# PhysX Runs On RV670, Scores 22,000 CPU Marks in 3DMark Vantage



## btarunr (Jun 26, 2008)

Eran Badit of NGOHQ.com successfully modified NVIDIA CUDA (Compute Unified Device Architecture) to operate on an ATI GPU and has been able to run the NVIDIA PhysX layer on an RV670, the Radeon HD 3850. 

He tells that enabling PhysX support on Radeon cards is not particularly difficult, leading us to believe that physics on graphics cards may not so much be a technology problem but an issue of corporate dynamics.

On his first run, Eran got a 22,606 CPU score in 3D Mark Vantage, enhancing the overall score to P4262. A comparable system without PhysX-support will cross the finish line at about P3800.





*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## cdawall (Jun 26, 2008)

now do we get to download those drivers?


----------



## Bytor (Jun 26, 2008)

But will I be able to use my Asus P1 physX card with my ATI cards?


----------



## pagalms (Jun 26, 2008)

> Eran said that he will be offering the ATI PhysX-enabling utility on NGOHQ.com as soon as he gets his hands on more hardware to check the application on more than one graphics card.  We are told that he is testing hardware already, which means that the software should be available “soon”.


*TG Daily*


----------



## panchoman (Jun 26, 2008)

yup i was waiting for this.. ati wouldn't buy cuda licenses and all from nvidia only to implement a while down the road.. they want cuda drivers from nvidia, this way their cards can compete with nvidia cards in all of nvidia's arenas.


----------



## btarunr (Jun 26, 2008)

Bytor said:


> But will I be able to use my Asus P1 physX card with my ATI cards?



Of course you can. 

Paglams beat me to it. 

Words cannot explain the awesome.


----------



## mdm-adph (Jun 26, 2008)

btarunr said:


> Of course you can.
> 
> Paglams beat me to it.
> 
> Words cannot explain the awesome.



Words cannot explain the lawsuits and DMCA notices soon to come.  :shadedshu


----------



## phanbuey (Jun 26, 2008)

oooohhhhh mannn... Its great but that guy is gonna get sued so fast.

Edit: I want a copy before its officially illegal.


----------



## btarunr (Jun 26, 2008)

Something of this sort had to happen, else 3DMark Vantage would have lost its credibility as a neutral benchmark for the industry.


----------



## vojc (Jun 26, 2008)

he wont, CUDA is open source, so officialy ATI can use it


----------



## phanbuey (Jun 26, 2008)

btarunr said:


> Something of this sort had to happen, else 3DMark Vantage would have lost its credibility as a neutral benchmark for the industry.



lol... true; i modified this post; for some reason i thought PhysX features were not open source.


----------



## HTC (Jun 26, 2008)

phanbuey said:


> Yeah but this is not a vantage fix... its a third party hack to get licenced drivers to work on unathorized hardware (in the eyes of nvidia)... Technically PhysX is property of nVidia... so they will sue, and hard - because it elimintaes not just the advantage they had in Vantage but in all physX games.  And all that money they spent on Aegia is now down the toilet if ATI can do the same thing.



Very well put!


----------



## thoughtdisorder (Jun 26, 2008)

cdawall said:


> now do we get to download those drivers?


Read this:


> We are told that there is currently no relationship between NGOHQ.com and AMD’s PR team, which means that Eran does not have access to Radeon 4850 or 4870 cards. Check the www.ngohq.com website for the software to become available this weekend.-TG Daily



We'll have to watch this weekend and get it before it's taken off!


----------



## a111087 (Jun 26, 2008)

lol... Nvidia is probably going to be mad... very mad...


----------



## panchoman (Jun 26, 2008)

cuda open source? wtf?


----------



## btarunr (Jun 26, 2008)

Technically "open source" means even Homer Simpson can use it. The complication is that whether or not CUDA is open-source, PhysX definitely isn't and is bound by NVIDIA's policies.


----------



## selway89 (Jun 26, 2008)

Would these work on a 2900 card? Same chip really just larger fab process.


----------



## panchoman (Jun 26, 2008)

btarunr said:


> Technically "open source" means even Homer Simpson can use it.



i thought it was like an sdk for developers.. i understand that part of open source.. but is it open source in terms of gpu architecture and the gpu side?


