NVIDIA Cleans Up GSP Firmware Binary License

[MorrisS.]

https://gameworksdocs.nvidia.com/PhysX/4.1/documentation/platformreadme/linux/readme_linux.html

As NobodyXu stated your argument MorrisS was basically garbage. NobodyXu missed that this point about Physx is also garbage but it also points out something really bad.
Physx under Linux is not driver and never has been. Physx is nothing more than a fancy front end to cuda. Under Linux you can use Physx on AMD hardware using hip because it userspace. Under windows you cannot use Physx with AMD because its a windows driver...

Of this gets better when you know that the early versions of Physx for windows were also a totally userspace solution. The only reason Physx is a driver under windows vendor locking to prevent AMD and Intel and other third parties providing their own CUDA replacements to have games work that use Physx.

MorrisS there are many miss alignments like this where Nvidia does one thing for Linux native programs then totally different thing for Windows users majority of the time this turns out to be make sure Windows users buy Nvidia hardware over competition by making tech only work on Nvidia hardware that does not have to be limited to a single vendors hardware. Physx is one of the examples of Nvidia doing intentional vendor lock-in.

It doesn't occur to define garbage arguments you don't agree. It's a stupid way to interact. Nvidia bought Physx, so it is its interest to make it exclusive for its hardware. Otherwise, a manufacturer would have no interest in buying software. Physx card were realized by Ageia and their driver works just for Ageia cards. You don't understand that Nvidia has no interest in promoting its rivals. Indeed, many ones suggest to change Nvidia GPUs. What's the benefit?

[oiaohm]

It doesn't occur to define garbage arguments you don't agree. It's a stupid way to interact. Nvidia bought Physx, so it is its interest to make it exclusive for its hardware. Otherwise, a manufacturer would have no interest in buying software. Physx card were realized by Ageia and their driver works just for Ageia cards. You don't understand that Nvidia has no interest in promoting its rivals. Indeed, many ones suggest to change Nvidia GPUs. What's the benefit?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhysX

Initially, video games supporting PhysX were meant to be accelerated by PhysX PPU (expansion cards designed by Ageia). However, after Ageia's acquisition by Nvidia, dedicated PhysX cards have been discontinued in favor of the API being run on CUDA-enabled GeForce GPUs. In both cases, hardware acceleration allowed for the offloading of physics calculations from the CPU, allowing it to perform other tasks instead.

Nvidia never released a driver for the Ageia cards in fact they declared cards discontinued as soon as they took over this includes no more driver updates. The first thing they did was discontinue Ageia card.

Nvidia only interaction with PhysX was make it run on CUDA and make a windows binding driver for it that only goes to Geforce cards.

What's the benefit is the problem here. Not all manufacturers have bought software with the idea of locking it up.

Nvidia has no interest in having rivals to be correct. This includes not profiting from you rivals sales by the way.

https://gpuopen.com/ AMD has not done the same things.

The downside to vendor locking is it has long term harm to Nvidia.

MorrisS its not that I disagree its that they were garbage arguements. AMD and Intel are able to protect their IP without the Nvidia stupidity. In fact Nvidia has put their IP at higher risk by encouraging open source developers to reverse engineering and Nvidia has lost a few patent cases because of it.

Lets say Nvidia decide to sell CUDA IP tech they could have patented licensed it to AMD and Intel. The reality is the points you argued are garbage because closer inspection Nvidia could have made more money than what they have.

[mirmirmir]

Yes that the problem. Just because party been on the top for a long time does mean they will stay there. I am not saying Nvidia has not done a lot of things. The world requirements over time change.

Umm, the world's requirement is what novidio is providing, like gaming requirement trend is decided by current gen console. Requirement is limited by what's available on the market, like people won't make a game that can't run in any available hardware.

[oiaohm]

Umm, the world's requirement is what novidio is providing, like gaming requirement trend is decided by current gen console. Requirement is limited by what's available on the market, like people won't make a game that can't run in any available hardware.

Gaming consoles they are these days all AMD. At one point in time almost all consoles had Nvidia GPUs.

https://www.hpcwire.com/2023/03/23/nvidia-doubling-down-on-china-market-amid-tightening-us-export-controls/

Export controls in the AI field means Nvidia not having it their own way everywhere.

Yes you are right requirement is limited to what is available on the market. What available in the market at the moment at times has areas where there is no Nvidia and it not by Nvidia choice.

Vendor locked in API/ABI are double sided. Parties are forced to move off your vendor locked in ABI/API to something generic to use what is on in their market they may decide never to move back so never buy the product from your company again.

[mitchellrenouf]

I wouldn't be surpised if the open source driver ends up being a lot faster. It would be nice of them to also release firmware for all their supported gpu instead of the newer ones. You only get full clock speed if you manually power the cooler otherwise. The reason the driver is closed source at all is because of digital rights management artifically limiting features. You basically get a quatrao on maxwell with a modified driver. It's similar to the mangement engine where it makes you need a K series processor to overclock or even activate cores now with newer xeon systems.