Details on Nvidia PhysX - please read

[air_ii]

Originally Posted by newtekie1

Legally, at least in the US and likely the EU, nVidia could not do that. If they agree that it is free to develope in the beginning, they can't legally "change your mind" once it is popular and in use by other companies. The trade courts would rip nVidia a new asshole bigger than the one they ripped Microsoft.

I wasn't talking about such situation. I was rather refering to extensions, new features, new versions that would not fall under the scope of free licensing anymore, but would become vital due to CUDA's dominant position. I don't know if they couldn't do that...

[Wile E]

Originally Posted by Mussels

PhysX is a closed, proprietary system. ATI just cant use it without paying tons of money... and who would, with how few games support it?

ATI have their own engine (Bullet Physics or something, it was in the news) which will work on ATI and nvidia - meaning that game devs will actually use it for something other than useless debris.



as for the comments on it working on ATI: Remember two things. One, if ATI supported it, every game with it would have Nvidia branding. Two, Nvidia would NOT have allowed it for free - ATI would have had to pay for every video card that had the physX support, as well as every box that had the logo on it.

nVidia offered ATI to use it for free. They even offered help coding for it.

Newtekie covered this, so I don't really need to get into the details.

As for the argument that nVidia cripples ATI performance in TWIMTBP titles (specifically Batman AA), that is total and utter bullshit. ATI would have their asses in court for anti-competitive practices already if it were even remotely true. I mean, just give it a little thought. It's common sense.

Optimizing the game for their hardware is not the same as crippling ATI.

Now, as for the Batman issue mentioned in this thread: The AA in Batman was completely broken on ATI when it released, even if you spoofed the game into enabling it on an ATI card, it didn't render the AA properly. NV took the time to help them code a completely custom AA for an engine that has no native AA, why would they then then ATI have it, when ATI put forth no effort in making it happen? EVen if it wan't broken on ATI hardware, blocking ATI hardware for that feature in that game was fully legit. If ATI wanted to have it, they should've offered help to the dev as well.

To be perfectly honest with you Mussels, this isn't an informative thread at all, it's a thread that serves no purpose but to bash a product. At least that's the way it comes across in it's current wording.

[HalfAHertz]

Um from my understanding proprietary rights means exactly that - Nvidia has complete control over it. They may charge for it later on and they may prohibit access to the core code to anyone they desire.

[TheMailMan78]

Originally Posted by Wile E

nVidia offered ATI to use it for free. They even offered help coding for it.

Newtekie covered this, so I don't really need to get into the details.

As for the argument that nVidia cripples ATI performance in TWIMTBP titles (specifically Batman AA), that is total and utter bullshit. ATI would have their asses in court for anti-competitive practices already if it were even remotely true. I mean, just give it a little thought. It's common sense.

Optimizing the game for their hardware is not the same as crippling ATI.

Now, as for the Batman issue mentioned in this thread: The AA in Batman was completely broken on ATI when it released, even if you spoofed the game into enabling it on an ATI card, it didn't render the AA properly. NV took the time to help them code a completely custom AA for an engine that has no native AA, why would they then then ATI have it, when ATI put forth no effort in making it happen? EVen if it wan't broken on ATI hardware, blocking ATI hardware for that feature in that game was fully legit. If ATI wanted to have it, they should've offered help to the dev as well.

To be perfectly honest with you Mussels, this isn't an informative thread at all, it's a thread that serves no purpose but to bash a product. At least that's the way it comes across in it's current wording.

Well I didn't know that so few games supported hardware acceleration. I was under the impression all Physx supported games used hardware acceleration. Hell I was shopping for a 9800 to improve on these said games. Mussels just saved me some money.

[bobzilla2009]

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

Well I didn't know that so few games supported hardware acceleration. I was under the impression all Physx supported games used hardware acceleration. Hell I was shopping for a 9800 to improve on these said games. Mussels just saved me some money.

indeed, better to get a hd5770 or something when directcompute becomes popular

[Mr McC]

I couldn't agree more with the original post. In summary, PhysX, as it stands, is a gimmick employed on a very limited number of games (16), with little or no future as it is not a open standard, whilst sucking up resources on the graphics card that may have an adverse effect on fps, all to produce effects that could easily be assigned to inactive or lowly taxed cpu cores.

However, I would like someone to explain to me why every single review of an ATI card on this site includes a negative point in the conclusion for failure to support PhysX. Are the 16 titles that employ PhysX essential titles in any gamer’s library? Does Nvidia pay or otherwise coerce or persuade the site to include this point? I feel that the credibility of the site suffers when a forum moderator points out, and in my humble opinion correctly, that PhysX is not worth consideration and yet the main site actively criticises ATI hardware for its failure to implement this Nvidia proprietary technology at every available opportunity.

