AMD has accused Nvidia of corrupting the PhysX API, making it unable to
use CPU resources properly, when prior to Nvidia's purchase it could
easily make use of these resources.

Nvidia denies this, saying that it's upto the application developers to
make use of CPU resources explicitly.

Yousuf Khan

***

AMD Accuses Nvidia of Disabling Multi-Core CPU Support in PhysX API -
X-bit labs
"“The other thing is that all these CPU cores we have are under-utilised
and I'm going to take another pop at Nvidia here. When they bought
Ageia, they had a fairly respectable multi-core implementation of PhysX.
If you look at it now it basically runs predominantly on one, or at
most, two cores. […] I wonder why Nvidia has done that? I wonder why
Nvidia has failed to do all their QA on stuff they don't care about –
making it run efficiently on CPU cores – because the company doesn't
care about the consumer experience it just cares about selling you more
graphics cards by coding it so the GPU appears faster than the CPU. It's
the same thing as Intel's old compiler tricks that it used to do; Nvidia
simply takes out all the multi-core optimisations in PhysX,” said
Richard Huddy, AMD’s Worldwide Developer Relations manager, in an
interview with Bit-tech.net web-site."
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/multime...PhysX_API.html

***

Nvidia Denies Accusations of Disabling Multi-Core CPU Support in PhysX
API - X-bit labs
"“Our PhysX SDK API is designed such that thread control is done
explicitly by the application developer, not by the SDK functions
themselves. One of the best examples is 3DMarkVantage which can use 12
threads while running in software-only PhysX. This can easily be tested
by anyone with a multi-core CPU system and a PhysX-capable GeForce GPU.
This level of multi-core support and programming methodology has not
changed since day one. And to anticipate another ridiculous claim, it
would be nonsense to say we “tuned” PhysX multi-core support for this
case,” said Mr. Mohammed."
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/multime...PhysX_API.html

On Jan 21, 10:37*am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
> AMD has accused Nvidia of corrupting the PhysX API, making it unable to
> use CPU resources properly, when prior to Nvidia's purchase it could
> easily make use of these resources.

Looks more and more like SCO every day.

Robert.

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Robert Myers <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in part:
> On Jan 21, 10:37*am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
>> AMD has accused Nvidia of corrupting the PhysX API, making it
>> unable to use CPU resources properly, when prior to Nvidia's
>> purchase it could easily make use of these resources.
>
> Looks more and more like SCO every day.


Please be clear: _who_ looks like SCO? AMD for whining,
or NVidia for slanting code?


-- Robert R

On Jan 23, 11:10*am, Robert Redelmeier <red...@ev1.net.invalid> wrote:
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Robert Myers <rbmyers...@gmail.com> wrote in part:
>
> > On Jan 21, 10:37*am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> AMD has accused Nvidia of corrupting the PhysX API, making it
> >> unable to use CPU resources properly, when prior to Nvidia's
> >> purchase it could easily make use of these resources.
>
> > Looks more and more like SCO every day.
>
> Please be clear: *_who_ looks like SCO? *AMD for whining,
> or NVidia for slanting code?
>
SCO is (was?) the company who made a living by suing and accusing
others. It's a tough business. AMD looks more and more like SCO with
every new accusation. Sore losers are always calling the instant
replay booth.

Robert.

Robert Myers wrote:
> On Jan 23, 11:10 am, Robert Redelmeier <red...@ev1.net.invalid> wrote:
>
>>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Robert Myers <rbmyers...@gmail.com> wrote in part:
>>
>>
>>>On Jan 21, 10:37 am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>AMD has accused Nvidia of corrupting the PhysX API, making it
>>>>unable to use CPU resources properly, when prior to Nvidia's
>>>>purchase it could easily make use of these resources.
>>
>>>Looks more and more like SCO every day.
>>
>>Please be clear: _who_ looks like SCO? AMD for whining,
>>or NVidia for slanting code?
>>
>
> SCO is (was?) the company who made a living by suing and accusing
> others. It's a tough business. AMD looks more and more like SCO with
> every new accusation. Sore losers are always calling the instant
> replay booth.
>
> Robert.
>
Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean someone isn't out to get you.

The difference between SCO and AMD is that in AMD's case they seem to
have some justification for their accusations.

