This line has been in several releases of Nvidia's driver notes for a while now. This is Nvidia's shitty way of stopping people from using AMD cards with a secondary Nvidia card for processing PhysX. They want you to buy only Nvidia hardware if you want to play in their sandbox.
This prevents hardware-accelerated PhysX from running but software-based PhysX still works in many games so your CPU can usually run the PhysX calculations if you have a non-Nvidia card. How well it runs depends on the game and how strong your CPU is.
Been the case for as long as nVidia owned PhysX and figured that people used cheap nVidia card with powerful AMD cards just for the PhysX. There are hacked drivers that work, but it was enough of a hassle for me to forego any such tinkering (been using AMD exclusively since the HD3770X2). It's a scummy move.
I have 2 systems with nVidia GPUs and Intel IGPs, with all GPUs running number crunching code 24/7. And an occasional game on the nVidia. I'm glad I did not yet notice the PhysX limitation, i.e. I would not have any use for it anyway.
It's nothing new, as others have already mentioned.
As for IGPs; is it even possible for an IGP and dGPU to run at the same time?
AFAIK, that's not the case and the computer switches between the two, according to the graphics work load, meaning that GPU accelerated physx should work when the nvidia dGPU is in use.
P.S. non-accelerated physx runs on CPU and has nothing to do with the type of GPU you have.
I don't think they can be shared by the same program outside of SLI/Crossfire, but they can definitely be enabled and used simultaneously. I used to have my HD 3000 enabled so that when games would go full screen 3D on my main screen using my dGPU I could still have a web browser or media application active on a secondary display.
@Goty I meant an Intel IGP and an nvidia dGPU. Of course AMD parts can work together.
@fade2blac Yes, I meant in a single application/game, where the intel IGP and nvidia dGPU can work together. That's not possible. Two separate programs, sure.
Wow, all this anger over non-NVidia PhysX support...it's like calling AMD shitty because NVidia doesn't have mantel support.
Every company have their proprietary selling point.
In other news, I'm angry my Ford truck doesn't take the superior hydraulic transmission mounts from the GM Silverado. Damn you GM for Ford not being compatible with your parts! What bastards!
Nvidia can't add mantel support because it's closed source. Not that they want to, but ATM it's technically impossible to add mantel support.
Mantel WILL be open (at least that's what AMD says) but at the moment it's closed source. In my opinion AMD just says that so less informed people think they're any better then Nvidia, while they're equally "bad" (i think these kind of things are unique selling points, they dont have to share everything).
@mathijs727 Exactly. It's just lip service on AMD's part so that their minions regurgitate misinformation and they don't come off as hypocritical, given they have always tried to position themselves as the Open People's Choice for Free Opensauceawesomeness.
@beginner99, No Nvidia couldn't support Mantle even if they wanted to (they don't), Mantle is still closed and proprietary, just ask Intel or the various other Devs that are not on AMD's approved partner list.
Simple answer is Nvidia does not want to QA PhysX with a secondary dGPU renderer, and who would blame them? If someone has a problem with PhysX with an AMD primary graphics card, they will come to Nvidia for support, not AMD.
PhysX could work with any GPU, but nVidia wants you to buy their hardware for it -- I could sort of understand that. However, disabling PhysX acceleration on nVidia hardware just because you have a competing GPU in your system is a straight douche move.
Another example is G-sync. While AMD is allowing their competing freesync to work with nVidia products and not requiring fees for display manufacturer to enable the feature, nVidia requires they pay a license and purchase additional components.
If Nvidia cards isn't compatible, it's a technical issue that Nvidia can fix because AMD allows anyone, including Nvidia, to use FreeSync. But not the other way round for GSync.
Did you read the comments at all? The equivalent point is that your green Ford truck would refuse to work because you have a red GM truck in the same garage. It's not about running PhysX on AMD / Intel GPUs, it's about nVidia stopping to "not allow PhysX on their own GPU if another GPU is present, even if it has nothing to do with the game".
@MrSpadge: No, it's more like having a farm with chickens and pigs, there's no problems when you raise them set apart, but if you put them into the same pen they will often be just fine....but othertimes, you might run into problems.
Two GPUs that are working on the same motherboard, sharing PCI-e and having the same power source is not the same as parking two vehicles next to each other. To enable physx on a non-Nvidia GPU means having full access to that particular hardware and its device drivers. That means Nvidia is going to have to spend time and money specifically to benefit their competition. Welcome to planet Earth... sorry, but we do things a little differently here :).
Regarding the scenario of a person buying a high end AMD GPU for rendering and a low end Nvvidia card for PhysX. Nvidia's disabling PhysX still anti-consumer because of the fact that, Nvidia still gets the profit from selling a low end GPU.
Yes, the IGP and Nvidia GPU can be enabled at the same time. As far as I know, if you want to use QuickSync for video encoding, you in fact need both enabled.
Been this way for 4-5 years, but it should be no problem for AMD and their fans since they generally seem not to care for PhysX, calling it a gimmick that will die etc. etc.
Nvidia doesn't want to QA it, and who blames them really, they validate it on Nvidia approved configurations and that is the extent. Given how many problems you can encounter in a multi-vendor GPU ecosystem this is really no surprise.
It was fun to play around with the DSR settings on my SuperClocked GTX 680 cards. I like that consideration given to older (but still good) GPUs. Also, I'm still in shock over the 900 series - best performance, lower cost, *and* lower power. That kind of "all-around" improvement is rarely seen in product launches these days. NVIDIA has graphics mojo!
DSR seems not a stupid thing, i have 780Ti and when i do 1080p on my 55" plasma TV i have high framerates which i do not need, if the image does look better it's a good thing.
I installed these drivers on my brand new Sager laptop with GTX 880m, and I get BSODs randomly even after uninstalling this POS with Revo Unistaller Pro/ windows default program unistaller/ Display Driver Uninstaller (DDU) several times (about 5 and the problem persists) in safe mode. Just so some of you know what you might have to deal with.
Did you try out the DSR function? It is possible that perhaps your system wasn't well ventilated at the time, and got overheated. If that is the case then no amount of driver switching is going to fix the BSODs, and your only choice would be an RMA.
Well, I tried these out with an eVGA GTX770 Hydro Copper and I am getting nothing but tearing in every game I try, be it Starbound, Elder Scrolls Online, FTL or Mass Effect 3. Performance seemed the same, and I wasnt able to try DSR because it isnt enabled for Surround anyway.
Rolled back to Septembers driver release and everything is working as it should. May my experience be a warning for 700 series users, if it isnt only me.
Running these on a single GTX 760 4GB, no issues with tearing, and DSR is pretty sweet. Except for the fact that it actually seems to change desktop resolution, so if you have a secondary monitor with a web browser or system monitoring tools on it, those will get moved around while a DSR-configured game is running.
Yup Dsr is a great feature, works great, no bugs. You probably wont see much more performance out of maxwell series cards, Nvidia nails drivers first time around now, and have been since 700 series gpu release. The days of future driver releases halting large performance increases over time are long gone.
I run 2 770 Superclocked Acx versions in Sli on a Devils Canyon [email protected] and cant explain how awesome my gaming experience is. You really do need to go Sli these days especially if you use a 144hz Benq like me. Single card set-ups are just too weak in newest games with full ultra settings.
Multi-GPU setups come with their own problems. It is often better to get a top-tier single GPU, then getting two lower tier ones any day of the week. Check the benchmark comparison of 2x770 vs. a single 980 or even a single 780Ti. I would post a direct link but the completely idiotic spam filter prevents me from doing so.
I have owned a pair of 670 FTW sli, 770 SC ACX sli and have had 0 problems with any games or test benchmarks. If you think sli has problems....... you have never sli'ed graphic cards! My 2x 770 SC ACX kill single 980GTX by 25-30% fps........and that's sad!
