• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

NVIDIA Shuns Lucid Hydra

theubersmurf said:
the eye in the nvidia logo is an "I" invidia means envy in latin.
Click to expand...

Thats the only reason I saw ill will, I dont quite see what they would be envious of, I read into that - jealousy.

anyway I'm over it and yeah its settled.
 
I more thought of being a compliment if anything, people are envious of them.

Not the other way round.

( Not that I am, I prefer ATI due to lower cost)
 
theubersmurf said:
No it isn't, licensing from their competitors is not the same as blocking a non-party specific piece of hardware. Lucid does own their chip, but neither AMD nor invidia are forced to license directly from one another.
Click to expand...

Eh??? Hello??? AMD blocked a third party programmer from making PhysX possible in AMD cards. Hydra is not a standalone piece of hardware that can work on its own, it depends on GPUs to be of any use, so yes, they have to colaborate as much as AMD/Nvidia feels they have to. If not anyone of them can directly block them from using/modifying their hardware.

AND all this is if Nvidia is really bloking anything at all, because all I have seen about the issue so far comes from Lucid themselves. It could be just someone in Lucid being pissed off and /or having hallucinations because the only MB using their piece of hardware has been delayed.
 
What a HUGE STRATEGIC FAUX-PAS by nVidia. At a time when they are the underdogs, they could have got into bed with Lucid Hydra and done something interesting. Given that AMD/ATI are doing so well, to be able to sell an nV card into an existing AMD setup would have been a real seller. If Lucid Hydra is so "clever", they could have also produced CHEAP monitor-output-less CUDA cards that work great with Lucid Hydra to give SLI performance. Making SLI much cheaper than crossfire.

What a missed opportunity.

I dont have a classical education, or the "vidia" would be easy to explain with all the Latin grammar forms:

"Veni, vidi, vici" (I hope you ALL know what that means) comes from the three Latin verbs "venire", "videre", and "vincere". If you are good with grammar, you can start conjugaing here: http://www.fact-archive.com/dictionary/Videre
 
Benetanegia said:
Eh??? Hello??? AMD blocked a third party programmer from making PhysX possible in AMD cards. Hydra is not a standalone piece of hardware that can work on its own, it depends on GPUs to be of any use, so yes, they have to colaborate as much as AMD/Nvidia feels they have to. If not anyone of them can directly block them from using/modifying their hardware.

AND all this is if Nvidia is really bloking anything at all, because all I have seen about the issue so far comes from Lucid themselves. It could be just someone in Lucid being pissed off and /or having hallucinations because the only MB using their piece of hardware has been delayed.
Click to expand...
I don't think AMD is saintly, if that's what you're saying. A third party programmer? I'm not sure they'd want a third party implementing that, even if it's good for the consumer, it steps on proprietary toes to allow it, and could cause problems for them, and if they embrace it, they'll have to pay licensing fees for it...And likely, if they wanted an implementation of it, they'd want their own, in house implementation.
 
Infinity Ward = nVidia = Satan
 
Shouldn't that be IW + nVIDIA = fail?

Satan kicks ass!
 
Please tell me were not back to the age old want of Nvidia to fail and die, let us all remember how fail the gfx card market would be as a monopoly.

Infinity ward have taken a step towards dumbery tho imo, anyway I'm getting waaaaay off topic :laugh:
 
what u can expect from a company that their main color is Green :p

seriously talking, this is anti-competitive play. it should be illegal. :shadedshu nvidia
 
when our lawyers combine, we form: marketing failure!
 
wolf said:
Please tell me were not back to the age old want of Nvidia to fail and die, let us all remember how fail the gfx card market would be as a monopoly.

Infinity ward have taken a step towards dumbery tho imo, anyway I'm getting waaaaay off topic :laugh:
Click to expand...

