ati gpu nvidia physx

[mohityadavx]

Hi!

I have heard that nvidia physx card gets disabled when used with non nvidia gpu (or ati gpu ) is it true ? If yes do you think it is legitimate. Would you buy nvidia card even after hearing this.

 

[skeletor]

PhysX = gimmick for me. You can only name 4-5 games which employ it and I don't even know which all games will be employing it this year.

I'll have my own reason for buying an nVidia card i.e. better Linux driver support.

As far as your question regarding PhysX is concerned, my answer is NO. So, I have voted No.

 

[Faun]

I don't care for physx. But I like nVidia for their linux driver support as pointed by ico.

Provide a better support for linux and I will hop on to AMD.

 

[damngoodman999]

ICO pointed out LINUX DRIVER SUPPORT , i say they do better drivers 1st with out bugs !

 

[skeletor]

Hi!

I have heard that nvidia physx card gets disabled when used with non nvidia gpu (or ati gpu ) is it true ? If yes do you think it is legitimate. Would you buy nvidia card even after hearing this.

Would you still buy nvidia card if an ati card of same genre is available.

You want a general consensus about which card will people prefer or only about PhysX?

 

[mohityadavx]

You want a general consensus about which card will people prefer or only about PhysX?

no the point is only about physx. its more about being fair suppose i bought a nvidia physx card and nvidia give me that physx is being blocked as u r using non nvidia gpu. Don't u think its like stealing my money. Like giving a counterfeit product. Suppose u buy iphone and u use a third party screen cover and after some time there is a problem with the screen and apple say u r not using apple screenguard thats why we won't repair it.


No personal hatred towards nvidia but this policy really sucks big time.

 

[vickybat]

^^ Thats actually fair imo. You are not supposed to use an nvidia card as physx and a non nvidia card as the primary gpu for rendering. In this case if amd would have been promoting physx, it would also not support non-amd cards as primary gpu. So its a fair marketing strategy.

Though you can use an nvidia card as a physx card with an amd gpu as primary by hacked drivers.

 

[mohityadavx]

^^ suppose u didn't knew the above fact and u buy nvidia physx card and now when u use it it won't work won't u feel cheated nowhere on box it is written it only works with nvidia gpu

as per u said about amd . amd is developing a free and open physics engine

 

[skeletor]

no the point is only about physx. its more about being fair suppose i bought a nvidia physx card and nvidia give me that physx is being blocked as u r using non nvidia gpu. Don't u think its like stealing my money. Like giving a counterfeit product. Suppose u buy iphone and u use a third party screen cover and after some time there is a problem with the screen and apple say u r not using apple screenguard thats why we won't repair it.

If your thread is only about PhysX, then make your Poll question like that.

---------- Post added at 11:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:38 AM ----------

So its a fair marketing strategy.

No it isn't. It isn't in favour of games running the same across all hardware platforms.

I gave the example of DirectX/3D vs OpenGL earlier. Microsoft kept on pushing Direct3D till it became de facto. Result = developers only using Direct3D and developing games only for Windows.

 

[vickybat]

No it isn't. It isn't in favour of games running the same across all hardware platforms.

Yes it is. It doesn't have to favour all games across all platforms. Everything doesn't have to be open source. Its proprietary code and there's nothing wrong with that.

I gave the example of DirectX/3D vs OpenGL earlier. Microsoft kept on pushing Direct3D till it became de facto. Result = developers only using Direct3D and developing games only for Windows.

I know about directx and opengl. Microsoft pushed directx and involved a lot of money . Now thats pure market strategy and again is nothing wrong. I see nvidia in the same manner here.

Though open-gl is getting support too and has great potential. The upcoming rage is a testament for that.

 

[skeletor]

Yes it is. It doesn't have to favour all games across all platforms. Everything doesn't have to be open source. Its proprietary code and there's nothing wrong with that.

Flawed argument.

I am talking about running the same on all hardware platforms. Read properly again.

I know about directx and opengl. Microsoft pushed directx and involved a lot of money . Now thats pure market strategy and again is nothing wrong. I see nvidia in the same manner here.

Though open-gl is getting support too and has grteat potential. The upcoming rage is a testament for that.

Nothing wrong?

Ever heard about AntiTrust lawsuits?

example, Intel offering rebates to OEM. Result, a crappy chip like Pentium 4 overselling compared to Athlon XP/64 which were vastly superior.

