When I bought my ATI card a year ago, and hardware physics was still only really being used for tech demos. Physx has made it into... a few... games now, but hardware physics isn't going to be really BIG until ATI/Nvidia come up with something that can run on all hardware. Which would mean they would have to... cooperate..
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Dishonest PhysX comparisons
- Thread starter PrincessFrosty
- Start date
Some of you guys really know this Physics stuff, if anyone would like to work my my website www.gamephys.com let me know, just post articles etc or if you had an idea for an article you would like to do, stuff like that.
kumquatsrus
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2007
- Messages
- 1,326
yes
it looks like your xbox360 has finally picked up the RROD, better send that in to MS for repairs, man.
you can easily fix it yourself.
kumquatsrus
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2007
- Messages
- 1,326
are you trying to one-up my sarcasm? lol, i hope so.
kumquatsrus
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2007
- Messages
- 1,326
take out the "both" and insert "99.9% corporations" at the beginning of the last sentence to make it more accurate.
kumquatsrus
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2007
- Messages
- 1,326
thought this would be funny to post here for those who understand what physx really is.
http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=92634
for example, someone says that the gpu physx effects in batman: arkham asylum will be provided as future downloadable content on the consoles, lol. misguided console fanboys can be hilarious.
http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=92634
for example, someone says that the gpu physx effects in batman: arkham asylum will be provided as future downloadable content on the consoles, lol. misguided console fanboys can be hilarious.
Last edited:
spindoctor
Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 820
maybe ati should license the technology from nvidia?
shouldn't it be the prerogative of the company that doesn't have the technology to try and get it? if they did try and buy it and nvidia said no, then nv shot themselves in the foot. but i'm guessing nvidia knows that physx needs to be on both to really catch on.
so where's the problem here?
piscian18
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 11,020
No its not hilarious. It's sad and I pity their lack of hats!
As I understand it though if physx can be offloaded to the CPU isnt it possible?
Vermillion
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2007
- Messages
- 4,421
They apparently had a chance to license it from NV and decided not to. From a business perspective why would you want to pay your main competitor a license fee for an API you have no control over? AMD/NV get plenty of input when it comes to DX and OGL. AMD wouldn't get that same input with PhysX which could put them at a disadvantage. However, since AMD has no clear plan to deal with PhysX it probably was in their best interest to license it for the time being.
This whole thing with Physics API's and hardware has been one huge fuster cluck though.
Allowing Intel and Nvidia to buy up the main Physics API companies was bad. Now you have two companies in control with a third semi-backing one of them. Like Elledan said we're heading right back into the late 90s/early 2000 API wars which is bad for consumers.
Nvidia not allowing us to buy something like an 8800GT and pairing it with ATI cards is bad.
AMD not licensing PhysX is bad.
What we need is a single Physics API, backed by everybody, that can be used on any GPU or a dedicated PPU with minimal hassle to hardware and software companies.
PrincessFrosty
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,905
As I understand it Nvidia have made the standard available to AMD and it's simply up to AMD to actually add the support for it.
The problem is nvidia is playing nice to get the market share, they know that support on both cards is needed for it to really take off so they're forced to offer support to AMD.
However they also know that if the standard takes off and becomes dominant they can change their strategy and punish AMD and make a lot of money from the situation.
That is a very bad situation to put yourself in and AMD won't do it, if the standard was open then it would be a great idea to support it, but doing so right now puts Nvidia in a position of power and if you know anything about the business world thats bad for the consumer at the end of the day, no matter how good the initial deal is.
ikarinokami
Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2006
- Messages
- 713
I don't agree. I think the main problem is that AMD is both a cpu and gpu company. if it were purely only ati, this would have been done already. they could easily agree on things like changes or upcoming changes to the standard. AMD didn't license for the same reason intel killed havokfx, because it would hurt thier cpu bussiness. Gpu got created because of glide. I don't think either AMD and intel, want gpu development to supercede CPU development, physx is a step in that direction, a stalking horse for bigger things for the gpu.
The main "concept" behind the "PhysX is crap" crowd in this thread, is that NVIDIA must compromise with anything to create a better experience for users, while AMD/ATI doesn't need to do a thing and is being "very smart" to never deal with NVIDIA directly i.e. no compromise. Well, tough luck. NVIDIA has the tech and has offered it. AMD/ATI refused, so it's their problem. And by creating that problem, they decided to create another, by teaming up with their biggest rival: Intel, which owns Havok.
AMD's main business is still the CPU division, so they probably don't want to invest much on physics done on the GPU, which again, is their problem and the users of their products either accept that lack of features, or simply shouldn't care. But to continuously hammer forums such as these, with ridiculous threads, about conspiracy theories, "dishonest comparisons" and developers that use tech, not because it's good, but because they are being paid and whatnot, is really tiresome...
