Monday, October 5th 2009

Hack Released to Enable PhysX on Windows 7 with ATI GPU Present

For NVIDIA's PhysX technology, it has been a roller-coaster ride since NVIDIA's acquisition of the technology, and its makers. As much as PhysX quickly became one of the important selling-points of NVIDIA's consumer graphics line GeForce, it also had its small share of controversy, linked to market dynamics more than anything. With the technology's port to the GeForce GPU, enthusiasts fancied having the freedom of choice with a primary GPU that is dedicated to rendering 3D graphics, and a second GPU that is just about powerful to assign as a dedicated PhysX GPU.

Although having a powerful ATI Radeon GPU aided by a less-powerful NVIDIA GeForce GPU for PhysX was possible on Windows XP, the succeeding Windows Vista restricted this, by making sure two active display drivers couldn't coexist. Windows 7 removed this restriction, but before you could rejoice, NVIDIA quickly released a driver-level code with its 186 series drivers, that disables NVIDIA PhysX altogether when a GPU from another vendor is coexisting and enabled, even an IGP for that matter. If that wasn't bizarre enough, with the latest drivers, you can't even pair an Ageia PhysX PPU card with an ATI Radeon GPU going about its business. To the rescue comes a soft-modder's nifty bit of software that overrides this restriction from NVIDIA's drivers, so you can use dedicated GeForce PhysX cards on machines with ATI Radeon primary GPUs again. The corrective driver patch comes from tech portal NGOHQ.com community member GenL.

The patch, which you can download here, has been successful so far going by community members' feedback. It lays to rest any argument NVIDIA would like to make about how using dedicated PhysX cards with primary GPUs of your choice (which happen to be an ATI Radeon) would be the end of the world, other than of course, market-dynamics.

Speaking of which, here's NVIDIA's statement on why dedicated PhysX accelerators ought not to work with GPUs from other vendors: "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."Source: NGOHQ
Add your own comment

111 Comments on Hack Released to Enable PhysX on Windows 7 with ATI GPU Present

#1
inferKNOX
pr0n Inspector said:
OpenCL is open. OpenGL is open. Nothing with DirectX in its name is open. ATI has a closer relationship with Microsoft on the DirectX matters. And nVidia happens to have a history of providing great OpenGL support.
What the frak is wrong with people's memories these days?
you're right in that DX isn't open, but even though nV gave better OpenGL support, the standard is dogged by indecision because of an excessive number of parties wanting their way. DX is just there because it overthrew OpenGL due to the indecision problems I mentioned, so it's unavoidable as long as Windows is the gaming platform.
Now OpenCL is better because it's not being weighed down by too bureaucracy and is open. It can "win", lol.
Posted on Reply
#2
mdm-adph
Wile E said:
Why the hell would they want to open source their code? I sure as hell wouldn't. I'd make it free to use maybe, but not give away the source. That's asking too much.
Why the hell would they want to? If you have to ask, you'll never know. :shadedshu
Posted on Reply
#3
TheMailMan78
Big Member
mdm-adph said:
Why the hell would they want to? If you have to ask, you'll never know. :shadedshu
Please don't start with your commie crap man.
Posted on Reply
#4
Wile E
Power User
mdm-adph said:
Why the hell would they want to? If you have to ask, you'll never know. :shadedshu
There is absolutely no good reason for them to open source it. It's more profitable for them not to. And lets face it, business is about making a profit. Not to mention, there's less headaches when certain people want to create a branch, so you have a million different forks and incompatible versions, or the community takes so long to decide on a uniform change that progress moves at a snail's pace, and some other standard overtakes it, ala OpenGL.

Nope, open source is entirely too overrated in many situations. Closed but free to use is perfectly fine if it gets the job done.
Posted on Reply
#5
Woody112
Wile E said:
There is absolutely no good reason for them to open source it. It's more profitable for them not to. And lets face it, business is about making a profit. Not to mention, there's less headaches when certain people want to create a branch, so you have a million different forks and incompatible versions, or the community takes so long to decide on a uniform change that progress moves at a snail's pace, and some other standard overtakes it, ala OpenGL.

Nope, open source is entirely too overrated in many situations. Closed but free to use is perfectly fine if it gets the job done.
I agree with you on this about 90% Technology is past the the idea of mainstreaming a new breakthrough that would generate a profit. But it's crap like this that stifles the development of those who are trying to make a new break through. I don't really know how to put what I'm thinking down right now but simply I'm saying that if a company is going to bogart a technology that could further advance, well technology then their should be laws in place to that give them full rights to it but also give others access to it without having to pay huge sums of royalties to use the code, hardware or software. It's this kind of crap that slows down the advancement of everything and then the world is stuck for years trying to do a work around to it so that it can become mainstream. It's just that every time a company does this sort of thing over greed aka "large profit". It hinders the advancement of developing the next great thing and so on. So what we could have achieved in 5 years now takes us 20 years. The way this system is set up in all honesty need to be looked at. Hope this made some kind of since, I'm a little drunk right now, just got back from a the pirate festival in Savannah GA. Ha ha good time.
Posted on Reply
#6
Wile E
Power User
Woody112 said:
I agree with you on this about 90% Technology is past the the idea of mainstreaming a new breakthrough that would generate a profit. But it's crap like this that stifles the development of those who are trying to make a new break through. I don't really know how to put what I'm thinking down right now but simply I'm saying that if a company is going to bogart a technology that could further advance, well technology then their should be laws in place to that give them full rights to it but also give others access to it without having to pay huge sums of royalties to use the code, hardware or software. It's this kind of crap that slows down the advancement of everything and then the world is stuck for years trying to do a work around to it so that it can become mainstream. It's just that every time a company does this sort of thing over greed aka "large profit". It hinders the advancement of developing the next great thing and so on. So what we could have achieved in 5 years now takes us 20 years. The way this system is set up in all honesty need to be looked at. Hope this made some kind of since, I'm a little drunk right now, just got back from a the pirate festival in Savannah GA. Ha ha good time.
Oh, I agree with you. I was speaking in very general terms. What nV is doing in this particular case is total bullshit. I just don't think that open sourcing the code is the answer.
Posted on Reply
#7
Woody112
Wile E said:
Oh, I agree with you. I was speaking in very general terms. What nV is doing in this particular case is total bullshit. I just don't think that open sourcing the code is the answer.
AH I got ya now, Ya I agree with ya to a T when it come to open soursing. Open sourcing is definitely not the answer. But the source should be reasonably available by some avenue at least. Like you said in general terms. Were on the same page, wasn't sure I fully understood were you were trying to come from on that post is all:toast:
Posted on Reply
#8
inferKNOX
Maybe if they found a way to open-source it without giving up rights? Maybe to create a sort of agreement where anyone can work on the source, but it can only be implemented if the owner of the rights agrees to the change?
I think that would be somewhat more appropriate (just a suggestion though).
Posted on Reply
#10
Wrigleyvillain
PTFO or GTFO
So what's the latest with this? Any personal experiences?
Posted on Reply
#11
AphexDreamer
Don't mean to intrude but what ever happend to Physx on ATI cards? Was it a fake after all...
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment