Batman: Arkham Asylum Enables AA Only on NVIDIA Hardware on PCs

[Steevo]

Oh please, now you are just making shit up. Get your facts straight, nVidia has equaled or bettered ATi in price to performance for at least the last two generations in every performance segment the two competed in.

At least you admit that the rest is true. Knowing you have a problem is the first step.

BTW, you han't even posted when I was writing that post, and you almost jumped into it, as if some of us could tell what you were going to say and do..........

 

[Valdez]

"Running just fine" means it has good performance. Simply running with shitty performance would be far from "fine" would you say?

So you can imagine a game with hw physx running better on ati hw than it's competitor from nvidia?

 

[qubit]

+1

Bullshit, the tests with hacked drivers were showing PhysX running just fine on ATi hardware.

You are seriously over estimating the power required to run PhysX, any current ATi hardware would have been able to completely kill in PhysX performance. Remember, the original hardware the PhysX API ran on was 128MB PCI cards...

Yeah, I also remember the reports of PhysX running quite well on AMD with a driver wrapper. This whole restriction is due to politics/business and nothing else.

Apparently, PhysX was offerred to AMD but they didn't want it, because it was "nvidia" stuff, but don't quote me on it.

 

[newtekie1]

At least you admit that the rest is true. Knowing you have a problem is the first step.

No, I've just already address the rest previously, and don't feel like repeating myself.

So you can imagine a game with hw physx running better on ati hw than it's competitor from nvidia?

With PhysX there really isn't a "better", it really just kind of works or it doesn't. Obviously, there are some slight variations, largely dependent on the amount of physic being calculated using PhysX, which is why nVidia has started to increase the requirements for the video cards that run PhysX. And why Batman actually has different PhysX levels that require different levels of performance from the PhysX card.

However, at the time when the hacked drivers surface, it either just worked or it didn't. The performance issues came down to rendering the acutal graphics more than PhysX. So we never really got to test if the higher levels of PhysX in modern games like Batman would really be hindered on an ATi card.

Even if development did continue once the hacked drivers were released, I don't think we would ever see PhysX running better on ATi than nVidia, simply because developement for the ATi side was severally delayed. However, I do believe that similar cards from the two would have performed similarly. Not identical but similarly.

 

[CrAsHnBuRnXp]

I like how only the Ati ppl are bitching about this.

 

[Valdez]

With PhysX there really isn't a "better", it really just kind of works or it doesn't. Obviously, there are some slight variations, largely dependent on the amount of physic being calculated using PhysX, which is why nVidia has started to increase the requirements for the video cards that run PhysX. And why Batman actually has different PhysX levels that require different levels of performance from the PhysX card.

However, at the time when the hacked drivers surface, it either just worked or it didn't. The performance issues came down to rendering the acutal graphics more than PhysX. So we never really got to test if the higher levels of PhysX in modern games like Batman would really be hindered on an ATi card.

Even if development did continue once the hacked drivers were released, I don't think we would ever see PhysX running better on ATi than nVidia, simply because developement for the ATi side was severally delayed. However, I do believe that similar cards from the two would have performed similarly. Not identical but similarly.

Ah yes, and a bit later when physx becomes an industry standard, because ati has accepted nvidia's "generous" offer, the user looks at the graps and every game that uses hw physx would show more fps on nvidia hw. It would work on ati hw too, but slower.

Development on ati side? What development? Nvidia would develop physx for ati hw if ati would accept it? LOL You're very naive.

 

[leonard_222003]

nVidia disabling PhysX when an ATi card is present was a dick move. I'll be the first to say that. However, I can understand their frustration, and the reasons behind it. You are too quick to forget that nVidia actually wanted to get PhysX running natively on ATi hardware(no nVidia hardware required). And it was ATi that blocked the effort in any way possible. The fact is that nVidia was trying to be very helpful in getting PhysX/CUDA running on ATi hardware. Was the reasoning because it would benefit nVidia in the fight against Intel, and not just out of the goodness of their hearts? Probably, but who cares? The point was that nVidia was trying to get PhysX/CUDA working on ATi hardware. And after ATi blocked them at every turn, even going as far as not providing review samples to the review site that was responsible for the original hacked drivers...

