Slashdot Mirror


NVidia Cripples PhysX "Open" API

An anonymous reader writes "In a foot-meet-bullet type move, NVidia is going to disable PhysX engine if you are using a display adapter other than one that came from their company. This despite the fact that you may have an NVidia card on your system specifically to do this type of processing. 'For a variety of reasons some development expense, some quality assurance and some business reasons Nvidia will not support GPU accelerated PhysX with Nvidia GPUs while GPU rendering is happening on non-Nvidia GPUs.' Time to say hello to Microsoft dx physics or Intel's Havok engine."

12 of 393 comments (clear)

  1. Havok by sopssa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Havok is a better engine anyway.

    But that's the problem with corporate buyings anyway. Even if its kinda wrong to stop supporting the other platforms, they have every right to do so.

    1. Re:Havok by DJRumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Doesn't one normally wait until they have a good market for a product before they try to lock people in? This will only drive people to an engine that is more widely supported, or to an open standard that does the same thing. I understand the business reason, but it seems silly to show all your cards this early in the game.

    2. Re:Havok by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well I can say that Nvidia acting like dicks is what switched me to go full AMD on my newest PCs, along with Intel acting like asses over virtualization on only certain CPUs got me to switch over to AMD for my customers as well. The new quads are more than powerful enough for the average Joe, and after being burnt on the 5xxx series, followed by a couple of my customers getting burnt on the bad solder BS (and Nvidia acting like dicks instead of manning up to their mistakes) made it not very hard to just switch.

      I've found the new AMD boards have great graphics out of the box, and for those that need more the 4xxx series are affordable and don't need an AC unit to cool the thing. This burning everyone with PhysiX just is the icing on the stupidity cake. I just wonder how much of Nvidia acting like dicks comes back to getting burnt on the solder? Plus with Intel and AMD having their own GPU solutions Nvidia is looking more and more like the odd man odd. It may be just me but this smells like a desperate move to try and get some lock in going. Considering how nice and affordable the new ATI cards are I wonder how much luck they are gonna have in this climate. Only time will tell I suppose. Oh well, as long as stuff blows up real good I don't care if every piece of debris lands in the correct spot anyway.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    3. Re:Havok by electrosoccertux · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Havok and the DX Physics are completely open and either party can use them, no proprietary api or licensing or anything silly. No hardware vendor controls what happens.

      PhysX is not. It is controlled by Nvidia. Gosh, they wouldn't have financial motives to abuse this power would they? No of course not...

      Nvidia lately seems to have been getting around the whole market segmentation issue by ... paying off forum members in all the hot PC Hardware forums? Lately my favorite has been inundated with troll and fanboy posts proclaiming the wonders of PhysX (still waiting for a game where it actually adds anything) and the death of AMD/ATi.

  2. Good luck with that by Flowstone · · Score: 5, Insightful

    First they scoop up PhysX and try to create a market for PPUs. Now the only way PhysX is ever going to get any use is out of pure coincidence. Not the smartest move for Nvidia to make when Ati/AMD is on their heels with a new line of cards.

  3. Re:Anti-trust? by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This phrase "anti-trust", I don't think it means what you think it means.

    How are they leveraging a monopoly to gain unfair advantage in a marketplace?

    To me it seems more like NVIDIA has finally realized that they *can't* use it to gain unfair advantage so they're dumping it.

    --
    No sig today...
  4. Soon irrelevant anyway by perrin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Once the big game engines and physics libraries get generic support for GPU programming through OpenCL, this will all be pretty moot anyway. From what I can tell, the bullet physics library is already developing this, and I am sure closed source competitors are doing that as well. Relying on anything that will only run on a single vendor's hardware is just a losing business proposition (unless that vendor pays you for it, which I guess is how PhysX got going).

  5. Re:Can someone explain this more clearly? by BitZtream · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Its anti-consumer, but that doesn't trigger an anti-trust charge, they don't have a monopoly.

    Why does everyone scream like its illegal when a company does something they don't like? Unless they are king of the hill and using their powers to force others into capitulating with them, its not an issue for the courts. You don't have to buy nVidia. You don't have to use PhysX. You don't have to buy a Voodoo 3 card. Sure a game may only support one of the above, but thats not something that justifies going after nVidia unless they owned the market.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  6. Re:Can someone explain this more clearly? by smoker2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How can it be anti-trust if (a) they aren't a monopoly, and (b) they are disabling their own hardware ?

    If they caused the ATI card to not function then I could understand it, but a secondary function on their own card ?

  7. Re:CRT? Are you from the past? by OrangeTide · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What about a CRT is outdated? It has better black levels, faster refresh, and higher brightness than an LCD. It's analog but good cabling will still result in a crystal clear image. I think the primary disadvantages of CRTs is that widescreen is so costly as to be impractical. They are heavy. And they suck a lot of power. but in terms of image quality a CRT is still extremely good.

    CRTs are "outdated" because businesses want to sell LCDs. Flat and light is sexy. And LCDs sold like crazy back when the image quality was dramatically inferior to a CRT, and it took them years to catch up.

    CRT technology is not obsolete, but the marketing of CRTs is dead. If you want to argue that we should use technology based on marketability alone, be my guest. I suspect most slashdotters will rip into you pretty brutally.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  8. Re:CRT? Are you from the past? by earnest+murderer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That was a ridiculous thing to post.

    A CRT doesn't need support, it needs to not be sabotaged.
    His glasses don't need support, they need to not be sabotaged.

    Not supporting both of them takes more effort than ignoring them.

    Competent support of all that hardware would take less space in code than this comment window is high. Going to the trouble to restrict it was much more... *after* the meetings, licenses, and money exchanges had all taken place.

    The cynic in me believes that someone with a debugger is probably a single (or two) flipped bit(s) away from a working setup.

    --
    Platform advocacy is like choosing a favorite severely developmentally disabled child.
  9. Re:Closing the Architecture by Joe+U · · Score: 4, Insightful

    MS pulled a smackdown on Creative. Creative cards (and drivers, especially drivers! [FU creative]) have been sucking for years.

    So, new OS comes out and MS removes all the hooks that 3rd parties have been putting into the Windows sound system, instantly leveling the playing field and removing a major source of Windows instability.

    One of the few times MS really did the right thing.