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
41 Comments
Back to Article
nathanddrews - Wednesday, October 22, 2014 - link
From the notes:"NVIDIA GPU PhysX acceleration is not available if there is a non-NVIDIA graphics
processor in the system, even if it is not used for rendering."
So if you have enabled an Intel IGP, AMD APU, or AMD dGPU, you can't use PhysX? WTF Nvidia?
WithoutWeakness - Wednesday, October 22, 2014 - link
This line has been in several releases of Nvidia's driver notes for a while now. This is Nvidia's shitty way of stopping people from using AMD cards with a secondary Nvidia card for processing PhysX. They want you to buy only Nvidia hardware if you want to play in their sandbox.This prevents hardware-accelerated PhysX from running but software-based PhysX still works in many games so your CPU can usually run the PhysX calculations if you have a non-Nvidia card. How well it runs depends on the game and how strong your CPU is.
Morawka - Wednesday, October 22, 2014 - link
i have intel HD 4600 from my 4690K Enabled and a GTX 980. I can confirm that PhysX still works fine. Must just be for AMD cardsI keep my iGPU enabled for quick sync encoding in Handbrake.
MrSpadge - Thursday, October 23, 2014 - link
"still works fine" - on your GPU or CPU?Death666Angel - Wednesday, October 22, 2014 - link
Been the case for as long as nVidia owned PhysX and figured that people used cheap nVidia card with powerful AMD cards just for the PhysX. There are hacked drivers that work, but it was enough of a hassle for me to forego any such tinkering (been using AMD exclusively since the HD3770X2). It's a scummy move.MrSpadge - Wednesday, October 22, 2014 - link
I have 2 systems with nVidia GPUs and Intel IGPs, with all GPUs running number crunching code 24/7. And an occasional game on the nVidia. I'm glad I did not yet notice the PhysX limitation, i.e. I would not have any use for it anyway.eddman - Wednesday, October 22, 2014 - link
It's nothing new, as others have already mentioned.As for IGPs; is it even possible for an IGP and dGPU to run at the same time?
AFAIK, that's not the case and the computer switches between the two, according to the graphics work load, meaning that GPU accelerated physx should work when the nvidia dGPU is in use.
P.S. non-accelerated physx runs on CPU and has nothing to do with the type of GPU you have.
Goty - Wednesday, October 22, 2014 - link
An IGP and dGPU can run in tandem; AMD has their "hybrid crossfire" implementation that allows for both to be used for rendering simultaneously.fade2blac - Wednesday, October 22, 2014 - link
I don't think they can be shared by the same program outside of SLI/Crossfire, but they can definitely be enabled and used simultaneously. I used to have my HD 3000 enabled so that when games would go full screen 3D on my main screen using my dGPU I could still have a web browser or media application active on a secondary display.eddman - Wednesday, October 22, 2014 - link
@GotyI meant an Intel IGP and an nvidia dGPU. Of course AMD parts can work together.
@fade2blac
Yes, I meant in a single application/game, where the intel IGP and nvidia dGPU can work together. That's not possible. Two separate programs, sure.
Samus - Wednesday, October 22, 2014 - link
Wow, all this anger over non-NVidia PhysX support...it's like calling AMD shitty because NVidia doesn't have mantel support.Every company have their proprietary selling point.
In other news, I'm angry my Ford truck doesn't take the superior hydraulic transmission mounts from the GM Silverado. Damn you GM for Ford not being compatible with your parts! What bastards!
beginner99 - Thursday, October 23, 2014 - link
>Wow, all this anger over non-NVidia PhysX support...it's like calling AMD shitty because NVidia doesn't have mantel support.No it isn't. Because NV could add mantel support if the wanted, PhysX in contrast isn't open and has to be licensed and paid for.
mathijs727 - Thursday, October 23, 2014 - link
Nvidia can't add mantel support because it's closed source. Not that they want to, but ATM it's technically impossible to add mantel support.Mantel WILL be open (at least that's what AMD says) but at the moment it's closed source. In my opinion AMD just says that so less informed people think they're any better then Nvidia, while they're equally "bad" (i think these kind of things are unique selling points, they dont have to share everything).