HAHAHA , are you crazy man , do you take us for some very stupid people ?
It's a given that Nvidia would ask some major licesing money if AMD/ATI wants physx , it's a given they would try to make it run like shit on AMD's hardware and try to ruin them with renewed contracts about licensing this tehnology , it was never an option for AMD/ATI to use a tehnology bought by Nvidia from Ageia with who knows how many millions of dollars.
What you say is just plain stupid and you insult our intelligence , also AMD/ATI said they were never called by Nvidia about physx.

 

[AphexDreamer]

I like how only the Ati ppl are bitching about this.

Thats a generalization, I personally could care less. This is nothing new.

 

[theubersmurf]

I like how only the Ati ppl are bitching about this.

It makes sense that it would work that way. However, I've been an invida user for a while now, and I'm "bitching" about it too. I'm pretty sick of their shenanigans, and I'm jumping ship...Ironically that makes me a potential ATI user, so based on that, you can lump me in.

 

[erocker]

Yes, and the sole reason I stopped using Nvidia was due to their business practices. Stupid me, I went and bought a GTX 260 anyways. Great card, physX was neat. Got bored, bought another ATi card. Plus, when I buy ATi, the money stays closer to home.

I like how only the Ati ppl are bitching about this.

What are Ati people? Meh, I could just go buy a Nvidia card but have too many reasons to not want one.

*I just realized, I'm in the wrong thread.

 

[CrAsHnBuRnXp]

Thats a generalization, I personally could care less. This is nothing new.

I could care less too.

It makes sense that it would work that way. However, I've been an invida user for a while now, and I'm "bitching" about it too. I'm pretty sick of their shenanigans, and I'm jumping ship...Ironically that makes me a potential ATI user, so based on that, you can lump me in.

I could care less what they do. I mainly use their cards because they are usually the best by the time i need a new card and they use a black PCB. I hate red PCB thus refuse to buy ATI cards. Thats really the only reason I never used ATI. Retarded I know but i like things to match. But now that XFX is making ATI cards and make them in black PCB, ATI is a possibility for me now.

And if your an nVIDIA user and your tired of their "shenanigans", then jump ship so they can stop helping benefiting you.

Yes, and the sole reason I stopped using Nvidia was due to their business practices. Stupid me, I went and bought a GTX 260 anyways. Great card, physX was neat. Got bored, bought another ATi card. Plus, when I buy ATi, the money stays closer to home.

What are Ati people? Meh, I could just go buy a Nvidia card but have too many reasons to not want one.

And im sure many others have many reasons not to go buy an ATI card. Its user preference.

 

[El Fiendo]

I'm sorry but I can't afford the time to read 160+ replies, so if its been mentioned I'm sorry.

Unreal 3 doesn't come with native AA support, so this isn't NVIDIA shafting ATI and removing a feature, this is NVIDIA worked with the game developers and added a feature to the game that ATI never bothered to do. Nothing stopped ATI from working with the game developers to enable AA via software. This isn't underhanded.

 

[BigBruser13]

What would you do?

If nividia comes out with a monster GPU. would you buy even if they did many more (imagine) unethical things. Or buy ati because they are good not great but honest?

I honestly am on the fence at this point, leaning towards the honest

 

[CrAsHnBuRnXp]

If nividia comes out with a monster gpu 1 p=-

Wouldnt care.

 

[Valdez]

I'm sorry but I can't afford the time to read 160+ replies, so if its been mentioned I'm sorry.

Unreal 3 doesn't come with native AA support, so this isn't NVIDIA shafting ATI and removing a feature, this is NVIDIA worked with the game developers and added a feature to the game that ATI never bothered to do. Nothing stopped ATI from working with the game developers to enable AA via software. This isn't underhanded.

