ATI + Nvidia PhysX configurations are banned with newest drivers

http://physxinfo.com/

Should be a near complete list of titles using PhysX on PC and console, most uses CPU based processing though and only the newer titles actually install the drivers (Even if they don't use GPU processing.) but it's pretty easy to check via filenames like nxcooking.dll and similar.

EDIT: That link is already mentioned in the post you quoted, should have checked where that URL led first but I believed it was NVIDIA's own website of titles.
(It's not as up to date and it's also a bit inaccurate stating several titles using PPU/GPU acceleration when they don't.)

 

phoenixdot

As you may know, PhysX SDK is regular CPU physics engine, but with additional ability to accelerate certain features on Nvidia GPU and Ageia PPU.

There is not many titles with GPU acceleration (7 released, to be precise), but PhysX SDK on CPU is well accepted by developers.

Well, we are collecting and analyzing PhysX SDK based titles for 2.5 years

 

Thats great, but its just flapping flags and bits of paper. I couldn't care less about the maths behind it, because at the end of the day it doesn't do anything.

 

LOL!!! Retaliation and that link he provided with PhysX supported games only show a few games which uses PhysX. There are red crosses behind many games telling us that hardware acceleration isn't present in that title. Plus the list also shows console games (like that is useful for PC gamers).

So in the end the list can be summed up like this:

99% of the listed games have no PhysX support
1% of the listed games do have PhysX support (some are console games)

Nvidia trying to do magic with numbers again.

 

well, it moves & reacts naturally. its a nice eyecandy. the devs made these, not nvidia.
at the end of the day you wouldn't want batman to "do stuff" with flags and paper (you can tear it apart though),
but even if you did, ATI users could be missing some weird gameplay abilities :3eyes:

so take it as interactive environmental effects. as if you were only missing the "ultra high" level of detail or as such :booty:


@ Keitosha: ALL games in that list use physx. we were comparing physx to havok powered games list, nothing to do with hw acceleration.
and havok list also count many console only games. sorry, you have no case :bash:

 

0% of the games have DX11 support either, yet no one (except me ) is arguing DX11 won't take off.

PhysX has the capability to do much more then it currently does, but lack of universal adoption is preventing its use. Despite that, all NVIDIA cards have support, all the consoles have support, and the devs have started to jump on board. Say what you will, but console games using PhysX is a big deal, as if that game ever gets ported, why completly remove the feature? To me, console games using PhysX means future PC adoption of PhysX.

What I want people to do is start using PhysX like it can be used: I want fully destructable environments determined by the API, not the devs or the engine. I want bullet penetration to be decided by the physics behind the bullet/armor, not by some piece of pre-determined code. I want an explosion to trigger an avalanche when I shoot a mountain with a RPG, not have a pre-scripted sequence the devs thoguht out ahead of time. I want to be free of engine restrictions, and free to do whatever the physics engine allows me to do. Without a Phyics API, we are stuck with hundreds of game engines, each with their own set of defined Physics, and each with their own limitations.

 

Well it seems to work just fine technically, so I'm sure there will be some driver mods around soon, allowing you to use an ATI + nVidia bundle again.

But I just can't get the point in this whole restriction thing... It is not like they were enabling their technology on ATI hardware. They allow the customer to use PhysX by buying a nVidia card on top of their ATI card. I can't see how this is any bad for nVidia...

 

Well said, and i would love something like that in the future too.

One of my favourite moments in the Batman:AA demo, and i've said this a few times, was kicking someone into a pillar, their head smashed off it, destroyed some of it it, and he slid down it while debris and smoke landed on him, was very cool.

Its not needed, but adds to the game like AO or AA would, and anyone claiming they don't like it, are kidding themselves on.

 

Agreed. Seriously though, one major thing you could do right now in every FPS would be bullet interactions. Does the bullet get through the material? How much speed (and by extension, force) remains? Does it penetrate the armor/helmet? How much damage does it do?

Right now, all that is set in code. You can either shoot through something with a bullet of x caliber, or you can't. Damage is determined by where it hits, and is not effected by the environment. Weather effects affecting trejectory? Please...

We can start to implement all of this NOW. You can't tell me this won't be a huge step for FPS gaming. The extension would be environmental effects and fully destroyable environments, as well as weather. Next would come improved AI to deal with these effects (running from an avalanche or collapsing building), farther improving development of both AI and Physics.

But we can't even start, because no universal API exists, so we still live in a world where the engine is the limiting factor. Thats why I attack ATI so strongly on this, as their support for OpenCL instead of a ready to go API is slowing advancement down for all gamers like me.

 

Do you really think Nvidia isn't going to let ATI hardware perform better with PhysX?

What happens when PhysX runs like complete crap on ATI's hardware?
More rehashed cards and higher launch prices comes to mind.

If that means we need to wait a little longer for DX11 and OpenCL then so be it, but you shouldn't be mad at ATI. If anything you should be mad at Nvidia for reducing their PhysX market share by this recent banning.

