i want the truth, and the truth is ATI FAILED TO COMMIT TO WORKING WITH THE DEVELOPERS TO ENSURE THE AA IMPLEMENTATION WOULD WORK ON ATI HARDWARE.
So the developers disable the option on ATI cards.
How many more times does that need to be said before it gets drilled into your fucking skulls. | | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by squall_leonhart And if things were reversed, ATI would have never let nvidia gfx users use the tech in the first place.
Consider it karmic balance. | Sad thing is if ATI was to do this, people would be perfectly ok with it, but since its nvidia its automatic bad.IF ati would had accepted to use of it on their cards. This moaning from people with ati cards would have never happen. silly thing is now they care about it, at first no one with a ati card cared for physx, it took this to happen to make them care. When they only caring because they can use this to throw cheap shots at nvidia.
Now there gonna make Two standards instead of making it one, I would rather it just be physx as the one standard then what ati is planning on doing. | | | | I've sent a message to nvidia to ask why my PPU isn't working anymore.. lets see what they say.. | | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered I am chucking my 9800GT in the garbage! I am done with them! | Feel free to chuck it my way...i might have to swap out my ATI with a nvidiot card to get my PPU working... | | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by Sledge I've sent a message to nvidia to ask why my PPU isn't working anymore.. lets see what they say.. | Like wise I've asked them to refund the cost of my ppu which they have deliberately and unnecessarily disabled....it would still be allowed to work in an Nvidia system so it can't be anything to do with quality assurance. | | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by squall_leonhart i go to the devs when i want the truth, and the truth is ATI FAILED TO COMMIT TO WORKING WITH THE DEVELOPERS TO ENSURE THE AA IMPLEMENTATION WOULD WORK ON ATI HARDWARE.
So the developers disable the option on ATI cards. | So, instead of findind anyone with ati hardware among beta-testers and just ask them to test aa on their machines, they were waiting for ati to start working with them to ensure that it's working...
...And instead of giving user the ability to enable it at his own risk, they disabled it.
So, today every developer need to work with gpu vendor to ensure that some implimented graphic feature will work?
I wonder, why they didn't disable the whole implementation of their shaders? They didn't test them on ati, did they? So they couldn't ensure it would work on ati hardware. Maybe i should ask developers about it? And they will even answer me? Really? |
Last edited by GenL; October 6th, 2009 at 04:30 PM..
| Quote | | | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by Sledge I've sent a message to nvidia to ask why my PPU isn't working anymore.. lets see what they say.. | I ask´d once, they said " Support for the PhysX Processing Unit (PPU) has been removed from newer versions of the driver thus you need to install the older driver...." -PhysXDevSupport"
i own PhysX card so i wanna know what they say this time. | | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by squall_leonhart And if things were reversed, ATI would have never let nvidia gfx users use the tech in the first place.
Consider it karmic balance. | Bollocks. If, if, what if? Do you see what's happening in some weird parallel dimension? Let's keep the discussion on this sphere of existence, shall we. Nvidia locked out ATI AND the original PPU cards while fucking over their customers. There is no way you can spin this. ATI this, ATI that, doesn't matter. Nvidia did this, not ATI. It has nothing to do with ATI or their gaming support.
You seem like a smart fella, but you still can't understand something as trivial as this? | | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanthe_ I ask´d once, they said "Support for the PhysX Processing Unit (PPU) has been removed from newer versions of the driver thus you need to install the older driver...." -PhysXDevSupport"
i own PhysX card so i wanna know what they say this time. | If you look at the supported products on the SST 9.09.0814 Nvidia web page it states all versions of Ageia PPU supported.....so its not like the newer versions won't run on a PPU as long as an Nvidia card is doing the graphics......just bastards! | | | | UNBELIEVABLE.
The opinions of some people... Just unbelievable. I was going to type a whole complete article here, but nevermind. I shouldn't be bothered by all this crap.
Anyway, thumbs up for GenL!!!
And ATi of course. | | | | | | Nvidia, Please remove the driver lock in your latest display drivers. If you don't , people like GenL will have to do it. Nvidia lost its credibility and customer focus. Correct your fault like Microsoft(They locked heterogeneous multi GPU functionality in Vista and removed that in Windows 7, great but nvidia is trying to do the same mistake). If u don't i hate you nvidia we hate u.
Great post Regeneration. Thank you Regeneration and GenL | | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by GenL So, instead of findind anyone with ati hardware among beta-testers and just ask them to test aa on their machines, they were waiting for ati to start working with them to ensure that it's working...