We are getting way off topic. Back to it.
 
theubersmurf said:
I don't think AMD is saintly, if that's what you're saying. A third party programmer? I'm not sure they'd want a third party implementing that, even if it's good for the consumer, it steps on proprietary toes to allow it, and could cause problems for them, and if they embrace it, they'll have to pay licensing fees for it...And likely, if they wanted an implementation of it, they'd want their own, in house implementation.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not calling for AMD's santity, I'm just showing a predecent. Read what you just said, because you just explained why Nvidia wouldn't want their cards to be used under Hydra. Apparently you are all forgetting that it's the GPU what does all the work, Hydra is just a mod, an interface between the system and the GPU that modifies how the GPU works. As for Nvidia, Hydra was going to use their hardware, so it's their call not to allow the use of their product on manners they don't have any control over. The problems that could arise with new GPUs, before Hydra made them work well are very real and I doubt Lucid would be able to fix such problems easily and fast.

I'm not saying I agree with that decission (if it has happened at all), because I don't agree actually, but Nvidia has many reasons to not allow something like Hydra in the way that Lucid is probably doing it and profit is only one of them.

PD: AMD didn't have to pay licensing fees for PhysX it's absolutely free. In the future, maybe, Nvidia could decide to charge, but so can Lucid if it becomes widely used.
 
Last edited:
Benetanegia said:
No, I'm not calling for AMD's santity, I'm just showing a predecent. Read what you just said, because you just explained why Nvidia wouldn't want their cards to be used under Hydra. Apparently you are all forgetting that it's the GPU what does all the work, Hydra is just a mod, an interface between the system and the GPU that modifies how the GPU works. As for Nvidia, Hydra was going to use their hardware, so it's their call not to allow the use of their product on manners they don't have any control over. The problems that could arise with new GPUs, before Hydra made them work well are very real and I doubt Lucid would be able to fix such problems easily and fast.

I'm not saying I agree with that decission (if it has happened at all), because I don't agree actually, but Nvidia has many reasons to not allow something like Hydra in the way that Lucid is probably doing it and profit is only one of them.

PD: AMD didn't have to pay licensing fees for PhysX it's absolutely free. In the future, maybe, Nvidia could decide to charge, but so can Lucid if it becomes widely used.
Click to expand...

multiple gpu systems are not a proprietary item, SLI and Crossfire are. Both are able to implement multi-gpu systems, because the idea of multiple gpus isn't patentable. Besides which, it's a hardware implementation, not a software implementation like the one I discussed. using code to implement physx on an ATI card is completely different. Lucids chip doesn't inhibit any functionality of invidia's cards. At least at this point it doesn't, and prior to any documentation from a third party saying otherwise the idea that they mess with the functionality, I'm going to presume it doesn't. And doesn't step on proprietary toes either, because they can't own the idea of multiple gpu systems.

If someone can come up with a more general purpose method of implementing it, that's all fine and good. And it's not their call, it's the consumers call, if they choose to buy it, it's their right to do so. it doesn't change the way the gpu works, it changes the calls a given gpu gets calls from the cpu.

Where do you get the idea that AMD wouldn't have to pay licensing fees for the use of physx? I recall invidia saying they would allow it to be implemented on AMD cards, but the idea that physx being available free of charge sounds ludicrous.

Arrgh.
 
Last edited:
newtekie1 said:
PhysX I understand where you are coming from, even though I also understand where nVidia is coming from in that it was ATi's fault for not allowing PhysX to run natively on it's hardware. But SLi? You're kidding right?
Click to expand...
For some wird reason you believe it is ATi's fault. :shadedshu
nVidia is the one that shuts down GPU Physx when an ATi GPU is used in the same system.
I bet its ATi that commands nV to change their drivers right? :respect:
What this really shows that is nVidia have always wanted to keep Physx to themselves.
We might never know why ATi decline to allow Physx on their hardware, but nV most liekly demands a royality and we don't know if its reasonable at all.
 
Last edited:
Well, ATi didn't accept nVIDIA's request (for free too) to allow PhysX to be implemented in the Radeon series.
 
Cheeseball said:
Well, ATi didn't accept nVIDIA's request (for free too) to allow PhysX to be implemented in the Radeon series.
Click to expand...
Are you sure that nvidia offered it for free without any conditions?
I will like to see an offical document of that kind.
 
