FAQ-QUESTIONS,release date,system specs, for CoD

[swiss]

I still don't get it:
(all from wiki)

PhysX is a proprietary realtime physics engine middleware SDK acquired by Ageia (which itself was acquired by Nvidia in February 2008[1]) with the purchase of ETH Zurich spin-off NovodeX in 2004. The term PhysX can also refer to the PPU add-in card designed by Ageia to accelerate PhysX-enabled video games.

Their engine(NV), their company, their rules.

Give them one reason why they should spend a single nickel to optimise it for CPUs they don't sell or ATI cards, which is a competitor.

the decision was made due to development expenses, and for quality assurance and business reasons

They they do what they think is best for their own company.
It's not like NV is a NPO - they paid for it too.
Maybe ATI want to shove some green over?


Now neither of the two is really dominating the market, tell ATI to remove the finger and give it go themselves.

also:

Nvidia provides both the engine and SDK for free to Windows and Linux users and developers

I'd say this enough charity.

[dduff442]

Oh God...

You've just ignored most of the points made, as well as the numerous comparisons drawn with other companies that are uncontroversially held to have engaged in uncompetitive practices in the past.

The time bomb is inexcusable -- it's just an attempt to make competitors hardware look like it's malfunctioning when in fact it's nVidia sabotaging its own equipment.

The disabling driver is equally inexcusable; the people affected own perfectly funcioning PhysX-capable nVidia cards, but because the driver detects an AMD card also on the system it shuts down. This isn't "nVidia's driver, nVidia's rules", it's "gamer's cards, nVidia's rules". People shelled out on secondary nVidia cards only for nVidia to sabotage them after the fact with a driver "update".

A tiny bit of attention paid to nVidia's excuses reveals them to be plain BS in each case.

If you're going to persist with the debate, please address the parallels drawn with the behaviour of Apple, Microsoft and Netscape described above.

dduff

Originally Posted by swiss

I still don't get it:

I'll try and use an analogy so you can understand.

Mastercard give preferential rates to customers who shop at stores that are partners with them. If you use a visa you will not only NOT get that preferential rate, but it will actually cost you more money than it should.

Shell Oil decides to make cars. If you don't put Shell brand gas in that Shell car then you will get horrible mileage due to a design to ensure you only use their brand of gas.

Nvidia includes code that makes games run like crap if you don't use their cards!

[K_Freddie]

Originally Posted by speculum jockey

Nvidia includes code that makes games run like crap if you don't use their cards!

MSoft makes DirectX11(DX11) and freely distributes it.
NVidia, Radeon, etc.. make drivers that connect their cards to lower interface of DX11.
Game developers mostly use the top interface of DX11 to connect to any card, or connect directly to the card's driver itself.
The same idea applies PHysX and other types of interfaces.

What you're saying above is non-sense, unless of course you've installed a NVidia driver for a Radeon/ATI/etc card.... well, what more can I say ??

Originally Posted by domian

You compare apples to oranges. Thats complete and utter bullshit.

Sure in youre opinion Solarworld should give theirs solar panels for free to every person, because we all want to protect the environment.

This is in relation to release#'s 196 and 197 with regards to games using the physx programming and non NV cards.

[Baron]

Originally Posted by speculum jockey

Nvidia includes code that makes games run like crap if you don't use their cards!

U really belive that?

Maby NVidia should start develope Ati`s drivers to?

Maby NVidia includes code that makes games run as well as possible if u use thire cards? (shocker, i know)

[addman]

Haven't read the whole thread but I'd like to comment on the whole "SoW will be Nvidia optimized etc." subject. No game developer in their right mind will make a game that runs better on one brand of VGA cards than another. It doesn't make financial sense, if you wan't to reach out to as many customers as possible you have to make the game work equally good on all different brands. Maybe 10 years ago it was different when Nvidia all but owned the VGA market but these day when it's so evenly spread you have to satisfy ALL customers. Many games have an ATi or Nvidia stamp but they work just as well on both respectives in most cases, it's mostly just a marketing ploy. This is just my own humble opinion though

[Igo kyu]

Originally Posted by Baron

U really belive that?

...

Maby NVidia includes code that makes games run as well as possible if u use thire cards? (shocker, i know)

No, that turn their cards off if there's a non nVidia card present. So that you can't use a radeon for graphics, and a Geforce for CUDA, which if they didn't turn their card off, you could do. CUDA is currently better than AMD's Stream apparently, so it could make sense to try that, if you could, but no, if you want CUDA, you have to use a nVidia card for graphics. Which means, if you have an expensive AMD card already, you can't get a cheap GeForce as a physics co-pro. You could get a cheap radeon, but it probably won't work as well as a physics co-pro as a GeForce would, and the programing interface for the radeon physics set-up is probably different too, meaning more work for developers to use that. Years from now, the AMD way which is more about complying with industry standards may turn out to be better, but at this point in time as I understand it, the proprietory CUDA interface is leading.

[Triggaaar]

Originally Posted by Baron

U really belive that?

Yes. Some of us do believe that many of these companies do whatever they can to maximise their profits. Companies, as mentioned by duff, such as Microsoft, Apple, nVidia, AMD, Netscape etc.

In the example of nVidia, they have paid developers to optimise their code to suit nVidia cards, and it's suggested that they also (and this doesn't require much imagination for any of the companies listed) do extra work to prevent the cards working well on a competitors card. This is not surprising. It makes their card look good, and leads to more sales and bigger profits, which is really the only thing most (all) of these companies care about.

Maby NVidia should start develope Ati`s drivers to?

Maybe you miss-understand the accusations, which are not made solely at nVidia.

As explained above, this is even just about making games work badly for customers of the competition - some people bought nVidia cards for PhysX, and nVidia stopped those cards working, if the customer also owned an ATI card.

[klem]

This is all a bit too deep for me.

Is anyone suggesting that SoW is being developed to deliver maximum benefit only if Nvidia's cards are used whilst ATI users have to settle for second best?