Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is PhysX fair?

Last response: in Video Games
Share
January 5, 2012 10:08:29 AM

I have been thinking an awful lot about Nvidia's "Hardware Accelerated PhysX".

To me, it seems that PhysX effects are purposefully optimized badly to run on the CPU. I have played several games that utilize certain effects handled by the CPU much more efficiently then PhysX games. I have also experienced non-PhysX hardware accelerated effects that are every bit as good, if not better, than the ones that utilize Nvidia's PhysX.

To me, this seems like sabotage. Willful and blatant sabotage. I believe that Nvidia is paying certain developers to do this. Even if they are not paying developers to sabotage these games, the fact that certain features of the actual game are not available is crime enough.

Now, it never made that much of a big deal to me before. But after playing Batman Arkham Asylum, I am shocked , literally amazed at the degree of effects that are intentionally omitted from the game. Effects that could very easily be handled by AMD cards, if allowed.

Not allowing AMD users to access certain features of a game, a game that we paid for, is wrong.

It's extortion.

More about : physx fair

January 5, 2012 10:32:24 AM

It does smack a little of 'for best experience use this hardware' for a particular game, which echoes where 3dfx was at the turn of the century, and we know how that ended up don't we :) 
I have a slight bias to the green team, but i'm hoping that now that the red team have created a more compute capable solution that accelerated physics rather than physx becomes the norm. Whether it could have been done on CPU is a question for the coders i'm afraid.
a c 171 Î Nvidia
January 5, 2012 10:43:39 AM

PCgamer81 needs to do some research into how and why AMD/ATi lost the ability to use PhysX and that involves doing more than asking for ill informed opinions on a forum website. Try google for starters.
Related resources
January 5, 2012 12:07:56 PM

It would be nice if they'd come out with a PCIe x1 slot card that was just used for physx like they used to have before nvidia bought it. You'd think nvidia would end up making more money that way since most gamers have unutilized PCIe x1 slots.
January 5, 2012 12:20:59 PM

If its an open ended pci-ex1 slot then you can just shove a small gpu into it. It'll use about the same power and do the same job.
January 5, 2012 2:01:39 PM

That is a work around and I've seen where people even cut it to a x1 bandwith to fit a closed end but I'd rather they just design a card for it. Plus there is the weight issue with a normal size card dangling from the x1 slot.
January 5, 2012 2:04:16 PM

Of course, PhysX is Nvidia's technology, what would be the point if CPU could handle it? Of course, Nvidia pays some devs to integrate PhysX into their games. But it's true that Batman: AA was a sabotage. Like, I'm pretty sure that AMD cards are able to render some hanging cloth.
January 5, 2012 5:09:24 PM

julius 85 said:
Of course, PhysX is Nvidia's technology, what would be the point if CPU could handle it? Of course, Nvidia pays some devs to integrate PhysX into their games. But it's true that Batman: AA was a sabotage. Like, I'm pretty sure that AMD cards are able to render some hanging cloth.


Thank you very much.

I run Metro 2033 with PhysX being handled by my CPU (and we all know how demanding Metro 2033 is). I get about 30-100fps totally maxed with PhysX enabled. 30fps in the areas with heavy particles and effects (PhysX), and about 60fps on average everywhere else. Batman, with PhysX set to normal, crumbles down to about 10fps. And what is it rendering? Nothing I haven't seen a million places before.

The message to the customers is clear:

"Buy an Nvidia product or else you don't get the full game you paid for."

Die hard Nvidia fans don't really care about what is fair. They only care about "Nvidia FTW!!!"

And that's sad.
January 5, 2012 5:15:04 PM

Mousemonkey said:
PCgamer81 needs to do some research into how and why AMD/ATi lost the ability to use PhysX and that involves doing more than asking for ill informed opinions on a forum website. Try google for starters.


The problem I have isn't that Nvidia has PhysX and AMD doesn't.

