Nvidia GPU required for PhysX in Win 7

[trinibwoy]

My Point was propriety in the wrong hands & how it is used & by whom.
I'm not anti propriety, it can be good or bad.
And i knew full well of NV intentions for its propriety standards based on there past records.

Yes Nvidia is overly aggressive/anti-competitive. Unfortunately people don't buy graphics cards based on which company is nicer. And no I'm not talking about the 0.02% that care. They're shooting themselves in the foot here though so it's only a matter of time.

[Final8ty]

Yes, as much as I like Nvidia GPU's, I can't defend any of thoes actions.

I do still think they make great GPU's, but don't think they always make the right moves as a company.

They do make good GPUs but like anything else just having something good is no good if you don't know how to go about your business.

[bill_d]

after M$ put the work in to win 7 so you could use two graphics drivers you would think they may be little upset

maybe intel and amd should stop nv cards working with there cpu's

[Final8ty]

Yes Nvidia is overly aggressive/anti-competitive. Unfortunately people don't buy graphics cards based on which company is nicer. And no I'm not talking about the 0.02% that care. They're shooting themselves in the foot here though so it's only a matter of time.

Unfortunately so.

If there is no alternative product of a similar quality & performance for there own needs i think people can be forgiven at times for choosing the worst of 2 evils.

[Solus Corvus]

Not a very smart move on their part. But if they want to turn away potential customers and piss off people that's their choice.

[Unoid]

I currently use an 8800gt as my main card. I was intending on getting a r870 as my new primary and keeping the 8800gt in as a dedicated physx /GPGPU card.

So apparently nvidia is trying to force me to upgrade to gt300 instead of ATI if i want physx?

hah this makes me want to just get ATi even more.

NOT a smart move.

[zanzabar]

so did NV just kill physX, there is havok (it dosnt even need it, once the new red faction is out no1 will want physX) with openCL out at the beginning of next year and dx11 with have physics.

and were is the EU they need to put a stop to this, if intel and MS can get sued for things like this its time for NV to get some fines

[zalbard]

Yes Nvidia is overly aggressive/anti-competitive.

Nvidia is dumb! With PhysX slowly getting semi-popular (or at least used) they could sell some of their older cards to people who want physics in their systems. So they will loose potential customers over this. Hope that will make them think a little bit more the next time.

[>HyperlogiK<]

Since Nvidia appears to be making desperate moves to open up CUDA to other manufacturers cards and prevent it from going the way of 3DFX Glide and A3D it would be quite ironic if PhysX ended up being run on ATI hardware.

I'm pretty pissed because I have an 8800GT specifically for CUDA/PhysX, but I'm done with Mirror's Edge and I don't play UT3 much anymore so I might as well just swap it for another 4850.

Nvidia is dumb! With PhysX slowly getting semi-popular (or at least used) they could sell some of their older cards to people who want physics in their systems. So they will loose potential customers over this. Hope that will make them think a little bit more the next time.

An interesting suggestion, the existence of the 8800GS/9600GSO suggest that they had loads of excess G92s and putting a new BIOS on the things and flogging them as cheap consumer Telsa cards for ATI/integrated gfx users wanting CUDA and/or PhysX would have been an interesting move.

[Machinus]

At this point I wouldn't be surprised if nVidia started sabotaging AMD fabs...

[Truckchase!]

I have my Aegia 100 series PCI-express card working in Win 7 using old drivers. (7 series install followed by an 8 series install)

That being said, if I install anything newer it stops working all together. That doesn't bode well for the longevity of the platform.

[screwtech02]

after M$ put the work in to win 7 so you could use two graphics drivers you would think they may be little upset

maybe intel and amd should stop nv cards working with there cpu's

I'd pay good $$$ to see this implemented..... After the whole "Intel/SLI" deal years ago, personally, i'd like to watch NVIDIA burn a slow death....

[Sly Fox]

Yes, as much as I like Nvidia GPU's, I can't defend any of thoes actions.

I do still think they make great GPU's, but don't think they always make the right moves as a company.

That's pretty much how I feel too.