Certainly this post could be construed as inflammatory; however, I feel that in light of the original post, some explanation should be forthcoming to, at the very least, explain this glaring inconsistency.

[HalfAHertz]

Originally Posted by Mr McC

I couldn't agree more with the original post. In summary, PhysX, as it stands, is a gimmick employed on a very limited number of games (16), with little or no future as it is not a open standard, whilst sucking up resources on the graphics card that may have an adverse effect on fps, all to produce effects that could easily be assigned to inactive or lowly taxed cpu cores.

However, I would like someone to explain to me why every single review of an ATI card on this site includes a negative point in the conclusion for failure to support PhysX. Are the 16 titles that employ PhysX essential titles in any gamer’s library? Does Nvidia pay or otherwise coerce or persuade the site to include this point? I feel that the credibility of the site suffers when a forum moderator points out, and in my humble opinion correctly, that PhysX is not worth consideration and yet the main site actively criticises ATI hardware for its failure to implement this Nvidia proprietary technology at every available opportunity.

Certainly this post could be construed as inflammatory; however, I feel that in light of the original post, some explanation should be forthcoming to, at the very least, explain this glaring inconsistency.

Because Physx is right here right now. If somebody bothers to add it, it is indeed a nice feature just like like AA or AF is a nice feature - it is not essential for enjoying the game and it decreases fps, but it makes things look better, which is and has always been the main driving force behind new hardware - getting better GFX.

Unlike Ati who have had countless press releases about Havoc, Bulet or w/e GPU accelerated physics being the next big thing after sliced bread, Nvidia have actually delivered, even if in only 15 titles. Don't get me wrong, I hate closed standards as much as the next guy but it's nice to have at least one option if everything else fails. It's something like hydrogen cars now. They exist but are not widely implemented because they would be commercial failures due to high costs, but who knows some time in the future they might become a viable solution...

Edit: Just the other day I was doing a research on commercial GPU accelerated renderers. Ati currently have none, while Nvidia promotes no less than 3 for both biased and unbiased paths...guess what the next hardware refresh will be unless things don't change.

[Mr McC]

Originally Posted by HalfAHertz

Because Physx is right here right now. If somebody bothers to add it, it is indeed a nice feature just like like AA or AF is a nice feature - it is not essential for enjoying the game and it decreases fps, but it makes things look better, which is and has always been the main driving force behind new hardware - getting better GFX.

Unlike Ati who have had countless press releases about Havoc, Bulet or w/e GPU accelerated physics being the next big thing after sliced bread, Nvidia have actually delivered, even if in only 15 titles. They shouldn't be bashed for promoting it, instead they should be encouraged to release it under GPL/FOSS so that adoption could be sped up.

I strongly disagree. Physics acceleration should be an open standard. If we support the solution of a particular company, Nvidia in this case, or applaud advances made in this regard, we are helping to bring about a situation that will not benefit consumers, in fact, quite the contrary. I do not want to have to ask if a game is an ATI or an Nvidia game before I purchase. Take the Batman debacle: some people say that Nvidia paid for the development, whereby the ATI AA lock out is justified. I cannot comment on that, but what I can say is that Eidos should never have provided Nvidia with the opportunity of taking charge of this area of the game. Obviously this saved them development costs, but how many sales did it lose them because ATI owners eschewed what in their eyes was a game deliberately crippled for their system? If ATI takes this approach, and you seem to suggest that ATI should take a similar approach, we arrive at the aforementioned situation of having to ask whether a game is an "ATI game" or an "Nvidia game" prior to purchase. I think we have enough problems without that sort of bullshit.

Moreover, Nvidia seems to be their own worst enemy when it comes to PhysX: if you want universal support, why disable or hinder a supplementary PhysX card when an ATI card is detected. I am not aware of what percentage of gamers use an ATI 48xx/58xx, but it appears that sales have been good. Nvidia have alienated a large portion of the gaming community with this idea and have probably lost a considerable number of sales to users who just had to have PhysX in those 16 essential titles.

Should ATI do more to further physics acceleration? Undoubtedy, but as an open standard. I am neither in favour of ATI or Nvidia, but I would be glad to see PhysX die off and be replaced by cpu physics acceleration. After all, all those wasted cores in our latest and greatest rigs might as well be put to some use when we play the most recent console port, don't you think?

[Mussels]

Originally Posted by Mr McC

Moreover, Nvidia seems to be their own worst enemy when it comes to PhysX: if you want universal support, why disable or hinder a supplementary PhysX card when an ATI card is detected. I am not aware of what percentage of gamers use an ATI 48xx/58xx, but it appears that sales have been good. Nvidia have alienated a large portion of the gaming community with this idea and have probably lost a considerable number of sales to users who just had to have PhysX in those 16 essential titles.

