http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33237
Thought it was intresting read. Wonder if it's just BS or not.
Thought it was intresting read. Wonder if it's just BS or not.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Ageia can support more then just Physix API
- Thread starter psychoace
- Start date
LuminaryJanitor
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2005
- Messages
- 2,340
Ageia definitely can support other APIs. You could probably run HavokFX on a PhysX card if you wanted to. Hell, the thing can even run normal mapping plugins for 3DStudio. The question is whether or not they actually will release drivers supporting other APIs.
And I'd say... Probably.
They're a semiconductor company. They couldn't care less about adoption of their middleware - after all, they're not making any money out of it - so long as there's still a market for their hardware. MS is in a better position to spread a standard API than they are, so if this is what MS decides to do, they'd be stupid not to support it.
And I'd say... Probably.
They're a semiconductor company. They couldn't care less about adoption of their middleware - after all, they're not making any money out of it - so long as there's still a market for their hardware. MS is in a better position to spread a standard API than they are, so if this is what MS decides to do, they'd be stupid not to support it.
Good find... I had kinda figured MS would support Ageia hardware if they incorperate physics into DX. It would be stupid not to. The question is, when is it going to happen? Optomisticly it would be in DX10 maybe DX10.1, but I dont think accelerated physics will be in DX until DX11.
Agreed. They are giving away the middleware to developers willing to incorporate support for their product. All the money is made on the hardware. I'm sure Ageia would welcome any way to get their product more widely supported.
Havok said they are only willing to support the PhysX in Havok FX provided they make the PPU SM3.0 compliant. Nice way of saying they will never support it.
Ok... where can we find a SM3.0 compliant card? ATI & Nvidia...
Wait! ATi/Nvidia don't really have a physics solution.
What type of force would compel Havok to buy into a nonexistent solution other than ATI/Nvidia?
I don't know either, but whatever force that is... I hope it is On Topic
Wait! ATi/Nvidia don't really have a physics solution.
What type of force would compel Havok to buy into a nonexistent solution other than ATI/Nvidia?
I don't know either, but whatever force that is... I hope it is On Topic
Since you claim to be incapable of understanding why Havok will support video cards I'll explain:
Almost everyone who plays games has a video card. That's a large market. There's no sense in passing it up. I really find it hard to believe you don't understand this concept.
On another note, It wouldn't come as a huge surprised to me if the PhysX card was sm3 compliant, but that's just speculation. I'm not familiar with the hardware.
Almost everyone who plays games has a video card. That's a large market. There's no sense in passing it up. I really find it hard to believe you don't understand this concept.
On another note, It wouldn't come as a huge surprised to me if the PhysX card was sm3 compliant, but that's just speculation. I'm not familiar with the hardware.
Its true all PC user have some grapics hardware in it.
Like onboard chip if a G-card lots of AGP still around. And in case of PCI-E
The large pack is budged midrange. Gcards.
So very little Spare GPU cycle to use for Physics.
Alltho I have some spare GPU cycles over with my 7800GS+ if we put the settings a bit or more down. But that is a large part of the public have not that spare power for some shared GPU Physcs.
First Ageia has planned this for years. The first we hear of this they were al going with executing there bussness plan. Even Design. Just imangine how much time is passed for intel to come up with conroe. its years and more then 2. So it takes time. very important.
Ageia has already a API and chip design and Produce the PPU and release it. The are in the fase of market adoption.
Havok know at some point it has to react on ageia. And have some options.
1) it's aware of ATI Demontration of Physics on GPU. So the option of doing a PPU on a own API is to late. The GPU solution the hardware is there but the API is late and the market support must started yet. just one year behind. The opertunity to repel ageia in resonable time.
2) Make there own PPU API based on havok solution The would run years behind
No healty option.
3) just site and wait and go for API software mode only solution. Put your future in ageia hands.
Like onboard chip if a G-card lots of AGP still around. And in case of PCI-E
The large pack is budged midrange. Gcards.
So very little Spare GPU cycle to use for Physics.
Alltho I have some spare GPU cycles over with my 7800GS+ if we put the settings a bit or more down. But that is a large part of the public have not that spare power for some shared GPU Physcs.
Well I give you a more viable option here.jimmyb said:
First Ageia has planned this for years. The first we hear of this they were al going with executing there bussness plan. Even Design. Just imangine how much time is passed for intel to come up with conroe. its years and more then 2. So it takes time. very important.
Ageia has already a API and chip design and Produce the PPU and release it. The are in the fase of market adoption.
Havok know at some point it has to react on ageia. And have some options.
