Nvidia: We Didn't Bribe Anyone to Use PhysX

But by selling their GPUs with the PhysX functionality, aren't they in essence selling PhysX?

I want him to explian how Crysis Warhead got optimized for Nvidia hardware and Not ATI.

But by selling their GPUs with the gmaing functionality, aren't they in essence selling games?

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

Why is PhysX any different than, say, MMX?

And because the GPUs with gaming abilities that sell games and while the games have hacks, aren't they selling hacks as well?

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.

I for one will always take the disparaging remarks of an ex employee with a rather large pinch of salt.

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!

Nvidia: We Didn't Bribe Anyone to Use PhysX.

Everybody else: Bullsheet!

Lies

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.

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)

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?

ATI already doing it, HAVOK

"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)

except AFAIK Havok is cross-platform and is owned but Havok the company, which is owned by Intel, not ATi

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

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

http://www.tgdaily.com/business-an [...] evelopment

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.

I think Nvidia should resubmit their 'Round 2' argument. They are starting to sound more and more like Government PR.

...Of North Korea.

I don't understand why Nvidia blocked physx on systems with ATI cards. You still need an Nvidia card to run physx. If someone wants to use a 5870 for gaming and a 9800GT for physx, Nvidia should like that, after all, people still buy the 9800GT...

That could cause potential problems with drivers, I believe the official response of nvidia on this issue is they don't want to have qa testing to avoid these problems with the competition's cards

So much for the theme on most games;

"nVidia: The way its meant to be played"

If they're not bribing developers to use PhysX, how come they won't license the tech to AMD?

Well, due to cross licensing agreements, AMD and Intel processors both got native MMX support. Intel developed it and deployed it first, but AMD followed up quickly. With PhysX, it is entirely under Nvidia control. So unless they decide to officially port their PhysX "middleware"/API to DirectCompute, it won't be running on both platforms. We'll have to wait for someone like Havok to step in and offer a DirectCompute or OpenCL solution that runs on both, officially, without unsupported hacks.

Also I still fail to see why they blocked the use of a secondary Nvidia card as a PhysX accelerator, when used with a primary AMD card for rendering.

Have you tried enabling software PhysX in a demanding game? If it even lets you, it will be unplayable. That's like saying "Sure my 486 can play DVDs! It just plays them slower than a modern computer."

Although maybe if we use a $1000 Intel hex-core CPU, we can get the same PhysX performance as $50 Nvidia secondary card.

Why worry about PhysX at this point? As far as I know only this really short list of 15 games supports PhysX with GPU acceleration.
http://www.nzone.com/object/nzone_physxgames_home.html

All other PhysX games are limited to running the CPU.

Maybe if AMD/ATi hadn't talked PhysX down first, Nvidia wouldn't have shut them out.

physx is a cash grab and monopoly attempt,