----------



## btarunr (Jun 26, 2008)

panchoman said:


> i thought it was like an sdk for developers.. i understand that part of open source.. but is it open source in terms of gpu architecture and the gpu side?



Yes, it's an SDK open (as in you can use it if you abide by NV's policies) to developers. Not very long ago, NV ran contests for "best CUDA apps", in an attempt to popularise it. The SDK could be downloaded for free.


----------



## KainXS (Jun 26, 2008)

seeing how similar the 2900XT is to the 3800's, im pretty sure it will work

one thing is certain though, if these physx mods are moved to the 4850 and 4870, nvidia will be f*cked


----------



## thoughtdisorder (Jun 26, 2008)

Thanks Btarunr, nice find!


----------



## ghost101 (Jun 26, 2008)

Its a HD 3850, not a 3870.


----------



## Darkrealms (Jun 26, 2008)

I'm sure Nvidia put restrictions on the SDKs they released to developers.  One way or another I'm sure Nvidia is looking for blood.  You don't acquire a company like that only to hand it to the opposition.


----------



## Steevo (Jun 26, 2008)

ATI  NVidia


----------



## btarunr (Jun 26, 2008)

ghost101 said:


> Its a HD 3850, not a 3870.



Thanks mate. I've not sourced a large image so far. I'm looking up. I can see a "GDDR3". Edited.


----------



## Darkrealms (Jun 26, 2008)

> *http://www.ngohq.com/news/14219-physx-gpu-acceleration-radeon-hd-3850-a.html*
> Well... well... sadly, the HD 4800 family won't be supported, because AMD thinks NGOHQ.com is not worthy enough to borrow review samples (definitely a bad idea). Anyway, expect to see some cool demo video in several days-weeks.
> 
> _Last edited by Regeneration; June 26th, 2008 at 01:41 PM. _



Looks like there won't be any 4800 support for a while.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 26, 2008)

I like the idea that PhysX will run on all GPUs, this is what I have been saying from the beginning needs to happen for the technology to get use.  It needs to be something that everyone can use and everyone will benefit from, or it won't get adopted.

As for the legality of this mod, I doubt it is legal, and I'm sure nVidia will put a stop to it, which sucks.  I know it sucks that ATi would need to pay nVidia fees to use the technology, but it is only fair.  NVidia put out a huge chunk of change to buy Ageia, why should ATi get the benefit of that for free?  ATi should just buy the rights to use PhysX and be done with it.


----------



## erocker (Jun 26, 2008)

So, how do I get this to work?  I have a 3850 and a 4850 here.


----------



## btarunr (Jun 26, 2008)

It's not legal. 







It seems like he reverse engineered it?


----------



## Darkrealms (Jun 26, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> I like the idea that PhysX will run on all GPUs, this is what I have been saying from the beginning needs to happen for the technology to get use.  It needs to be something that everyone can use and everyone will benefit from, or it won't get adopted.
> 
> As for the legality of this mod, I doubt it is legal, and I'm sure nVidia will put a stop to it, which sucks.  I know it sucks that ATi would need to pay nVidia fees to use the technology, but it is only fair.  NVidia put out a huge chunk of change to buy Ageia, why should ATi get the benefit of that for free?  ATi should just buy the rights to use PhysX and be done with it.



Agreed on both points.  Nvidia paid for it and if they are willing to sell it ATI should pay for it.  _I'm not saying anything about Nvidias pricing being fair, doubt they are.  LoL_


----------



## erocker (Jun 26, 2008)

Yeah, with the word Radeon in there along with PhysX, I can envision laywers mouths watering.  According to the report, the software may be up this weekend.


----------



## ghost101 (Jun 26, 2008)

Darkrealms said:


> Looks like there won't be any 4800 support for a while.



Another example of ngohq being childish. It seems they hate both ati and nvidia. Remember when they asked for an nvidia boycott over nothing.


----------



## selway89 (Jun 26, 2008)

If this works on 2900 then I want these drivers lol


----------



## Siluro (Jun 26, 2008)

"This one did not take long: We already knew that Nvidia is working on a CUDA version for x86 CPUs, but said it would leave a modification for ATI GPUs to others."
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia-physx-ati,5764.html

It's legal than...


