Nvidia GPU required for PhysX in Win 7

[trinibwoy]

Looks like Nvidia is going to disable PhysX acceleration if you try using an non-Nvidia GPU for rendering in Windows 7. This of course comes up because unlike Vista you will be able to use graphics cards from different vendors simultaneously.

http://www.ngohq.com/graphic-cards/1...s-present.html

Well for all those who have have used Nvidia cards for PhysX and ATI cards to render graphics in Windows 7...All that is about to change.

Since the release of 186 graphics drivers Nvidia has decided to disable PhysX anytime a Non-Nvidia GPU is even present in the same PC. Nvidia again has shot themselves in the foot here and showed they are not customer oriented. Since they are pushing Physx this will not win over any ATI fanboys with this latest decision.

Here is a copy of the email I received from Nvidia support confirming what they have done.

"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 this really confirms that PhysX will be doomed as an adopted API regardless how hard Nvidia pushes it as a result of action like this.

Flame/Discuss

[Planet]

With Vistas GPU driver architecture you cannot use 2 different GPU drivers unless you load the XP drivers which breaks many features. There for you cannot use a non Nvidia card as a graphics card and than the Nvidia card for PhysX

BTW this has been disabled in XP for a while.

[bill_d]

With Vistas GPU driver architecture you cannot use 2 different GPU drivers unless you load the XP drivers which breaks many features. There for you cannot use a non Nvidia card as a graphics card and than the Nvidia card for PhysX

BTW this has been disabled in XP for a while.

was working in win 7

[[XC] Lead Head]

I'm quite sure Windows 7 allows you to use two different graphics drivers. That was supposed to be one of the "improvements" over Vista.

[trinibwoy]

Yeah exactly, but before they could blame Windows. Now that Windows no longer has that restriction they're explicitly preventing people from using an AMD GPU for rendering and an Nvidia GPU for PhysX. Which in my opinion is stupid since that person has to buy an Nvidia GPU anyway. I have no idea how PhysX interacts with graphics drivers though, maybe they don't want other people's driver quirks causing issues with their PhysX stuff but it still seems counter-intuitive.

[bill_d]

I'm quite sure Windows 7 allows you to use two different graphics drivers. That was supposed to be one of the "improvements" over Vista.

yes and now useless

[Pontos]

So they are software-locking Physx in Windows 7 if you have an ATI card rendering and want an Nvidia card doing the Physx?

With that, and the fact that they screwed early adopters of the Physx PPU, Nvidia is just giving me more reasons to not buy their stuff...

Which in my opinion is stupid since that person has to buy an Nvidia GPU anyway

They want to avoid people buying their low end cards for Physx while using ATI high end cards for rendering.

[Talonman]

I can see if you dont want PhysX to run on non-Nvidia GPU's, but for NVIDIA to not support GPU accelerated Physx on systems with an ATI card even plugged in is a bit odd to me.

If you are running Graphics on an ATI card, and buy a second Nvidia GPU for dedicated PhysX, it should be fully functional in my opinion...

A rather bad move in my book.

[Smartidiot89]

I can see if you dont want PhysX to run on non-Nvidia GPU's, but for NVIDIA to not support GPU accelerated Physx on systems with an ATI card even plugged in is a bit odd to me.

If you are running Graphics on an ATI card, and buy a second Nvidia GPU for dedicated PhysX, it should be fully functional in my opinion...

A rather bad move in my book.

Agreed I don't think (know in my case) that people will move to Nvidia just cause of PhysX if ATI is what they're into.

This imo is one of the reasons PhysX will fail, unless Nvidia allows it on other GPUs.

When will ATI actually release Havok anyways? Havok will have a much bigger chance on the market then Nvidias closed propriety.

[Hockster]

A desperate attempt to recover/retain market share. And it will probably bite them in the ass.

[perkam]

I can see if you dont want PhysX to run on non-Nvidia GPU's, but for NVIDIA to not support GPU accelerated Physx on systems with an ATI card even plugged in is a bit odd to me.

If you are running Graphics on an ATI card, and buy a second Nvidia GPU for dedicated PhysX, it should be fully functional in my opinion...

A rather bad move in my book.

Those that chose an ATI card but still bought an nvidia card for Physx engine are now screwed.

Congrats, Nvidia. You're losing money already, and now you'll lose a little bit more.

Can you imagine a company punishing the consumer for buying another vendor's cards ??

Perkam

[trinibwoy]

They want to avoid people buying their low end cards for Physx while using ATI high end cards for rendering.

