Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Nvidia: We Didn't Bribe Anyone to Use PhysX

By - Source: Tom's Hardware US | B 55 comments

Nvidia's worldwide director of developer technology fires back at AMD without insulting his rival.

Nvidia fired back at AMD's earlier accusations that it was bribing developers to use its proprietary PhysX technology. Ashutosh Rege, the worldwide director of developer technology at Nvidia, said that the company does provide help to developers who want to implement physics into their games using Nvidia's middleware. However, he was adamant that the company does not-- and cannot-- influence their decision to use PhysX or any other library or engine.

“There could be no deal under which we would cash somebody in for using PhysX,” he told X-bit Labs.

In a nutshell, his response was broken down into several distinct responses: Nvidia cannot force game developers to use PhysX, the company helps implement GPU PhysX, and it does not intentionally lower performance of non-Nvidia platforms-- this was an accusation made earlier this year by AMD.

Rege also pointed out that PhysX is not GLide. "The comparison of Glide against PhysX is not smart," he said, referring to AMD's comparison just days ago. "PhysX is not an API, it is a full set of software, it is a middleware."

Surprisingly, he admits that PhysX isn't a big consideration for game developers, it's not the main deciding factor. "In the middleware business you have game developers saying ‘I’ve got these features, I’ve got these licensing terms and I need to deploy on these platforms. What is the best solution here?’. Of course, the cost of license is also important to developer. Based on all of that, they make their decision what package to choose."

But Rege also pointed out that Nvidia is "happily" working with open-source developers of physics processing tools, even those that use OpenCL or DirectCompute. "If a developer asks us to help implement certain feature, we will add it," he said. "If he asks to port something to DirectCompute, we will certainly do our best to get that to him. […] We will support game developers to the extent of our knowledge of, [for example], Bullet. Obviously, we do not have engineers, who are exposed in Bullet to [provide technical support], but we are working with the Bullet Engine team on specific things. […] At the end, we are selling GPUs, not PhysX."

Ding, round three.

Display 55 Comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 22 Hide
    Yuka , March 11, 2010 11:09 PM
    jacobdrjWhy is PhysX any different than, say, MMX?


    Intel sold/gave the rights to AMD so they could use MMX. Has nVidia done that with PhysX? No, they blocked their PhysX if an ATI card was detected (even worse, any other vendor maybe).

    Cheers!
  • 21 Hide
    builderbobftw , March 11, 2010 10:48 PM
    I want him to explian how Crysis Warhead got optimized for Nvidia hardware and Not ATI.
  • 20 Hide
    SneakySnake , March 12, 2010 12:12 AM
    Wasn't it the new Batman game that had the highest level of textures locked out on ATI cards, and ATI remedied the situation by removing the ATI tags in the drivers so the game would have higher graphics capabilities ??? I seem to vaguely remember something like that
Other Comments
  • -5 Hide
    RogerDeath , March 11, 2010 9:50 PM
    But by selling their GPUs with the PhysX functionality, aren't they in essence selling PhysX?
  • 21 Hide
    builderbobftw , March 11, 2010 10:48 PM
    I want him to explian how Crysis Warhead got optimized for Nvidia hardware and Not ATI.
  • 11 Hide
    Pei-chen , March 11, 2010 10:49 PM
    RogerDeathBut by selling their GPUs with the PhysX functionality, aren't they in essence selling PhysX?

    But by selling their GPUs with the gmaing functionality, aren't they in essence selling games?
  • 11 Hide
    builderbobftw , March 11, 2010 10:51 PM
    No, just a small useless piece of software that only works on Nvidia hardware.
  • -5 Hide
    jacobdrj , March 11, 2010 10:53 PM
    Why is PhysX any different than, say, MMX?
  • 11 Hide
    one-shot , March 11, 2010 10:56 PM
    pei-chenBut by selling their GPUs with the gmaing functionality, aren't they in essence selling games?