----------



## Megasty (Jun 26, 2008)

Too bad the goofball is gonna let everyone & their mothers download this sweet stuff b4 it hits the fan. Just think what a 3870x2 will do with it


----------



## Kreij (Jun 26, 2008)

I'm not so sure that Nvidia will make a big fuss about it.
The fact that it can be used on ATI cards or any others is a feather in their cap, not a detriment.
If they allow it, the open source community will hail them as heroes of the cause.


----------



## Darkrealms (Jun 26, 2008)

Kreij said:


> I'm not so sure that Nvidia will make a big fuss about it.
> The fact that it can be used on ATI cards or any others is a feather in their cap, not a detriment.
> If they allow it, the open source community will hail them as heroes of the cause.



I don't think the community will hail them as much as blame them for not doing it themselves.  Right now the community is more one sided in ATI's favor.  Nvidia is the "big bad guy" just like Intel and MS right now.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Jun 26, 2008)

anybody gets it pm me.


----------



## btarunr (Jun 26, 2008)

AMD/ATI wouldn't want to lock horns with NVIDIA at this point. They'd much rather spend their time and resources on developing products. That's why I feel they've downplayed NGOHQ's attempt and refuse to supply a HD4800 sample. Had they done that, they would've triggered NVIDIA to step in. The only thing that can beat PhysX is Havoc. Not 3DMark, but real games that use Havoc, irrespective of whether it's run on a Core 2 Quad or Phenom X4, it certainly is a competitive API to PhysX.


----------



## PrudentPrincess (Jun 26, 2008)

This just further proves that Physx is bullshit. Its just a way for lazy game dev's to steal someone elses coding so they won't have to do it themselves. Sure, Crysis still can't run on anyone's machine but at least they took the time to make everything themselves. In all reality, who gives a flaming f*** about being able to shoot a cloth and have it rip accurately? The game can still suck, physics don't really change anything. If you need proof download the UT3 mod pack for Physx and play the re-made deathmatch level. (forget name) The only thing they changed is adding exploding barrels (woah!), hail (which looks exactly like the hail from Oblivion, but I'm sure its processing every piece) and random crates to screw you over when you just want to blow shit up. I thought that Physx support would be cool, but then I realized I'm just getting what all of us deserve, quality games. We should have been able to see "Physx" effects in the first place, it shouldn't be something that needs to be enabled by some random driver to work. 
Thats all I have to say.


----------



## Kreij (Jun 26, 2008)

Darkrealms said:


> I don't think the community will hail them as much as blame them for not doing it themselves.  Right now the community is more one sided in ATI's favor.  Nvidia is the "big bad guy" just like Intel and MS right now.



I disagree. Nvidia has no motivation whatsoever to do that. But if they allow others to do so without a fuss, they will not be trashed over it.

Just my 2 cents


----------



## panchoman (Jun 26, 2008)

isn't havoc intel only bta?


----------



## btarunr (Jun 26, 2008)

panchoman said:


> isn't havoc intel only bta?



No. Any SSE2 supportive CPU can run it. Intel only optimised it for the C2Q, where one core is dedicated for Havoc's process. Intel showcased it at IDF 2007 (and with Remedy's Alan Wake). Recently, AMD worked closely with Havoc for the same.


----------



## snuif09 (Jun 26, 2008)

PrudentPrincess said:


> This just further proves that Physx is bullshit. Its just a way for lazy game dev's to steal someone elses coding so they won't have to do it themselves. Sure, Crysis still can't run on anyone's machine but at least they took the time to make everything themselves. In all reality, who gives a flaming f*** about being able to shoot a cloth and have it rip accurately? The game can still suck, physics don't really change anything. If you need proof download the UT3 mod pack for Physx and play the re-made deathmatch level. (forget name) The only thing they changed is adding exploding barrels (woah!), hail (which looks exactly like the hail from Oblivion, but I'm sure its processing every piece) and random crates to screw you over when you just want to blow shit up. I thought that Physx support would be cool, but then I realized I'm just getting what all of us deserve, quality games. We should have been able to see "Physx" effects in the first place, it shouldn't be something that needs to be enabled by some random driver to work.
> Thats all I have to say.



cant agree more


----------



## chron (Jun 26, 2008)

OMG I just about died laughing.  I suppose nvidia isn't stupid for buying the rights to it, but they sure will be stupid to think they can control the flow of data on the internet with a lawsuit.  If this dude does get in trouble, it seems like he did this in a relatively short ammount of time, so someone else will eventually do the same thing again.