If you go and offer money to a developer, he will accept it.

PhysX was an underhand strategy by nVidia to sell their cards when it was being smashed all over by HD 3870, HD 4890 and HD 5870.

I'm not against PhysX, but against the fact that people are using it as a decision-making factor which it is NOT.

 

[Joker]

physx = gimmick. not a deal maker or breaker.

 

[vickybat]

Flawed argument.

I am talking about running the same on all hardware platforms. Read properly again.

I have read it properly. Yes its not running across all hardware platforms(read gpu's right?). And it doesn't have to.

So there's no flaw here.

Nothing wrong?

Ever heard about AntiTrust lawsuits?

example, Intel offering rebates to OEM. Result, a crappy chip like Pentium 4 overselling compared to Athlon XP/64 which were vastly superior.

If you go and offer money to a developer, he will accept it.

PhysX was an underhand strategy by nVidia to sell their cards when it was being smashed all over by HD 3870, HD 4890 and HD 5870.

I'm not against PhysX, but against the fact that people are using it as a decision-making factor which it is NOT.

Yes heard those lawsuits as well. I guess thats how the world goes. You cannot change it. Intel and microsoft have money and they can do anything with it. If amd would have had that kind of money, it would have done the same.

Offering money to a developer to support products is done by most manufacturers and companies. Its nothing new and neither is shocking.

Amd 3 series never smacked nvidia. Its 8 & 9 series cards sold very well. But amd's 4 and 5 series really smacked nvidia.

I agree that physx is not a deal maker or breaker but nvidia's strategy is not wrong. Its quite common.

 

[skeletor]

I have read it properly. Yes its not running across all hardware platforms(read gpu's right?). And it doesn't have to.

So there's no flaw here.

It doesn't have to. I very well know that.

The flaw is in the mentality of people who think it is something important and they bring it in while arguing. (yup, you if we go by your posts)

Traditionally physics processing was done on the CPU. Was there any need to shift from it when it was already same for everyone? It wouldn't even matter if you have an nVidia card or an AMD card. It wouldn't even matter if you had an Intel CPU or AMD CPU. Everything runs normal and it runs fine.

If amd would have had that kind of money, it would have done the same.

They had money earlier and still never did that.

Offering money to a developer to support products is done by most manufacturers. Its nothing new and neither is shocking.

Never called it shocking.

I agree that physx is not a deal maker or breaker but nvidia's strategy is not wrong. Its quite common.

then why YOU make it sound like one?

 

[vickybat]

It doesn't have to. I very well know that.

The flaw is in the mentality of people who think it is something important and they bring it in while arguing. (yup, you if we go by your posts)

Well i am a physx supporter. But i don't expect everybody to do the same or follow in the same lines. So maybe for me its a deal breaker along with performance but not for everybody.

Traditionally physics processing was done on the CPU. Was there any need to shift from it when it was already same for everyone? It wouldn't even matter if you have an nVidia card or an AMD card. It wouldn't even matter if you had an Intel CPU or AMD CPU. Everything runs normal and it runs fine.

Yes there was a need. The reason being to offload the cpu from physics code processing. Ageia first developed ppu(physics processing unit) and these were standalone cards. So they offloaded physics code from the cpu to themselves thus increasing overall throughput. Now after nvidia bought ageia, they employed physx as a proprietary code to be processed by their cards. Now we can see some more games employing it and the success or failure of those games will decide the fate of the coin.

So the point was to offload the cpu. Amd should also do the same. Doesn't matter if it chooses to go the proprietary or open source route.

Well the switch to gpu was because of a gpu's computational ability of more floating point units. Its more capable of handling physics codes than cpu. Thats where it all started.

They had money earlier and still never did that.


Never called it shocking.

They never had money close to intel. You will get a brief idea if you check their revenues and turnover in wikipedia page.

then why YOU make it sound like one?

Like i said, i support physx but never expect everybody to do the same.

 

[skeletor]

Yes there was a need. The reason being to offload the cpu from physics code processong. Ageia first developed ppu(physic processing unit) and these were standalone cards. So they offloaded physics code from the cpu to themselves thus increasing overall throughput. Now after nvidia bought ageia, they employed physx as a proprietary code to be processed by their cards. Now we can see some more games employing it and the success or failure of those games will decide the fate of the coin.