The problem I have is when game developers blatantly and intentionally allocate the rendering of certain, seemingly run of the mill, sequences to the PhysX engine, and then code it in a way to make it impossible to run if you don't have an Nvidia card. These aren't complex explosions and million particle effects I'm talking about, here. I am talking about normal graphics that you would see in any game, such as banners or smoke, and the developers saying, "We will go out of our way to attribute these to PhysX, just so AMD users that purchased the game won't get them".

It's sabotage, and it's extortion.

And I have a very real problem with that.
January 5, 2012 5:21:09 PM

Had batman solved the dx11 issue yet?
January 5, 2012 5:29:14 PM

13thmonkey said:
Had batman solved the dx11 issue yet?


Are you referring to BAA or BAC?

If you're referring to the former, then I would assume that they have. I play it in DX11 without any hiccups whatsoever (provided I have PhysX off, but of course).
January 5, 2012 5:57:22 PM

the second one?, as in the latest one?
January 5, 2012 6:08:23 PM

13thmonkey said:
the second one?, as in the latest one?


Haven't played it, sorry. :( 
January 5, 2012 6:10:38 PM

the second one had massive issues in dx11 mode, dog slow.
January 5, 2012 6:12:45 PM

13thmonkey said:
the second one had massive issues in dx11 mode, dog slow.


Thanks for letting me know, I'll be sure to pass.

But to be honest, I probably wasn't going to purchase it, anyway. And I will probably boycott all other games that use PhysX, as well. Not that I alone matter, but I will do my part, that's all I can do.
a c 171 Î Nvidia
January 5, 2012 6:35:59 PM

PCgamer81 said:
The problem I have isn't that Nvidia has PhysX and AMD doesn't.

The problem I have is when game developers blatantly and intentionally allocate the rendering of certain, seemingly run of the mill, sequences to the PhysX engine, and then code it in a way to make it impossible to run if you don't have an Nvidia card. These aren't complex explosions and million particle effects I'm talking about, here. I am talking about normal graphics that you would see in any game, such as banners or smoke, and the developers saying, "We will go out of our way to attribute these to PhysX, just so AMD users that purchased the game won't get them".

It's sabotage, and it's extortion.

And I have a very real problem with that.

The sabotage if you want to call it that was committed by an ATi employee, but I guess you don't want to look into the real facts.
a b Î Nvidia
January 5, 2012 6:37:03 PM

I believe back in the day Ageia and ATI had some sort of spat in reference to how they do physics. Then Nvidia bought Ageia and integrated the PhysX technology into their cards. They openly supported using it with other cards, ie. ATI cards. However, integrating a PPU (Physic Processing Unit) and a GPU was difficult. PPU's handle physic great and with good performance as opposed to a CPU or GPU. As Nvidia integrated PhysX more and more into their cards it would have some issues with non-Nvidia cards. So rather than continuing to support PhysX with other non-Nvidia graphics cards they just didn't allow it anymore along with other obvious business reasons. I believe ATI could license PhysX from Nvidia and integrate it into their own cards, but why would they do that? They would probably have to tote the Nvidia PhysX logo along with a fee? Wasn't ATI/AMD working on their own physic engine called Bullet? PhysX built into games looks good and who is to stop a developer from using it other than someone not buying the game? If you don't have an Nvidia card you just don't get those details in game, you can still play it. I don't understand why it is sabotage or extortion? Is this any different than a game being exclusive to one console? You can't play Uncharted on an Xbox, so if you want to play it you must buy a PS3. There are only a handful of titles that REALLY have a big difference when PhysX is enabled or Disabled. It just so happens the Batman titles are BIG and irritates some people.
a b Î Nvidia
January 5, 2012 6:50:26 PM

Mousemonkey said:
The sabotage if you want to call it that was committed by an ATi employee, but I guess you don't want to look into the real facts.

Is that when some head honcho at ATI accused Nvidia or disabling cpu cores with PhysX cards installed to inflate performance? Then said a CPU could handle any physics processing and PhysX was a hoax to just sell more video card?
January 5, 2012 6:55:58 PM

13thmonkey said:
Had batman solved the dx11 issue yet?