You want the features ? Get products from those that support them. You don't want or don't care about the features ? Don't use them whether you have products that support them or not.
Very simple isn't it ?
AMD's main business is still the CPU division, so they probably don't want to invest much on physics done on the GPU, which again, is their problem and the users of their products either accept that lack of features, or simply shouldn't care. But to continuously hammer forums such as these, with ridiculous threads, about conspiracy theories, "dishonest comparisons" and developers that use tech, not because it's good, but because they are being paid and whatnot, is really tiresome...
You want the features ? Get products from those that support them. You don't want or don't care about the features ? Don't use them whether you have products that support them or not.
Very simple isn't it ?
Yes, yes, because NVIDIA is evil and ate your baby and AMD died for your sins...
Can we move along with that speech ?
I don't even understand how that makes any sense to you. NVIDIA has the tech and must do everything to please everyone, while AMD, that doesn't have the tech, doesn't really need to compromise with anything and so, the fact that they lack support for those features, is solely NVIDIA's fault...
This is like the TWIMTBP conspiracy theories. In the real world, it exists to provide a better support for any NVIDIA card user. For the red fans, it exists to unfairly give an edge to NVIDIA.
However, when pointing out deals between Valve and ATI and even now that AMD is teaming up with companies like Codemasters, because of DX11 support in AMD's upcoming graphics cards, the speech is different and AMD/ATI is doing the right thing to provide a better driver experience to their products users...
It's quite insane really...
I think that's the answer. Get an API that everyone uses and everyone can game on. Until then we get hacks and halfassed effects.
spindoctor
Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 820
well, if amd/ati have the option to license it and still refuse to implement it, how is it nvidia's fault? ati and it's users cannot lay the blame for this on nvidia.
now, if nvidia had outright refused to license the tech, then yea, it would have been their fault.
the fact is, they have spent tons of money in buying ageia (sp?) and then promoting physx as a feature and working with devs to get it supported in games. what should they do now? make it an open standard so that amd/ati can benefit from it without doing anything? yea, it doesn't work like that. i realize we, as consumers, are the ones who ultimately lose out but the blame doesn't lie with nvidia.
Gorankar
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,111
So, are we saying that water and fog/smoke that looks like ass compared to games available 2-3 years ago is the best theses devs can come up with as cpu path fall back?
Interactive water is nice, but I would rather have non interactive water that looked as good as it did in HL2 or Bioshock than the rather shitty looking physics interactive water, or poor performance we were being shown in Cryostatsis without hardware PhysX. Just my opinion.
As for the Whole AMD/Ati not jumping on the PhysX bandwagon when they easily could, and some of you think they should. It is not a good move for them, why should they help make a competitors ip "the standard".
"Yet they are jumping in bed with Intel" you say. Well, it could be looked at as stupid from the gpu stand point or the lesser of two evils from the cpu stand point.
Ati/AMD is not in a good place on this, there is plenty of lose going on either way for them. Support Nv, make PhysX the standard, and Nv WILL long stroke them without lube later for it. Support Intel, and universally accepted gpu physics may be be delayed for a while or even a long while, and Intel might take another go at AMD/Ati's back door. The latter may appeal to them because Nv takes the high hard one in that situation as well. Why be butthurt alone?
The creation of an open standard and it's acceptance by devs and Nv, all in a reasonably short time frame, is prolly the best AMD/Ati AND Nv can really hope for on this. Even if it is the only currently available gpu physics standard, PhysX will almost certainly not become "the standard" in this situation. IMHO, the amount of resistance Intel and AMD/Ati are putting up is just a little too much for that.
Interactive water is nice, but I would rather have non interactive water that looked as good as it did in HL2 or Bioshock than the rather shitty looking physics interactive water, or poor performance we were being shown in Cryostatsis without hardware PhysX. Just my opinion.
As for the Whole AMD/Ati not jumping on the PhysX bandwagon when they easily could, and some of you think they should. It is not a good move for them, why should they help make a competitors ip "the standard".
"Yet they are jumping in bed with Intel" you say. Well, it could be looked at as stupid from the gpu stand point or the lesser of two evils from the cpu stand point.
Ati/AMD is not in a good place on this, there is plenty of lose going on either way for them. Support Nv, make PhysX the standard, and Nv WILL long stroke them without lube later for it. Support Intel, and universally accepted gpu physics may be be delayed for a while or even a long while, and Intel might take another go at AMD/Ati's back door. The latter may appeal to them because Nv takes the high hard one in that situation as well. Why be butthurt alone?
The creation of an open standard and it's acceptance by devs and Nv, all in a reasonably short time frame, is prolly the best AMD/Ati AND Nv can really hope for on this. Even if it is the only currently available gpu physics standard, PhysX will almost certainly not become "the standard" in this situation. IMHO, the amount of resistance Intel and AMD/Ati are putting up is just a little too much for that.
