• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Nvidia making GameWorks Source Code Publicly available

D.P. said:
PhysX only works on NVidia GPUs because PhysX requires support for CUDA which AMD have not implemented. Its possible in the future AMD will go that route but its understandable that they don't want to support a competitor's technology. nvidia really wanted PhysX to work on ATI cards, offered licensing deals, and even actively supported an unofficial project to get PhysX on radeon cards but it was turned away by ATI.

http://www.techpowerup.com/64787/ra...ffered-to-help-us-expected-more-from-amd.html
Click to expand...

Lol, you don't half fall for it while at the same time complain that everyone falls for AMD's.

The irony is if you chase up the article and read how it unfolds, you'll read that AMD provided the gpu then Nvidia got the lawyers in and served a cease and desist order.;):D
 
tommybhoy said:
Lol, you don't half fall for it while at the same time complain that everyone falls for AMD's.

The irony is if you chase up the article and read how it unfolds, you'll read that AMD provided the gpu then Nvidia got the lawyers in and served a cease and desist order.;):D
Click to expand...

NVidia offered AMD a license and to help the project, AMD refused the license so Nvidia blocked them.
 
AlamoX said:
it will allow AMD to give Devs pointers on how they could optimize better, but after that, you have to see how much control over the licence Devs do have, if they can modify it, or suggest to Nvidia modifications, if nvidia follow up on them, as i said this is a good start, unless Nvidia does something shady to turn it all into a marketing stunt, with no real benefits behind if they put a lot of hurdles on the way
Click to expand...

The developers can modify the ode as they want. The restriction is that developers can't re-distribute the code to 3rd parties, it always has to come from the Nvidia's github, similarly a developer can't make a modification and sell that modified version to a 3rd party.
 
humbug said:
PhysX for vendors outside of Nvidia ran on the CPU only, the closed source side of it ran on the GPU.
Bullet Physics does everything PhysX does and a lot more besides only far more efficiently.
Click to expand...

Could you perhaps do a version of your demo with an option to select the physics engine so people can try PhysX and Bullet physics to show the performance difference?
 
D.P. said:
NVidia offered AMD a license and to help the project, AMD refused the license so Nvidia blocked them.
Click to expand...

Read that 'claim', also read AMD's 'claim' that Nv wanted a license fee but they(AMD) wanted to run with open standards instead, also read the 'claim' from Nv that they said they hadn't even discussed licensing with AMD.

Tom Peterson said along the lines of 'nope it aint going on AMD' when queried after Nv forgot to lock out Hybrid GPU PhysX on one of the beta drivers.

Moral of the story, they all 'claimed' this and that and as per usual we were never closer to the truth, what we do know is AMD don't hold a license and can't run gpu PhysX.

If you are going to accuse the AMD crowd every thread you enter, then at least show a bit of savvy and don't act the exact same as them with substituting AMD with Nvidia.

The be all and end all is if you have an AMD gpu plugged in with zero Pci-e power connected(it can't even power up) NV disable gpu PhysX on the Nvidia gpu.



I did try and help you out that Nv didn't try to help get PhysX running on AMD...
We have received the following letter:

Quote:
Unauthorized Distribution Of NVIDIA Drivers on NGOHQ.com

*************************************************

To Whom it May Concern:

We understand that you are distributing or facilitating the unauthorized distribution of NVIDIA’s drivers for its GPU and/or MCP products. We are writing to remind you that these drivers constitute intellectual property (“IP”), including copyrights, of NVIDIA. As the exclusive owner of this IP, under Section 106 of the Copyright Act, NVIDIA alone has the right to authorize distribution. Since you are not authorized, we ask that you immediately stop all activities that distribute, allow or facilitate distribution of NVIDIA’s drivers on your web site. Unauthorized distribution is a serious violation of NVIDIA’s intellectual property rights and if it continues, we will take the necessary steps to prevent further unauthorized distribution.

NVIDIA drivers that are distributed through authorized channels have been tested on the supported platforms that are included in the driver INF file, and are supported by NVIDIA and its OEM partners. Modifying drivers to add products that were not intended to be supported in the driver may cause more problems for customers due to limited testing and known problems on some products.

Please confirm that all unauthorized distribution has ceased within two weeks of the date of this letter by sending an email to [email protected]

Sincerely,

Bryan "BDR" Del Rizzo
Senior PR Manager
MCP Business Group
2701 San Tomas Expressway
Santa Clara, CA 95050

http://www.ngohq.com/news/11383-nvidia-threatens-ngohq-over-forceware-distribution.html
Click to expand...
That's how much Nv wanted to help the project-stop it or I'll sue your ass!:D
 
Last edited:
We may see more optimised versions of HBAO+ slipping out of the woodwork with this. At least Nvidia have done something good for once with all the bad rep around gameworks.
 
I dont think it matters what Nvidia does. An AMD fanboy is still an AMD fanboy, knock yourselves out. ( Edited.. that was a bit punchy mr LC)
 
On topic again:

Thanks Nvidia, great move for the PC community.

RTG's GPUO 'looks' like it's gaining traction, starting to see RTG's input take shape, and hopefully they are going for this and maybe gained a lot of interest and nudged Nv to follow suit.