Unfortunately the issue with DX11 has not been solved yet. The issue has improved slightly since the patch (only for 64bit users) but it is by no means fixed. In its current state it is more demanding than BF3 which is a utter joke seen as AC uses the Unreal Engine 3 which is not intensive to run at all.

Very very poor coding and by the looks of things Rocksteady don't seem too eager to fix it. I guess they are too busy counting are money.....


a c 171 Î Nvidia
January 5, 2012 7:04:14 PM

jay2tall said:
Is that when some head honcho at ATI accused Nvidia or disabling cpu cores with PhysX cards installed to inflate performance? Then said a CPU could handle any physics processing and PhysX was a hoax to just sell more video card?


Yes, while at the same time that person also demanded that Edios use Nvidia's AA code for ATi cards as ATi couldn't be bothered to supply their own. It's interesting as well that somewhere in the downsizing of ATi that person seems to have lost their job there and is now working for Intel.
January 5, 2012 8:36:48 PM

Mousemonkey said:
The sabotage if you want to call it that was committed by an ATi employee, but I guess you don't want to look into the real facts.


Perhaps I am not as well versed in the history of computer hardware as you.

You are welcome to enlighten me.
January 5, 2012 8:48:02 PM

jay2tall said:
I believe back in the day Ageia and ATI had some sort of spat in reference to how they do physics. Then Nvidia bought Ageia and integrated the PhysX technology into their cards. They openly supported using it with other cards, ie. ATI cards. However, integrating a PPU (Physic Processing Unit) and a GPU was difficult. PPU's handle physic great and with good performance as opposed to a CPU or GPU. As Nvidia integrated PhysX more and more into their cards it would have some issues with non-Nvidia cards. So rather than continuing to support PhysX with other non-Nvidia graphics cards they just didn't allow it anymore along with other obvious business reasons. I believe ATI could license PhysX from Nvidia and integrate it into their own cards, but why would they do that? They would probably have to tote the Nvidia PhysX logo along with a fee? Wasn't ATI/AMD working on their own physic engine called Bullet? PhysX built into games looks good and who is to stop a developer from using it other than someone not buying the game? If you don't have an Nvidia card you just don't get those details in game, you can still play it. I don't understand why it is sabotage or extortion? Is this any different than a game being exclusive to one console? You can't play Uncharted on an Xbox, so if you want to play it you must buy a PS3. There are only a handful of titles that REALLY have a big difference when PhysX is enabled or Disabled. It just so happens the Batman titles are BIG and irritates some people.


I don't have a problem with PhysX. Why do people seem to think I am arguing against PhysX?

I have a problem with the allocation of otherwise normal renderings to the PhysX engine for the purpose of defeating AMD (greed), and at the expense of gamers.

An example would be...

"Hey Mack, you know these swinging banners?"

"Yeah, John. What about them?"

"I was thinking we would allow PhysX to render them instead our *insert name* engine."

"But John, that is not what PhysX is really used for."

"And? Your point, Mack?"

"Wouldn't that cause AMD users to not be able to have access to a very basic feature?"

"That's what Nvidia's paying us for! And while we're at it, let's code it so that their CPU's cannot handle it worth a crap!"

That is something I have a very real problem with, gentlemen. And I won't tolerate it.
a c 171 Î Nvidia
January 5, 2012 9:43:21 PM

PCgamer81 said:
Perhaps I am not as well versed in the history of computer hardware as you.

You are welcome to enlighten me.


Google is your friend in this case, that way you can't accuse me of being bias (I've been down this road before).
January 5, 2012 9:55:11 PM

Mousemonkey said:
Google is your friend in this case, that way you can't accuse me of being bias (I've been down this road before).


I would do no such thing.

Although we are all a little bias.

I understand now what you are referring to. Yes, that is kind of unfortunate that many gamers have to suffer because of one guy's arrogance, but that still don't justify what is going on now.
a c 171 Î Nvidia
January 5, 2012 10:30:37 PM

PCgamer81 said:
I would do no such thing.