chizow - Thursday, October 23, 2014 - link
@mathijs727 Exactly. It's just lip service on AMD's part so that their minions regurgitate misinformation and they don't come off as hypocritical, given they have always tried to position themselves as the Open People's Choice for Free Opensauceawesomeness.chizow - Thursday, October 23, 2014 - link
@beginner99, No Nvidia couldn't support Mantle even if they wanted to (they don't), Mantle is still closed and proprietary, just ask Intel or the various other Devs that are not on AMD's approved partner list.http://techreport.com/news/26682/intel-asked-amd-f...
Simple answer is Nvidia does not want to QA PhysX with a secondary dGPU renderer, and who would blame them? If someone has a problem with PhysX with an AMD primary graphics card, they will come to Nvidia for support, not AMD.
Jorsher - Thursday, October 23, 2014 - link
It's not the same at all.PhysX could work with any GPU, but nVidia wants you to buy their hardware for it -- I could sort of understand that. However, disabling PhysX acceleration on nVidia hardware just because you have a competing GPU in your system is a straight douche move.
Another example is G-sync. While AMD is allowing their competing freesync to work with nVidia products and not requiring fees for display manufacturer to enable the feature, nVidia requires they pay a license and purchase additional components.
Godlygamer24 - Thursday, October 23, 2014 - link
AFAIK that is false. AMD states on their Project FreeSync FAQ that it's only compatible with THEIR GPUs. NVIDIA GPUs aren't compatible.ahaahaaah - Thursday, October 23, 2014 - link
If Nvidia cards isn't compatible, it's a technical issue that Nvidia can fix because AMD allows anyone, including Nvidia, to use FreeSync. But not the other way round for GSync.MrSpadge - Thursday, October 23, 2014 - link
Did you read the comments at all? The equivalent point is that your green Ford truck would refuse to work because you have a red GM truck in the same garage. It's not about running PhysX on AMD / Intel GPUs, it's about nVidia stopping to "not allow PhysX on their own GPU if another GPU is present, even if it has nothing to do with the game".chizow - Thursday, October 23, 2014 - link
@MrSpadge: No, it's more like having a farm with chickens and pigs, there's no problems when you raise them set apart, but if you put them into the same pen they will often be just fine....but othertimes, you might run into problems.Better to just keep them apart.
D. Lister - Friday, October 24, 2014 - link
Two GPUs that are working on the same motherboard, sharing PCI-e and having the same power source is not the same as parking two vehicles next to each other. To enable physx on a non-Nvidia GPU means having full access to that particular hardware and its device drivers. That means Nvidia is going to have to spend time and money specifically to benefit their competition. Welcome to planet Earth... sorry, but we do things a little differently here :).AnnihilatorX - Wednesday, October 29, 2014 - link
Regarding the scenario of a person buying a high end AMD GPU for rendering and a low end Nvvidia card for PhysX. Nvidia's disabling PhysX still anti-consumer because of the fact that, Nvidia still gets the profit from selling a low end GPU.jhoff80 - Thursday, October 23, 2014 - link
Yes, the IGP and Nvidia GPU can be enabled at the same time. As far as I know, if you want to use QuickSync for video encoding, you in fact need both enabled.przemo_li - Thursday, October 23, 2014 - link
There is AMD HybridCrossfireIf GPU is "on pair" with APU, then it will be used as normal Crossfire.
Otherwise iGPU is used as display controler. (GPU do the rendering, pixels then travel to iGPU and only then to Display)
That is for DX at least.
For Mantle they aim at assigning tasks to ALL present GPUs as programmers seem workable.
(Like Scene rendered on GPU and then postprocessed on iGPU)
chizow - Thursday, October 23, 2014 - link
Been this way for 4-5 years, but it should be no problem for AMD and their fans since they generally seem not to care for PhysX, calling it a gimmick that will die etc. etc.Nvidia doesn't want to QA it, and who blames them really, they validate it on Nvidia approved configurations and that is the extent. Given how many problems you can encounter in a multi-vendor GPU ecosystem this is really no surprise.
