In fact I think the Physx dependancy, and other TBA are pretty clear it will be CPU bound on anything except Nvidia GPU's, despite being close to (software tools exists to port openCL physics back and forth) Physx proprietary.


www.nvidia.com/object/nzone_physxgames_home.html

Huh.... looks like a lack of games and server error, almost like everyone passed on this BS option.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_with_hardware-accelerated_PhysX_support

WAIT HOLD THE PRESSES!! We almost forgot.......


QQ Dance 2

XzibitIf it is good on them.
Though that link doesn't mention anything about it being open to acceleration outside of CUDA.

Dig around.
A quick PhysX + DC google;

PhysXInfo.com: Is FLEX purely GPU accelerated library, or will it support CPU execution? Is it plausible to see FLEX ported to OpenCL or DirectCompute?

Miles Macklin: Right now we have a CUDA implementation and a DirectCompute implementation is planned. We are considering a CPU implementation.
I have also built FLEX for Linux (Ubuntu 12.04 64bit) and it works great, in some cases it is faster than Windows.

Personally, I don't see what the fuss is about. AMD already officially snubbed PhysX just after Nvidia acquired Ageia, and thensnubbed it again when the PhysX hack debuted. AMD just aren't interested no matter how hard some people try to paint it as Nvidia withholding something AMD wants.

Steevodespite being close to (software tools exists to port openCL physics back and forth) Physx proprietary.

CUDA ports to OpenCL (and vice versa) readily enough. Now, for all the marbles, list all the OpenCL PC games.

Why do you think HavokFX fell into the pit of fail?

HumanSmokeBut then go on to deride Nvidia for doing much the same thing:

:shadedshu:

Why would he think that? The only people likely to do that are the kind that don't bother researching before buying, or listen to forum posters with a miniscule knowledge base that think that a driver hackis an easy option (the fact that the driver needs hacking should be a giveaway). Ain't no cure for stupid (or lack of research before buying as the case may be). A very quick look at Nvidia's PhysX FAQwould tell you the answer.


Don't see it as an issue personally. AMD themselves and most of the AMD fanboys don't rate PhysX at all, so why should anyone care- least of all Nvidia. Nvidia paid around $150 million for Ageia to acquire PhysX- you think it's viable to shell out for the tech just to give it away to your competitor, especially when the same competitor couldn't be arsed to buy the same techa year earlier. Kind of reminds me of the "mates" you have that never put in for the keg, and always show up once the foods already ordered.
Just for interests sake, if PhysX was allowed to run on AMD GPUs who would be responsible for maintaining compatibility with changing drivers/µarchs? You trust AMD to make sure it runs OK, or do you expect AMD to give Nvidia access to their driver code to ensure compatibility?

Didn't really help on launch day when all the sites did their GPU performance evaluations did it?

They don't give PhysX away for free, mate, we have to pay them to get an nVidia card, full the amount that they asked. But it can provide the feature advertised. And heck, a Hybrid PhysX set up is viable and work completely fine with a mod driver. It is just intentionally shut down by nVidia's official driver though. It is not like PhysX is some thing relevant more than a gimmick, it is just an example of the dirty strategies employed by nVidia.

And for your other point, Mantle and Gameworks are not the same thing. Consumers can choose to not use Mantle in BF4 and Thief, and still be fine with DirectX. However they can not turn off all Gameworks' features on Arkham City or Watch Dogs, because there is no other solution provided. It is still fine when nVidia prevent AMD from accessing the code of a Gamework title before launch. However, it is not fine when they keep that bar permanently, like in Arkham Origins. It can be fixed if they allow AMD to "work very closely" with the studios for a patch though, but I highly doubt that it would happen.

HumanSmokeDig around.
A quick PhysX + DC google;


Personally, I don't see what the fuss is about. AMD already officially snubbed PhysX just after Nvidia acquired Ageia, and thensnubbed it again when the PhysX hack debuted. AMD just aren't interested no matter how hard some people try to paint it as Nvidia withholding something AMD wants.

2008, really reaching the bottom of that bag huh?


AMD doesn't want Physx, its dead, they want open standards, as so all sane people. They want to push the mainline developers to embrace the changes hardware is allowing, instead of, ehhh, pile more cores on it.

HumanSmokeDig around.
A quick PhysX + DC google;


Personally, I don't see what the fuss is about. AMD already officially snubbed PhysX just after Nvidia acquired Ageia, and thensnubbed it again when the PhysX hack debuted. AMD just aren't interested no matter how hard some people try to paint it as Nvidia withholding something AMD wants.

If they come through with the Direct Compute that's great

As far as the PhysX issue. From my understanding Nvidia originaly offered PhysX to ATI with a % of every chip sold so they had to support PhysX through CUDA which they turned down. The Hacks was a 3rd party and had nothing to do with ATI directly rather more of a programmer looking for support.

Steevo2008, really reaching the bottom of that bag huh?