(IMO)GW's had (mostly)negative publicity on each release, bottom line-I see GW's as a tainted brand that has a knock on effect to the publishers-their NV partnered game causes massive negative game publicity too!

Nv paying to implement it is one thing(yes X amount of guaranteed sales categorically=NV cash for implementing NV exclusive optimised GW's!:p), it drags their game in to the **** too.

So yes get it out there, take the fight fair and square to AMD, push each other harder, then harder some more give us all better and better games to play.
 
GoogalyMoogaly said:
Could you perhaps do a version of your demo with an option to select the physics engine so people can try PhysX and Bullet physics to show the performance difference?
Click to expand...

No because...... Well for one you cannot run multiple physics properties for the same action in asset, and even if you could I don't have the skill to code something as complex as that.

Just know this, I can do with Bullet on the CPU efficiently what it takes PhysX to do in GPU.

Ridged body, soft body, 'some' fluid dynamics (a nood to Roff) and even Ray Tracing, proper full global Ray Tracing. (Not physics I know)

I can and have shown you stuff that Nvidia say you need one of thier GPU's for. If I show this stuff to the unsuspecting the reaction is "yeah Nvidia GPU PhysX, like Metro and Boarder Lands"
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
No because...... Well for one you cannot run multiple physics properties for the same action in asset, and even if you could I don't have the skill to code something as complex as that.

Just know this, I can do with Bullet on the CPU efficiently what it takes PhysX to do in GPU.

Ridged body, soft body, 'some' fluid dynamics (a nood to Roff) and even Ray Tracing, proper full global Ray Tracing. (Not physics I know)

I can and have shown you stuff that Nvidia say you need one of thier GPU's for. If I show this stuff to the unsuspecting the reaction is "yeah Nvidia GPU PhysX, like Metro and Boarder Lands"
Click to expand...

Pity it would've been nice to have them side by side. What about just an alternate version of the demo using PhysX instead of Bullet physics?


Back on the Nvidia making stuff open. The stuff they've made open isn't really the controversial stuff anyway is it? I mean most AMD users are happy to not have PhysX and generally don't want you have to use any non-AMD tech, especially Nvidia stuff. Well, maybe volumetric lighting (which I think did GodRays?)
But the big thing seems to be HairWorks, which hasn't been released yet. I'm wondering if just before it is released we'll see a new version of HairWorks that actually performs much more even across vendors and then get the source code for that which will show no funny business, coincidentally. They must have the source code to these, so why the delay unless they're changing stuff?
I guess ultimately that's still a good thing, but it'll make it harder for the AMD users that know these things so well (you know, the ones that know any launch issues are GameWorks related) to be able to find the lines of code that cause the imbalance.

I do have to laugh that we're once again seeing AMD get credit for this in some way though, it's only been done because of something AMD did. Just like when DX12 was announced.
Any suggestion that Nvidia are to thank in some way for Freesync or GPUOpen existing or the move to a programmable GPU architectures is usually scoffed at with comments like "things were naturally going in that direction anyway, nothing to do with Nvidia". Open source and low level APIs were never heard of until AMD did it though and so must be the cause of anything similar...
 
If Nvidia has opened up some of the source for Gameworks it's because of GPUOpen gaining favor with devs and Async Compute allowing more performance in the newer games such as Doom and AoTS. Nvidia were essentially forced otherwise there is/was a risk of losing devs to GPUOpen.

Gameworks open source is a good step forward but I suspect the overall vendor sponsored picture won't change. Tech such as Physx is still going to be a problem since I doubt the hardware Physx will be allowed on AMD gpu's and software physx has been open for a while anyway which makes no difference to AMD gpu's.

With the new Flex only Nvidia cards are supported in games such as Fallout 4 so nothing is going to change there. I can still foresee most situations being the same where Nvidia sponsored games will reserve some features exclusively for their own gpus. No amount of open source is going to change that.
 
Last edited:
GPUopen will hit off even more once they start adding Explicit mGPU code samples on the site. Having a unified repository like this for common and advanced things is a great thing overall for the Gaming dev world. And Nvidia knows this, hence why they are open sourcing Gameworks in the end.

Also tops for Nvidia open sourcing the code for HBAO+ as part of the first wave. Will be interesting to see if people come up with faster variants of it for the same quality.
 
Last edited:
fs123 said:
If Nvidia has opened up some of the source for Gameworks it's because of GPUOpen gaining favor with devs and Async Compute allowing more performance in the newer games such as Doom and AoTS. Nvidia were essentially forced otherwise there is/was a risk of losing devs to GPUOpen.

Gameworks open source is a good step forward but I suspect the overall vendor sponsored picture won't change. Tech such as Physx is still going to be a problem since I doubt the hardware Physx will be allowed on AMD gpu's and software physx has been open for a while anyway which makes no difference to AMD gpu's.

With the new Flex only Nvidia cards are supported in games such as Fallout 4 so nothing is going to change there. I can still foresee most situations being the same where Nvidia sponsored games will reserve some features exclusively for their own gpus. No amount of open source is going to change that.
Click to expand...

Of course if people only used GameWorks because Nvidia paid them to then I don't see how GPUOpen would threaten it's usuage.
 
So they get moaned at for not letting people see the source code, now you can see the source code they are still going to get moaned at.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom