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

[TheRealDeal]

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.

The op just brought out people's feelings about the original driver. It's not new but people still don't like it. As said above people thought it could even effect Apu's.

 

[Confused Stu]

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



It's not a reason, it's speculation. 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

I didn't ignore what you'd put:

You patronised me.
Then told me it's "Because your system contains an AMD GPU"
Patronised me again.
Linked to a 2008 article stating Nvidia bought AGEIA
Explained a software licence won't work with a different piece of software
Accused me of only caring because I'm biased against Nvidia
Suggested starting a petition instead of moaning about Nvidia "day in day out"

Don't think I missed a thing, but none of it answers my question - why does Nvidia block PhysX if I'm using another company's product? The nearest you came to an answer was to say imply that PhysX can't work when rendered to the screen using an AMD GPU, but the working hybrid PhysX systems over the past few years show this isn't correct.

 

[LtMatt]

Don't waste your time Stu & Tommy.

 

[Martini1991]

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

You'd never be running the iGPU, it'd be disabled.
Likewise with the Intel iGPU.

That'd be at BIOS level.

Nvidia's stance regarding PhysX being unusable on the Nvidia GPU with an AMD GPU renderer is almost entirely impossible to defend.

 

[Silent_Scone]

I didn't ignore what you'd put:

You patronised me.
Then told me it's "Because your system contains an AMD GPU"
Patronised me again.
Linked to a 2008 article stating Nvidia bought AGEIA
Explained a software licence won't work with a different piece of software
Accused me of only caring because I'm biased against Nvidia
Suggested starting a petition instead of moaning about Nvidia "day in day out"

Don't think I missed a thing, but none of it answers my question - why does Nvidia block PhysX if I'm using another company's product? The nearest you came to an answer was to say imply that PhysX can't work when rendered to the screen using an AMD GPU, but the working hybrid PhysX systems over the past few years show this isn't correct.

You almost answer your own question just by the context of your sentence, again this is why it's so easy to be narky...

I linked you to the AGEIA article as it shows an Nvidia acquisition. Acquisition requires money. Money = investments. Investments need protection.

What is it that's so difficult to understand?

Don't waste your time Stu & Tommy.

Could say the same about your recent Clock Work Orange frankly terrifying attempt at scoring free AMD gear

Kudos for effort mind...

 

[humbug]

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.

Ok

 

[Confused Stu]

Don't waste your time Stu & Tommy.

Think you may be right here Matt.

MjFrosty - thank you for taking the time to reply. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[LtMatt]

Think you may be right here Matt.

 

[stulid]

Ban hammer incoming.

 

[pgi947]

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.

Haha preeching to the choir on that one, try living with a case that has side panels held on with ~20 screws!!

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.

The worst part is how damn good the tech demos look, we had a glimpse of it in borderlands 2, but the game was that good it didn't need the eye candy

 

[James J]

I didn't ignore what you'd put:

You patronised me.
Then told me it's "Because your system contains an AMD GPU"
Patronised me again.
Linked to a 2008 article stating Nvidia bought AGEIA
Explained a software licence won't work with a different piece of software
Accused me of only caring because I'm biased against Nvidia
Suggested starting a petition instead of moaning about Nvidia "day in day out"

Don't think I missed a thing, but none of it answers my question - why does Nvidia block PhysX if I'm using another company's product? The nearest you came to an answer was to say imply that PhysX can't work when rendered to the screen using an AMD GPU, but the working hybrid PhysX systems over the past few years show this isn't correct.

For your question you asked at the bottom of your post, its bound to be a mixture of things you already know to be honest. Nvidia don't like sharing tech with anyone, nor want you to use other competing products along side even there's (which is still a sale to them...) because they want to pigeon hole you into buying just nvidia stuff. Yeah this is a bit **** from a consumer point of view, but I can see why they do it from a business perspective.

Of course the tech works when running on the CPU or the nvidia GPU when an AMD GPU is being used for a game, as the hacked drivers have shown and people saying otherwise need to put the fanboy flag aside and use some common sense here. From nvidia's perspective, its probably easier to make drivers that cater for using the physics on the GPU if its powerful or the CPU if it isn't, depending on the game, whilst not accounting for only being a physicX card. When I've tried my 780 Ti cards in SLI with one of the cards specified to do the calculations for it gave me smooth gameplay in the batman games and alice, yet disabling SLI and setting the second GPU to do it caused stuttering. No idea why, but I guess its just easier to code from my own basic testing.

