Nvidia Disables PhysX Support on Vendor Mixed GPU Setups – Driver Update 340.52 Onwards

[tommybhoy]

Buy a motherboard with pci kill switches (becomming very common on mid to high end), kill amd lane, problem solved without removing anything

Nearly there but the best for now, I would like a bios kill switch option(like sata disabling), PC is hard to get access to.

ER you sure about that.

Yeah, quite sure, you asked why the arguing, I answered.

Considering I was the one that tested it out after you requested it a few times using one of my Nvidia gpu's, I am justified my grievance since I paid for a specific feature in good faith and Nvidia pulls a hissy AMDphobic fit.

 

[humbug]

Nearly there but the best for now, I would like a bios kill switch option(like sata disabling), PC is hard to get access to.



Yeah, quite sure, you asked why the arguing, I answered.

Considering I was the one that tested it out after you requested it a few times using one of my Nvidia gpu's, I am justified my grievance since I paid for a specific feature in good faith and Nvidia pulls a hissy AMDphobic fit.

I am justified my grievance since I paid for a specific feature in good faith and Nvidia pulls a hissy AMDphobic fit.

lol

A fair and serious comment, but still i lol'd

 

[tommybhoy]

lol

A fair and serious comment, but still i lol'd

All the more valid in this PC correct era we live in.

 

[Silent_Scone]

I'm still loling that you have a 9800GT in there

Won't really be good for anything other than extra displays anyway

 

[tommybhoy]

I'm loling that you can't read.

PhysX hasn't been disabled using apu's.

I checked myself after remembering my 9800gt would fit in my case where as the 670 was too big(small totally passive rig in the bedroom).

No reason whatsoever to use a 9800gt in a passive media rig when there is a good enough apu doing the job.

 

[humbug]

All the more valid in this PC correct era we live in.

Thats my Monday afternoon laughs sorted.

 

[Silent_Scone]

I'm loling that you can't read.



No reason whatsoever to use a 9800gt in a passive media rig when there is a good enough apu doing the job.

Why are you telling me. You're the one that put it in there . 670 is only half an inch longer so I'm guessing your media rig is crammed if you can't fit a dual slot card. Not good if it's passive.

Spoiler

If you haven't noticed I am winding you up, it's frightfully easy

 

[Confused Stu]

I'm still loling that you have a 9800GT in there

Won't really be good for anything other than extra displays anyway

That was using the parts available for testing what Nvidia actually meant by their latest driver note, pretty sure it wasn't put together for actual use.

In my situation, I have 2 x 290's and I have an Nvidia 460. Previously I've added the 460 to my system so I could run the PhysX effects in the Batman games (love the games, and PhysX adds some more pretty to the games - which I always like). Seeing as I've paid money to Nvidia by buying the card, and I know by using the hacked drivers that there's no hardware/software reasons this system doesn't work, could you please explain to me why it is acceptable for me not to be able to use this setup simply because Nvidia don't want me to. If you could refrain from the childish comments/insults you've used to other people in this thread and actually explain why you view this as acceptable, it would be greatly appreciated.

I am quite happy to see things from another's point of view, but so far I haven't seen any argument in this, or any thread on the subject, that has caused me to think of this whole 5 year old situation as anything other than Nvidia being restrictive for no reason.

 

[humbug]

It has to be said if you pay for a product you should not be locked out of its features.

Its like your VW dealer coming round to disconnect the Air-Con because you put Ford Carpet mats in it.

Its pathetic and its Childish, i don't know how they get away with crap like this.

I don't like companies who behave in ways like this, you don't know what other ridiculous things they are capable of and how that might effect your product.

 

[Orangey]

Well this is the other side of it. PhysX needs a serious kick up the backside. As it stands I wouldn't be the least bit concerned about not having it with my AMD setup. Hopefully next year with the addition of a handful of full next gen games this will change.

PhysX can never succeed beyond where it is now for reasons I have gone into previously:

-Installed base
-Developer support

 

[ubersonic]

I am quite happy to see things from another's point of view, but so far I haven't seen any argument in this, or any thread on the subject, that has caused me to think of this whole 5 year old situation as anything other than Nvidia being restrictive for no reason.

Oh it wasn't no reason, they stopped people using old/cheap Nvidia cards to Turbocharger high end ATi cards because Nvidia had no high end DX11 cards and ATi did, because of this hybrid set-ups were gaining momentum with hardcore enthusiasts. Nvidia acted to protect it's interests and shareholders (in it's defence, something it is law bound to do) then spent the next five years carry on with it so not to admit why lol.