As I remember it Nvidia did make that offer and got a big NO from ATi/AMD at the time, it's now only many months later than Nvidia have made the decision to shut down physx when ATi cards are doing the rendering.

the whole thing is one biiiiiiiig prick waving dick fight over technologies they either don't want to share, or are each too stubborn to accept they were beaten to. (at least I think Nvidia were the first to do on GPU physics?)
 
Nvidia offered PhysX for free to AMD. The reason for that is simple, they needed it to be widely used. AMD refused for a simple reason, at the time they were nowhere near close to be competitive on that front, they still aren't in reality, but they are closer at least in the general perception.

Zubasa said:
Are you sure that nvidia offered it for free without any conditions?
I will like to see an offical document of that kind.
Click to expand...

YES.

theubersmurf said:
Lucids chip doesn't inhibit any functionality of invidia's cards. At least at this point it doesn't, and prior to any documentation from a third party saying otherwise the idea that they mess with the functionality, I'm going to presume it doesn't.
Click to expand...

It does inhibit some "functionality", by running in the GPU different code than the one that the game would, than the one that cards are optimized to run. Nvidia and Ati have been using game specific optimizations for ages, Hydra bypasses those optimizations because it changes the DX calls being sent to the GPU, it splits them into smaller more multi-GPU freindly calls and them mixes the results up to form the complete image. At least that's what they have described their chip as doing.
 
Benetanegia said:
It does inhibit some "functionality", by running in the GPU different code than the one that the game would, than the one that cards are optimized to run. Nvidia and Ati have been using game specific optimizations for ages, Hydra bypasses those optimizations because it changes the DX calls being sent to the GPU, it splits them into smaller more multi-GPU freindly calls and them mixes the results up to form the complete image. At least that's what they have described their chip as doing.
Click to expand...

We'll see...when and if there are ever third party benches for these items, and the nda's truly get lifted.
 
I understand the whole PhysX deal, they paid money for that company, they dont have to share that for free.
I know I would have done the same, I do belive they offered to help ATI with it, but they said no, so they got what they deserve IMO.

Now as for Hydra sounds cool, I hope it works, maybe Lucid needs to have a talk with NV and ATI/AMD and say hey we can play together and all make some money on this deal.

Most times stuff like Hydra will end up getting bought out by NV/AMD/Intel, thats what alot of them want any way.
I can see NV buying this simple to put a stop to it, if the whole driver deal goes south.
I think the real winner would be for Intel to buy it, that way you can run any card on their board.
 
As much as I hate Nvidia for doing this I don't blame them. They invested a lot of money into their own developments. Why allow the competition benefit from your hard work? Also lets not start screaming "anti-trust" just because we don't agree with something. This is nowhere near anti-trust yet. Nvidia holds the majority of the market but no where near enough to be a monopoly.

Speaking of which whatever happen to the ATI/Nvidia "price fixing" thing a few years ago?
 
Nevermind. I found it.......

Nvidia / ATI Price Fixing Case Gets $1.7M Settlement

In light of the class action lawsuit that accused hardware makers Nvidia and ATI of fixing prices to keep video card prices artificially high, Nvidia proposed a $1.7M settlement.
The settlement, which is pending court approval and would resolve all claims against Nvidia, would see that $1.7 million sum split amongst those that bought hardware directly from ATI or Nvidia websites between December 4, 2002 and November 7, 2007.

Of the $1.7 million, Nvidia has offered to pay $850,000 of the figure. It is assumed that ATI would pay the remaining sum, thought the company has yet to confirm this. After that payment, Nvidia will not need to provide any other compensation, such as legal fees.

Nvidia also announced that it has settled a related price fixing case filed by individuals who bought Nvidia hardware from non-direct vendors. Under the agreement, those individuals will receive a total of $112,500 in exchange for dropping all charges.

However, that $112,500 will only go out to those who filed suit on their own, as the court denied a request classify the indirect purchase case as a class-action lawsuit, which would have encompassed anyone who purchased hardware from a non-direct vendor during the allotted time frame.
Click to expand...
Source
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top