    And because the GPUs with gaming abilities that sell games and while the games have hacks, aren't they selling hacks as well?
  • 2 Hide
    nfail , March 11, 2010 10:56 PM
    Everything you hear out of nVidia HQ is a lie. this is what happens when you rape the trust of your customers - nobody believes anything they say now except a few who still make money from their lies.
  • 0 Hide
    Mousemonkey , March 11, 2010 11:06 PM
    I for one will always take the disparaging remarks of an ex employee with a rather large pinch of salt.
  • 22 Hide
    Yuka , March 11, 2010 11:09 PM
    jacobdrjWhy is PhysX any different than, say, MMX?


    Intel sold/gave the rights to AMD so they could use MMX. Has nVidia done that with PhysX? No, they blocked their PhysX if an ATI card was detected (even worse, any other vendor maybe).

    Cheers!
  • 18 Hide
    nfail , March 11, 2010 11:23 PM
    Nvidia: We Didn't Bribe Anyone to Use PhysX.

    Everybody else: Bullsheet!
  • 6 Hide
    winner4455 , March 11, 2010 11:32 PM
    Lies
  • -1 Hide
    nforce4max , March 11, 2010 11:32 PM
    Yawn physx is only for tinkering around and for those who have a few bucks that they want to burn. ATI for every day use however Nvidia cards make up most of my collection.
  • -4 Hide
    phantomtrooper , March 11, 2010 11:36 PM
    I can see why developers would chose to use Nvidia and PhysX.
    1. Nvidia holds more of the market share
    2. ATI has had problems in the past (speaking from experience)
  • -4 Hide
    jacobdrj , March 11, 2010 11:42 PM
    So in theory, MMX is no different technologically, in that it has become an extension or 'instruction set'. The issue comes down to intellectual property rights. However, what is to stop AMD from developing their own physics engine, and is it even necessary? Can not a normal GPU/CPU emulate physics by dedicating a core to it?
  • 4 Hide
    darkguset , March 11, 2010 11:59 PM
    jacobdrjSo in theory, MMX is no different technologically, in that it has become an extension or 'instruction set'. The issue comes down to intellectual property rights. However, what is to stop AMD from developing their own physics engine, and is it even necessary? Can not a normal GPU/CPU emulate physics by dedicating a core to it?


    ATI already doing it, HAVOK
  • 15 Hide
    darkguset , March 12, 2010 12:03 AM
    "At the end, we are selling GPUs, not PhysX."

    And in the absence of any worthy GPU in the last 6 months (Fermi anyone?) maybe they should indeed turn to selling PhysX (sarcasm)
  • 5 Hide
    smalltime0 , March 12, 2010 12:10 AM
    darkgusetATI already doing it, HAVOK

    except AFAIK Havok is cross-platform and is owned but Havok the company, which is owned by Intel, not ATi
  • 20 Hide
    SneakySnake , March 12, 2010 12:12 AM
    Wasn't it the new Batman game that had the highest level of textures locked out on ATI cards, and ATI remedied the situation by removing the ATI tags in the drivers so the game would have higher graphics capabilities ??? I seem to vaguely remember something like that
  • 3 Hide
    Mousemonkey , March 12, 2010 12:16 AM
    Quote:
    Intel sold/gave the rights to AMD so they could use MMX. Has nVidia done that with PhysX? No, they blocked their PhysX if an ATI card was detected (even worse, any other vendor maybe).

    Cheers!


    AMD did not want to use PhysX long before Nvidia blocked their cards from using it.

    http://www.tgdaily.com/business-and-law-features/38392-does-amd-block-physx-on-radeon-development
  • -4 Hide
    Anonymous , March 12, 2010 12:32 AM
    Quote:

    No, just a small useless piece of software that only works on Nvidia hardware.

    Lies. PhysX can work using the CPU too... but , ofc, runs much faster on a NVIDIA GPU.

    Sadly, AMD does not offer an easy to use and professional alternative to PhysX. We must rely on 3rd party APIs like Newton or Bullet which much less functionality and tools than PhysX.

    So, developers use PhysX because is very good and AMD is not interestered in middleware at all.
Display more comments