ATI 4800 series is the most popular GPU in gamers systems at this moment in time

[Mr McC]

So, in broad terms, we have more or less a third of the gaming community, who may possibly have bought a supplementary PhysX card, who are either locked out or reduced to using hacks with outdated drivers that may cause headaches in other areas, to play a total of 16 games with added smoke swirls and yet, we should support PhysX and applaud Nvidia? Do they know how to do business? Clearly they had a lot of people convinced that they were on to a good thing with PhysX.

If we isolate the numbers to the most popular card at the moment, your figures suggest that there are more users of ATI 4800 series. I guess Nvidia doesn't want to sell them any products as they have clearly let them know that they will punish all traitors to the cause.

Thank you for writing a post that cuts through the crap and tells it like it is.

[newtekie1]

Originally Posted by air_ii

I wasn't talking about such situation. I was rather refering to extensions, new features, new versions that would not fall under the scope of free licensing anymore, but would become vital due to CUDA's dominant position. I don't know if they couldn't do that...

Again, legally nVidia can not do this either. Once they have offered CUDA as a free developement tool that any hardware, CPU or GPU, can support they can not legally change that later. They can change it so any new hardware company coming in would have to pay licencing fees, but the hardware companies already supporting it would not have to pay these fees.

[Bjorn_Of_Iceland]

I really wanted to see.. a physics scene where calculation is done through CPU vs GPU (shared) vs dedicated GPU.. a scene where the amount of objects are equal in all of the render.. see if there is any framerate difference.

[kid41212003]

Originally Posted by Mussels

http://img.techpowerup.org/100412/552.jpg

http://img.techpowerup.org/100412/607.jpg


ATI 4800 series is the most popular GPU in gamers systems at this moment in time

That's quite mis-leading, combining all the DX10 NVIDIA GPUs and....

[newtekie1]

Originally Posted by Bjorn_Of_Iceland

I really wanted to see.. a physics scene where calculation is done through CPU vs GPU (shared) vs dedicated GPU.. a scene where the amount of objects are equal in all of the render.. see if there is any framerate difference.

I swear someone did this back when Ageia was first hitting the market. Well it was a comparison of PhysX in GRAW or CellFactor running on the CPU and running on the Ageia PPU. When it ran on the CPU the framerate was a slideshow, when it ran on the PPU it was smooth.

But the result is going to vary from physics engine to physics engine, it all depends on how the engine was optimized to run.

[Mr McC]

Originally Posted by kid41212003

That's quite mis-leading, combining all the DX10 NVIDIA GPUs and....

Let's not go down the road of disputing figures. How about we simply accept that there are considerable numbers of gamers who use ATI cards. Is it a good decision to lock out these potential consumers? Is it a good idea to hinder the attempts of someone who owns cards by both brands when they want to implement PhysX? This "my way or the highway" approach is neither good for consumers or likely to further the implementation of PhysX; however, as I explained above, I'm quite happy about that.

[HalfAHertz]

Originally Posted by Mr McC

So, in broad terms, we have more or less a third of the gaming community, who may possibly have bought a supplementary PhysX card, who are either locked out or reduced to using hacks with outdated drivers that may cause headaches in other areas, to play a total of 16 games with added smoke swirls and yet, we should support PhysX and applaud Nvidia? Do they know how to do business? Clearly they had a lot of people convinced that they were on to a good thing with PhysX.

Not one person has said that we should start applauding Nvidia, nor that you should go out and buy their product just because of Phisx. Don't bend the truth.

Physx is only a nice bonus. It is just an extra option, just like having x16 AA instead of x8 AA. It is and will continue to be the icing on top of the green cake. Now if you don't like the green icing, you can always have your cake without it.

[Mr McC]

Originally Posted by HalfAHertz

Not one person has said that we should start applauding Nvidia, nor that you should go out and buy their product just because of Phisx. Don't bend the truth.

Physx is only a nice bonus. It is just an extra option, just like having x16 AA instead of x8 AA. It is and will continue to be the icing on top of the green cake. Now if you don't like the green icing, you can always have your cake without it.

Stating that PhysX is the icing is tantamount to applauding its implementation, unless you don't have a sweet tooth and dislike pastry.

"Bonus" also appears to be pretty positive to me as is "nice", perhaps we understand language differently?

If we are both stating that physics acceleration is the way forward, then we agree. If you continue to state that PhysX is a step forward, we do not. Then again, that's no big deal, we can agree to disagree.

[kid41212003]

I accepted the facts, that:

~8% of Steam users own a HD4800 series card.
~8% still using 8800 series, which is an older series compare to HD4800 series.

If we combine 8800, 9800 and GTX260, that's 18% of cards that capable of PhysX with playable framerate (not included cards of that screenshot).

And overall 61% are using NVIDIA cards.

And the fact that this does not include people not from Steam.

NVIDIA did not lock out customers, because ATI users still can play games that have PhysX.