Can't wait for my 4850 crossfire setup + radeon physX LMFAO


----------



## Kreij (Jun 26, 2008)

Physics (havok, PhysX) is not BS. It's just in it's infancy at the moment.
Just think what an RPG would be like if you could blow a dam and flood a town that was downstream. Or the inverse, you build a dam and create a lake upstream.
The possibilities are endless.
At the moment it is just being used for a little eye candy, but that will change.


----------



## Darkrealms (Jun 26, 2008)

Kreij said:


> I disagree. Nvidia has no motivation whatsoever to do that. But if they allow others to do so without a fuss, they will not be trashed over it.
> 
> Just my 2 cents



I'm an AMD/Nvidia fan but I've seen so much blame against Nvidia I expect it.  I've liked Nvidia since shortly after 3dfx went under.


----------



## vojc (Jun 26, 2008)

PhysX features is not open source, CUDA is 
when i want to play GRAW or UT3 i must install agea drivers, ewen if i don`t have agea physx.....so if drivers are installed and CUDA open source supported, we can play PhysX legal


----------



## mdm-adph (Jun 26, 2008)

btarunr said:


> It's not legal.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actually, if what he did was reverse engineer it, that's technically legal, even in America (though you'll still get sued, of course).  

Unfortunately, this sounds more like a case of modified drivers.


----------



## vega22 (Jun 26, 2008)

does it say which proc it was running?

i can score 32k on the cpu with this new driver for my g92 and a 4ghz duo

http://service.futuremark.com/home.action?resultId=181944&resultType=19


----------



## imperialreign (Jun 26, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> I like the idea that PhysX will run on all GPUs, this is what I have been saying from the beginning needs to happen for the technology to get use.  It needs to be something that everyone can use and everyone will benefit from, or it won't get adopted.
> 
> As for the legality of this mod, I doubt it is legal, and I'm sure nVidia will put a stop to it, which sucks.  I know it sucks that ATi would need to pay nVidia fees to use the technology, but it is only fair.  NVidia put out a huge chunk of change to buy Ageia, why should ATi get the benefit of that for free?  ATi should just buy the rights to use PhysX and be done with it.



I agree as well, and I'm sure even if this mod wer legal, or open source by any means, I'm sure there's some kind of needle-hole that nVidia can squirm through and put a stop to it.

Besides, I can't forsee ATI being willing to pay for, nor support, CUDA or PhsyX at the moment, considering how closely AMD have been working with Havok recently (for a reference: http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=62755&highlight=havok), and I'm sure a joint collaboration with ATI and Havok is not too much further off, either.  The red camp knows they've got their hand in the candy dish being able to work with Havok, they're not going to fudge that up.


----------



## Rurouni Strife (Jun 27, 2008)

My only question with GPU physics is if it will work well IN GAME.  Vantage isn't a game, so those scores can only matter so much.  Remember, the PPU's from Ageia worked well but they would drop the frame rates.  I wonder if GPU physics will slow down a system if it runs on only 1 GPU systems.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Jun 27, 2008)

Lol I googled for PhysX driver for ATI GPU's and got nothing like two day ago, but here it does exists, I knew something like this was bound to happen. Why must they limit our hardware. How can we expect to get the good stuff when they are not even letting us use our current stuff to the max.


----------



## WarEagleAU (Jun 27, 2008)

I could have sworn ATI was working on making a 2nd or 3rd gpu on their mobos or intel mobos work as Physics cards.


----------



## ShadowFold (Jun 27, 2008)

WarEagleAU said:


> I could have sworn ATI was working on making a 2nd or 3rd gpu on their mobos or intel mobos work as Physics cards.