Well the switch to gpu was because of a gpu's computational ability of more floating point units. Its more capable of handling physics codes than cpu. Thats where it all started.

At the end of the day, you are getting a massive 60-70% performance hit.

Having played Batman:AA with PhysX, I very well know that those effects could have been implemented easily through traditional ways and without 60-70% performance hit in nVidia cards. It is all about marketing propaganda to woo people who believe in such things.

Rendering and PhysX processing is again too much for every nVidia graphic card.

So the point was to offload the cpu. Amd should also do the same. Doesn't matter if it chooses to go the proprietary or open source route.

You mean AMD should go out, come up with a gimmick of their own which makes games unplayable on nVidia cards? If that is the case, then you are an idiot. Sorry to say this.

Also, stop bringing in "open source" when I'm not talking about it. I'm in favour of open things - neutral to everyone. It doesn't have to be open source.

 

[mohityadavx]

Well i am a physx supporter. But i don't expect everybody to do the same or follow in the same lines. So maybe for me its a deal breaker along with performance but not for everybody.



Yes there was a need. The reason being to offload the cpu from physics code processong. Ageia first developed ppu(physic processing unit) and these were standalone cards. So they offloaded physics code from the cpu to themselves thus increasing overall throughput. Now after nvidia bought ageia, they employed physx as a proprietary code to be processed by their cards. Now we can see some more games employing it and the success or failure of those games will decide the fate of the coin.

So the point was to offload the cpu. Amd should also do the same. Doesn't matter if it chooses to go the proprietary or open source route.

Well the switch to gpu was because of a gpu's computational ability of more floating point units. Its more capable of handling physics codes than cpu. Thats where it all started.




They never had money close to intel. You will get a brief idea if you check their revenues and turnover in wikipedia page.




Like i said, i support physx but never expect everybody to do the same.

fair deal eh?
u must have heard about nvidia gpu integrated processor if tomorrow nvidia starts making mobo also.

Think of this scenario you buy brand new gigabyte 20k mobo u insert ur nvidua integrated nvidia gpu cum processor,u press on button and u get message

"Booting Error. Non nvidia mobo found"

off topic:-
my friend is selling his nvidia 8800 gtx card for 6k is it a good deal!

 

[skeletor]

off topic:-
my friend is selling his nvidia 8800 gtx card for 6k is it a good deal!

hmm, I don't think so.

For 8k you get HD 5770 which is much faster.

8800 GTX = HD 4770 level.

 

[vickybat]

At the end of the day, you are getting a massive 60-70% performance hit.

Having played Batman:AA with PhysX, I very well know that those effects could have been implemented easily through traditional ways and without 60-70% performance hit in nVidia cards. It is all about marketing propaganda to woo people who believe in such things.

Rendering and PhysX processing is again too much for every nVidia graphic card.

Thats how things will go up in future. Expect gpu's to handle physics computations. I never saw an unplayable performance hit in batman aa on a gtx 460. You get good playable framerates. Better optimisations in future will allow lesser performance hits. There is much more headroom here.
Physics processing units in the hardware level can be employed as separate execution units. These won't come in the way of rendering. Just like you have separate alu's and cu's in a traditional cpu.

You mean AMD should go out, come up with a gimmick of their own which makes games unplayable on nVidia cards? If that is the case, then you are an idiot. Sorry to say this.

Also, stop bringing in "open source" when I'm not talking about it. I'm in favour of open things - neutral to everyone. It doesn't have to be open source.

Well not exactly but an open physics code handled by both amd and nvidia gpu's are the way to go imo. Now this would be absolutely neutral since both gpu's will handle the physics computations and free the cpu for other useful computations and i mentioned before why. Whatever it is, should not be processed by cpu.

Everybody favours neutral things but thats too much of an ideal scenario and never gonna happen. I too favour open things (not proprietary) but the world isn't open and competition will tend to be a big thorn in the bush.

So am i still an idiot?

fair deal eh?
u must have heard about nvidia gpu integrated processor if tomorrow nvidia starts making mobo also.

Think of this scenario you buy brand new gigabyte 20k mobo u insert ur nvidua integrated nvidia gpu cum processor,u press on button and u get message

"Booting Error. Non nvidia mobo found"

An offtopic post.

 

[mohityadavx]

An offtopic post.

no its not offtopic this is the same thing nvidia is doing with physx its just a more sceptical view which would take place if nvidia is encouraged