Printable View
Can't they just install earlier Nvidia drivers and keep their PhysX working with the Nvidia GPU? I'm mean you don't need to get a PhysX driver every month like you do with Video drivers. Hell, the PhysX drivers that are being packed with the video drivers haven't been updated in months as is. So who care if they have to use an older PhysX driver? At least that way they won't have to throw out the nvidia card they bought for PhysX.
I have had 1800xt 1900xt+1900CF 3870-Quad fire through 6 different motherboards & have had every ATI driver update for those cards & which is about 60 of them & have only ever had a problem with 2 sets ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by nr4
NV are talking complete crap as regards to using the gfx card as physics processor with other vendor cards as the NV card is just another computation device just like the CPU when doing physics but only quicker at it.
You don't see Intel saying that Its CPU does not work with ATI/AMD gfx cards when running Havok nether did you see Ageia saying anything of the sort.
Well the FX series sucked hardware-wise too, but you don't see people frowning on NVIDIA now because of it. What's the point of looking that far back? Both companies are guilty of driver cheating, but most of that happened many years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Final8ty
and be shut down by nv at any time :down:Quote:
Originally Posted by nr4
it's not open or a standard
bill_d, is this qoute ringing any bells to you?Quote:
"Hello JC,
[...]
Physx is an open software standard any company can freely develop hardware or software that supports it.
[...]
Best Regards,
Troy
NVIDIA Customer Care"
A track record is a track record & many years ago makes no difference when the same company is still up to its tricks with no sign of change.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cybercat
Its not as if i have not mention more resent events as well & im purely holding them to that one.
Your not going to hire a someone with a history of stealing from the till even 1 time 40 years ago over some one who has never if that person has not shown signs of changing there ways.
they still own the rights to itQuote:
Originally Posted by nr4
saying it's a standard and open dosn't make it so
you don't think NVIDIA Customer Care can lie :rofl:
Physx is an open software standard any company can freely develop hardware or software that supports it.
Can someone explain that statement to me? :shrug: Can't ATI hardware support PhysX? I don't understand that statement at all, sounds like marketing bull:banana::banana::banana::banana: and double speak to me.
Um, you're not "purely" holding them to recent events if you mention something that happened several years ago as one of three reasons why NVIDIA isn't trustworthy. By the way, anyone could just as easily make a scintillating list of ATI's wrongdoings if they wanted, it's no different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Final8ty
Your employment analogy is a bit flawed, considering you're not hiring NVIDIA over a long period of time if it's a one-time transaction to buy a graphics card that you can get rid of any time if you don't want it. And I guess ATI is supposed to be that person that's never stole before, huh? Give me a break.
I don't know about you, but I buy computer hardware based on its technology, not based on the technology and actions of the company back in 2003. Geez look at all these people with Intel processors, you think they care that the company that made them is one of the worst offenders of shady business in the industry?
I couldn't care less. PhysX in a closed form like this is a massive fail. And NVIDIA knows how to fail massively the last couple of months. So let them fail even more.
The sooner PhysX becomes open standard (not likely) or the sooner it dies, the better for us. This whole mumbo jumbo physics war is just holding back evolution of physics.
If there was an unified standard for physics at the moment, i'm sure there would be games popping out with advanced hardware accelerated physics already.
But now there is only camp of NVIDIA "bribed" studios and those that are holding back because of still unknown future of physics API's and hardware support.
And we all know propertiary stuff just doesn't work in a long run. It never did. DirectX/Direct3D is another creature. It's propertiary, but all vendors use it so thats called a good adoption. I can't say the same for CUDA or PhysX since it's NVIDIA only thing. It's funny that they still haven't learn what happened to 3dfx and their Glide library... The same thing will eventually happen to them if they don't get their dumb heads out of the sand.
It is simple me not mentioning that one incident changes nothing because of the multitude of other things that they have done & are doing to this very day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cybercat
Past incidents are mentioned & there is no rule on how far an individual can go back to including the incidents from now till then.
I don't personally care about that incident but when asked about previous incidents i well mention all on them that i can remember at the time of reply.
ATI had there day with the HDCP ready on some gfx cards that did not have the HDCP licensed code in them.
But its not required to mention every other companies wrong doing every time a company wrong doing hits the forums.
Its not about a company never doing no wrong & its plain silly to even suggest that anyone is even trying to claim that any company is totally devoid of wrong doing.
Its all about severity & frequency in this world when it comes to wrong doing in this world of ours.