That was back in the X1000 days when they had single core cpu's that couldnt do physics.

Anyways, this is what I waiting for. Im gonna get a 4850 cause PhysX was the only thing I wanted that the 9800GTX had..


----------



## wolf2009 (Jun 27, 2008)

ShadowFold said:


> Anyways, this is what I waiting for. Im gonna get a 4850 cause PhysX was the only thing I wanted that the 9800GTX had..



i have the same thoughts too, i was also leaning toward nvidia coz of physx and cuda. but now ati has a better chance with me, although cuda and video encoding is still with nvidia .


----------



## AphexDreamer (Jun 27, 2008)

Anyone know if this driver is available to the public yet and if it would work with all ATI Graphics cards.


----------



## Scrizz (Jun 27, 2008)

heh i'm getting a HD4850 tomorrow!


----------



## imperialreign (Jun 27, 2008)

WarEagleAU said:


> I could have sworn ATI was working on making a 2nd or 3rd gpu on their mobos or intel mobos work as Physics cards.



we could end up seeing that with AMD's multi-core CPUs; with AMD working with Havok, it's possible they could optimize in such a way that one-core of the processor would dedicate solely to physics processing like Intel had done already.


My real point of curioisity, though, if AMD enables some form of physics processing on their GPUs - how much would that affect performance on their cards?  I mean, it seems that nVidia's latest hardware is kinda designed around being able to extend this capability without interfering with video rendering, but I don't think ATI's GPUs are - I mean, they're supposedly still superb for doing that kind of work, but I'm not sure the GPU would be able to render video at the same time


----------



## PrudentPrincess (Jun 27, 2008)

Kreij said:


> Physics (havok, PhysX) is not BS. It's just in it's infancy at the moment.
> Just think what an RPG would be like if you could blow a dam and flood a town that was downstream. Or the inverse, you build a dam and create a lake upstream.
> The possibilities are endless.
> At the moment it is just being used for a little eye candy, but that will change.



Wow. That sounds like fun. (not) Although I don't know why you would need any specific physics engine to do that. It sounds like you could accomplish the same task with greater efficiency with a simple cutscene. Do you really give a f*** about it being generated in real time? I mean that's like wanting a game where each individual drop of rain slides down a surface based on speed, weight, texture, etc. What does it get you? Bragging rights I suppose. The point that I was trying to make is that what we're seeing now through generic physics engines (generic as in pre-written for multiple applications to use) is not impressive, its expected. Just like getting support for those engines through the hardware you would normally need to run a game. What I don't like is that now we're going to see graphics card companies competing over physics when it should be left to the game developers to make a good game where gameplay and playability out-weigh the visuals.


----------



## vojc (Jun 27, 2008)

PrudentPrincess said:


> Wow. That sounds like fun. (not) Although I don't know why you would need any specific physics engine to do that. It sounds like you could accomplish the same task with greater efficiency with a simple cutscene. Do you really give a f*** about it being generated in real time? I mean that's like wanting a game where each individual drop of rain slides down a surface based on speed, weight, texture, etc. What does it get you? Bragging rights I suppose. The point that I was trying to make is that what we're seeing now through generic physics engines (generic as in pre-written for multiple applications to use) is not impressive, its expected. Just like getting support for those engines through the hardware you would normally need to run a game. What I don't like is that now we're going to see graphics card companies competing over physics when it should be left to the game developers to make a good game where gameplay and playability out-weigh the visuals.



i agree


----------



## Voyager (Jun 27, 2008)

Excellent, way to go  where is the link for download


----------



## adrianx (Jun 27, 2008)

so... WTF for me is like dejavu...

yesterday I write that...: http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?p=856989#post856989

so if is true the physics can be run on/by non-nvidia(ageia) cards.


----------



## btarunr (Jun 27, 2008)

PrudentPrincess said:


> Wow. That sounds like fun. (not) Although I don't know why you would need any specific physics engine to do that. It sounds like you could accomplish the same task with greater efficiency with a simple cutscene. Do you really give a f*** about it being generated in real time? I mean that's like wanting a game where each individual drop of rain slides down a surface based on speed, weight, texture, etc. What does it get you? Bragging rights I suppose. The point that I was trying to make is that what we're seeing now through generic physics engines (generic as in pre-written for multiple applications to use) is not impressive, its expected. Just like getting support for those engines through the hardware you would normally need to run a game. What I don't like is that now we're going to see graphics card companies competing over physics when it should be left to the game developers to make a good game where gameplay and playability out-weigh the visuals.



