Overclock.net banner

1 - 20 of 117 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,980 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
As a response to this thread, Nvidia has this to say.

Quote:
Nvidia's worldwide director of developer technology fires back at AMD without insulting his rival.

Nvidia fired back at AMD's earlier accusations that it was bribing developers to use its proprietary PhysX technology. Ashutosh Rege, the worldwide director of developer technology at Nvidia, said that the company does provide help to developers who want to implement physics into their games using Nvidia's middleware. However, he was adamant that the company does not-- and cannot-- influence their decision to use PhysX or any other library or engine.
Source.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,799 Posts
We didn't bribe anyone to use PhysX, but we do award/make contribution to developer who use it.

Developers: hmmmm, so we get monetary contribution for using PhysX, let's do it and lower our cost!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,813 Posts
Either way ATI is now working on their own developer program. So expect to see "The Red Way It Was Meant To Be Played" or whatever they end up calling their program on certain games.

Its going to get to the point where you'll have to choose which video card to buy based off of your favorite games.

That being said, I am glad that ATI is finally going to be working with developers as closely as Nvidia has. It would be nice to see the manufacturer of MY video card thrown up on my screen at the start of a game every once in a while.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSprunk View Post
Havok is intel (originally 3rd party, later acquired by intel). Not ATi
. Also, it's proprietary.

They aren't bribing them, no; but they are offering them cash incentive.
I love this line. Its not a bribe, its a 'cash incentive'.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,653 Posts
Did any of you even read the article?

Quote:
"There could be no deal under which we would cash somebody in for using PhysX,"
They don't give anyone cash for using PhysX.
What they do is, when some devs ask for help, they send a team to help them implement physX and optimize the code as much as possible.
They don't give out cash and they don't hold a gun to anyone's head and force them to use physX. It's as simple as that.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,451 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tempest001 View Post
Did any of you even read the article?

They don't give anyone cash for using PhysX.
What they do is, when some devs ask for help, they send a team to help them optimize the code as much as possible.
They don't give out cash and they don't hold a gun to anyone's head and force them to use physX. It's as simple as that.
http://www.semiaccurate.com/2009/10/...mi-boards-gtc/
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/news/...rds-vaporware/

Yep. nVidia, from the top-down, is known for their saintliness and their unflinching dedication to the truth.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,130 Posts
Who cares? This is how business works. The reason AMD/ATI are not doing the same thing is because - they don't have a product (middleware) to push. OpenCL is heavily over-hyped and at this point useless. I don't understand what is wrong with Physx.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,992 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by mirunit View Post
Who cares? This is how business works. The reason AMD/ATI are not doing the same thing is because - they don't have a product (middleware) to push. OpenCL is heavily over-hyped and at this point useless. I don't understand what is wrong with Physx.
Its not a bad product, just only supported on one side which makes it sortof useless, because devs don't want to code all the physics using physx because that would render the game useless for ATI users.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
955 Posts
Well on PhysX, I personally do not care for it simply because it is just another thing strapped onto video games to make money, in my opinion. It's great when it does something that you can notice, but most games that use PhysX, I understand, are for debris and flying objects and whatnot. Thanks but no thanks. Now on the money-making part. It's great when you can make money LEGITIMATELY but when you have to lie to the public, that's when you lose customers, and that's when you lose money. Now I'm not accusing Nvidia of this, but how many times now have we seen that Nvidia has faked something? This would be the 3rd, and the articles that ablearcher posted, would be 4th and 5th in my book. This is utterly intriguing that numerous websites would post hits to Nvidias legitimacy, yet Nvidia still continues to leave only certain questions unanswered. We might as well just let anyone we don't like buy Nvidia products when we know that they have their defects. Just to set the record straight, I am not an AMD/ATi fanboy, I've just never had any problems with their products when a million haters do...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,362 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sm0keydaBear View Post
Well on PhysX, I personally do not care for it simply because it is just another thing strapped onto video games to make money, in my opinion. It's great when it does something that you can notice, but most games that use PhysX, I understand, are for debris and flying objects and whatnot. Thanks but no thanks. Now on the money-making part. It's great when you can make money LEGITIMATELY but when you have to lie to the public, that's when you lose customers, and that's when you lose money. Now I'm not accusing Nvidia of this, but how many times now have we seen that Nvidia has faked something? This would be the 3rd, and the articles that ablearcher posted, would be 4th and 5th in my book. This is utterly intriguing that numerous websites would post hits to Nvidias legitimacy, yet Nvidia still continues to leave only certain questions unanswered. We might as well just let anyone we don't like buy Nvidia products when we know that they have their defects. Just to set the record straight, I am not an AMD/ATi fanboy, I've just never had any problems with their products when a million haters do...
I refuse to read all that crap. Someone summarize for me. Maybe if he seperated paragraphs or something....