My first "real" video card (as in one that could actually game) was a Geforce 4.

The only ATI card I've ever owned was a 9800 Pro. So if anything I'm an Nvidia fanboy, they're just such devious little scumbags sometimes though.

Oh well, I guess that's business for you.

[rozzyroz]

this reminds me of when they didnt allow sli to work on all motherboards....

[FischOderAal]

Ah ok, let's see where that goes once Larrabee hits

My hope is that Intel will support it via OpenCL only. I'm not a programmer at all, nor do I have any depth knowledge, but being an enthusiast I just plain hope Intel doesn't axe support for "third party manufacturors" like NVIDIA seems to do for PhysX.

OpenCL seems to be a reasonable basis for this if you ask me, because Intel might have to develop a OpenCL-driver for Larrabee nevertheless, as I hope OpenCL will be the basis of many programs.

(Jesus. If you don't understand anything at all, thank Krombacher.)

[alfaunits]

From my experience and little of my friends', ATI drivers sucked heavily compared to nVidia (for one, they didn't work for me on Windows 2003 with 4GB of RAM before Cat 9.4 - don't even know if that one does, I removed 2GB of RAM to use the ATI card).

With that in mind, and being a driver writter myself, I can see why NV would do this. I have too often had other company's drivers make the problem, and I always had to make workarounds to make mine work with theirs (no I couldn't just prove it was their fault - I ahd to make workarounds earlier).
Nowadays, I provide sufficient evidence to convince my customers they need to swtich the other company's product or a lot of other software similar to mine will not work with it (that Joe Average dumbass can install). It works!

I'm sure they think it's wise in market terms as well - but when it comes to driver interaction - don't uinderestimate the stupidity other people can make! Especially under pressure - that your driver (company) will end up being blamed for.

[FischOderAal]

From my experience and little of my friends', ATI drivers sucked heavily compared to nVidia.

Au contraire mon fraire! I never ever experienced any severe issue with AMD/ATIs drivers and I've used their graphic cards for quite a long time. Their drivers might've been an issue way back when the 9000-series was kicking ass, but they surely improved much. As long as you don't use CF, but if you ask me, multi-gpu is a pure utter failure as long as the cores don't share the memory.

(If you really want to know it, my history: GF2 MX, GF2 GTS, 9600 Pro, 6800 GT, X1800 GTO, X1950 Pro, HD4870).

[nsegative]

http://digg.com/hardware/Nvidia_lock..._users_screwed
Shall we start a storm?

[BrowncoatGR]

There is nothing wrong with closed standards, how its implemented is what's important.

Closed standards have almost always failed when there was an open alternative.

[trinibwoy]

Since Nvidia appears to be making desperate moves to open up CUDA to other manufacturers cards...

so did NV just kill physX, there is havok (it dosnt even need it, once the new red faction is out no1 will want physX) with openCL out at the beginning of next year and dx11 with have physics.

Sources?

At this point I wouldn't be surprised if nVidia started sabotaging AMD fabs...

Heh, that would be a bad idea. They might need GlobalFoundries if TSMC keeps up their current form.

[Cybercat]

Yep & besides that & the re branding as you mentioned & the driver that forced lower quality when the bench mark of a particular AAA title game was run no matter the in-game or control panel settings & the patching out of DX10.1 on assassins creed.

Are you talking about Far Cry 2?

[zanzabar]

Sources?

what sources, look at red faction gorilla for how good havok is and it was designed for the cpu, and intel has said that it will support openCL on havok, and its not new that dx11 with have physics.

[Final8ty]

Are you talking about Far Cry 2?

Nope this was going back years ago in 5 & 6 NV era.

[grimREEFER]

it's so nonsensical, that i would have to question the knowledge of nvidia support on this one.
they aren't infallable.

[nr4]

"Hello JC,

Ill explain why this function was disabled.

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.

Best Regards,
Troy
NVIDIA Customer Care"

So from my point of view, ATI or others can start developing.
And from what alfaunits said in his post, i really wouldn't like to start making drivers or other stuff working with ATI drivers.