 

[Silent_Scone]

That was using the parts available for testing what Nvidia actually meant by their latest driver note, pretty sure it wasn't put together for actual use.

In my situation, I have 2 x 290's and I have an Nvidia 460. Previously I've added the 460 to my system so I could run the PhysX effects in the Batman games (love the games, and PhysX adds some more pretty to the games - which I always like). Seeing as I've paid money to Nvidia by buying the card, and I know by using the hacked drivers that there's no hardware/software reasons this system doesn't work, could you please explain to me why it is acceptable for me not to be able to use this setup simply because Nvidia don't want me to. If you could refrain from the childish comments/insults you've used to other people in this thread and actually explain why you view this as acceptable, it would be greatly appreciated.

I am quite happy to see things from another's point of view, but so far I haven't seen any argument in this, or any thread on the subject, that has caused me to think of this whole 5 year old situation as anything other than Nvidia being restrictive for no reason.

Certainly, although you needn't have bothered with the terrible patronising greatly appreciated banoffee pudding and cream scones approach.


Because your system contains an AMD GPU.

I hope this helps.

If you have two 290s clearly PhysX isn't a big deal for you anyway, but I'll humour you.


http://www.nvidia.com/object/io_1202161567170.html

I don't see anything about AMD there. You have two AMD GPUs in your system. I'm going to use a software licence analogy here as it's probably the closest. If you have a licensed dongle for a software package. If you then go to use that dongle with another package, in this instance an AMD GPU (as you are using it as the main renderer in this instance which is without question of more importance). Then the licensed dongle will refuse to work. The fact you own another licensed dongle for the particular software you are trying to run, doesn't automatically mean that particular dongle should work for everything.

Given you're referring to the past 5 years, this should come as no surprise as PhysX is strictly an NV technology. You've paid for a theoretical dongle to render it on theoretically, a competitors package.

In any other situation, this would simply be tough ****. But because it's Nvidia, it's a terrible travesty. So you see it's quite difficult not to be slightly narky about it, when it's such a whine filled topic from the get go...


If some of you are truly hurt, I'd suggest maybe making a petition on Change.org and possibly get something done about it. Instead of moaning about Nvidia's ethics day in day out as if they owe you something for being such loyal customers

 

[Martini1991]

Because ones system contains an AMD gpu isn't good enough as a reason. It this case it's Nvidia spiting themselves.

 

[ubersonic]

I'm going to use a software licence analogy here as it's probably the closest.

Apple get very upset if you use their under-priced software on things that aren't their overpriced hardware.

 

[Confused Stu]

Certainly, although you needn't have bothered with the terrible patronising greatly appreciated banoffee pudding and cream scones approach.


Because your system contains an AMD GPU.

I hope this helps.

If you have two 290s clearly PhysX isn't a big deal for you anyway, but I'll humour you.


http://www.nvidia.com/object/io_1202161567170.html

I don't see anything about AMD there. You have two AMD GPUs in your system. I'm going to use a software licence analogy here as it's probably the closest. If you have a licensed dongle for a software package. If you then go to use that dongle with another package, in this instance an AMD GPU (as you are using it as the main renderer in this instance which is without question of more importance). Then the licensed dongle will refuse to work. The fact you own another licensed dongle for the particular software you are trying to run, doesn't automatically mean that particular dongle should work for everything.

Given you're referring to the past 5 years, this should come as no surprise as PhysX is strictly an NV technology. You've paid for a theoretical dongle to render it on theoretically, a competitors package.

In any other situation, this would simply be tough ****. But because it's Nvidia, it's a terrible travesty. So you see it's quite difficult not to be slightly narky about it, when it's such a whine filled topic from the get go...


If some of you are truly hurt, I'd suggest maybe making a petition on Change.org and possibly get something done about it. Instead of moaning about Nvidia's ethics day in day out as if they owe you something for being such loyal customers

Thank you for not making your point in an childish manner.

PhysX is important to me, but not as important as other factors have been the last couple of times I've purchased GPUs for my main rig - specifically multi-screen gaming support and price to performance. This is why I was forced to forego PhysX and go with AMD cards, but apart from spite on the part of Nvidia I still don't understand why I have to make this choice. You have still not presented a reason why Nvidia block PhysX when an AMD card is doing the rendering other than stating "because they do".

If I had a software licence for something, I would expect to be able to use that software irrespective of what other software was installed on my system. If there is a reason for a conflict (such as both need to use the same resource) then I could understand, but there is no such conflict on a hybrid GPU system and the only stumbling block appears to be one company's desire to dictate that "Thou must worship no other God but me", which I do not accept as a valid reason. If you do, fair enough, but if that's the case then we will just have to agree to disagree on this.

