That is very arguable. All PhysX testing is done on Nvidia card, having Nvidia do PhysX while ATI card handling others is not intentional.
Think of it this way. Say Nvidia allows the cross vendor setup. One day while you play a game with physX and system crashed and can't be turn on. You realized that your ATI card has melted. You immediately send the card back to ATI as RMA, but they claimed that it was physX that cause the problem which they are not responsible for it. You can't send your ATI card to Nvidia as people will laugh at you, but you do make complains to them. Guess what? They will say they don't support ATI product. So what are you going to do with your brand new burned ATI/Nvidia card?
If it worked just fine meaning that it works on previous drivers, then you don't need to update it as that driver is fine. If the new driver causes problems, don't use it.It's not arguable at all. It worked just fine before, and now without any hardware changes or changes to the games, it suddenly doesn't work with a new driver. It can still be "hacked" to run on the new drivers too, and it works perfectly fine, it's just not allowed normally. If Nvidia made printers they would make it so that they don't work if you have an ATI card in the system. This is no different. It's an artificial lockout with not a shred of technical purpose behind it.
All I am saying is Nvidia don't want to be responsible for something that they don't support. As of now, ATI user can't use PhysX, and the blame goes directly to Nvidia. For something that works on Nvidia but not on ATI, the blame goes directly to Nvidia.You think the hardware might fail, or 'melt' from having both vendors cards and drivers installed, and running Physx? And then you feel that the board maker (not AMD, and certainly not Nvidia with an AMD GPU) wouldn't honor their warranty because you used Physx? Your whole post really confuses me.
All I am saying is Nvidia don't want to be responsible for something that they don't support.
Again, I said it is arguable. I can see the problem and it won't be better if a message pops up and say "PhysX is unsupported when ATI card is present, do it at your own risk!" Nvidia will have to release fixes to unsupported functionalities because that allows users to do so. "If it used to work, but not anymore, then Nvidia have to fix it." Even if it was not a supported function to begin with.Fair enough. Leaving something functional and unsupported is not the same as artificially limiting something from working that used to work fine.
What if AMD turns off 3D rendering capabilities when an Intel motherboard is detected? You'd be ok with that then? Even if people who bought the Radeon card for it's 3D rendering were never told in the requirements that the video card will ONLY work with an AMD system (processor, chipset)? That's fine as long as AMD's excuse is that they don't want to be responsible for something they don't support even though the Radeon card gamed just fine on your Intel system for months?
If any piece of code can 'melt' hardware then the manufactures have a much, much bigger problem than physx, case in point, your scenario is ludicrous and at all not nVidias reasoning, you are just making stuff up to defend them.Think of it this way. Say Nvidia allows the cross vendor setup. One day while you play a game with physX and system crashed and can't be turn on. You realized that your ATI card has melted.
So far DX11 has one patched DX9 game. :hmm:
PhysX launched with a download pack that contained more than that.
You are skewing the facts a lot. There are plenty of PhysX games coming as well. Not to mention 10's of millions of people more have a PhysX capable GPU vs a DX11.
So far DX11 has one patched DX9 game. :hmm:
PhysX launched with a download pack that contained more than that.
You are skewing the facts a lot. There are plenty of PhysX games coming as well. Not to mention 10's of millions of people more have a PhysX capable GPU vs a DX11.
If you payed attention to the article, you would notice that it has indeed been released in Russia and Germany. Or are those not real places anymore?
Fermi derivative GPU parts haven't even been announced, no benchmarks have been released, and nvidia hasn't even mentioned what kinds of cards are coming to the GPU gaming segment. I'm annoyed and pissed with this situation too because I'd like to have all next gen parts out to compete for my money, but since nvidia isn't talking about their parts it's not vaporware. It's nothing-ware.
The 5970, though, has been talked about, alluded to, and given a set release date. We're getting benchmarks, the date is upon us, and there will be how many for sale? 10? 15? There are massive production issues right now with 40nm at TSMC. AMD can't deliver their 5850's or 5870 with any significant supply. This card will be even more scarce. I guess it's fun to talk about, but there will be more reviews of this card on the net than there will be actual paid-for owners of this card by the year's end. What is the point of releasing this card right now if they can't even make enough of their other just-released parts?
Irony that you cut the quote there. Lame
(The following is in the same paragraph directly following the above, taken out of context, quote)
So basically inferring, since nVidia can't compete fairly, sabotage is in order?
Edit: I have to add that misquoting something is not something new, you seem to have a knack for specifically misquoting something, (by edit* or omission) to show something different than the intent of the original author!
*Batman thread anyone??? You still have yet to reverse the edit.
Looking at the benches, it would appear that the driver certainly needs to improve. But as of now, AMD has the fastest dual GPU card, and the fastest single GPU card. Infact, 3 of the fastest 4 cards that money can buy from any manufacturer are from AMD. Pretty much any new card that launches from either camp will typically have it's driver bugs, I imagine the problem is compounded with dual GPU cards. We all know that these will get worked out as AMD releases their monthy drivers and hotfixes.
I would think the single biggest knock right now is availability of the 58x0 parts and we'll see how availability with the 5970 turns out. The 58x0 parts are trickling in here and there. But even at the less than stellar availability of the 58x0 parts, AMD's availablity of DX11 hardware is still much, MUCH better than Nvidia's availability of DX11 parts.
Do note that the developers have choice. They don't have to enter the TWIMTBP program but they do. That's too bad. I don't cry over it, wouldn't cry over it if I owned a 5870.
These radeon cards are kind of disappointing to me. I've been waiting for something to upgrade my gtx280 and i don't think either one of these really fit the bill. The 5870 barely beats the 280 on the benchmarks i saw on techspot, sometimes only a 5fps difference, up to 12 or so, with maybe one case higher.