Although we are all a little bias.

I understand now what you are referring to. Yes, that is kind of unfortunate that many gamers have to suffer because of one guy's arrogance, but that still don't justify what is going on now.

What's going on now is the fallout from from that guys rant and the fact that as a spokesperson for ATi he stated categorically that ATi users didn't want or need PhysX as ATi were going to be introducing their own physics API soon and as it was going to be open source, every game dev was going to be all over it like a rash. I guess you're still waiting though.
January 5, 2012 11:29:46 PM

Mousemonkey said:
What's going on now is the fallout from from that guys rant and the fact that as a spokesperson for ATi he stated categorically that ATi users didn't want or need PhysX as ATi were going to be introducing their own physics API soon and as it was going to be open source, every game dev was going to be all over it like a rash. I guess you're still waiting though.


I assume you are referring to Bullet Physics.

I don't think AMD should do it. Two wrongs don't make a right. Here is why I say it is wrong...

I love PC gaming, and I don't want it to get to a point where games are divided up, some people get these features, some people get those features, etc.

Let all people get all features. Let's keep the game the same regardless of the brand of hardware someone may or may not be using. It is bad enough that I am constantly having DLC crammed down my throat in game, by not allowing me 100% completion and/or access to certain features unless I pony up the dough.

When I purchase a product at full price, I expect the full product. I couldn't care less about fanboyism or some stupid rivalry. Gimme what I paid for.

I paid for Batman Arkham Asylum in full, and I expect Batman Arkham Asylum in full, as in every bit of the original 1.0 product.

That's what I paid for, that's what I want.
January 5, 2012 11:40:32 PM

Here is the way I see it, in perhaps the best possible way I can put it...

If something can be rendered without using PhysX, using normal hardware acceleration, then it is wrong to commit it's rendering to PhysX for any reason whatsoever. It is doubly wrong if it is done in an act of sabotage for the benefit of one company over another, being paid to do so, and at the expense of gamers.

That is wrong on so many levels. It sickens me to the stomach.
a b Î Nvidia
January 5, 2012 11:40:36 PM

as far as i know nvidia have been accused of cheating the end user with physx claims of limiting cuda to x86/x87 code deliberately stifling cpu optimization and so on... this has come from the people that do havok engine who noticed that physx was an actual limiting factor in nvidia games that use it. if they had moved off the gpu and made it cpu centric physx would have been a lot better as it would be using new code paths. nvidia retorted with. its there physx engine and they will program or limit hardware if they choose, and promptly killed compatibility drivers that would allow us to plug in a nvidia card as a second card on an ati build...

after that i started seeing nvidia physx for what it is. a gimic that is actually holding back development of the agea engine... seriously if they moved away from the basic code they bought off agia physx could be so much more than just throwing the odd bit of rubble about or catapulting your player 3 miles into the sky and leaving black bugged out pollys all over the map...

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/gamers_start_... some reviews and opinions on all the physics engines...

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/graphics/display/200909290... when this broke i was properly stowed off
all i can say it was pretty crappy of nvidia to limit there engine so much in both programming code and distribution. but its there engine running on there hardware... frankly with better cpu driven engines out there nvidia physcs is quickly becomming irrelivant. yes its great (well on some games) that use it. but it really is just a debris middleware engine, while havock has developed into so much more.

a c 171 Î Nvidia
January 5, 2012 11:47:01 PM

If people are really unhappy then maybe they should get in touch with ATi/AMD and demand that a license be bought from Nvidia so that PhysX can be used.
January 5, 2012 11:48:47 PM

HEXiT said:
as far as i know nvidia have been accused of cheating the end user with physx claims of limiting cuda to x86/x87 code deliberately stifling cpu optimization and so on... this has come from the people that do havok engine who noticed that physx was an actual limiting factor in nvidia games that use it. if they had moved off the gpu and made it cpu centric physx would have been a lot better as it would be using new code paths. nvidia retorted with. its there physx engine and they will program or limit hardware if they choose, and promptly killed compatibility drivers that would allow us to plug in a nvidia card as a second card on an ati build...

after that i started seeing nvidia physx for what it is. a gimic that is actually holding back development of the agea engine... seriously if they moved away from the basic code they bought off agia physx could be so much more than just throwing the odd bit of rubble about or catapulting your player 3 miles into the sky and leaving black bugged out pollys all over the map...