I am not saying that this is a huge travesty simply because it's Nvidia. I have no particular axe to grind, and no loyalty to any company. If AMD announced TrueAudio was not available if you were running an Nvidia card alongside your AMD one, then I would be one of the first to say this wasn't on. Equally, if my car stereo was disabled because I'd put different car mats in (good analogy Humbug) then I wouldn't find this acceptable either.

So, to repeat my question - do you genuinely feel it's acceptable for a company to block paying customer's access to a technology simply because they have also spent money with a competitor, and if so could you please explain to me why because I genuinely can't see an argument in favour of this so far?

 

[bru]

Ok please correct me if I'm wrong (and I might well be) but what has changed since before these drivers, you haven't been able to use Nvidia GPU PhysX with an AMD card present for a couple of years, we all agree (well most of us do) that it is a completely crappy thing to do and is unfair, but it isn't new news. This has been going on for years, I don't quite get why it is all of a sudden so much more wrong than it was week ago, before this article was posted.

 

[Confused Stu]

Oh it wasn't no reason, they stopped people using old/cheap Nvidia cards to Turbocharger high end ATi cards because Nvidia had no high end DX11 cards and ATi did, because of this hybrid set-ups were gaining momentum with hardcore enthusiasts. Nvidia acted to protect it's interests and shareholders (in it's defence, something it is law bound to do) then spent the next five years carry on with it so not to admit why lol.

Good point, I hadn't thought about it from the timing point of view.

Sincerely, thank you for the first coherent reason I've ever seen as to a potential reason why the block first came into being.

 

[humbug]

Ok please correct me if I'm wrong (and I might well be) but what has changed since before these drivers, you haven't been able to use Nvidia GPU PhysX with an AMD card present for a couple of years, we all agree (well most of us do) that it is a completely crappy thing to do and is unfair, but it isn't new news. This has been going on for years, I don't quite get why it is all of a sudden so much more wrong than it was week ago, before this article was posted.

Isn't it now also extended to AMD iGPU's, IE: APU's, why did they not do this to Intel?

 

[Silent_Scone]

Thank you for not making your point in an childish manner.

PhysX is important to me, but not as important as other factors have been the last couple of times I've purchased GPUs for my main rig - specifically multi-screen gaming support and price to performance. This is why I was forced to forego PhysX and go with AMD cards, but apart from spite on the part of Nvidia I still don't understand why I have to make this choice. You have still not presented a reason why Nvidia block PhysX when an AMD card is doing the rendering other than stating "because they do".

If I had a software licence for something, I would expect to be able to use that software irrespective of what other software was installed on my system. If there is a reason for a conflict (such as both need to use the same resource) then I could understand, but there is no such conflict on a hybrid GPU system and the only stumbling block appears to be one company's desire to dictate that "Thou must worship no other God but me", which I do not accept as a valid reason. If you do, fair enough, but if that's the case then we will just have to agree to disagree on this.

I am not saying that this is a huge travesty simply because it's Nvidia. I have no particular axe to grind, and no loyalty to any company. If AMD announced TrueAudio was not available if you were running an Nvidia card alongside your AMD one, then I would be one of the first to say this wasn't on. Equally, if my car stereo was disabled because I'd put different car mats in (good analogy Humbug) then I wouldn't find this acceptable either.

So, to repeat my question - do you genuinely feel it's acceptable for a company to block paying customer's access to a technology simply because they have also spent money with a competitor, and if so could you please explain to me why because I genuinely can't see an argument in favour of this so far?

Nice way of just totally ignoring what I said. It's not about simply spending money with the competitor is it. You're using PhysX whilst rendering it on AMD hardware.

Is it convenient for you, no. Is it fair, well strictly speaking yes it is.

Oh and constantly trying to palm what i'm saying off as childish simply as I'm not as boring as you...Ok

Good point, I hadn't thought about it from the timing point of view.

Sincerely, thank you for the first coherent reason I've ever seen as to a potential reason why the block first came into being.

It's not a reason, it's speculation (albeit that doesn't mean there may be some truth in it). So doesn't really answer your question what is fair and what isn't. To say they're legally obliged would be anyone with half a brains reasoning anyway surely? Or do you disagree

 

[Confused Stu]

Isn't it now also extended to AMD iGPU's, IE: APU's, why did they not do this to Intel?

That was the thinking of most people after reading the new bit in the driver release notes (the reason this thread was started), but Tommy showed this wasn't the case when he tested it: http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=26732960&postcount=76

So, it currently looks like nothing has changed and PhysX/mixed systems are in the same state they have been since 2009. Doesn't explain the wording in the driver release notes though.