NV are the topic & im discussing them.
When Intel Is the topic of discussion is relation to wrong doing they get there day as well just like the recent EU ruling.
I bet NV will change mind - its just too.. dumb.. just look @ the reaction in this thread alone.. then there is everyone else on other forums etc.. na, just cant see them being that dumb to carry thru with this. then again.. :D
they didnt care, when they pulled sli from the 975 boards that had sli support from the company that made the ati SB on the 3200 chipset (i forgot the name of it) but when NV bought them they killed the sli license that they had and removed the drivers from the 975 before the core 2 came out, there was a huge push back to get it put back but NV didnt care and said that they could only use it with the old drivers
Think they care about forums? They didn't care with all stupid renaming schemes so why listen now?Quote:
Originally Posted by tiro_uspsss
That,s why its needs to be handled with care & in the right situations were it can be favourable to the company and the consumer.Quote:
Originally Posted by BrowncoatGR
Once again, great marketing by nvidia :clap:
Why can't they do something useful, like fix the stutter in Left4Dead.
ULi was the company's name, and they didn't make the sole SB for the 3200 (SB450/SB460 was around, and SB600 later), but the ULi M1575 was indeed a better alternative at the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by zanzabar
Interesting, I never realized that as a result Nvidia technically makes an x86 processor, albeit it's just a 386SX embedded microcontroller, so that doesn't really mean much to us.
OT:
So, you won't be able to run Physix when rendering with an AMD/ATI GPU or <insert future other company's GPU here>, yet still be able to run a full CUDA app at the same time [in the background]? If that's the case then there shouldn't be much weight to a potential issue of drivers conflicting...
not fully screwed. They'll just sell their cards to someone used. This person who buys the used card no longer needs to buy a new nVidia card.Quote:
Originally Posted by perkam
the only entity really screwed would be nVidia.
Wait a sec... how in the hell did nvidia have any hand in the first instances of the Ageia PPU? You make it seem like Nvidia had planned obsolescence in a case when they didnt even own the company when that product was released. They merely took the PhysX API and integrated it into their graphics cards as a functionality of CUDA. I have no idea how what you said makes any logical sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pontos
If you're talking about the old PhysX cards in general being phased out... those things are extremely outdated to begin with. It doesnt make any sense for nvidia to keep making entirely different physX cards at all.
NV made it so that u need an NV gpu to use the PPU a long time ago
Keeping a good image is important, but only when it comes to the very small portion of video card consumers who actually read this kind of news chatter. The vast majority of video card buyers don't keep up on this stuff, nor do they know what G300 and NV30 actually mean. Heck.... i'll bet that over 50% of laptop owners don't even know what graphics chip they even have in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by B.E.E.F.
Personally, I'm tired of hearing people complain about how their current favorite GPU or CPU manufacturer should somehow be "given" technology that the other company spent untold time and money to develop.
The free market system is designed to encourage private companies to take risks and break new ground. And when those risks pay off when they field a new product, the system rewards them with more market share and most importantly.... Profits!
What incentive does a company have in order to go spend hard earned capitol only to hand your competitor a free copy of what you just spent all that money to develop?
ATI should have to license out the physics technology from nVidia if they want to utilize it. It's the only fair way to move on.
how is fair to make ati pay to use a product that has nothing to do with them, the physX card isnt doing anything that the cpu cant do ur just using an add in card. although i dont see the big deal since physX as an api is bad, if i could use it with my gpu i dont even think that i would want to even with free parts
I quite agree, but that's a slightly different scenario. In this case, the Physx is being run on Nvidia's own GPU's - unless of course, someone else is doing the rendering. While there's likely some valid arguments in the programming/compatibility arena for this decision, it does smack a little of childishness - "You won't use our stuff 100%? Then take THIS - no accelerated Physx for you."Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew LB
Honestly, given the right titles, I wouldn't be entirely adverse to throwing down ~$100 for a secondary card to get some sweet eye-candy at playable framerates. But dictating what the primary card has to be... meh.
I'm not ready to say that I won't buy a Nvidia GPU, as I still think they are leading the GPU revolution. :)
That is of course just my opinion...
I am however willing to acknowledge that locking out PhysX on systems having an ATI card plugged in, was a Dirt Bag move. (Also just my opinion.) :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by MpG
From that the ATI gfx just has to be present no matter primary or not.Quote:
I can confirm that any driver after 181.72 PhysX does not work on Windows 7 with an AMD card present.