PrincessFrosty
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,905
Yes, yes, because NVIDIA is evil and ate your baby and AMD died for your sins...
Can we move along with that speech ?
I don't even understand how that makes any sense to you. NVIDIA has the tech and must do everything to please everyone, while AMD, that doesn't have the tech, doesn't really need to compromise with anything and so, the fact that they lack support for those features, is solely NVIDIA's fault...
This is like the TWIMTBP conspiracy theories. In the real world, it exists to provide a better support for any NVIDIA card user. For the red fans, it exists to unfairly give an edge to NVIDIA.
However, when pointing out deals between Valve and ATI and even now that AMD is teaming up with companies like Codemasters, because of DX11 support in AMD's upcoming graphics cards, the speech is different and AMD/ATI is doing the right thing to provide a better driver experience to their products users...
It's quite insane really...
I am not favouring either side, I call them both out on crap like this, sorry but I think its your own bias that is making you think this is some kind of red vs green argument. If the sides were swapped and the same crap was happening then I'd call AMD on it as well.
I'm not going to comment further on TWIMTBP thats a whole other kettle of fish and is distracting from the main point that this is dishonest marketing.
I never said It was Nvidias fault, I never even said it was a bad thing! I'm glad that AMD won't licence the technology because it puts Nvidia in control of the hardware driven physics market and thats bad.
They SHOULD promote it and try and get it put into games like they're doing but at the same time the games shouldn't be manipulating developers so non PhysX effects look crap.
Ocellaris
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2008
- Messages
- 19,077
you think its a good thing that ati users can't get the same experience as nvidia users right now? that seems pretty silly considering that ati is not showing that they have a better or alternative solution planned. what if this goes on for a year or two, and most games use physx while ati users are left in the dark? will you still think that ati was doing the right things for their users?
Posted via [H] Mobile Device
spindoctor
Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 820
i wasn't referring to any particular person with my post. it just seemed like the general tone of this thread where people are laying the blame at nvidia's doorstep when it's hardly their fault.
I honestly don't see ATI PAYING Nvidia to let them use Physx. That would be like them dropping their pants and bending right over. ATI doesn't want to be Nvidia's slave.
And I don't see Nvidia letting ATI run it on their hardware for free... and now they've even removed the ability to use an nvidia card with an ATI card...
So, how's this going to work out? I have no idea.......
And I don't see Nvidia letting ATI run it on their hardware for free... and now they've even removed the ability to use an nvidia card with an ATI card...
So, how's this going to work out? I have no idea.......
PrincessFrosty
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,905
In the long run, yes.
The damage Nvidia could do long term is big, owning the rights to the technology it means that once it becomes popular they could hike the price incredibly high for AMD so they're having to pay out extremely large sums of money to keep licencing it, this would have knock on effects on AMD and the quality of the products they can produce.
They might also suddenly deny AMD access to a licence and suddently cut all AMD users out of the picture once the technology is used in most games, this would mean a massive trend towards people buying Nvidia cards.
Either way its bad for AMD, the sensible thing for them to do is come up with a comparison and hope that developers are willing to develop for both, or we're pretty much never going to get hardware physics off the ground.
Nvidia by buying out Ageia may have done all gamers a disservice, it could take longer to adopt PhysX in the long term due to this power struggle.
Blackstone
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2007
- Messages
- 3,583
Personally I think the game developers and the market should decide who has the better solution.
kumquatsrus
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2007
- Messages
- 1,326
+1 decent argument, if not a bit exaggerated, though i partially disagree with the last statement. i don't see how hardware-accelerated physx could have went anywhere assuming ageia was still in possession of the tech. today (though i applaud them for providing the impetus by opening up awareness of how important physics in gaming has become and will continue to be in gaming). in fact, we still might not have a viable platform for hardware-accelerated physics today if nvidia didn't attempt to at least bring it into the mainstream via gpu physx - albeit not in the way we would all like - but given the circumstances, something is at least being done about it. i think conflict is sometimes necessary in order for progress to take place, and this may just happen to be one of those instances. could things have occurred differently and in a more mutually beneficial and expedited fashion? sure, but the real world has proven that time and again that is hardly ever the case.
Last edited:
kumquatsrus
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2007
- Messages
- 1,326
i completely agree. in a perfect situation, gpu physx/ (future) havok would co-exist on both green/ red hardware and devs could choose which api they prefer to use in their games, just like they can choose if they want to build their own graphics engine or license unreal, idtech, cryengine, etc.
Last edited:
Nenu
[H]ardened
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2007
- Messages
- 20,315
Someone had to develop hardware physics first unless a conglomerate decided to develop it, unfortunately not.
Its always been the way with new tech.
It will iron itself out sooner or later just as other tech breakthroughs have.
Its always been the way with new tech.
