2927 Users online, 5.74 mbps
Quick Search
Already a member?
Username:
Password:
Register Here!
New Forum Posts
20:12 by EarthQuaker
Ati Hd 4850 (7)
20:11 by W1zzard
Games: Window Mode VS Full Screen (8)
20:09 by fitseries3
4870x2 + another card = no post HELP! (24)
20:08 by Triton.se
*GTX 260/280 Unofficial TPU! Thread* (250)
20:07 by CAT_101
problem with volts to CPU (6)
20:03 by p_o_s_pc
TPU's F@H Team (2045)



Last Articles


Popular Articles
Friday, July 4 2008
In a dramatic turnaround of events, NGOHQ.com, the creators of a special system software that allowed users of the ATI Radeon graphics accelerators to use proprietary features of NVIDIA graphics accelerators such as GPU-accelerated version of the NVIDIA PhysX game physics API, claim that in fact NVIDIA wanted to help them with this effort. On June, the 26th we had covered reports of the said outfit improvising a driver after proving that NVIDIA's proprietary GPGPU architecture, CUDA was flexible enough to work on a ATI RV670 graphics processor.

The NVIDIA PhysX API has gained immense popularity with the industry off late though the standard itself is not very recent, with the former Ageia having been in the industry for a while before its takeover by NVIDIA. The recent popularity surge of this API owes to the fact that PhysX processing plays a significant role in affecting the scores of the 3DMark Vantage benchmark, where a certain CPU test routine evaluates the computer's physics processing abilities. This gives users of the latest line of GeForce graphics accelerators an advantage over their Radeon counterparts since they get a significant increment in the benchmark score. The PhysX API functions as a CUDA application on GeForce, where the GPU's shaders are used by the process to process physics. With NGOHQ.com being successfully able to modify CUDA to function on ATI GPUs, it was only a formality to run any CUDA application on it, the PhysX process included. NGOHQ.com has gone on record saying that enabling PhysX support on Radeon cards is not particularly difficult, and might not be much be a technology problem but an issue of corporate dynamics.

The team sought support from AMD in the form of a Radeon HD4800 series sample, so they could work out a similar solution for it, but AMD rejected it telling it wasn't a venture worth investing product samples and PR information on, clearly a case of them downplaying the issue to evade possible action from NVIDIA on supporting the use of its proprietary technologies in violation of license agreements. After being denied support from a company they were banking the most on, they were left to their own plight against NVIDIA who have a history of an aggressive business model, even more so after it was known NGOHQ.com may have reverse engineered drivers, a clear violation of the EULA.

The dramatic turnaround of events has caused a little more than a ripple across the industry, the team at NGOHQ.com now claims that NVIDIA actually offered help to them and that they want to strengthen the industry position of CUDA as a viable competitor to Intel and its processing technologies. This follows news reports of a high-ranked officer at Intel downplaying the rising popularity of CUDA and effectively counter the competitive physics API, Havoc, which uses CPU to process in-game physics. The team goes on to use phrases such as "it seems they are giving us their blessings" to highlight their appreciation for the company.

What's beneath this green sugar-coat of an M&M bean? Clear corporate agenda at play. NVIDIA gets away with the higher moral ground in the issue, of having come in support of a small outfit trying to work on technologies that enhanced their competitor's, while in reality all AMD must have wanted was to stay away from IPR headaches at a time when a reinvigorated Radeon line is going head on against GeForce, the way NGOHQ.com portreys their approach looks more like they shied away from a challenge, in their views.

With inputs from NGOHQ.com
posted by btarunr - 11:00 PM |  Related News

User comments
by Para_Franck (July 4th - 12:37 PM) - Reply
Can anyone say : Foolish games!
by X-TeNDeR (July 4th - 12:46 PM) - Reply
Can it be, that NVidia is aiding these efforts, in order to push physx deeper into the gaming scene? if ATI cards could run it too, it might have more grip in the market. as long as NVidia call the shots, ofcourse.