1) it's aware of ATI Demontration of Physics on GPU. So the option of doing a PPU on a own API is to late. The GPU solution the hardware is there but the API is late and the market support must started yet. just one year behind. The opertunity to repel ageia in resonable time.
2) Make there own PPU API based on havok solution The would run years behind
No healty option.
3) just site and wait and go for API software mode only solution. Put your future in ageia hands.
Brent_Justice
Moderator
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2000
- Messages
- 17,755
Terra said:
actually, i'm willing to bet not all pipelines are being fully utilized at all times, that's kind of the whole idea behind a unified architecture, to allow cards to use whatever number of vertex/pixel units are needed for a given scene, right now cycles are being wasted on your GPU
jimmyb said:
Would be bad buisness for them(Havok) to try and make an API for the PhysX.
AGEIA makes the $$$ on the cards.
And give away their API for free if you support the PhysX hardware.
Would be kinda impossbile for them(Havok) to sell any software licenses to PhysX hardware, when AGEIA is giving it away
Terra - That would be the correct analysis...
Brent_Justice said:
If you statments are true, then we face the next problem...memory bandwith
4xTRSSAA/16xAF don't leave much room for physics calculations...
And one of the big differences in the specs of a GPU and the PhysX PPU is memory bandwith...
Terra...
Brent_Justice
Moderator
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2000
- Messages
- 17,755
BTW, I believe the Inq is actually right here, the PhysX processor can indeed be utilized by other APIs if they are programmed that way.
And GPUs can also use other APIs besides Havok.
So really both hardware is very open to what they can accelerate, it comes down to the API programmers and game developers.
And GPUs can also use other APIs besides Havok.
So really both hardware is very open to what they can accelerate, it comes down to the API programmers and game developers.
I'd be tickled if someone hacked out drivers making PPU compatible with havok, or one of ATI's GPU's run PhysX.
If havok started supporting Agiea's PPU in its API it would simply broaden Havok's potential user base... just because PhysX is free to HW supporting devs, doesnt mean they are going to use it. It would not be unusual for a dev to pay more for an API that they prefer. Agiea would benefit in hardware sales, but that doesnt directly equate into lost sales for Havok. Its been proven that people wouldnt necisarily pay for things just because they cant get them for free...
If havok started supporting Agiea's PPU in its API it would simply broaden Havok's potential user base... just because PhysX is free to HW supporting devs, doesnt mean they are going to use it. It would not be unusual for a dev to pay more for an API that they prefer. Agiea would benefit in hardware sales, but that doesnt directly equate into lost sales for Havok. Its been proven that people wouldnt necisarily pay for things just because they cant get them for free...
It wouldn't be bad business at all. Havok supporting more hardware only improves the desirability of their product. If they can produce middleware that supports all forms of hardware physics acceleration, you can bet they'll be selling licenses like hot cakes. Supporting PhysX, ceteris paribus, is only a good thing.Terra said:Would be bad buisness for them(Havok) to try and make an API for the PhysX.
AGEIA makes the $$$ on the cards.
And give away their API for free if you support the PhysX hardware.
Would be kinda impossbile for them(Havok) to sell any software licenses to PhysX hardware, when AGEIA is giving it away
AGEIA sells hardware, Havok sells software; These are not conflicting markets.
Ageia is giving away their platform for free, regardless of whether Havok supports PhysX.
Havok has the choice of supporting more hardware or less hardware. More hardware is the choice that makes sense. If they supported PhysX it would only make their product more desirable. For that matter, it would likely pull developers away from Ageia's middleware, since they could get both PhysX support and GPU support on Havok. It's quite a simple concept.
Havok has the choice of supporting more hardware or less hardware. More hardware is the choice that makes sense. If they supported PhysX it would only make their product more desirable. For that matter, it would likely pull developers away from Ageia's middleware, since they could get both PhysX support and GPU support on Havok. It's quite a simple concept.
Havok FX has nothing to do with DX10. Moreover, DX10 won't support physics. So I find it very unlikely that ati/nvidia are waiting around for DX10 to be released. If you have a technical reason why DX9 class hardware won't work, I'm all ears.
More likely they just have a lot of work to do in getting everything working properly, combined with the fact that there are no games out, etc.
More likely they just have a lot of work to do in getting everything working properly, combined with the fact that there are no games out, etc.
Terra first says DX10 has nothing to do with physics now he says havok fx is useless without it. I am sure the 9-10months is for game development not for the dx 10 especially since the first nvidia dx 10 card should be out in less then 3 months not 9.
And I am sure when ATi/Nvidia/Havok finally figure that one out, what they call "A discovery to be made," they will finally tell you, mr. all ears.jimmyb said:
You can bet on it being the compatibility of DX10 cards with DX9 cards in Sli/crossfire.
