Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

HEY! WHERE IS PHYSX FOR ATI?!

Last response: in Apps General Discussion
Share
July 17, 2010 6:52:19 PM

H!

Here, have a look at this article:
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia-physx-ati,5764....

Then you can go to the site ngohq.com. There you won't find any Physx for the ATI like claimed in the article.

My question is, did nVidia realise, that saying CUDA is for everybody (meaning all companies) was a mistake, and then they gave that guy a goodly amount to stop his work? And is that why we don't have a Physx driver for the ATI cards?

I have wondered this for too long now. Two years may be. Because not only there wasn't a Physx driver for the ATI, but also there was absolutely NO information on that even at that time. (I remember asking them about it then, through their online form, but it went without a response.)

Thanks

More about : hey physx ati

July 17, 2010 7:28:59 PM

The article is two years old. Things move on. If you want PhysX, then buy an NVidia card. They own the PhysX engine, so don't be surprised that it doesn't work on a competitor's card.
m
0
l
July 18, 2010 3:39:20 AM

The title of this topic has been edited by Aford10
m
0
l
Related resources
July 18, 2010 1:55:22 PM

What I mean to say is that it might be worth investigating. May be someone at Tom's Hardware can do it.

I think if the nVidia is too rigid, then we are going to have 2 such softwares too. The other one from the ATI.

So what happens, if a video card company opens up, then they have to also bring their software in the market too, that runs their product? Obviously that would be only a few titles. I think this would be going too far. I think all the professional companies should make a rule regarding this (we should have an international body), that they shall run their cards with the help of an open source driver, whose stable version would be the standard.

And I think that this should be the one stop solution for all the software needs for a game- physics shmizics. Even DirectX. If a company like the ATI takes an initiation, then I am sure nVidia would be forced to get draged in it.

Thx
m
0
l
July 18, 2010 3:46:24 PM

You may be right, but I'm all for competition. Why not ban OS X or Linux, as they can't run Windows games? Where do you stop?

If nVidia can persuade games companies to program for PhysX it's a good selling point for their cards. Why would they want to share it with ATI? I mean, these games still run on ATI cards (don't they), it's just that they don't perform so well on them.
m
0
l
July 18, 2010 9:09:03 PM

Ijack said:
You may be right, but I'm all for competition. Why not ban OS X or Linux, as they can't run Windows games? Where do you stop?

If nVidia can persuade games companies to program for PhysX it's a good selling point for their cards. Why would they want to share it with ATI? I mean, these games still run on ATI cards (don't they), it's just that they don't perform so well on them.



If your conclusion about the market and the competition is based on the knowledge that Linux cannot run Windows games, then please correct it first.

May be you don't understand that any open source is not supposed to stop evolving ever-- till final perfection, that is. Linux can run ANY game today, with their software "Wine", and I think that as each day passes, this software would do away with all the remaining shortcomings. The coming era belongs to the open source in the software industry. There is no need for superfluous competitions. That would only raise the prices of hardware that run on that software.

An open source is developed by more than just one two or three human beings. It is OPEN, to all, to you and me. So, after it gains a hundred percent perfection and suddenly a glitch occurs, let a day pass, and that is gone too. This is how development takes place in a world where a thousand different human brains of different nature and character are at work to solve a single problem.

Compare this with a few companies hiring a few men to make software, that can run games, but only when THEIR cards are installed! HOW RIDICULOUS!!!

Thx
m
0
l
July 18, 2010 9:20:22 PM

HolyDoom Witch said:
If your conclusion about the market and the competition is based on the knowledge that Linux cannot run Windows games, then please correct it first.

May be you don't understand that any open source is not supposed to stop evolving ever-- till final perfection, that is. Linux can run ANY game today, with their software "Wine",

I suspect that I know rather more about Open Source software than you do. I have been using it, and contributing to it in my small way, for more than 15 years since I first installed a version 0.9.something Linux. Wine most certainly can not run ANY Windows game, although it certainly can run some.

But I'm not quite sure what your mistaken rant has to do with the basic principle that PhysX is nVidia's property and so you mustn't be surprised that they don't want it to work with ATI cards.

I'm not sure that there is anything more useful to be said on this topic, so at this point I will bow out.
m
0
l
July 19, 2010 6:35:00 AM

So you can get games on Linux - I know. So you can play ANY Windows game on Linux - false. Is any of this relevant - no.
m
0
l
July 19, 2010 3:45:33 PM

Ijack said:
So you can get games on Linux - I know. So you can play ANY Windows game on Linux - false. Is any of this relevant - no.



I think the same sir. I am already into deleting this thread. (I sent the idea to the ATI.)

(Looks like we have a common interest though, apart from this thread.)
***
m
0
l
July 19, 2010 7:07:40 PM

honestly, being a programmer i don't see the sense of writing any code to allow this, just because PhysX isn't all that good, i better idea would be to program a new physics engine in openCL so that any computing device can utilize it (GPU's, CPU cores, IBM cell processors, ... the list goes on)
m
0
l
July 19, 2010 9:05:42 PM

mindless728 said:
honestly, being a programmer i don't see the sense of writing any code to allow this, just because PhysX isn't all that good, i better idea would be to program a new physics engine in openCL so that any computing device can utilize it (GPU's, CPU cores, IBM cell processors, ... the list goes on)


I have very, very, STRONG objections to your display profile name on this forum. Because you are very mindful.