Like anything has changed in the intervening years :rolleyes:

SteevoAMD doesn't want Physx, its dead, they want open standards, as so all sane people.

Agreed.
And you'd find more overall interest if open standard moved at anywhere near the same pace as proprietary. OpenCL has been going almost as long as CUDA, yet had little or no interest when Nvidia were building an GPGPU HPC empire. Why does it need a proprietary solution to lead the way only for everyone to squeal about a closed environment rather than ask why open standard sat around with its collective finger up its butt? Adaptive V-Sync, G-Sync, GeForce Experience, frame pacing, Optimus - and that's just non-Pro stuff, all first to market, all sent their competitors scrambling to the work table. Without the proprietary -and you can go back to SGI's IrisGL, innovation moves at a snails pace.
You don't have to like it - and like you, I don't - but it is a reality that open standard means less bottom line profit, more internal struggle to get anything to market, less financing, and slower reaction time and time to completion.

SteevoThey want to push the mainline developers to embrace the changes hardware is allowing, instead of, ehhh, pile more cores on it.

You want people to embrace anything, throwing cash at them works a whole lot better than appealing to an ideal. I've heard it also works that way in other forms of business also.



Feel free to post your impressions of the AMD driver. It's what this thread is supposed to be concerned with after all.

About the driver, 14.6 is a really good one for Hawaii. On 290/x you will have better performance with the same clock. It does run a bit hotter. I guess that there are some serious optimizations from AMD for Hawaii chips with this driver.

Getting blue screens when waking up my monitors from being idle.

I am using a 290X lightening with 3 x BenQ XL2420Z monitors

Cybrnook2002Getting blue screens when waking up my monitors from being idle.

I am using a 290X lightening with 3 x BenQ XL2420Z monitors

Do you have eyefinity enabled? If so try turning it off to see if the problem persists then we can go from there

Of course, and yes with eyefnity profile disabled, no issue.

I am actually not reaching out for help. Just more giving a general feedback on the beta driver.

Cybrnook2002Of course, and yes with eyefnity profile disabled, no issue.

I am actually not reaching out for help. Just more giving a general feedback on the beta driver.

Oh ok sorry then, misinterpreted your response.

Mine isn't having that trouble but it could be my configuration of software and cards or something.

sweet1) Nice try, where did you get "1k$ till 125k$" from? And I'm sure OpenCL, Havok and TressFX are kicking asses. Games in the bundles never could be a GOTY version of course, they was bought before the first release to put in the bundles. How could a GOTY version be bundled anyway?

2) And could you please give a feature from AMD that is prevented from being optimized for others then?

3) Just admit it, nVidia is full of proprietary stuff. PhysX cards refuse to run PhysX if the main GPU is not nVidia, 3Dvision requires nVidia glasses and GPU to work, Gsync ask extra money for an addition board on your monitor, which is useless if you don't use nvidia GPU. Is that enough? No, they just "invented" Gameworks to restrict the involved developers working with AMD for drivers. They would go as low as possible to beat cheaper solutions, in order to milk more from their loyal cows. Heck, I'm smart and I'm not a cow though.

1) www.hsafoundation.com/home-2/
This explain why where is no new games. Simply AMD won't buy new games.

2) Mantle, True Audio.

3) Just like Mantle, True Audio, HD3D, Eyefinity, FreeSync don't work if you have Nvidia GPU. Your point? Yes, you not a cow, but also you don't need a Goat Simulator to be a goat. :P

sweetAnd for your other point, Mantle and Gameworks are not the same thing. Consumers can choose to not use Mantle in BF4 and Thief, and still be fine with DirectX. However they can not turn off all Gameworks' features on Arkham City or Watch Dogs, because there is no other solution provided. It is still fine when nVidia prevent AMD from accessing the code of a Gamework title before launch. However, it is not fine when they keep that bar permanently, like in Arkham Origins. It can be fixed if they allow AMD to "work very closely" with the studios for a patch though, but I highly doubt that it would happen.

False. You can choose ambient occlusion, shadows, anti aliasing. Unlike AMD shaders bombardment in Hitman Absolution, Dirt Showdown, Sniper Elite 2.

SteevoAMD doesn't want Physx, its dead, they want open standards, as so all sane people. They want to push the mainline developers to embrace the changes hardware is allowing, instead of, ehhh, pile more cores on it.

Why AMD and scrubs believe that if AMD doesn't support Physx, it's dead?

To be honest, AMD was threating PhysX enough politely those times, even considering to buy whole Ageia company:

Richard Huddy saying, “we’ve had that discussion, yes. It’s a discussion that goes round every three months – someone turns to me and says “why don’t we buy Ageia?”

Things started to get worse when Nvidia bought Ageia with all patents, personell, software and hardware developments. GPU PhysX was buried alive by AMD beforehand

“There is no plan for closed and proprietary standards like PhysX,” said [Godfrey] Cheng “As we have emphasized with our support for OpenCL and DX11, closed and proprietary standards will die.”

[INDENT][/INDENT]