Nvidia implements 'time bomb' for ATI users running PhysX

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

04-26-2010, 06:31 AM
MrMojoZ

Quote:

Originally Posted by cowie

i did not miss the point at all
it seems many miss the point by trying to run nv phx with an ati card installed no matter if they have an nv card to do it.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Could you try that again?
04-26-2010, 06:35 AM
STaRGaZeR

http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/a...cs/28lh0s5.gif
04-26-2010, 06:55 AM
Xoulz

Quote:

Originally Posted by iddqd

Well, potentially a GPU (even an older one) could do way more simultaneous physics objects than a CPU. So if you have a random 8800gt lying around, it would make a way more efficient physics calculator than your new top of the line CPU.

But on the other hand, current implementations of physics features don't really have that many physics objects to make it necessary. I'm guessing it's got something to do with most of the market not having any kind of consistent hardware physics solution. So most will design games in mind with the CPU still being able to do physics. Unless, of course, they don't like money or something.

Where is the proof of this. I don't see any Nvidia PhysX game do what Battlefield Bad Company2 is doing..!

Specially when AMD has a 6 core proccesor for under $300... that more than anything a single GPU can do.
04-26-2010, 06:57 AM
cowie

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMojoZ

I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Could you try that again?

nah i dont care and i should leave well enough alone
phx to me is something to add to a port job game to make it seem like its worth buying imho

plus anyone have a game the "timebomb" went off?
not to even mention most are missing the point and failing to understand that its a patch for phx the fixes the timebomb

see yas :)
04-26-2010, 07:04 AM
MrMojoZ

Quote:

Originally Posted by cowie

nah i dont care and i should leave well enough alone
phx to me is something to add to a port job game to make it seem like its worth buying imho

plus anyone have a game the "timebomb" went off?
not to even mention most are missing the point and failing to understand that its a patch for phx the fixes the timebomb

see yas :)

I'll take that as a firm "no" then, thanks anyways.
04-26-2010, 07:07 AM
danielc

It's amazing that its not illegal for NVIDIA to do these things.
04-26-2010, 07:15 AM
cowie

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMojoZ

I'll take that as a firm "no" then, thanks anyways.

hey the guy genl was nice enuff to make you a patch to fix the unsupported use of a ati card to get nv phx to work...what more is there to know :confused:

take advantage of it while you can ;)
04-26-2010, 07:29 AM
damha

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eson

They opened a can of Whoop-ass!

Except, it is not their can of whoop-ass, it is someone else's!

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoredByLife

So if i understand correctly, Nvidia doesn't want you to run physics if you buy any Nvidia card and combine it with a 785G mobo? If this is true, it is quite sad....

Oh wow initially I was thinking only GPUs, but this is much worse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xoulz

Where is the proof of this. I don't see any Nvidia PhysX game do what Battlefield Bad Company2 is doing..!
Specially when AMD has a 6 core proccesor for under $300... that more than anything a single GPU can do.

Exactly. While in theory GPUs can do more, why would we need them to if you can get CPU accelerated Physics looking much better. Let's wait for a proper PhysX title then we will decide whether it is worth having a dedicated unit do PhysX processing.

And in both JC2 and BFBC2, we have strong cases of this is what the developer wanted, because how can they in their right minds make a game so dependent on Physics that only nvidia users would enjoy? Especially with BFBC2, you wouldn't be able to play the game!
04-26-2010, 07:53 AM
RejZoR

Euphoria eats PhysX for lunch. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bKphYfUk-M
And best of all, it doesn't even understand GPU acceleration. It's all done on CPU.
04-26-2010, 07:56 AM
iddqd

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xoulz

Where is the proof of this. I don't see any Nvidia PhysX game do what Battlefield Bad Company2 is doing..!

Specially when AMD has a 6 core proccesor for under $300... that more than anything a single GPU can do.

Well, physics is just a bunch of vector addition.