I think he means that physics acceleration is explicitly required for certain games to "be as awesome as it is". Some games are impossible without it. Half Life 2 series uses Havoc. Look how its gameplay elements were enhanced with it. Better example is Portal. Games require physics to process rag-doll effects (you wouldn't want all killed enemies to fall down like they did in Wolfenstein 3D (1992) ? That you have an Apache chopper flying over you and under air-flow of its propeller, grass remain stiff as long green match-sticks? Or that even when a 1 tonne hippo falls into water, you only have a ripple in the form of a dynamic texture created in the water and no epic-splash? Physics has become a visual element as important as shading.


----------



## PrudentPrincess (Jun 27, 2008)

btarunr said:


> I think he means that physics acceleration is explicitly required for certain games to "be as awesome as it is". Some games are impossible without it. Half Life 2 series uses Havoc. Look how its gameplay elements were enhanced with it. Better example is Portal. Games require physics to process rag-doll effects (you wouldn't want all killed enemies to fall down like they did in Wolfenstein 3D (1992) ? That you have an Apache chopper flying over you and under air-flow of its propeller, grass remain stiff as long green match-sticks? Or that even when a 1 tonne hippo falls into water, you only have a ripple in the form of a dynamic texture created in the water and no epic-splash? Physics has become a visual element as important as shading.



I get what you're saying, I guess his example was just a poor one. Physics are important to gameplay and visuals, but I was addressing the fact that games that have used these technologies didn't really need them to be fun. I was just worried that some games would forget about gameplay and focus all their energy on visuals. (Warmonger is a good example of what might happen, although it isn't a commercial game)


----------



## OBR (Jun 27, 2008)

*It was a joke!*

_Well... well... sadly, the HD 4800 family won't be supported, because AMD thinks NGOHQ.com is not worthy enough to borrow review samples (definitely a bad idea). Anyway, expect to see some cool demo video in several days-weeks. Rememebr, it takes a lot of time and work to make CUDA compatible enough with Radeon to get it to fully work without any issues._

and you are stupid ... this will NEVER works ...


----------



## btarunr (Jun 27, 2008)

Obviously after ATI refused to supply a sample, he'd become a lone ranger, or an industrial laughing stock....AMD refused to give him a sample for a reason, being they don't want to get into trouble with NV at this point. NGO reverse engineered the drivers, and NVIDIA's EULA clearly prohibits that.


----------



## mab1376 (Jun 27, 2008)

does it work on the RV770?


----------



## jtleon (Jun 27, 2008)

*Ditto..& More*



PrudentPrincess said:


> In all reality, who gives a flaming f*** about being able to shoot a cloth and have it rip accurately?.....We should have been able to see "Physx" effects in the first place, it shouldn't be something that needs to be enabled by some random driver to work.



True Indeed.  As an intense multiplayer gamer (FEAR for example), I find that I must turn off all of the ridiculous effect eye candy - otherwise I am at a distinct disadvantage versus my opponents.  That cloud of smoke, or flying debri, is simply blocking my view of the enemy - who may or may not be seeing the same obstruction of view, depending upon their settings.  Truth be told, the novelty of realistic physics effects wears off after the 100th time.  Physical effects should offer value to the game play - not just spectacle - for example the explosion must offer damage to my opponent who walks nearby, rather than just eye candy.  This physics value must be coded into the game at the developer level (ex. recorded in the hitbox), and cannot be offered by a hardware driver.  If Physx can offer a bridge to the developer to help them use meaningful physical effects in games - more power to 'em!
Regards,
jtleon


----------



## btarunr (Jun 27, 2008)

Compare Half Life 2 to Counter Strike: Source. What's the primary difference? That while HL2 involved you picking up objects, interacting with them (apart from visual enhancements due to physics), CS:S was more of a no-BS multi-player game. That game did use Havoc, but its effects were greatly minimised to make the player focus on the gameplay. In HL2, you can halt at a place and spend hours figuring out what to do, but in CS:S, the game's over in minutes. In CS:S, there's nothing beyond maybe shooting sand to send up a minor puff of dust or shooting a barrel to displace it, and the usual rag-doll effects. If a game developer under-implements or poorly-implements physics, then it's the developer _and not_ the physics API to blame.