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/gamers_start_... some reviews and opinions on all the physics engines...

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/graphics/display/200909290... when this broke i was properly stowed off
all i can say it was pretty crappy of nvidia to limit there engine so much in both programming code and distribution. but its there engine running on there hardware... frankly with better cpu driven engines out there nvidia physcs is quickly becomming irrelivant. yes its great (well on some games) that use it. but it really is just a debris middleware engine, while havock has developed into so much more.


Amazing, irrefutable truths in that post.

Bravo.

Yes, Nvidia doesn't care about holding back PC gaming. They don't care about being fair. They don't care about being honest.

They only care about one thing, and one thing only...

GimmeGimmeGimme!!!!!!!!!

That is what Nvidia cares about.

And all that their fans care about it is...

Nvidia FTW!!!
January 5, 2012 11:49:14 PM

Mousemonkey said:
If people are really unhappy then maybe they should get in touch with ATi/AMD and demand that a license be bought from Nvidia so that PhysX can be used.


And give in to their extortion?

I think not.
a c 171 Î Nvidia
January 5, 2012 11:57:56 PM

PCgamer81 said:
And give in to their extortion?

I think not.

Fine, then send me half your wages. I won't give you anything in return but by your logic you should share what you have.
January 6, 2012 12:01:10 AM

Mousemonkey said:
Fine, then send me half your wages. I won't give you anything in return but by your logic you should share what you have.


Okay, extortion is too harsh a word.

And I cannot blame Nvidia for wanting the best for their company, and going to any length to get it.

But... (bet you knew that was coming)

When you cause certain effects that could very easily be handled by non-PhysX hardware acceleration to only work with PhysX hardware acceleration, it is wrong. It is wrong because gamers are being short changed. AMD gamers now, and both Nvidia and AMD gamers in the long run.

Of course this is just my opinion, everyone has one, and that's what discussions like this are for.
a c 171 Î Nvidia
January 6, 2012 12:04:32 AM

PCgamer81 said:
Okay, extortion is too harsh a word.

And I cannot blame Nvidia for wanting the best for their company, and going to any length to get it.

But... (bet you knew that was coming)

When you cause certain effects that could very easily be handled by non-PhysX hardware acceleration to only work with PhysX hardware acceleration, it is wrong. It is wrong because gamers are being short changed. AMD gamers now, and both Nvidia and AMD gamers in the long run.

Then practice what you are trying to preach and give me half of your wages. If you won't do that then why should Nvidia give AMD the use of their IP for free?
January 6, 2012 12:14:34 AM

Mousemonkey said:
Then practice what you are trying to preach and give me half of your wages. If you won't do that then why should Nvidia give AMD the use of their IP for free?


It is simple.

Nvidia shouldn't. Nvidia should keep PhysX for use with their own GPU's. That is the real world, and it's business, the nature of the capitalist beast.

I think having certain effects Nvidia exclusive is fine. More than fine, it's a great idea for their business, and for the enthusiasm of their fans.

However...

Certain effects that are chalked up to PhysX, are actually run of the mill effects. Effects that I've seen a million times and in a million places before in non-PhysX games. For developers to intentionally allow PhysX to handle the rendering of 25%+ of a game's graphical effects, when an AMD GPU could easily handle it, is wrong. Leave PhysX for those insanely awesome effects that normal hardware acceleration couldn't render. Don't use it for swinging banners, smoke, etc, just so AMD users cannot get the majority of in-game graphics, and be forced to purchase an Nvidia card.

That's not right, and that is extortion.
a c 171 Î Nvidia
January 6, 2012 12:19:31 AM

Well if you are not going to practice what you preach then you better develop a physics API and give it to the world for free, as well as getting game devs to use it in favour of or alongside the current PhysX API.
January 6, 2012 12:35:48 AM

Mousemonkey said:
Then practice what you are trying to preach and give me half of your wages. If you won't do that then why should Nvidia give AMD the use of their IP for free?


What you are saying is like the following parable...

A very tall man and a very short man lived together in a large home. There were many doorways in that home, that led through out the home into places inhabited by both the short man and the tall man.

But the short man, who was very bitter due to his short stature (as well as very greedy), began plotting against the tall man.

The short man did not like the tall man, and neither did the tall man like the short man, but they coexisted somewhat peacefully until the day came that the short man had finally figured out what to do.

The short man got on the phone and called a construction company.

The construction company came out, and the short man told them what he wanted.

"I want you to lower every door way in my house down to two feet high, no questions asked. Can you do it?"

The construction company agreed, and began work immediately.

Work progressed slowly, and as it continued, the tall man began having a hard time getting through the doorways that had been lowered. But seeing as how the house was only half his, and all of the shortened doorways led only to places occupied by the short man, the tall man decided to leave the situation alone for the time being.

However, construction continued, and it got to a point to where every door way was so that the tall man could not go through, including the door ways that led to his very own room!

"I cannot get through these doorways without falling!", the tall man complained.

"Well, you have two options." The short man replied. "You can either pay me to make allowances by having it lifted a tad, or you can move."

"But the house is half mine!" The tall man exclaimed. "This isn't fair!"

"Life is not fair." The short man sighed. "No one said this wasn't your house, you..."

"But how am I going to get around!" The tall man interrupted.

"That is your problem." The short man interrupted. "Pay me, or move out."

The end.

Now, I have a question for whoever read the above...

Should the tall man pay the short man (the AMD equivalent of purchasing the license)? Or should the tall man leave (the AMD equivalent of giving up on the market)?
a c 171 Î Nvidia
January 6, 2012 12:39:59 AM

PCgamer81 said:
What you are saying is like the following parable...

A very tall man and a very short man lived together in a large home. There were many doorways in that home, that led through out the home into places inhabited by both the short man and the tall man.

But the short man, who was very bitter due to his short stature (as well as very greedy), began plotting against the tall man.

The short man did not like the tall man, and neither did the tall man like the short man, but they coexisted somewhat peacefully until the day came that the short man had finally figured out what to do.

The short man got on the phone and called a construction company.

The construction company came out, and the short man told them what he wanted.

"I want you to lower every door way in my house down to two feet high, no questions asked. Can you do it?"

The construction company agreed, and began work immediately.

Work progressed slowly, and as it continued, the tall man began having a hard time getting through the doorways that had been lowered. But seeing as how the house was only half his, and all of the shortened doorways led only to places occupied by the short man, the tall man decided to leave the situation alone for the time being.

However, construction continued, and it got to a point to where every door way was so that the tall man could not go through, including the door ways that led to his very own room!

"I cannot get through these doorways without tripping!", the tall man complained.

"Well, you have two options." The short man replied. "You can either pay me to make allowances by having the lifted a tad, or you can move."

"But the house is half mine!" The tall man exclaimed. "This isn't fair!"

"Life is not fair." The short man sighed. "No one said this wasn't your house, you..."

"But how am I going to get around!" The tall man interrupted.

"That is your problem." The short man interrupted. "Pay me, or move out."

The end.

Now, I have a question for whoever read the above...

Should the tall man pay the short man? Or should the tall man leave (the AMD equivalent of giving up on the market)?

Well that was pointless. To put it in simple terms that your mind should be able to comprehend, why should Nvidia give their main competitor something for nothing?
January 6, 2012 12:48:49 AM

Mousemonkey said:
Well that was pointless. To put it in simple terms that your mind should be able to comprehend, why should Nvidia give their main competitor something for nothing?


I can do without your insults, I have given you the same courtesy.