 

[Silent_Scone]

Haha preeching to the choir on that one, try living with a case that has side panels held on with ~20 screws!!



The worst part is how damn good the tech demos look, we had a glimpse of it in borderlands 2, but the game was that good it didn't need the eye candy

Well this is it, there are some very impressive looking effects available through GameWorks, but it gets overshadowed by the proprietary arguments. I'd like to see some of the newer revised effects first off. I agree with Orangey though in the sense that NV perhaps don't help their own efforts, but effectively I think they would have to sell the tech in order for it to be fully transformed as catering for external vendor hardware leave alone offering development support has never been their style, which is precisely why I take umbrage with people complaining about a business ethic which has never once differed. It's not news. If AMD customers haven't come to terms with it now then there is no hope for humanity.

It is unfortunate...beyond that you're throwing pennies at the moon. People forget that if it weren't for Nvidia's acquisition of AGEIA - we'd either be in three likely scenarios. 1) Even worse wavering development uptake with the use of the PPU. 2) Libraries left dwindling in crowd funded space with no development uptake 3)Absolutely no PhysX related effects what so ever. ATi weren't in the position to acquire a vending machine, forget technologies!

Which brings you round the houses to the plain and simple fact - where is AMDs ground work on this?

*shrug*!

 

[humbug]

Ban hammer incoming.

 

[oldestgregg]

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

Because Intel are not the competition to them really. As far as serious gaming cards anyway. If AMD only made igpu's and CPUs and Intel made gaming cards it would have been Intel in that position. Its the top end they want to lock down as its a selling point for them. Case in point I went back to NVIDIA because I wanted physx

Edit.... just seen that igpus are disabled so my points moot anyways

 

[LambChop]

If I use my GTX780 as my primary, can I install a 290 and use mantle ? I want my 780 to run the games and have the option of Mantle from the 290

 

[ubersonic]

If I use my GTX780 as my primary, can I install a 290 and use mantle ? I want my 780 to run the games and have the option of Mantle from the 290

That's not really possible for hardware reasons though whereas this block is simply a flag being set in the drivers.

Like when MS drop support for an old O/S then make their installers for new stuff refuse to run on it, even though it would work flawlessly.

 

[Martini1991]

If I use my GTX780 as my primary, can I install a 290 and use mantle ? I want my 780 to run the games and have the option of Mantle from the 290

That's a fallacious argument. The R9 290 needs to be the renderer for Mantle, the 780 would be sat there doing nothing.

Whereas the AMD card doesn't need to be the renderer for the PhysX stuff.

 

[ubersonic]

I think this falls into the same category as Intel locking the multiplier on the non-K CPU's, Apple refusing to let people install OSX on non Apple PC's, Windows Defender refusing to install on 2000 (NT5) but installing fine on XP (NT5.1), Printers refusing to print in B&W if a colour cartridge is out, etc. In each case the is no actual issue with it, aside from "business".

 

[ALXAndy]

Or maybe it's the first time that the actual hidden AMD killswitch code has been found?

Something similar was found years ago. I used to have a Asus Crosshair III Formula which was Nforce and SLI only. Put in one AMD GPU and it would fire up fine. Add a second and it just looped at post.

That was how they stopped you running Crossfire on an SLI only board. A physical lock out at bios level. Crossfire requires nothing other than two PCIE lanes with X4 or more to run, so Nvidia just locked you out at a bios level.

 

[tommybhoy]

@pgi,

20 screws is nothing, I need to move furniture to get access.

If I use my GTX780 as my primary, can I install a 290 and use mantle ?

Yes, but Gpu Physx via your 780 would be disabled though.

AMD don't block Mantle/TA(anything) rendering via their gpu's when Nvidia are present so you'd be fine on the AMD side anyway.

@Andy,

Yeah they are good at making you conform-twimtbp or not at all.

Hope your doing well.