I think it is funny. nVidia getting all defensive. Legally, they can't offer cash incentives for using PhysX. If they did, they would be next in line for law suits after Intel.

But they CAN offer free top notch equipment to companies/developers that agree to use PhysX.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,806 Posts
I've never had a problem with either ATi's nor Nvidia's hardware. However, I did have an issue with Nvidia drivers causing artifacting. Funny how everyone touts their drivers.


As for ATi, have had nothing but good experiences with them. Drivers are hit or miss on performance, but I've never had one cause artifacting that wasn't there before the driver update.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,667 Posts
Company A: Company B is doing [something negative]
Company B: We are not doing [something negative]

I'm amazed, no, SHOCKED to hear this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
306 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mygaffer View Post
Either way ATI is now working on their own developer program. So expect to see "The Red Way It Was Meant To Be Played" or whatever they end up calling their program on certain games.

Its going to get to the point where you'll have to choose which video card to buy based off of your favorite games.

That being said, I am glad that ATI is finally going to be working with developers as closely as Nvidia has. It would be nice to see the manufacturer of MY video card thrown up on my screen at the start of a game every once in a while.

I love this line. Its not a bribe, its a 'cash incentive'.
Interesting, do you have sources for this info? I would be interested to learn more. If that is the case I agree with you on your 3rd paragraph, ATI needs to be just as competitive as Nvidia has been in the past, otherwise they (ATI) are doomed to be locked in the previous prepetual cycle of too little, too late.

Edit: Quick google search brought up this press release, i only skimmed throug it though.

http://www.amd.com/us/press-releases...-2010mar8.aspx
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,390 Posts
What we need is a mobo that can 'dual wield' an ati card and an nVidia card, that way we can choose which GPU to use for which game


Give it a couple years, they can wow us with Sli-fire... bring on the Crossbreeding motherboards!!1!!1
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
306 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by joemunky View Post
What we need is a mobo that can 'dual wield' an ati card and an nVidia card, that way we can choose which GPU to use for which game


Give it a couple years, they can wow us with Sli-fire... bring on the Crossbreeding motherboards!!1!!1
I thought MSI made a board that had that capability, can't remember the designation but lucid hydra comes to mind?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,390 Posts
oh...dang. That any good? I can't afford more than one card anyway, let alone an NVIDIA CARD

*flamesuit on*
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,579 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSprunk View Post
Havok is intel (originally 3rd party, later acquired by intel). Not ATi
. Also, it's proprietary.

They aren't bribing them, no; but they are offering them cash incentive.
tell me again what the difference between a bribe & an explicitly paid cash incentive is?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tempest001 View Post
Did any of you even read the article?

They don't give anyone cash for using PhysX.
What they do is, when some devs ask for help, they send a team to help them implement physX and optimize the code as much as possible.
They don't give out cash and they don't hold a gun to anyone's head and force them to use physX. It's as simple as that.
you can bribe with things other than cash. in this case, it's some extra developers. two nvidia dev's sent over are what, 100g's a year saved in wages? how about 5?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mirunit View Post
Who cares? This is how business works. The reason AMD/ATI are not doing the same thing is because - they don't have a product (middleware) to push. OpenCL is heavily over-hyped and at this point useless. I don't understand what is wrong with Physx.
it's proprietary. AMD aren't pushing anything competitive. they're pushing an open standard that nvidia can use too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weasel555 View Post
Interesting, do you have sources for this info? I would be interested to learn more. If that is the case I agree with you on your 3rd paragraph, ATI needs to be just as competitive as Nvidia has been in the past, otherwise they (ATI) are doomed to be locked in the previous prepetual cycle of too little, too late.

Edit: Quick google search brought up this press release, i only skimmed throug it though.

http://www.amd.com/us/press-releases...-2010mar8.aspx
i'm failing to understand this "too little, too late" about ati you're talking about ?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,451 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by Tempest001
View Post

So is ATI and charlie. :roll-cut-eyes-out:

How is this phrase even relevant?^^ Unless if you can find a point where Charlie was wrong before?

It's not like Jen-Hsun Huang *(this is Fermi, this really is Fermi. This is the GPU product!)*, and his less-than-brilliant marketing director sitting in Federal prision right now
(nothing to do with lying... oh... lying about bombs, eh?) EVER lied.

Right. They lied. Then nVidia relied on their marketing team to BS some more stuff to cover up for their lies.
 
1 - 20 of 117 Posts
Top