And to answer your question, you cannot take from someone and then demand payment.

What Nvidia calls PhysX is what used to be normal renderings capable of being handled by any GPU.

That would be like me patenting a type of bottled water, and then changing and expanding it so that all people who drink water must drink my brand or do without.
a c 171 Î Nvidia
January 6, 2012 12:56:36 AM

Where was the insult?
January 6, 2012 1:09:01 AM

Another good analogy, would be me having a ladder next to hanging object that people had to pay to touch. As people walked by and pay to touch this hanging object, I offer them the use of my ladder, for a price.

Mind you, I own the ladder but not the object. Someone else owns the object.

Some people choose to use the ladder to get a better, easier experience. Others try to jump up and touch it without having to pay me.

Well, I get hungry for more profits. So, I work out a deal with the owner of the object.

The next day, the people who enjoy touching the object arrive. They all pay to touch the object, and get in line. The people who pay to use my ladder go first. They pay me, they get to touch the object, great.

Next, come the people who do not pay to use my ladder. So do you know what I do (with the object owner's permission, of course)?

I move the object even higher. Now, they cannot reach it.

Why should I give away my service for free?

The fact that you don't see a problem with this line of thinking is indicative of your unwarranted support of Nvidia and blatant refusal to accept facts.
January 6, 2012 1:11:46 AM

Mousemonkey said:
Where was the insult?


Put it simple so that my mind could understand it.

Therefore by implication, I have a simple mind.
a c 171 Î Nvidia
January 6, 2012 1:15:05 AM

PCgamer81 said:
It is simple.

Nvidia shouldn't. Nvidia should keep PhysX for use with their own GPU's. That is the real world, and it's business, the nature of the capitalist beast.

I think having certain effects Nvidia exclusive is fine. More than fine, it's a great idea for their business, and for the enthusiasm of their fans.

However...

Certain effects that are chalked up to PhysX, are actually run of the mill effects. Effects that I've seen a million times and in a million places before in non-PhysX games. For developers to intentionally allow PhysX to handle the rendering of 25%+ of a game's graphical effects, when an AMD GPU could easily handle it, is wrong. Leave PhysX for those insanely awesome effects that normal hardware acceleration couldn't render. Don't use it for swinging banners, smoke, etc, just so AMD users cannot get the majority of in-game graphics, and be forced to purchase an Nvidia card.

That's not right, and that is extortion.

So as you started with the insults (by your definition) should I ban you now?
a b Î Nvidia
January 6, 2012 2:02:41 AM

jeez guy let it go. amd dont care enough to license the product from nvidia nor have they taken them to court for protectionism.
there are other engines out there that work well on cpu's and they are more often than not used instead of physx. so like i say if nvidia want to play by themselves let em. its only there reputation at stake and its not like they have it in every game...
at the end of the day neither company will be worried what is said on this forum, so let it go... it really isnt worth getting banned over...
January 6, 2012 4:13:34 AM

Mousemonkey said:
So as you started with the insults (by your definition) should I ban you now?


What about that post do you feel is insulting towards you?

Perhaps you just feel insulted by me, period. As in the very person I am.

Well, I am sorry for anything I have done to offend you, sir. It was never my intention to make an enemy.

And that one time a while back I was abusive, I told you then I would not be that way again, and I have kept my word.

If there is a rule where I am not allowed to debate a moderator, disagree with a moderator, or defend myself against a moderator on a topic related to the thread, I would be happy to read it.

I thought that I was allowed to speak my mind provided I am polite and stay on topic. Any animosity I have displayed has not been directed at you, nor anyone else. But I have displayed it towards Nvidia. In my opinion, your sig shows why that bothers you.

So if you want to ban me for speaking my opinion on a thread I created, then fine. Your choice.

But I do maintain that I am innocent of anything that would warrant it.

January 6, 2012 4:32:38 AM

Mousemonkey said:
So as you started with the insults (by your definition) should I ban you now?


Oh, I get it.

Sorry. I kind of feel like a dufus now with that long drawn out reply above. I will leave it up, as it does have some good points.