And what else was I saying! It wasn't about the Physx in the end! It was about one stop solution for past AND the future needs. I have now decided to NOT delete this thread. Because suddenly, NOW it makes sense! (I don't know why I was unable to say it somehow.)

The person I was talking to before is a very senior person, especially in the context of what I started here. But I was a little dissappointed when I saw he never thought of a single software solution ever, and instead he was for all the competitions in the world. This happens when you are the architect of the whole city, but don't explore a small street; so the first time you feel very new and strange in that street and take a wrong turn. (Heh heh... excuse me for my penchant for giving such accurate and exemplary examples!)

I just finished Dark Void, immediately before this. And I must say I did not understand or like this Physx stuff myself. I am absolutely not in favour of having separate hardware for a few separate effects!

I don't know about you, but with the current hardware available in a PC, it would be enough for me, may be more, to send a mission to Mars and back!

Hey mindful, are you willing to write something about this? I shall host the site for you! (I shall own the site but we shall treat it like public property!) Let us rip these bastards! Oops! Sorry.

Thx
m
0
l
July 19, 2010 9:26:19 PM

well, i am not much of a writer (except for software), and in reality what i would say wouldn't really change anything, who would put down using PhysX (really there aren't that many games with GPU accelerated PhysX anyways) just because. You would really need to make a competitor which honestly, i don't think i could do right now and i really don't want to as i think GPU accelerated physics aren't worth it since scripting can come close enough and i want my GPU calculating the scene not physics. Though you could have a secondary GPU thats not as powerful, then you are in the same boat as NV for any of the games that utilize gpu based PhysX heavily.

all in all, just wait for a dev to make an OpenCL physics engine (or port one over like havoc *stares at intel)
m
0
l
July 19, 2010 10:30:04 PM

mindless728 said:
well, i am not much of a writer (except for software), and in reality what i would say wouldn't really change anything, who would put down using PhysX (really there aren't that many games with GPU accelerated PhysX anyways) just because. You would really need to make a competitor which honestly, i don't think i could do right now and i really don't want to as i think GPU accelerated physics aren't worth it since scripting can come close enough and i want my GPU calculating the scene not physics. Though you could have a secondary GPU thats not as powerful, then you are in the same boat as NV for any of the games that utilize gpu based PhysX heavily.

all in all, just wait for a dev to make an OpenCL physics engine (or port one over like havoc *stares at intel)


Ah! Mr. mindless, you may keep the display name as of now. You did not understand me. I wanted you to start authoring the software already!

One which does away the needs of DirectXs, the Wines, the Macs versions etc. This software would be a "graphics translator" for the computer. No matter what device you have. So like, we have this stable version on the site, and Crytek want it for Crysis 3. No problem. They just download our stable version, 'connect' the software with their game with minor modifications, and lo it's ready!

In any scenario, all anyone would need to do is download the software, do small changes according to their programming, and they are done. (That is going to remain because of the variation coming in making the same program by two different people even when the language/compiler was 100% same.) The device is ready for any computer. Why? Because that's how we design the structure of the software. Small modules in their places, ready to connect to another module. If they are not needed, then they just lie dormant.

I think this can be done. What matters is HOW we think.

Thx
m
0
l
July 19, 2010 10:35:51 PM

HolyDoom Witch said:
Ah! Mr. mindless, you may keep the display name as of now. You did not understand me. I wanted you to start authoring the software already!

One which does away the needs of DirectXs, the Wines, the Macs versions etc. This software would be a "graphics translator" for the computer. No matter what device you have. So like, we have this stable version on the site, and Crytek want it for Crysis 3. No problem. They just download our stable version, 'connect' the software with their game with minor modifications, and lo it's ready!

In any scenario, all anyone would need to do is download the software, do small changes according to their programming, and they are done. (That is going to remain because of the variation coming in making the same program by two different people even when the language/compiler was 100% same.) The device is ready for any computer. Why? Because that's how we design the structure of the software. Small modules in their places, ready to connect to another module. If they are not needed, then they just lie dormant.

I think this can be done. What matters is HOW we think.

Thx


well, i'm not into graphics programming, and really there is a cross platform solution available, it's called openGL, though most game dev's use DirectX 1) since that is what they are familiar with 2) TBH DirectX offers better performance
m
0
l
July 19, 2010 11:04:12 PM

HolyDoom Witch said:
H!

Here, have a look at this article:
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia-physx-ati,5764....

Then you can go to the site ngohq.com. There you won't find any Physx for the ATI like claimed in the article.

My question is, did nVidia realise, that saying CUDA is for everybody (meaning all companies) was a mistake, and then they gave that guy a goodly amount to stop his work? And is that why we don't have a Physx driver for the ATI cards?

I have wondered this for too long now. Two years may be. Because not only there wasn't a Physx driver for the ATI, but also there was absolutely NO information on that even at that time. (I remember asking them about it then, through their online form, but it went without a response.)

Thanks

It Depends what Games Are supported for Ageia Physx Effects or Havok FX! I would look on wikipedia or the software companies website to see what they support. Only Games that matter to me are DOOM IV-F.E.A.R. 3-Rage-Max Payne 3-Global Agenda- and as long as they run on 1280x1024 at 120FPS I'm Happy.
m
0
l
!