Indeed, games :)
by Megasty (July 4th - 12:46 PM) - Reply
Well obviously ATi should take no part in this in fear of being swamped by NV. NV may want to better promote CUDA in this way but don't they have more important things to do in light of recent events. Anyway, all the better for us.
by TheGuruStud (July 4th - 12:52 PM) - Reply
Maybe Nvidia is trying to push out Intel. It would be a smart move if you ask me and good for both companies.
by vojc (July 4th - 12:53 PM) - Reply
god for Nvidia, they will make mor agea supported games ;)
by Cold Storm (July 4th - 12:54 PM) - Reply
I'm just glad that this isn't going to be like the Creative issue a while back.. Work with one another for the same goal. Then we will see how good these companies can be!
by [I.R.A]_FBi (July 4th - 1:27 PM) - Reply
So I, ati is going to knowingly support a faction that is breaking my biggest competitor's EULA?

jigga plz.
by Kreij (July 4th - 1:35 PM) - Reply
From my post on 6-26 when this was first announced ..


I'm not so sure that Nvidia will make a big fuss about it.
The fact that it can be used on ATI cards or any others is a feather in their cap, not a detriment.
If they allow it, the open source community will hail them as heroes of the cause.

Looks like they agreed with me :D
by btarunr (July 4th - 1:43 PM) - Reply
Maybe on the opensource, or EU. Who knows, maybe an year or so down the line, EU would have slapped anti-competition charges against NV? As for CUDA, while the compiler that's part of the SDK is derived from an open-source Open64, everything else (binaries...libs...headers...) are proprietary, you can haz dem for free nao but no source code given to you (of everything).
by InnocentCriminal (July 4th - 1:43 PM) - Reply
Well written btarunr, I enjoyed reading that.
by TheGuruStud (July 4th - 1:49 PM) - Reply
by: InnocentCriminal;869426
Well written btarunr, I enjoyed reading that.
Go easy on him. He's lucky his brain can even type after two bottles of wild turkey last night. :laugh:
by InnocentCriminal (July 4th - 1:53 PM) - Reply
HEH HEH HEH!

Even better, good man!

:rockout:
by btarunr (July 4th - 2:37 PM) - Reply
Are we missing the fact that it's also NV's long-term strategy of pushing CUDA against AMD FireStream and AMD's own GPGPU architecture? I would add that to the basket.
by dark2099 (July 4th - 2:37 PM) - Reply
I hope that now since NVidia has offered to help NGOHQ with their quest, maybe ATI/AMD will step up and get on board again since with NVidia seemingly being ok with the venture they won't press any charges.
by [I.R.A]_FBi (July 4th - 2:40 PM) - Reply
The fact is not that they want it to run on amd cards fro the "greater good" but they want to corner the market in essense cause if it runs on both cards they will become a standard and push out havok
by newtekie1 (July 4th - 3:07 PM) - Reply
PhysX's biggest competitor is Intel's solution, so it only makes sense that nVidia would want to help promote their technology in any way possible, even if that means helping to get it running on ATi's hardware. It's a good move by nVidia, IMO.
by adrianx (July 4th - 3:12 PM) - Reply
so in the clear future will not see any driver with ageia support for ati :)

if nvidia want to help ati (this is strange), I think the nvidia have same interest in that.

I don't see the nvidia working for free to improve the AMD/ATI products.