The "simple" in your quote of me was in bold, and was made in reference to what I had said after - I didn't notice that before.

Sorry.
a c 171 Î Nvidia
January 6, 2012 9:36:23 AM

I'm sorry if you felt insulted before as that wasn't the intention, rather it was a retort to yourself 'putting it simply' just as the question about banning was just that, a question not a threat. And as for the sig, yes I do prefer Nvidia cards but as I've stated before in the past I have no love for the PhysX API as it is being implemented at the moment but that doesn't detract from the fact that it is still Nvidia's IP and therefore they have every right to demand payment for its use.
January 6, 2012 9:51:21 AM

At the end of the day it's the devs choice, they could code such that it used x86, and then physx if available, physx users would then get better performance, but the devs would have two code paths to write. This is like in the early days when hardware T&L was first implemented, the cpu could run it (slowly), or the card could run it (slightly less slowly :)  )

OpenCL? would also be another choice, but the tools are probably not as mature.

The devs are choosing to not provide another code path for non-physx, thats the issue here, they could code for cpu physics as well as phys-x, with asscoiated performance hits when using cpu physics (which might be too great), but they choose not to. Just because they provide a path for physx, does not mean that they cannot provide other paths, in fact I doubt that nvidia could enforce that even if they wanted to, but the devs have to choose to invest the time to create and debug that other code path. Hell in the lastest batman they couldn't even get dx11 right, regardless of card manufacturer.
January 6, 2012 10:00:38 AM

Ok, PhysX is just a gimmick. That is all its ever been and that is all it ever will be.

You're talking as if its not possible to play a game without Physx, this just isn't true.

A real scam would be if either Nvidia or AMD payed a developer so their cards would play a game with all the eye candy but that the other companys equivalent card would only play the exact same game with much lower graphics and without any graphic options.

What I think mousemonkey is saying is, it's buisness. Why would Nvidia give up their "niche" in the market. It all comes down
to the green (££$$).

They (Nvidia) have a little edge over the competition, but that is all. PhysX certainly does not give Nvidia
a monopoly over the market.

Saying Nvidia doesn't care about holding back PC gaming is a bit silly. Nvidia and AMD both care about PC gaming,
without PC gaming they would lose a huge part of their income. They need PC gaming to keep progressing so that
they can carry on selling graphics cards to carry on making money.

Nvidia don't care about being fair? Nvidia don't care about being honest? Well what company does care about
being fair and honest? None of them do, they only care about money.

This is the way the world is. You would be amazed at what goes on out there.
a c 171 Î Nvidia
January 6, 2012 10:18:34 AM

Gothams Finest said:
Ok, PhysX is just a gimmick. That is all its ever been and that is all it ever will be.

You're talking as if its not possible to play a game without Physx, this just isn't true.

A real scam would be if either Nvidia or AMD payed a developer so their cards would play a game with all the eye candy but that the other companys equivalent card would only play the exact same game with much lower graphics and without any graphic options.

What I think mousemonkey is saying is, it's buisness. Why would Nvidia give up their "niche" in the market. It all comes down
to the green (££$$).

They (Nvidia) have a little edge over the competition, but that is all. PhysX certainly does not give Nvidia
a monopoly over the market.

Saying Nvidia doesn't care about holding back PC gaming is a bit silly. Nvidia and AMD both care about PC gaming,
without PC gaming they would lose a huge part of their income. They need PC gaming to keep progressing so that
they can carry on selling graphics cards to carry on making money.

Nvidia don't care about being fair? Nvidia don't care about being honest? Well what company does care about
being fair and honest? None of them do, they only care about money.

This is the way the world is. You would be amazed at what goes on out there.

There is also the one rather major fact that people still seem very quick to overlook, and that is the fact that until a certain ATi employee (who used to work for Nvidia) had a rant about how useless PhysX was Nvidia didn't seem to have a problem with ATi using the API. It was only after that little rant that Nvidia decided to lock out ATi users.
!