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Robert Myers <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in part:
> On Jan 23, 11:10*am, Robert Redelmeier <red...@ev1.net.invalid> wrote:
>> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Robert Myers <rbmyers...@gmail.com> wrote in part:
>> > On Jan 21, 10:37*am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> AMD has accused Nvidia of corrupting the PhysX API, making it
>> >> unable to use CPU resources properly, when prior to Nvidia's
>> >> purchase it could easily make use of these resources.
>>
>> > Looks more and more like SCO every day.
>>
>> Please be clear: *_who_ looks like SCO? *AMD for whining,
>> or NVidia for slanting code?

> SCO is (was?) the company who made a living by suing
> and accusing others. It's a tough business.

Good or bad? AFAICS, SCO sued MS just to get funding for suing Linux.
And probably got a sweetheart settlement. IMHO, SCO is an MS beard.

> AMD looks more and more like SCO with every new accusation.

??? suing was SCO's main business. AMD still sells
~5 B$/yr of chips, and the Intel settlment was only 1.25 B$,
paid over ? years. They don't look at all alike.

And even if they did, so what? It's an ad-hominem.


> Sore losers are always calling the instant replay booth.

Even if so, that does not mean that everyone who calls the
"instant replay booth" is a sore loser. Perhaps the truly
wronged might also call? All A are B does not mean all B are A.


-- Robert R

On Jan 23, 10:35*pm, Del Cecchi` <delcec...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Robert Myers wrote:
> > On Jan 23, 11:10 am, Robert Redelmeier <red...@ev1.net.invalid> wrote:
>
> >>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Robert Myers <rbmyers...@gmail.com> wrote in part:
>
> >>>On Jan 21, 10:37 am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>AMD has accused Nvidia of corrupting the PhysX API, making it
> >>>>unable to use CPU resources properly, when prior to Nvidia's
> >>>>purchase it could easily make use of these resources.
>
> >>>Looks more and more like SCO every day.
>
> >>Please be clear: *_who_ looks like SCO? *AMD for whining,
> >>or NVidia for slanting code?
>
> > SCO is (was?) the company who made a living by suing and accusing
> > others. *It's a tough business. *AMD looks more and more like SCO with
> > every new accusation. *Sore losers are always calling the instant
> > replay booth.
>
> > Robert.
>
> Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean someone isn't out to get you.
>
> The difference between SCO and AMD is that in AMD's case they seem to
> have some justification for their accusations.

Just what the industry needs. Driving through the rear view mirror
with lawyers calling the shots from a GPS.

Robert.

Robert Redelmeier wrote:
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Robert Myers <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in part:
>> Sore losers are always calling the instant replay booth.
>
> Even if so, that does not mean that everyone who calls the
> "instant replay booth" is a sore loser. Perhaps the truly
> wronged might also call? All A are B does not mean all B are A.


Arguing logically with R. Myers is like arguing logically with a road,
it's going only where it's going and it has always been going that way.

Yousuf Khan

On Jan 24, 6:50*pm, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
> Robert Redelmeier wrote:
> > In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Robert Myers <rbmyers...@gmail.com> wrote in part:
> >> Sore losers are always calling the instant replay booth.
>
> > Even if so, that does not mean that everyone who calls the
> > "instant replay booth" is a sore loser. *Perhaps the truly
> > wronged might also call? *All A are B does not mean all B are A.
>
> Arguing logically with R. Myers is like arguing logically with a road,
> it's going only where it's going and it has always been going that way.

That's right. You and Prof. Redelmeier go play.

Robert.

On Feb 1, 12:38*pm, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Yousuf Khan wrote:
> >Robert Redelmeier wrote:
> >> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Robert Myers <rbmyers...@gmail.com> wrote in part:
> >>> Sore losers are always calling the instant replay booth.
>
> >> Even if so, that does not mean that everyone who calls the
> >> "instant replay booth" is a sore loser. *Perhaps the truly
> >> wronged might also call? *All A are B does not mean all B are A.
>
> >Arguing logically with R. Myers is like arguing logically with a road,
> >it's going only where it's going and it has always been going that way.
>
> He's too smart for us, you know.

This is easy, Chris. If I'm not fun to talk to, then don't bother
with me and don't bother me.

Robert.