PhysX Shenanigans

[ClayMeow]

that's a nice daydream, but in reality open standards benefit those that don't put in the work, and hurt those that do.

 

if nvidia had funded openCL instead of CUDA then everyone including their competitors would benefit, but nvidia would have been hurt financially. keeping CUDA proprietary means they can recoup their development costs.

Open source benefits very few. Competition benefits all.

[Waco]

Open sourcebenefits very few. Competition benefits all.

Open source / open standard benefits everyone and breeds competition FROM everyone... Edited March 10, 2010 by Waco

[sdy284]

Open source benefits very few. Competition benefits all.

 

right, and firefox / chrome (i think chrome is open source right?) haven't developed any competition in the browser market?

[Waco]

right, and firefox / chrome (i think chrome is open source right?) haven't developed any competition in the browser market?

Or Linux in the OS world.

 

I guess I'm biased since all of my work is released open-source.

[Avinexis]

Or Linux in the OS world.

 

I guess I'm biased since all of my work is released open-source.

Which makes you a clever and resourceful person.

 

Either that or a cheapskate =P

[ClayMeow]

right, and firefox / chrome (i think chrome is open source right?) haven't developed any competition in the browser market?

I guess I should have been more specific. What waco is asking for is a single standard among everyone...that's the exact opposite of competition and just breeds complacency and laziness.

[Waco]

Which makes you a clever and resourceful person.

Eh, maybe not clever.

 

I don't think proprietary anything is a great idea when it comes to hardware. IE: you must have [insert video card brand here] to play [insert game here]. It kills adoption rates.

 

Anyone remember Glide? Even though D3D was also proprietary it wasn't tied down to a specific vendor or brand.

[CAINuKe]

Generally I am a ATi Fanboy but they dropped the ball on this one.

 

I think Physx has enormous potential if done correctly, but we have yet to see so (with the exception of a couple).

[Waco]

I guess I should have been more specific. What waco is asking for is a single standard among everyone...that's the exact opposite of competition and just breeds complacency and laziness.

That's not true at all.

 

I said that an open standard is best for everyone. That doesn't mean there is only one. Do you think D3D breeds complacency and laziness? I don't follow your logic here...

[ClayMeow]

Eh, maybe not clever.

 

I don't think proprietary anything is a great idea when it comes to hardware. IE: you must have [insert video card brand here] to play [insert game here]. It kills adoption rates.

 

Anyone remember Glide? Even though D3D was also proprietary it wasn't tied down to a specific vendor or brand.

But that's not NVIDIA's fault, that's AMD's fault.

 

Plus, unless I'm mistaken, there are zero games that REQUIRE PhysX to run and thus require an NVIDIA card.

 

That's not true at all.

 

I said that an open standard is best for everyone. That doesn't mean there is only one. Do you think D3D breeds complacency and laziness? I don't follow your logic here...

Again, as even you stated, D3D is proprietary. MS allows others to use it, much like NVIDIA attempted to do.

[Waco]

But that's not NVIDIA's fault, that's AMD's fault.

Uh...not really. Do you really think it would be a good business decision to allow a core part of functionality be controlled by your competitor?

 

Plus, unless I'm mistaken, there are zero games that REQUIRE PhysX to run and thus require an NVIDIA card.

To benefit from PhysX you are required to have an nVidia card. That's the problem. To benefit from an open standard all you need is a card that supports the open standard...which requires no licensing and breeds competition to have the best implementation of said standard. The best analogue I can think of at the moment is the Direct3D versus Glide debacle in the 90s. Granted, it's not an open standard but it is a vendor-agnostic standard.

 

If nVidia hadn't bought out Ageia it would be a different playing field - third-party vendor with no stake in who makes what cards. nVidia controlling the IP and licensing it out to ATI / whomever is the wrong way to go since they aren't neutral. Microsoft doesn't make graphics cards.

Edited March 10, 2010 by Waco

[redtigerdragon]

I have to say the fact that you can't run an NVIDIA card as a PHYSX card unless you have another NVIDIA card is rather annoying. IF NVIDIA wanted to push PHYSX, they could allow it to run with an ATI card as well.

 

Also, if ATI paid to use PHYSX for implementation, then they would be paying to use both CPU and GPU technologies (as they already pay Intel to use x86 architecture).