...And instead of giving user the ability to enable it at his own risk, they disabled it.
So, today every developer need to work with gpu vendor to ensure that some implimented graphic feature will work?
I wonder, why they didn't disable the whole implementation of their shaders? They didn't test them on ati, did they? So they couldn't ensure it would work on ati hardware. Maybe i should ask developers about it? And they will even answer me? Really? | Its a Dx10 engine, not Dx10.1.
of course they need to work with the developer if they want AA since its requires driver work arounds due to the DFR. | | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by squall_leonhart Its a Dx10 engine, not Dx10.1.
of course they need to work with the developer if they want AA since its requires driver work arounds due to the DFR. | Do you mean dynamic frame resolution or deferred shading? Are these workarounds necessary for both dx9 and dx10 modes?
And why not allow the user to enable it anyway, since it should work fine? Nobody asks them to support it, everyone just wanted them to not block it at least. Just like in this case with PhysX... | | | | Defered shading.
A work around is required at the driver level since AA on Dx10 hardware cannot be applied after the deferred shading is done, the AA has to be applied before the shading is done otherwise the colour sample is scrambled. | | | | I can confirm that the Ageia PPU has been disabled even when you have an nVidia stand alone card. You have to install the very old 8.09 drivers to get it to work.
Batman etc don't work with older drivers.
It's not just ATi cards it doesn't work with... they have royally shot themselves in the foot.
Fuck you nVidia. I have just put 2x 5870s on pre-order. | |
LinkBacks (?)
LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.ngohq.com/news/16560-patch-re-enables-physx-when-ati-card-is-present.html | | Slashdot | Patch Re-Enables PhysX When ATI Card Is Present | This thread | Refback | November 17th, 2009 06:59 PM | | Nvidia + ati - NVIDIA Forums | This thread | Refback | November 16th, 2009 11:56 PM | | Here We Go Again: Modders Reenable ATI/NVIDIA PhysX Combination - HotHardware | This thread | Refback | November 12th, 2009 09:29 PM | | Patch restores PhysX for Radeon, GeForce tandems - The Tech Report | This thread | Refback | November 12th, 2009 12:30 PM | | [NGOHQ] User created Patch Re-Enables PhysX When ATI Card Is Present - Overclock.net - Overclocking.net | This thread | Refback | November 12th, 2009 02:29 AM | | nVidia's PhysX shortsightedness angers developers - Bright Side Of News* | This thread | Refback | November 12th, 2009 12:06 AM | | AMD: NVIDIA PhysX Will Be Irrelevant - NVIDIA Forums | This thread | Refback | November 11th, 2009 11:01 PM | | Patch Re-enables PhysX When ATI Card is Present - Madshrimps Forum Madness | This thread | Refback | November 11th, 2009 09:58 PM | | Hack gets PhysX and Radeon working again - XtremeSystems Forums | This thread | Refback | November 11th, 2009 07:08 PM | | Patch Re-enables PhysX When ATI Card is Present - nV News Forums | This thread | Refback | November 11th, 2009 05:59 PM | | Mengaktifkan PhysX ketika VGA ATI dipasang, Patch GenL Windows 7 for PhysX | This thread | Refback | November 11th, 2009 08:18 AM | | AMD Processors Forums - Windows 7=PhysX on ATI GFX | This thread | Refback | November 11th, 2009 07:24 AM | | Parche para reactivar PhysX cuando hay una gráfica ATI en el sistema | The Inquirer ES | This thread | Refback | November 11th, 2009 04:22 AM | | Patch Re-Enables PhysX When ATI Card is Present - IGN Boards | This thread | Refback | November 11th, 2009 03:13 AM | | Slashdot Technology Story | Patch Re-Enables PhysX When ATI Card Is Present | This thread | Refback | November 10th, 2009 10:28 PM | | FAQ: PhysX - Overclock.net - Overclocking.net | This thread | Refback | November 10th, 2009 09:31 PM | | PhysX sperrt ATI Karten aus dem System ++ UPDATE 09.10.04: Patch- Download !! ++ - Die Hardware-Community für PC-Spieler - PC GAMES HARDWARE EXTREME | This thread | Refback | November 10th, 2009 05:36 PM | | Patch to enable PhysX when ATi card is present | Tech Mania | This thread | Refback | November 10th, 2009 05:34 PM | |