Also, read about the AMD and HAVOK agreements about the physics accelerations on the HD cards. So I believe that cost same money from AMD.
by InnocentCriminal (July 4th - 3:40 PM) - Reply
I can't help but see ATi as the clear winners here. They're supporting Havoc and nVIDIA aren't bothered about PhysX working on their cards. Brilliant!
by EastCoasthandle (July 4th - 4:07 PM) - Reply
Based on Nvidia's politics regarding DX10.1 I don't see AMD/ATI being so gracious as to support Cuda. But time will tell.
by WarEagleAU (July 4th - 4:36 PM) - Reply
I dont really see the point in all of this. Who cares if AMD/ATI didnt want to violate some licensing. I Think that is smart. Boo hoo for not throwing us a freaking bone here.
by btarunr (July 4th - 4:43 PM) - Reply
by: WarEagleAU;869702
I dont really see the point in all of this. Who cares if AMD/ATI didnt want to violate some licensing. I Think that is smart.
That's an important explanation behind not sending samples to NGOHQ.com, as if they couldn't afford it themselves for $199.

by: WarEagleAU;869702
Boo hoo for not throwing us a freaking bone here.
Syntax error.
by eidairaman1 (July 4th - 5:11 PM) - Reply
i smell a big rat.:shadedshu
by bundyrum&coke (July 4th - 10:41 PM) - Reply
by: eidairaman1;869730
i smell a big rat.:shadedshu
So do I. What is next? AMD backing Phys-x? Has Nvidia got a fancy chipset in waiting that can further capitalise on CUDA? Maybe they are positioning themselves in preparation for Nehalem?
by btarunr (July 5th - 4:14 AM) - Reply
They're have trouble with Intel in doing that AFAIK
by mixa (July 5th - 8:37 AM) - Reply
More like NVIDIA was behind it since the start?I don't rly belive they just "made it work".
How come noone made AVIVO work on NVIDIA cards?I know I know its a different thing but its either they reverse engineered the drivers or more likely someone "gave" em already working ones.Its good that AMD/ATi didn't get the bite and haven't involved in any way since they are over the top again.
by bowman (July 5th - 11:29 AM) - Reply

With NGOHQ.com being successfully able to modify CUDA to function on ATI GPUs, it was only a formality to run any CUDA application on it

So the Nvidia folding client could be run on the ATI cards? Maybe we'd finally see the true potential of the 4800 series with that one, ATI client is slow.. :)
by btarunr (July 5th - 12:53 PM) - Reply
by: bowman;870711
So the Nvidia folding client could be run on the ATI cards? Maybe we'd finally see the true potential of the 4800 series with that one, ATI client is slow.. :)
You already have F@H clients for ATI....way back since the Radeon X1800 days.
by bowman (July 5th - 1:40 PM) - Reply
by: btarunr;870773
You already have F@H clients for ATI....way back since the Radeon X1800 days.
I said that.

by: bowman;870711
So the Nvidia folding client could be run on the ATI cards? Maybe we'd finally see the true potential of the 4800 series with that one, ATI client is slow.. :)
The CUDA client is inexplicably faster on NVIDIA hardware with less theoretical capability than the ATI cards. The ATI client hasn't been updated for the RV770 cards, either. It would be interesting to see if the Nvidia client would run any well on ATI cards.
by PrudentPrincess (July 5th - 3:28 PM) - Reply
ATI made a really smart move, by not supporting CUDA they've slowed its progress down (or prevented speeding it up) which is a really good thing for them because we have to remember its not just ATI, its AMD/ATI. They have as much to lose in this as Intel.
by btarunr (July 5th - 3:39 PM) - Reply
by: PrudentPrincess;870911
ATI made a really smart move, by not supporting CUDA they've slowed its progress down (or prevented speeding it up) which is a really good thing for them because we have to remember its not just ATI, its AMD/ATI. They have as much to lose in this as Intel.
I agree. Beyond smart move, it's self-defense and above all, protecting its own FireStream GPGPU architecture from being overrun by CUDA. It's already established that a RV770 churns-out more GFLOPs (1000~1200 GFLOPs) than GT200 (980 GFLOPs), when exploited as a GPGPU, ATI GPUs could fare better, so NV wants to spread CUDA there saying "You can have PhysX", but it's their 'trojan horse' in my opinion.
by PrudentPrincess (July 5th - 5:14 PM) - Reply
by: btarunr;870920
I agree. Beyond smart move, it's self-defense and above all, protecting its own FireStream GPGPU architecture from being overrun by CUDA. It's already established that a RV770 churns-out more GFLOPs (1000~1200 GFLOPs) than GT200 (980 GFLOPs), when exploited as a GPGPU, ATI GPUs could fare better, so NV wants to spread CUDA there saying "You can haz PhysX", but it's their 'trojan horse' in my opinion.
Every time I start thinking you're valuable to TPU you go and use icanhazcheezeburger speak.
by btarunr (July 5th - 5:19 PM) - Reply
Fixed. Changed 'haz' with 'have', am I valuable again?
by TheGuruStud (July 5th - 5:55 PM) - Reply
I'm starting to get the vibe that it's more like "Can I haz native speek english skillz plz?".