It will iron itself out sooner or later just as other tech breakthroughs have.
Right
NVIDIA spends the money and others, without doing a thing, get the benefits too. Honestely, do you live in this world ??
PrincessFrosty said:
You have no idea how a license works do you ? If you did, you wouldn't still be saying the same ridiculous thing over and over. A license is agreed between both companies and it usually has a time period in which it is valid. During that period, the license is respected, unless any of the parties does something against the agreement, in which case the company that was hurt by that, can sue the other, BIG TIME.
Do you understand how ridiculous your claim is now ? If AMD licenses the tech from NVIDIA, the agreement will be respected over the agreed period. NOTHING like what you are suggesting will happen. Although in your world, evil NVIDIA will kill off children and the sort, while innocent AMD is being punished unfairly...
PrincessFrosty said:
It's bad for AMD; because they chose the worst possible partner. Intel has no interest in letting Havok GPU physics fly off and they will CERTAINLY make sure that AMD doesn't have any edge, in Havok physics effects done on the CPU.
As for not getting hardware physics off the ground, I'm pretty sure it's off the ground already. I can already use my 8800 GT for it in a few games. You can't ? Well that's too bad. Instead of complaining about how NVIDIA is bad, maybe you should sent an e-mail to AMD asking why they didn't license PhysX yet ?
PrincessFrosty said:
Flash news, Intel, the biggest CPU manufacturer in the world, bought Havok. Where's your thread about how that was a "disservice" to gamers ?If that was true, you wouldn't be blaming NVIDIA solely and would actually be pretty upset that AMD chose to partner with Intel. But that's not what you're doing. You're continuously criticizing NVIDIA for promoting their product and that they, and only they, should be letting everyone use PhysX free of charge. NVIDIA spends money and all the other companies in the world must reap the benefits, without even spending a cent.
A good analogy for that is you're a student that works hard to push an idea forward. When you show off what you've done on your project, others say they want to use your findings too and reap the benefits of what may be a good final grade. In your world, you would share everything, without compromise and probably get a bad grade, because the teacher thought you copied from others. In the real world, you keep it to yourself and want full recognition for your findings, even if later, others use them.
spindoctor
Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 820
yea i don't think business agreements work like that. it's not like amd/ati would have a sword hanging over them every single day with nvidia acting like some feudal lord demanding more and more all the time. you have to admit that it's in nvidia's interest too to get physx widespread support.
Gorankar
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,111
It is in Nv's business interests to get Ati on long enough to become "the standard". Once that occurs, Nv could, and would insure that Nv always performed PhysX best.
Because they would retain control of the API.
Because they could alter it to best suit their own upcoming hardware.
Because they would know what is coming months and even years later in PhysX's feature set.
Because they would certainly take advantage of it by tailoring their silicon and drivers, b4 Ati even knew changes were being made.
They don't have to be the sword swinging feudal lord, they don't have to sabotage Ati, all they would have to do is use the built in advantages of controlling the API and drivers, and Ati would be eternally behind them. In short Nv cards, generation per generation would always support some additional PhysX feature Ati cards did not or outperform Ati cards. In effect, they could cripple Ati's ability to compete. License or not. It would be no different than if Ati had sole control of Dx.
That anyone is so trusting of Nv to believe that is not how it would go kind of leaves me wondering.
Bankie
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2004
- Messages
- 2,474
Well, they already insure that OpenGL, Linux support, and driver stability are better than ATI's so I don't see why one more thing would be a problem.
this is probably the best solution, although the pride of ATI/Nvidia may make this very difficult.
Competition is good
Gorankar
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,111
Well, they already insure that OpenGL, Linux support, and driver stability are better than ATI's so I don't see why one more thing would be a problem.
Ogl support, I can give you that, though there slowly has been some improvement. (in PC games, Dx is driving the bus with Ogl sitting a few seats back anyway.)
Nix support, I can still give you that, but it has been steadily improving the last year or so. (Nix is skitching the back bumper of above mentioned bus when it comes to games. Nix gamers are a minority of a minority)
More stability, I can't give you that one under Windows, in fact we could argue that one back and forth for days with neither one of us running out of examples. (Which prolly means that they both suck far worse than we would like to think in the stability department.)
kumquatsrus
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2007
- Messages
- 1,326
Ogl support, I can give you that, though there slowly has been some improvement. (in PC games, Dx is driving the bus with Ogl sitting a few seats back anyway.)
Nix support, I can still give you that, but it has been steadily improving the last year or so. (Nix is skitching the back bumper of above mentioned bus when it comes to games. Nix gamers are a minority of a minority)
More stability, I can't give you that one under Windows, in fact we could argue that one back and forth for days with neither one of us running out of examples. (Which prolly means that they both suck far worse than we would like to think in the stability department.)
let's wait until larrabee comes out before we really discuss quality of drivers, lol.