The very same type of calculations GPUs are very good at doing. Designed to do it, really.
04-26-2010, 08:06 AM
kromosto

Battlefield Bad Company2 doesnt count on physıcs because most of the physic part of the game is pre calculated not real time
04-26-2010, 08:14 AM
saaya

Quote:

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

Honestly, after seeing what CPU accelerated Havok physics could do in Just Cause 2, I'm totally unconvinced that GPU accelerated physics should even be on the table anymore. That goes for PhysX, OpenCL apps, etc, etc.

Why would I want the rendering power of my GPU compromised by doing physics calculations while my 4-8 core processor sits there twiddling its thumbs on most of its cores? I don't give two hoots if the GPU can calculate fluid dynamics, rigid body, AI, and so on more efficiently when my processor can do it inefficiently and actually USE the threads it isn't utilizing.

hear hear! :)
04-26-2010, 08:17 AM
Eastcoasthandle

Quote:

Originally Posted by kromosto

Battlefield Bad Company2 doesnt count on physıcs because most of the physic part of the game is pre calculated not real time

In the grand scheme of things the typical end user doesn't care if physics in their games are pre-calculated or not. As long as it's perceived and adds to the game's immersion. They will care if they have to buy more hardware to get what they perceived accessible without the added hardware. Or, they care, when the game doesn't play as intended because they need specific hardware.
04-26-2010, 08:32 AM
damha

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle

In the grand scheme of things the typical end user doesn't care if physics in their games are pre-calculated or not. As long as it's perceived and adds to the game's immersion. They will care if they have to buy more hardware to get what they perceived accessible without the added hardware. Or, they care, when the game doesn't play as intended because they need specific hardware.

Exactly. I was confused initially with his statement, but now I realize it is just what marketing is all about. If a picture is worth a thousand words, what about a 30 second clip.
04-26-2010, 09:10 AM
kromosto

i dont wanted to say physx is good or bad just wanted to say bfbc2 isnt a good example about comparing cpu vs gpu physics power
04-26-2010, 09:48 AM
Vinas

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew LB

If ATi would simply pay for the rights to use PhysX (along with the costs of driver development to allow both architectures to work properly together), none of this would even be an issue. It's odd that so many nVidia haters here complain about how crappy their cards and company are.... yet they still want to cherry pick technologies from them for their own use, going as far as hacking their drivers. Then they complain again once they find out nVidia is trying to stop such theft of their technology.

The lack of the ability to use PhysX cards in conjunction with ATi main graphics cards is 100% the fault of ATi who refusing to pay to use the tech. Why don't any of the complainers put blame where it is belongs? If this situation was reversed, and ATi had a similar technology that I wanted to use with my nV card.... i'd be calling out nV to either create their own solution or pay usage rights to ATi. It's quite obvious though that ATi has nothing nV users currently want... so that theoretical is a moot point.

Well I guess the problem is that physX works fine until you decide to place an ATi card in the system. Purposely so according to nVIDIA.

So it's shady. I bought my nVIDIA cards same as you, why can't I use it because I choose to do multi monitors with an ati card?

I use it via hacked/cracked drivers, that's how. Sad, but nVIDIA brought this on themselves.
04-26-2010, 09:48 AM
trinibwoy

Heh this is epic self immolation. Though I wonder if the people whining about it outnumber the people affected by it. Do a lot of people use this workaround in the first place?
04-26-2010, 09:51 AM
Sn0wm@n

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mechromancer

You bring up a good point! Does this time bomb kick in if you have integrated ATI graphics on your motherboard? Somebody has to have tested this.

disabling the onboard gpu in bios should be more then enough right????

EDIT: so does it mean a no go for the msi big bang ?????

Quote:

Originally Posted by iddqd

Well, physics is just a bunch of vector addition.

The very same type of calculations GPUs are very good at doing. Designed to do it, really.

isnt the new instruction set that intel and amd introduced... just that??? AVX????
04-26-2010, 09:51 AM
Nightcover

Quote:

Originally Posted by RejZoR

Euphoria eats PhysX for lunch. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bKphYfUk-M
And best of all, it doesn't even understand GPU acceleration. It's all done on CPU.