HerveS94 - Wednesday, October 22, 2014 - link
i hope this driver brings new features and more performanceVidmo - Wednesday, October 22, 2014 - link
Let's hope they don't kill HDCP again for HTPCs connected to receivers.TEAMSWITCHER - Thursday, October 23, 2014 - link
It was fun to play around with the DSR settings on my SuperClocked GTX 680 cards. I like that consideration given to older (but still good) GPUs. Also, I'm still in shock over the 900 series - best performance, lower cost, *and* lower power. That kind of "all-around" improvement is rarely seen in product launches these days. NVIDIA has graphics mojo!nicolapeluchetti - Thursday, October 23, 2014 - link
DSR seems not a stupid thing, i have 780Ti and when i do 1080p on my 55" plasma TV i have high framerates which i do not need, if the image does look better it's a good thing.laughingkoala - Thursday, October 23, 2014 - link
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand........... it won't install.JarredWalton - Friday, October 24, 2014 - link
What hardware and OS are you running?manuelricardo.garcia - Thursday, October 23, 2014 - link
I installed these drivers on my brand new Sager laptop with GTX 880m, and I get BSODs randomly even after uninstalling this POS with Revo Unistaller Pro/ windows default program unistaller/ Display Driver Uninstaller (DDU) several times (about 5 and the problem persists) in safe mode. Just so some of you know what you might have to deal with.JarredWalton - Friday, October 24, 2014 - link
Is it crashing in general, or only with specific games?D. Lister - Friday, October 24, 2014 - link
Did you try out the DSR function? It is possible that perhaps your system wasn't well ventilated at the time, and got overheated. If that is the case then no amount of driver switching is going to fix the BSODs, and your only choice would be an RMA.Taristin - Friday, October 24, 2014 - link
Well, I tried these out with an eVGA GTX770 Hydro Copper and I am getting nothing but tearing in every game I try, be it Starbound, Elder Scrolls Online, FTL or Mass Effect 3. Performance seemed the same, and I wasnt able to try DSR because it isnt enabled for Surround anyway.Rolled back to Septembers driver release and everything is working as it should. May my experience be a warning for 700 series users, if it isnt only me.
The_Assimilator - Saturday, October 25, 2014 - link
Running these on a single GTX 760 4GB, no issues with tearing, and DSR is pretty sweet. Except for the fact that it actually seems to change desktop resolution, so if you have a secondary monitor with a web browser or system monitoring tools on it, those will get moved around while a DSR-configured game is running.SeanJ76 - Saturday, October 25, 2014 - link
Yup Dsr is a great feature, works great, no bugs. You probably wont see much more performance out of maxwell series cards, Nvidia nails drivers first time around now, and have been since 700 series gpu release. The days of future driver releases halting large performance increases over time are long gone.SeanJ76 - Saturday, October 25, 2014 - link
I run 2 770 Superclocked Acx versions in Sli on a Devils Canyon [email protected] and cant explain how awesome my gaming experience is. You really do need to go Sli these days especially if you use a 144hz Benq like me. Single card set-ups are just too weak in newest games with full ultra settings.D. Lister - Sunday, October 26, 2014 - link
@SeanJ76Multi-GPU setups come with their own problems. It is often better to get a top-tier single GPU, then getting two lower tier ones any day of the week. Check the benchmark comparison of 2x770 vs. a single 980 or even a single 780Ti. I would post a direct link but the completely idiotic spam filter prevents me from doing so.
SeanJ76 - Thursday, October 30, 2014 - link
I have owned a pair of 670 FTW sli, 770 SC ACX sli and have had 0 problems with any games or test benchmarks. If you think sli has problems....... you have never sli'ed graphic cards!My 2x 770 SC ACX kill single 980GTX by 25-30% fps........and that's sad!
DPOverLord - Monday, October 27, 2014 - link
It also added support for 4 way 5 way Surround