[Mr McC]

Originally Posted by kid41212003

I accepted the facts, that:
NVIDIA did not lock out customers, because ATI users still can play games that have PhysX.

True, but Nvidia has forced them to jump through too many hoops and there are reports of compatibilty issues in other areas due to the fact that a hack has to be implemented and older Nvidia drivers have to be used. At least concede that Nvidia has done everthing in their power to ensure that ATI users do not use Nvidia cards in conjunction with their hardware.

Moreover, the developers should not allow Nvidia to implement areas that ought to be open standards or essential components of the game (i.e. in-game AA). I am not sure who is to "blame" for this, but as the number fo ATI users grows, the developers cannot fail to acknowledge that it may not be in their interests to continue to produce TWIMTBP games.

[Mussels]

Originally Posted by newtekie1

Again, legally nVidia can not do this either. Once they have offered CUDA as a free developement tool that any hardware, CPU or GPU, can support they can not legally change that later. They can change it so any new hardware company coming in would have to pay licencing fees, but the hardware companies already supporting it would not have to pay these fees.

however, what if they have things such as "you cant put the physX logo on your hardware boxes without paying us."

PhysX is free, the logos are not - people dont buy a video card for physX if its not on the box - what looks free and happy on the surface, is really just a marketing ploy.

Originally Posted by Bjorn_Of_Iceland

I really wanted to see.. a physics scene where calculation is done through CPU vs GPU (shared) vs dedicated GPU.. a scene where the amount of objects are equal in all of the render.. see if there is any framerate difference.

they did that. multithreaded CPU's are faster than physX via cuda.

Originally Posted by kid41212003

I accepted the facts, that:

~8% of Steam users own a HD4800 series card.
~8% still using 8800 series, which is an older series compare to HD4800 series.

If we combine 8800, 9800 and GTX260, that's 18% of cards that capable of PhysX with playable framerate (not included cards of that screenshot).

And overall 61% are using NVIDIA cards.

And the fact that this does not include people not from Steam.

we're not arguing that theres a good percentage of users that can use physX - i was just showing the numbers. ATi 4K cards are the most popular individual cards atm (and remember that the nvidia cards are lumped together too - 8800 series counts 8800GT, GTX, GS, GTS (G80 and G92 variants) whereas the ATI version is just four cards - 4830, 50, 70 and 90.

looking at it in its simplest terms: only 20% or so of those people have an nvidia card powerful enough to run PhysX (since it slows down 90% of the 15 games its in, when enabling it). thats still 80% of the market who cant USE this feature, and a large percentage of those are ATI users.

nvidia doomed physX when it locked out ATI users with nvidia/Ageia cards, becuase it did the one thing you should never do: cut your marketshare down.

[Mr McC]

Originally Posted by Mussels

nvidia doomed physX when it locked out ATI users with nvidia/Ageia cards, becuase it did the one thing you should never do: cut your marketshare down.

That's exactly what I have been trying to say.

[newtekie1]

Originally Posted by Mussels

however, what if they have things such as "you cant put the physX logo on your hardware boxes without paying us."

PhysX is free, the logos are not - people dont buy a video card for physX if its not on the box - what looks free and happy on the surface, is really just a marketing ploy.

Yes, there are a lot of "what ifs" that we won't know because the deal was never given a chance.

However, I don't really see how a logo on a box would matter, or why nVidia would push to get ATi to support the standard only to then limit market availability. That kind of seems backwards doesn't it?

[kid41212003]

I believe if you use PhysX in your games that have a sale price over $15, you will have to contact NVIDIA, so that they can put their logo on the box. It's still no charge.

[Mr McC]

Originally Posted by newtekie1

Yes, there are a lot of "what ifs" that we won't know because the deal was never given a chance.

However, I don't really see how a logo on a box would matter, or why nVidia would push to get ATi to support the standard only to then limit market availability. That kind of seems backwards doesn't it?

Isn't the lock out backwards to begin with? Do you think the "my way or the highway" approach is likely to build ATI's willingness or desire to support PhysX?

[Mussels]

Originally Posted by newtekie1

Yes, there are a lot of "what ifs" that we won't know because the deal was never given a chance.

However, I don't really see how a logo on a box would matter, or why nVidia would push to get ATi to support the standard only to then limit market availability. That kind of seems backwards doesn't it?

let me put it this way: do you really think nvidia would allow the following for free, given a choice:

Their logos on ATI hardware boxes
ATI support/branding on games
driver/tech support to help them code cuda to work on STREAM
test games before release to make them work on ATI cards

Originally Posted by kid41212003

I believe if you use PhysX in your games that have a sale price over $15, you will have to contact NVIDIA, so that they can put their logo on the box. It's still no charge.

imagine how ATI get sued for putting a physX logo on a 5870 box, if nvidia didnt get royalties. free to use the software, is not the same as 'free to sell hardware advertising it to work with our stuff'