• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.
  • The forums have been upgraded with support for dark mode. By default it will follow the setting on your system/browser. You may override it by scrolling to the end of the page and clicking the gears icon.

AMD to PhysX: 'Acceptable Under Conditions'

btarunr

Editor & Senior Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
47,860 (7.38/day)
Location
Dublin, Ireland
System Name RBMK-1000
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5700G
Motherboard Gigabyte B550 AORUS Elite V2
Cooling DeepCool Gammax L240 V2
Memory 2x 16GB DDR4-3200
Video Card(s) Galax RTX 4070 Ti EX
Storage Samsung 990 1TB
Display(s) BenQ 1440p 60 Hz 27-inch
Case Corsair Carbide 100R
Audio Device(s) ASUS SupremeFX S1220A
Power Supply Cooler Master MWE Gold 650W
Mouse ASUS ROG Strix Impact
Keyboard Gamdias Hermes E2
Software Windows 11 Pro
Following the NGOHQ episode with devising software that lets users accelerate GPU-based NVIDIA PhysX API on Radeon accelerators, and with NVIDIA coming in support of such an effort, a general opinion was made that NVIDIA sought an industry-wide domination of CUDA as the de-facto general purporse graphics processing (GPGPU) architecture, with putting their investment of acquiring Ageia Technologies to good use by pushing the PhysX API. Although it comes as a good news for AMD that their graphics cards that are already optimized for Havoc physics could now support PhysX acceleration, it's not in the best interests of the company that they allow the growth of CUDA and components based on it to this extent, since AMD has its own FireStream line of products and a GPGPU architecture in the making.

TG Daily spoke with Richard Huddy, Manager of Worldwide Developer Relations, and Godfrey Cheng, Director of Product Marketing, two key individuals with AMD. When it comes to the most interesting question of PhysX implementation on Radeon, Mr. Cheng says that AMD has no problems encouraging the use of feature-enhancing 'middleware', and that they have no arguments in NVIDIA going ahead with propogating their PhysX middleware as long as they don't put Radeon accelerators into a unfair disadvantage.

A clever stand, AMD says it doesn't mind PhysX if it performs the way is should, as long as PhysX isn't used to show performance advantages with NVIDIA products, or to put it coarsely "PhysX works best on GeForce", AMD doesn't have a problem in letting NVIDIA release their middleware that allows Radeon users PhysX. They would rather not allow PhysX at all than to see a "PhysX works best on GeForce" public opinion. Another clever use of words by Cheng was terming PhysX as middleware, portreying it as 'something optional', with clear undertones of downplaying it. In other words, AMD won't fall on its knees begging NVIDIA for PhysX, and there might not be a license of technology that NVIDIA would sell to AMD. So AMD leaves it to the users to install and use middleware from any reliable source, even if it has to be NVIDIA. Pretty nifty for higher 3DMark scores and more accurate 'crate-breaking'.

View at TechPowerUp Main Site
 
Last edited:
Very smart since that "The Way its" stuff makes noob users think nvidia cards will run the game better.
 
Nvidia will not let phyX run better on ati hardware then their own hardware so this is already a fail
 
Nvidia will not let phyX run better on ati hardware then their own hardware so this is already a fail

They dont want better, they basically said to amd

"the same performance or gtfo"
 
Nvidia will not let phyX run better on ati hardware then their own hardware so this is already a fail

AMD already knows that, that's why they said it. Its almost funny how ppl fall for this 'how it should be' BS. We all know its just a ploy.
 
ups :P my eyes must have been half open when read it.
 
wow... acceptable under conditions... of course its gonna run better on Nvidia lol... not because nvidia made it so, but because ATI cant write a driver to save their life.

EDIT: although i do appreciate that they dont disallow it... But how is the "PhysX runs better on Nvidia" part gonna change??? If ATI doesnt support it, then PhysX runs better on Nvidia anyway, since ATI doesnt even have it. The only way they can avoid is if the DO support it, and it runs faster than on Nvidia hardware.
 
Last edited:
My question is when will they add it to Catalyst. You know if it works or not its an awesome gimmick. :shadedshu
 
They won't. It won't be distributed/supported by AMD, AFAIK. They regard it as 'middleware'. Ironically, they care about how this 'middleware' should perform with their products.
 