I don't think ati has any word in a game development which is under TWIMTBP program. But i could be wrong.

 

[Mistral]

I'm sorry but I can't afford the time to read 160+ replies, so if its been mentioned I'm sorry.

Unreal 3 doesn't come with native AA support, so this isn't NVIDIA shafting ATI and removing a feature, this is NVIDIA worked with the game developers and added a feature to the game that ATI never bothered to do. Nothing stopped ATI from working with the game developers to enable AA via software. This isn't underhanded.

Just for the record, and since you didn't read the 160+ replies (which is completely understandable) - Batman:AA runs on Unreal 3.5

 

[newtekie1]

Ah yes, and a bit later when physx becomes an industry standard, because ati has accepted nvidia's "generous" offer, the user looks at the graps and every game that uses hw physx would show more fps on nvidia hw. It would work on ati hw too, but slower.

Development on ati side? What development? Nvidia would develop physx for ati hw if ati would accept it? LOL You're very naive.

There is really nothing to show that PhysX would run any worse on ATi hardware, really. While it might run worse in the future, I doubt that the hardware in the future will actually struggle.

If an HD3870 could stomp through PhysX with no issue back then, I doubt something like an HD5870 would stuggle today. Or even something from the HD4800 series.

HAHAHA , are you crazy man , do you take us for some very stupid people ?
It's a given that Nvidia would ask some major licesing money if AMD/ATI wants physx , it's a given they would try to make it run like shit on AMD's hardware and try to ruin them with renewed contracts about licensing this tehnology , it was never an option for AMD/ATI to use a tehnology bought by Nvidia from Ageia with who knows how many millions of dollars.
What you say is just plain stupid and you insult our intelligence , also AMD/ATI said they were never called by Nvidia about physx.

Do a little research. There would have been no licencing fee for ATi, the only thing ATi would have had to do was support the developement. The PhysX API, engine, and SDK are provided to anyone that wants to use them, free of charge from nVidia. The hardware developer just has to provide hardware drivers that support it.

Again, nVidia was more than willing to help the developer get PhysX/CUDA running on ATi hardware, no licencing or fees involved at all. They were not going to do it themselve, but they were willing to help the devloper that wanted to do it. The problem was that ATi refused to help in any way.

 

[El Fiendo]

Just for the record, and since you didn't read the 160+ replies (which is completely understandable) - Batman:AA runs on Unreal 3.5

Right, and through all my searching I can't find where it says AA is natively supported in 3 or 3.5. If its added in by the developers and its co-developed by NVIDIA then there is no problem. Does anyone have the spec sheet that says UE3.5 has native AA in the engine?

 

[Valdez]

There is really nothing to show that PhysX would run any worse on ATi hardware, really. While it might run worse in the future, I doubt that the hardware in the future will actually struggle.

If an HD3870 could stomp through PhysX with no issue back then, I doubt something like an HD5870 would stuggle today. Or even something from the HD4800 series.

What i'm talking about is not a hardware issue. If a hw physx title would run slower on ati hw is not because it is actually weaker hw. It is because the source code is in nv hand, and wouldn't let ati win. It's fully logical.
If i own a technology, then i own the tools, to be the best at any circumstances.

I really can't explain myself better, my English isn't so good. But if you're right, and nvidia is so generous as you describe them, then it is time them to port physx from cuda to opencl, and physx source code will be free for everyone.

 

[InTeL-iNsIdE]

I like how only the Ati ppl are bitching about this.

I like how all the nvidia users are defending nvidia to the death

 

[newtekie1]

What i'm talking about is not a hardware issue. If a hw physx title would run slower on ati hw is not because it is actually weaker hw. It is because the source code is in nv hand, and wouldn't let ati win. It's fully logical.
If i own a technology, then i own the tools, to be the best at any circumstances.