----------



## erocker (Jun 27, 2008)

OBR said:


> _Well... well... sadly, the HD 4800 family won't be supported, because AMD thinks NGOHQ.com is not worthy enough to borrow review samples (definitely a bad idea). Anyway, expect to see some cool demo video in several days-weeks. Rememebr, it takes a lot of time and work to make CUDA compatible enough with Radeon to get it to fully work without any issues._
> 
> and you are stupid ... this will NEVER works ...



No, no joke.  They used a HD3850 card for physics. The "driver" is supposed to be available this weekend.


----------



## substance90 (Jun 28, 2008)

Too bad the guy will get himself sued, before he even thinks about doing this to the HD48xx driver.. It would have been another reason for me to go with a 48xx instead a GTX2xx.


----------



## PrudentPrincess (Jun 28, 2008)

substance90 said:


> Too bad the guy will get himself sued, before he even thinks about doing this to the HD48xx driver.. It would have been another reason for me to go with a 48xx instead a GTX2xx.



Someone will take his place.


----------



## substance90 (Jun 28, 2008)

Let`s hope so.


----------



## KainXS (Jun 28, 2008)

I see alot of people dissing this guy everywhere and he is doing something illegal, BUT if this mod really takes off when its released and I'm sure it will, even though its illegal, I think more companies will pick up intense physics in games,

I mean, who on this forum who has a 38XX card and knows about this mod ISN'T GOING TO USE IT.

WHO

exactly,


----------



## btarunr (Jun 28, 2008)

I think the bigger inference game developers are beginning to draw is:

"If we use PhysX, only NV and Ageia card users can enjoy our games, while ATI users won't".

It's all over the news that ATI is heading towards a 40% market share soon. Developers will take note of that, and choose Havoc over PhysX since everyone can use it, doesn't require you to download and install a "Havoc driver", it comes with the game, anyone with a half decent (as in > P4 3.20 GHz / A64 3200+) can enjoy Havoc.


----------



## KainXS (Jun 29, 2008)

> Okay, here are some updates about what’s going on:
> 
> • The software is still under development, there are a few issues that need to be addressed. During the weekend, I ran it on UT3 but its not working perfectly. However, after testing the game with a 8800GT, it seems that everything is fine on our side and the problem lies in UT3’s side.
> 
> ...



they mention attorney, they see the oncoming battle


----------



## mjhieu (Jul 9, 2008)

*So Amazing!*

I'm own an ATI HD4850, sound's so amazing to know that ATI card can enable PhysicX. I wondering how to setup PhysicX for my system, Would anyone give me some advices?, Do I need to buy PhysicX card and install it to my system?. And Would I need some other things as software for PhysicX. Thanks you in advance for your replies.


----------



## KainXS (Aug 11, 2008)

it looks like this was fake, its been over a month and no pic, no update, no nothing, tats sad


----------



## wolf2009 (Aug 12, 2008)

KainXS said:


> it looks like this was fake, its been over a month and no pic, no update, no nothing, tats sad



No its not fake, That guy is working with Nvidia now. These things take time.


----------



## KainXS (Aug 12, 2008)

wolf2009 said:


> No its not fake, That guy is working with Nvidia now. These things take time.



the problem is . . . . how do we know that

I mean I was all for this and have been checking up on it like every week but he always says oh wait next week, oh wait tommorow, i was sick, oh wait 7 days, oh I forgot, lets wait til tommorow,

really . . .

over the last few days he closed every phyx related thread on NGOGQ, it looks like to me he is trying to whipe up a mess and wait for it to dry


----------



## ShadowFold (Aug 12, 2008)

I have completely lost hope with this. If it does come out, awesome, but I'm not keeping my hopes up any longer :shadedshu


----------