Why can't Vantage just support Havok so this mess can be laid to rest? Oh well, I just don't bother looking at CPU scores anymore...:ohwell:
 
Why can't Vantage just support Havok so this mess can be laid to rest? Oh well, I just don't bother looking at CPU scores anymore...:ohwell:

Because that would make sence. We know we cant have that happen can we? :rolleyes:
 
quote:wow... acceptable under conditions... of course its gonna run better on Nvidia lol... not because nvidia made it so, but because ATI cant write a driver to save their life.:nutkick: you are so right phanbuey!!!!! one of these days ATI will know how to write drivers for their cards and maybe bye then i may even try one of their cards then:wtf:
but as for now no way!!!!!!!!!!! look good thing is prices are coming down oh yea baby!!!!:D
so great for us....... funny i'm nivida for GPU and AMD for processor :p
 
look at F@H - the nvidia cards are working better than ATI.

Nv cards are going to perform better simply because they seem to work better at these 'general purpose' applications.

As long as nvidia dont CRIPPLE ATI (as in, performance problems are the cards fault and not a deliberate crippling via the software) then this will be great. of course ATI are downplaying it, they've thrown money into their own solutions and would rather not have it go to waste because Nv is playing nice for once.
 
I think ATI is taking the proper stance here. Of course Physx is gonna run better on NV cards. Who would've though that CUDA runs better on the hardware it's coded for?

ATI just doesn't want NV to use it against them in advertising, in exchange for letting it happen.

wow... acceptable under conditions... of course its gonna run better on Nvidia lol... not because nvidia made it so, but because ATI cant write a driver to save their life.

EDIT: although i do appreciate that they dont disallow it... But how is the "PhysX runs better on Nvidia" part gonna change??? If ATI doesnt support it, then PhysX runs better on Nvidia anyway, since ATI doesnt even have it. The only way they can avoid is if the DO support it, and it runs faster than on Nvidia hardware.
How would you know how well ATI codes drivers? In my experience, their drivers are every bit as good as NV's.

quote:wow... acceptable under conditions... of course its gonna run better on Nvidia lol... not because nvidia made it so, but because ATI cant write a driver to save their life.:nutkick: you are so right phanbuey!!!!! one of these days ATI will know how to write drivers for their cards and maybe bye then i may even try one of their cards then:wtf:
but as for now no way!!!!!!!!!!! look good thing is prices are coming down oh yea baby!!!!:D
so great for us....... funny i'm nivida for GPU and AMD for processor :p
Same as above goes for you. And did you just admit to being an AMD/NV fanboy? Yeah, that really validates your opinion. /sarcasm
 
agreed with Wile E

I've never had any issues with any ATI drivers, either official or beta - 100% solid with every single ATI card I've ever owned.


Agreed as well that ATI is making sure nVidia doesn't use PhysX support to cut away at them; we all know PhysX will inherently run better on green hardware, AMD/ATI just doesn't want nVidia pointing and saying "ooO! ooO! PhysX runs better on our hardware than AMD's!!1!!@1!"


Either way, ATI are still ahead, as they've got weight to roll with right now - nVidia needs something to make themselves feel all fuzzy ATM; and if ATI completely blows PhysX off it'll only end up hurting nVidia as they'll have to regain lost ground this time around. It'd be nothing off AMD/ATI's back to decide to stick with Havok alone and watch the market follow them for a change.
 
I've never had any issues with any ATI drivers, either official or beta - 100% solid with every single ATI card I've ever owned.

broken scaling options, the AGP cards not working for a few months with drivers... ATI have their share of screwups, its just that they update so often theres bound to be at least one driver that covers your needs, somewhere.
 
well everyone has their hiccups - the AGP crowd has defi been pwnt by ATi

never heard of any issues with broken scaling . . . are we talking MGPU or single?
 
well everyone has their hiccups - the AGP crowd has defi been pwnt by ATi

never heard of any issues with broken scaling . . . are we talking MGPU or single?

No, he's right. If you have widescreen, no matter what option you set in CCC, it scales 4:3 to the whole screen, instead of letterboxing it.

But it's not like NV doesn't have their share of persistent issues. The playback issues of certain color spaces are a thorn in NV's side, for example.
 
No, he's right. If you have widescreen, no matter what option you set in CCC, it scales 4:3 to the whole screen, instead of letterboxing it.

But it's not like NV doesn't have their share of persistent issues. The playback issues of certain color spaces are a thorn in NV's side, for example.



I hadn't really noticed the image scaling issues, as I run everything in 1440x900; haven't messed with the LCD options at all as I don't enable CCC anymore (thanks to ATT).


Although, I thought he was refering to MGPU setups and performance scaling; as you can't hard set what type of MGPU rendering is used with ATI cards . . .
 
Back
Top