I really can't explain myself better, my English isn't so good. But if you're right, and nvidia is so generous as you describe them, then it is time them to port physx from cuda to opencl, and physx source code will be free for everyone.

I get what you are saying, but what I'm saying, is there is really no way for nVidia to do this. PhysX takes so little GPU power to run, that it wouldn't be feasable.

There are several things you have to consider. The fact that an outside developer was the one doing the devloping, he was just being assisted by nVidia after his initial breakthrough. They essentially were providing him with any documentation and development tools he needed.

Also, CUDA is designed by its nature to be hardware independent. Once the hardware vender writes the driver to support CUDA, it will work. There really isn't a whole lot nVidia can do to make it perform worse on one over the other, and if they did, it would immediately send up red flags because the difference would be drastic.

 

[El Fiendo]

I like how all the nvidia users are defending nvidia to the death

Just like ATI users defend ATI against baseless claims.

I've looked and I can't find once where it says Anti - Aliasing is natively supported in any of Unreal Engine's current iterations. In fact all I find are threads lamenting how UE3xx doesn't support AA at all unless done through hardware. That means NVIDIA paid extra money to get it put in, and it would be stupid of them to allow it to ATI users too. Why? Because ATI isn't paying for it, NVIDIA is. They didn't remove a feature. They added a feature for their own market. ATI didn't follow suite and add AA for their market, not they've been 'foul played'.

I find it odd that this Ian McNaughton guy is putting forward this half truth, and if I'm correct I've actually lost respect for ATI in this case because of it. Again, if anyone can prove otherwise (that UE3.5 supports AA and NVIDIA removed usage of AA for ATI instead of adding AA for their own buyers) then I'll retract my claims.

Until then it looks like NVIDIA actually did the gaming market a favor adding by AA, and is owed an apology by roughly 85% of this thread. I wouldn't bother waiting for an apology if I were them though.

 

[mR Yellow]

Just wasted 1 hour reading this thread.
One thing is for sure. nVidia is always involved in this shady tactics.

 

[Valdez]

I get what you are saying, but what I'm saying, is there is really no way for nVidia to do this. PhysX takes so little GPU power to run, that it wouldn't be feasable.

Actually physx needs a lot of gpu power to run.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/screenshots/original/2009/09/Batman_Arkham_Asylum_Benchmarks_4.PNG

 

[Benetanegia]

Just like ATI users defend ATI against baseless claims.

I've looked and I can't find once where it says Anti - Aliasing is natively supported in any of Unreal Engine's current iterations. In fact all I find are threads lamenting how UE3xx doesn't support AA at all unless done through hardware. That means NVIDIA paid extra money to get it put in, and it would be stupid of them to allow it to ATI users too. Why? Because ATI isn't paying for it, NVIDIA is. They didn't remove a feature. They added a feature for their own market. ATI didn't follow suite and add AA for their market, not they've been 'foul played'.

I find it odd that this Ian McNaughton guy is putting forward this half truth, and if I'm correct I've actually lost respect for ATI in this case because of it. Again, if anyone can prove otherwise (that UE3.5 supports AA and NVIDIA removed usage of AA for ATI instead of adding AA for their own buyers) then I'll retract my claims.

Until then it looks like NVIDIA actually did the gaming market a favor adding by AA, and is owed an apology by roughly 85% of this thread. I wouldn't bother waiting for an apology if I were them though.

I agree, but it's even worse IMO. From what I read they have discovered all this after the game has launched!!! That means they had no contact with the developer at all! I mean if you are a GPU maker, don't you contact developers and try to optimize before launch or at least start working on the optimization of the full game before it launches? Don't you ask for a copy? IMO if they cared so little about that game that they didn't even contact them, AMD deserves every bit of unoptimized code they get. Especially if it comes from a feature that has never been there and was developed for Nvidia at their request, paid by their money. The fact that the optimization works on Ati cards as well, changes nothing IMO. If I was the developer I would have done the same.