Why didn't ATI support PhysX but create its own Havok that no one uses?
You are right, I am wrong. I got the facts mixed up, sorry.Pretty sure havok is it's own company, correct me if i'm wrong but i don't think ATI had anything to do with the creation of havok. And i also beleive havok has been around longer than PhysX. Havok FX was going to be owned by Intel but i beleive it was cancelled.
Fine, it doesn't melt, only crashes. Who is responsible to fix it? ATI? Nvidia? or the game developers?Seero, I think you are missing the point on why Nvidia made this decision. It's really a business decision on their part. Lets say the worst case scenario occurs, with an Nvidia card for Physx and AMD card for rendering your system becomes unstable. Games crash. That's it. That's your worst case scenario. Your hardware will not fail, it will not 'melt'.
Well said. PhysX on Cross-over configurations is not supported which the exception of Aegia PPU. Use any Nvidia's card as a PPU is also not a supported configuration. You know it, thus you use unofficial drivers to re-enable PhysX.Motherboard manufacturers release a list of supported CPU's. Overclocking is not a gaurantee. There is no gaurantee your chip will overclock even 1MHz. Attempting to install an unsupported chip in a motherboard and overclocking would not be supported unless otherwise stated that the motherboard guarantees a certain FSB frequency. You can't call up MSI and complain that your K9A2 does not overclock... if it runs at the rated speeds and the supported CPU's work, than that's all that MSI guarantees.
Again Aegia PPU works, and still works. It isn't out of nowhere to some of us. We know Nvidia is going to do something about it.Physx is a different ballgame all together. Physx worked before. Physx capable cards were sold before with the capability to run Physx in your system that used an AMD based graphics card for rendering. The Aegia PPU was sold for use in any system that met it's power requirements, had the correct PCIE connection, and ran a supported OS. Then out of nowhere Nvidia pulls the rug out from those people. The reason they did this is to keep Physx exclusive to Nvidia cards... unfortunately for many of it's customers who did infact buy an Nvidia part for Physx, and did meet all the requirements for the card to be supported, they got screwed as Nvidia later on changed the requirements after they already had your money. Hence my AMD removing 3D capabilities on an Intel system analogy.
Let put the formal reasoning aside. Say the action Nvidia has taken is simply to prevent ATI user to use PhysX. Is it wrong? Does the action even reduce the number of ATI user from using PhysX?
So yeah, buy 5970 and a cheap Nvidia card for physX plus some driver mod and you are good to go. Ethical? Does ethic save me money? lol
Fine, it doesn't melt, only crashes. Who is responsible to fix it? ATI? Nvidia? or the game developers?
Well said. PhysX on Cross-over configurations is not supported which the exception of Aegia PPU. Use any Nvidia's card as a PPU is also not a supported configuration. You know it, thus you use unofficial drivers to re-enable PhysX.
Again Aegia PPU works, and still works. It isn't out of nowhere to some of us. We know Nvidia is going to do something about it.
Let put the formal reasoning aside. Say the action Nvidia has taken is simply to prevent ATI user to use PhysX. Is it wrong? Does the action even reduce the number of ATI user from using PhysX?
So yeah, buy 5970 and a cheap Nvidia card for physX plus some driver mod and you are good to go. Ethical? Does ethic save me money? lol
Lets see some DX11 games that are meaningful and quality before we worry about it too much.
Well said. Unsupported configuration will have no support. You can choose a) to use old drivers, b) use modded drivers, or c) use preferred configurations.If you would use something that is not supported and it causes stability problems no one would fix it but yourself. You would either have to live with an unsupported configuration causing crashes or change the configuration so that it meets the supported requirements.
I am not confused. Ageia PPU was a PCI card released 4 years ago. It was meant to offload physics calculations away from CPU. Now it can't handle the load of newer games so whether new driver should still support it is debatable as it can't handle the load of newer games anyways. However, Ageia PhysX PPU still works.I think you are confused about the Aegia PPU... Aegia is not supported any longer either. The Nvidia video cards were sold as Physx capable. Nvidia did NOT specify that with the Aegia PPU or an Nvidia GPU being used as a PPU that those pieces of hardware would only work with Nvidia GPU's being used as the rendering hardware. People bought and used the Aegia part as well as Nvidia GPU's to run Physx with their AMD video cards doingn the rendering for months. Then Nvidia took away that functionality for users with AMD video cards even though your PC met all the requirements.
Nvidia video card is being sold as a video card that support physX, not being sold as a PCI-E card that offloads PhysX from the video card. Yes you are use Nvidia card as a PPU, so the mindset is Nvidia does support it. Now you know it doesn't. On the surface, those who use cross-over configuration are screwed. In practice, it still works after modding.Physx is Nvidia's...
Let me answer your question by asking you a question.Back to what I asked you before. Would it be ok if you bought a nice new i7 rig and an AMD Radeon for graphics, everything works fine, than AMD takes away the ability of the Radeon to render 3D graphics until you get an AMD motherboard and AMD processor? AMD never specified that you needed an AMD motherboard and processor, and it worked fine in your i7 rig, but now AMD has taken away the 3D ability of the card until you get an i7. Obviously that would affect many more people, but that is very similar to what Nvidia did. They sold parts and the requirements were met with your AMD video card for it to work. Than after they have your money they change the requirements to stop Physx from working. To get it to work you need to game on an all Nvidia graphics system.
According to this http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...the-fastest-DirectX-11-graphics-card/Reviews/ review the card is still suffering the micro-stuttering problems. Too much money for me to spend until they get those bugs sorted out.