Euphoria is not a physics engine, it's a behavior engine. The physics in that video is done by Havok.

edit:Euphoria is used in GTA:IV
04-26-2010, 09:59 AM
screwtech02

Well, crap like this from Nvidia is gonna make alot of people see just how "self centered" that company really is. For me, I'll never by anything with "Nvidia" attached to it, just for these type of actions....
04-26-2010, 10:12 AM
Final8ty

Quote:

Originally Posted by trinibwoy

Heh this is epic self immolation. Though I wonder if the people whining about it outnumber the people affected by it. Do a lot of people use this workaround in the first place?

You don't have to be personally effect by something to be concerned about it.

Only selfish people only worry about things only when they are also effect.
04-26-2010, 10:27 AM
Solus Corvus

Quote:

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

Honestly, after seeing what CPU accelerated Havok physics could do in Just Cause 2, I'm totally unconvinced that GPU accelerated physics should even be on the table anymore. That goes for PhysX, OpenCL apps, etc, etc.

Why would I want the rendering power of my GPU compromised by doing physics calculations while my 4-8 core processor sits there twiddling its thumbs on most of its cores? I don't give two hoots if the GPU can calculate fluid dynamics, rigid body, AI, and so on more efficiently when my processor can do it inefficiently and actually USE the threads it isn't utilizing.

I agree, somewhat. Just about all the physics I have seen in games so far isn't anything special and could, with a little tweaking, work just as well on a QC CPU. But with enough objects/complexity to simulate there will be a point where a CPU isn't powerful enough and a GPU is needed.

That's why I'm still hopeful that Bullet on OpenCL will catch on. OpenCL can easily target the CPU or GPU. So for instances where you have a powerful enough CPU you just run the physics on that. If it's not powerful enough then you could run physics on whichever brand of GPU you happen to have. ATI contributing to Bullet is helping ATI customers, Nvidia customers, and the whole GPGPU market. Games developed with open libraries can also include more complex physics in gameplay scenarios since the devs don't have to worry about cutting a large portion of their potential market from being able to play the game at all.
04-26-2010, 10:39 AM
trinibwoy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Final8ty

You don't have to be personally effect by something to be concerned about it.

Only selfish people only worry about things only when they are also effect.

Yeah guess so. Depends on the topic though. Don't know what Nvidia is attempting to do here, they'll just keep updating the patch to bypass whatever nasty tricks they come up with.
04-26-2010, 10:51 AM
Solus Corvus

It effects everyone who is rational.

I'm only running a GTX285 at the moment. But when I upgrade it would be handy to keep the 285 as a physx card. But because of Nvidia's actions (pertaining to the thread OP, is that reversed now?) I would only be able to do that if I decided to upgrade to another Nvidia card even if an ATI card is the better choice at the time.

The only people this doesn't affect are those who don't own an Nvidia card and never will, and those that own an Nvidia card and will never own something from another brand. I'm sure there is a name for those kind of people...
04-26-2010, 10:59 AM
Eastcoasthandle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solus Corvus

It effects everyone who is rational.

I'm only running a GTX285 at the moment. But when I upgrade it would be handy to keep the 285 as a physx card. But because of Nvidia's actions (pertaining to the thread OP, is that reversed now?) I would only be able to do that if I decided to upgrade to another Nvidia card even if an ATI card is the better choice at the time.

The only people this doesn't affect are those who don't own an Nvidia card and never will, and those that own an Nvidia card and will never own something from another brand. I'm sure there is a name for those kind of people...

Nah, it effects everyone who cares about a video card in general. It reveals their tactics and shows everyone who's interested in video cards what they will actually do. One does not have to own or never own a nvidia card. It's about making a conscious decision if they will ever buy from them based on information such as this. Because when it's all said and done it's about their image that is most precedent after reading such news. Not about the drivers themselves.

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page