WOuldn't only fanboys buy a closed system of Nvidia video cards in which you need two of them to do any meaningful physx in games ?
See I can throw the fanboy word around also. I'm so cooo l!
even got the cool smiley to prove it.
AMD: "[Developers use PhysX only] because they’re paid to do it"
- Thread starter Richard
- Start date
WOuldn't only fanboys buy a closed system of Nvidia video cards in which you need two of them to do any meaningful physx in games ?
See I can throw the fanboy word around also. I'm so cooo l!
even got the cool smiley to prove it.Wait: nVidia cards are a "closed system" with their PCIe?
The last time i checked the features you can use the cards in any PCIe-16x slot, you can run OpenCL and DC applications and the two main graphics apis. But yeah, it's a "closed system" because you can only use nvidia-only features with a nvidia card...
a)If the chipset supports only 1x, then the 5970 will also be capped at 1x.
b) If it was possible, rest assured INtel would have done it and launched larrrabee.
c)If the chipset unlocks to 16x for amd while throttling intel/nv to 16x, that will be breaking the PCIe spec, while having the sticker. IOW, nv has parts with PCIe 16x stickers, AMD has chipsets with 16x stickers, which is why when you mate one to the other, they have to work together. Please do not think any of PCI-SIG members' lawyers are that big idiots. I do not have access to their contracts, but I can guarantee you that all members swear not to play dirty when you mate to parts with identical stickers. That's what makes these groups work.
SLI is a sw hack, one level over PCIe, so they are free to play dirty there.
Did you think that through? So AMD is going to make chipsets that only work with its graphics cards and graphics cards that only works with its chipsets and in doing so hands the entire desktop PC market over to Nvidia? Nice plan.
PhysX adds value for Nvidia's customers. What value does a proprietary peripheral interface add when it does exactly the same thing that an existing widely adopted standard does?
I must have missed the announcement of industry standards for hardware and software to accelerate physics or to enable multiple gpu rendering. SLI is not a "common use" of anything, it is a proprietary feature of Nvidia hardware and software.
Exactly.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Sure...
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=20991
Last bit down at the bottom there. Eidos was legally prohibited by Nvidia from removing the VendorID lock despite the fact that they wanted to remove it for the good of their customers. That e-mail was also published elsewhere but I don't have time currently to do a proper google search for it.
Also reference various threads about end users removing the VendorID to enable working in game AA on ATI cards which triggers the games DRM preventing the user from saving their games.
Reference also that AMD attempted multiple times to enable in game AA both before and after the games release.
Also various articles mentioning Nvidia's "proprietary" IP protected AA method used in Batman: AA is amazingly similar to standard methods of providing AA for the rendering method used.
Regards,
SB
"Eidos’ legal department" does not equal Nvidia.
"It’s also worth noting here that AMD have made efforts both pre-release and post-release to allow Eidos to enable the in-game antialiasing code - there was no refusal on AMD’s part to enable in game AA IP in a timely manner."
And that is pure bullshit from Mr. Huddy as Eidos is on record as saying They refused to help.
Last edited by a moderator:
After deleting and editing a few posts, I just want to remind you all that we should try to keep things civil here.
After Eidos retracted the Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness patch that included the nvidia embarassing benchmark, I am not inclined to believe a word they say.
This has happened time and time again from members of the TWIMTBP program (DX10.1 support removed, patches retracted, etc.) and yet somehow ATI/AMD is at fault for this?
Open your eyes.
-FUDie
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...Nvidia-responds-to-AMDs-attack-on-Physx/News/
So did PCGH or Nvidia rephrase that claim to something completely different, that it much easier for nvidia to answer? Seems way below PCGH's normal standards, and more like both question and answers were coming from NV PR.
So did PCGH or Nvidia rephrase that claim to something completely different, that it much easier for nvidia to answer? Seems way below PCGH's normal standards, and more like both question and answers were coming from NV PR.
This snippet from the answer to the seconded question could be more true.
"We have been told that some AMD spokespeople talk about PhysX being like 3DFX's GLIDE API - that's even more of inaccuracy analogy, games written for GLIDE simple would not run on any system without a 3DFX card"
The original Unreal and UT games needed over 40 patches just to get OGL and DX to work. If you had 3DFX, yuo had nothing to worry about. ATI, Nvidia, S3, Trident, Intel or whoever, you hoped the next patch would get the game to work right. And they sued CL over the Glide rapper they wrote for the GeForce256 line. It worked great, hell, even worked better than OGL or DX at the time they wrote it.
Keep believing what you are being fed then. It's still crap even if it is ATI feeding it to you.
What's the problem? This comes directly from Huddy: http://www.thinq.co.uk/news/2010/3/8/amd-game-devs-only-use-physx-for-the-cash/
So you deny that Eidos retracted the TRAOD patch? Revisionist history at it's best. This patch was available for download and was benchmarked, then it was removed and future patches didn't include the benchmark. How convenient for nvidia. Let's not forget the Assassin's Creed DX10.1 patch that was scrapped.
It's not ATI shovelling the bull here.
-FUDie
It was AMD which worked together with ubisoft. And it was ubisoft decision to remove the path. Maybe AMD should do a better work with the devs.
http://www.rage3d.com/articles/assassinscreed/index.php?p=5
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, AMD did work with the devs to make the DX10.1 patch, which was never released since the game is a TWIMTBP title:
http://in.nzone.com/object/nzone_twimtbp_gameslist_in.html.
-FUDie
I don't know if this is random blub or a freudian error:
They help only PC developers, but not console developers? Are PC developers less capable? Or are they the only ones with GeForces (thus GPU PhysX)? Do non-PC games have PhysX-halo?
Don't want to read to much into it though ...
It was in the game. But it was not 100% correct. Ubisoft removed the path after they saw the problems with 10.1
It is totally useless to have discussions with some people because they truely want to believe that Nvidia is the devil of GPUs and Intel the devil of CPUs and AMD/ATI the angels over them all.
FrameBuffer
Banned
yes, that is correct,.. the problem being it ran faster on ATI hardware than NV
No, there were rendering problems with the path.