Well I hate to burst your bubble, but ATI GPUs control the market share of consoles out today. Also the rumors are that Nvidia is out of the next generation of consoles.

 

Yes, because allowing your main competitor full control over something like this is a smart thing to do. Christ, think man!

ATI is going for the open standard, where the free market controls its progress, and not just one greedy mega corporation.

If you can't see how that would be a bad thing and in the end would stifle innovation then I suggest you contemplate the point for a while.

 

I don't see the problem in OpenCL. For me it's more of a fail that a proprietary API like PhysX is growing so fast while an open standard like OpenCL is more and more ignored.

Think of Glide. It was said to be by far the best graphics API back then. It got used in some games due to its advantages over DirectX or OpenGL and that was of course nice for every owner of a Voodoo card. But it was not exactly that nice for everyone else though one could argue back then the Voodoo was the only choice for serious gaming.

I see PhysX in a similar dilemma right now. Of course a PhysX enabled game is a great experience for everyone with a nVidia card but nowadays nVidia isn't the only choice for serious gaming. And what makes it even more difficult: just imagine nVidia would go the same way as 3dfx. What to do with all this PhysX stuff then? Programmers being used to an API and then the API dying is worse than anything.

That's why I strongly favor open standards over proprietary APIs even if they might have slight disadvantages now. With proper support they will grow and become much more powerfull as well as more accessible for the end customer than a proprietary API would.

 

So? It doesn't matter who makes the GPU, what matters is that its supported. Yes, ATI is the GPU on the 360. Oh, the 360 can do PhysX now. That means it will be adopted for consoles (we're already seeing it), which means it will be adopted for hte PC ports.

 

This sort of paranoid attitude is what makes me think alot of ATI users are puffing too much weed, your assuming, and we all know where assumption gets you.

Its irrelevant that the 360 and wii uses an ATI GPU, the wii is about as powerful as my phone, and the 360 has alot of software PhysX games.
Your missing the point, the more console games that have software PhysX they more PC games that will have Hardware PhysX, its just very easy to implement afterwards, unlike DX11 and OpenCL.

But none of us know the future, so all we can do is wait and see.

 

Well Havok is also supported, so your point? All current consoles can't support GPU PhysX, which basicly means Nvidia needs to pay extra for GPU effects if they want them on the PC. What happens to GPU PhysX once the next generation of consoles come out and Nvidia is out of the picture?

From a business standpoint it just doesn't make sense for ATI to license PhysX. If you can't see that then shame on you!

We can't see the future, but we could take a good guess of what will happen.

 

Doesn't matter that the next run of consoles won't have an Nvidia GPU, and this could change anyway, but even if they dont PhysX could still be supported at software level, and the next gen of consoles are still about 3-4years away, Sony and MS lost billions on the hardware for the 360 and the PS3, they need to keep the current hardware going as long as possible to make a good profit, so i don't think that will be a factor.

Making money in anyform would be good business for AMD, they are bleeding money and have been for years.

 

Nexgen consoles usually come out every 5-6 yrs. That would make the next xbox around nov 2010 or 2011, which is only about 1-2 yrs away.

How is supporting GPU PhysX going to help them make money?
Putting your hardware in last place is a terrible business strategy. If anything you should want ATI to be competitive.

 

by not loosing customers due to lack of GPU PhysX support, for instance ... ?


I think their primary concern with licensing PhysX is 3rd party (Nvidia) optimizations
(worst case scenario is NV deliberately degrading performances on ATI hardware)
I still think its better to support it to some extent than not at all.
instead of supporting PhysX AND OpenCL Havok (whenever that is), they try to hurt/kill physx by ignoring it completely.
eventually, they hurt everyone, including themselves.

 

MS and Sony have both stated that they both wanted a longer lifespan for both consoles, Sony even said 10years for the PS3, a new wii is highly possible soon though.

As said above, PhysX while still not hugely popular is attractive for many, and with at least 3more games supporting GPU PhysX this year, it may put some pressure on ATI.

 

Their doing just fine so far without GPU PhysX.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=16087

You got it competely wrong. If ATI fails to be competive we'll go right back into Nvidia rehashing cards and increasing prices. It will hurt both Nvidia and ATI customers.

I seriously doubt that will happen. Again in most cases it's about every 5yrs unless there's a problem.

PS1 - Sep 15 1995
PS2 - Oct 22 2000 - 5yrs
PS3 - Nov 11 2006 - 6yrs ( delayed 1yr because of BluRay - SDK was released Jun 2005 )

XBOX - Nov 15 2001 ( discontinued 1 yr early because Nvidia wouldn't discount pricing on the GPU )
X360 - Nov 22 2005 4yrs

N64 - Sep 29 1996
GC - Nov 18 2001 - 5yrs
Wii - Nov 19 2006 - 5yrs