Right but that's assuming people buy hardware because of PhysX. As far as I know PhysX is a tie-breaker for some people, but few put a lot of weight on it. So if that person has already made the decision to buy an AMD GPU for other reasons Nvidia has already lost the sale, so why not let them buy a cheap Nvidia GPU? It's better than not selling them anything at all.

[MirageSys]

Their marketing division should be fired. This has the potential to create very bad publicity in addition to being a move that can only lose Nvidia money. Transparency and widespread use are what will be saving PhysX in the face of Havok, not restricting access. Duh

[Mungri]

I personally like ATI cards better right now with the HD 4xxx range, but missing out on Physx isnt going yo make me switch to Nvidia.

I play Sacred 2, which has uber Physx effects on Nvidia cards, but I am fine without it.

[lowfat]

Hmm. I was wondering why I added a 9600GT to my system earlier this week Nvidia PhysX was greyed out.

[570091D]

When will ATI actually release Havok anyways? Havok will have a much bigger chance on the market then Nvidias closed propriety.

havoc on gpu will never be released, as havoc is owned by intel.

this is a frustrating development that really tarnishes nvidia's reputation, they used be known as an open company (remember they were the first with open linux drivers). but i do understand why they did it, they've put a lot of work into cuda and getting physx to work with cuda. now they would like to be paid for their work, which is not entirely unreasonable. but in the end, nvidia getting a return on it's investment means we have fewer gpu choices...

[Smartidiot89]

havoc on gpu will never be released, as havoc is owned by intel.

Yes but Intel and AMDs GPU department is actually working on Havok together (yeah really), and ATI did display Havok years ago, then again a few months ago.

[trinibwoy]

Yes but Intel and AMDs GPU department is actually working on Havok together (yeah really), and ATI did display Havok years ago, then again a few months ago.

Source for this co-operation? ATI displayed their OpenCL implementation of a few Havok routines (confirmed by Mike Houston @ ATI). I haven't seen any official word of Havok working on any GPU accelerated port.

[FischOderAal]

Source for this co-operation? ATI displayed their OpenCL implementation of a few Havok routines (confirmed by Mike Houston @ ATI). I haven't seen any official word of Havok working on any GPU accelerated port.

June 2008:
http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/53109

Intel bought Havok in september 2007

[570091D]

Yes but Intel and AMDs GPU department is actually working on Havok together (yeah really), and ATI did display Havok years ago, then again a few months ago.

this is true, but i look at the hullabaloo intel's big wigs are making about taking tasks away from their precious cpu and i think "i doubt very much they will let ati have this victory."

even if they were to release havoc on gpu drivers, they would be just as effective as physx; because it's just another proprietary system. sure, there are move havoc games than physx games but there are also more nvidia gpus than ati gpus.

[Smartidiot89]

this is true, but i look at the hullabaloo intel's big wigs are making about taking tasks away from their precious cpu and i think "i doubt very much they will let ati have this victory."

even if they were to release havoc on gpu drivers, they would be just as effective as physx; because it's just another proprietary system. sure, there are move havoc games than physx games but there are also more nvidia gpus than ati gpus.

Oh I thaught Havok was open for all and would work on all GPUs out there...

[Talonman]

Me too...

http://forum.pcvsconsole.com/viewthread.php?tid=17329

Havok hasn't been standing still during Ageia's technology grab. The company has recently revamped its product line to provide full support for multicore processors, as well as the next-generation Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 consoles, and Havok's newest product, Havok FX, promises to take physics to a whole new level by letting developers use today's Shader Model 3.0 GPUs to run physics calculations for games.



http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/new...php?story=6983

Video game physics middleware company Havok has announced plans to support GPU-accelerated physics through its new multi-platform product, Havok FX, announcing a host of other new upgrades in a clear attempt to distance and differentiate itself from rival Ageia, which is using in-game physics to help promote its PPU physics hardware chips.

[MirageSys]

Oh I thaught Havok was open for all and would work on all GPUs out there...

It is architecture neutral, or at least appears to be that way.

Taken from Havok's website
" Havok Physics™ has been used in every genre of games, and has evolved to meet the requirements of the most demanding teams in the industry. Havok Physics™ is easily integrated into any game development pipeline and has been proven to work with a whole range of commercially available and in-house solutions. Havok Physics™ is based exclusively on customer requirements, and only targets hardware platforms customers need; as a result it does not impose any unnecessary inflexibility and is entirely open in its architecture. "

[FischOderAal]

because it's just another proprietary system. sure, there are move havoc games than physx games but there are also more nvidia gpus than ati gpus.

OpenCL?

[Aerwidh]

Is it even legal to do something like this all of a sudden?
Either way, it's a stupid move by Nvidia. Almost seems like they want people to skip PhysX entirely, rather than at least buying 1 of their cards for it