If it's not their native language, you can lay off some, guys :). Our grammar is very hard b/c it's whack.
by eidairaman1 (July 5th - 7:03 PM) - Reply
by: PrudentPrincess;871051
Every time I start thinking you're valuable to TPU you go and use icanhazcheezeburger speak.
yo, give the guy a break.
by eidairaman1 (July 5th - 7:06 PM) - Reply
by: btarunr;870920
I agree. Beyond smart move, it's self-defense and above all, protecting its own FireStream GPGPU architecture from being overrun by CUDA. It's already established that a RV770 churns-out more GFLOPs (1000~1200 GFLOPs) than GT200 (980 GFLOPs), when exploited as a GPGPU, ATI GPUs could fare better, so NV wants to spread CUDA there saying "You can have PhysX", but it's their 'trojan horse' in my opinion.
so your saying about 1TFLOP?
by W1zzard (July 5th - 7:09 PM) - Reply
by: mixa;870629
or more likely someone "gave" em already working ones.
i talk to regeneration from ngohq a lot and nobody bitches about amd/ati/nvidia more than he does. i'm sure he didn't get anything from them before publishing that he's working on it. who can blame nvidia for seeing a chance to push cuda... once they got their big big market share they will could just lock out the ati users whenever they want to
by eidairaman1 (July 5th - 7:20 PM) - Reply
Which i think that is Corporate BS right there, ATI should tell Nvidia to go shove it up their wazoo. Intel/ATI should push with havok, which has been working for many years, where physx didnt work from the start. To add another not, didn't i tell yall i smelled a big rat?
by KieranD (July 5th - 7:42 PM) - Reply
i know AMD/ATi and Nvidia are competitors but really they should both push Cuda as it directly competes with Intel and Havok.

Cuda is good but PhysX was a failure. People didnt want to buy a £200-£100 PPu they would rather buy a full on graphics card. Where as Cuda is just a driver and is free so people will be more inclined to try it out.

I dont mind using Cuda its not as if ATi have their own integrated physics processing drivers.
by W1zzard (July 5th - 8:15 PM) - Reply
nvidia can push physx into games with their way its meant to be played .. they already talk and work with most of the studios..
by btarunr (July 5th - 8:55 PM) - Reply
I've played PhysX based games, and then also Havoc ones...since ages. I've not found 1 thing that makes PhysX stand out. The Alan Wake demo by Remedy at IDF '07 was more than anything I've ever seen in terms of game physics (seen it on YouTube). All they did was run it on a Q6600. CPU does everything. No need to let the video-card slog, let it be a full-time graphics processor.
by Cold Storm (July 5th - 9:07 PM) - Reply
by: btarunr;871286
I've played PhysX based games, and then also Havoc ones...since ages. I've not found 1 thing that makes PhysX stand out. The Alan Wake demo by Remedy at IDF '07 was more than anything I've ever seen in terms of game physics (seen it on YouTube). All they did was run it on a Q6600. CPU does everything. No need to let the video-card slog, let it be a full-time graphics processor.
That will be one the the most beautiful games that will come out, I hope, this year. I was nothing but amazed when I saw that demo. Plus been waiting for more! I believe that game will set big standers in how to build a game. Just hope I'm not disappointed in it...
Post your comment