You can also bet on it being the memory optimizations between the SLi/crossfire cards, one higher generation's memory being used for a lower generation's vertex shaders, and that lovely problem of your old DX9 card bottlenecking the DX10 card...
DX10 is just around the corner, and ATi/Nvidia will be damned if they try to sell you a physics solution (for *FUTURE* games) without DX10 hardware.
LuminaryJanitor
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2005
- Messages
- 2,340
And where exactly are you planning on putting it? Looks to me like you're gonna need to buy a Crossfire motherboard...mjz_5 said:
You're fooling yourself if you think ATI is going to give you something for nothing.
Havok FX is enabled for the X1600 and up according to Ati. Crossfire will not be required for it either. A single card will work (mind you, the performance may not be great, that remains to be seen).
As I mentioned earlier, Havok does not run through DirectX. The display driver provides a layer between the hardware and api. There is no reason they would be waiting for DirectX to be released. It has nothing to do with Havok FX.
As I mentioned earlier, Havok does not run through DirectX. The display driver provides a layer between the hardware and api. There is no reason they would be waiting for DirectX to be released. It has nothing to do with Havok FX.
LuminaryJanitor
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2005
- Messages
- 2,340
I'm fairly confident single-card performance will be absolutely horrendous. Unplayable on a single X1600, for sure.
LuminaryJanitor
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2005
- Messages
- 2,340
Yeah. On an X1900, you get to experience the joy of playing it on a X1600. With more chunks.psychoace said:
ATi says a X1600 will perform as fast as Ageia in crossfire mode. So any GPU physics user (oxymoron?) with any common sense could reason that crossfire would be needed. Besides, how well do you think a single X1600 will perform on not only today's games, but future games? "remains to be seen," my ass. That is the single most misleading statement I have yet seen in GPU/PPU history. Step aside effects/gameplay physics, jimmyb with his mysterious X1600 of untold power has taken the stage.jimmyb said:
You are trapped in a PR time warp jimmy. On today's games, Havok uses the CPU. So yes, Havok does not currently use DX. Guess what happens when ATi/Nvidia finally decide to let you use your godly X1600 for physics? HavokFX rolls over off of the CPU and on to the GPU, using GPU hardware via DX. And yes, Havok did say that the CPU version will still be possible on the CPU at the same time, but the CPU is horrible for physics (and why on earth would you want two live instances of physics calculations, can you get enough bottlenecks!?!?).jimmyb said:
No, this is not the case. As far as Havok has stated, the driver for the video card provides a layer between Havok FX and the api. DirectX is not anywhere in there.cyks said:
Using the video card does not require DX. It is one of many ways for accessing it. Consider that I am currently posting from a computer using a video card running with X11 drivers. Sometimes I post from console rendered with vesa drivers. There are many ways for software to utilize the video card.
Terra first says DX10 has nothing to do with physics now he says havok fx is useless without it.
That makes sense if you understands the technology. DX10 has nothing directly to do with physics in that there are no physics added to the API. But DX10 talks to the GPU in a very different way from DX9 and its much easier/better sending data back to the CPU from the GPU with DX10. It appears Havoc are waiting for DX10 so they can better send the physic data from the GPU back to the CPU.
The hole driver structure for DX10 is different from DX9 you will need a new set of drivers and its these drivers Terra thinks will contain the ability to do physics.
That makes sense if you understands the technology. DX10 has nothing directly to do with physics in that there are no physics added to the API. But DX10 talks to the GPU in a very different way from DX9 and its much easier/better sending data back to the CPU from the GPU with DX10. It appears Havoc are waiting for DX10 so they can better send the physic data from the GPU back to the CPU.
The hole driver structure for DX10 is different from DX9 you will need a new set of drivers and its these drivers Terra thinks will contain the ability to do physics.
I think it is more Dx9 hardware can do Gameplay and effectPhysics. But the Hardware the SM3.0 shaders aren't optimal for this. They missing some optimum key features, a dedicated hardware sole for this purpouse has.
The miss use of GPU for physics lies in the General purpousness of the pixel shaders.
SM2.0 doesn't cut it. To low. SM3.0 is more Flexible more general purpose enought that it can be done. SM4.0 these shaders are more flexible then SM3.0. More general purpouse then ever. Supporing PhysX computing way better.
Unified shader ATI upcoming SM4.0 will be more fexible the the Fix VS and PS SM4 shaders of G80. I think.
Keep in mind most people have AGP now or a single slot PCIE16 mobo. So for a dedicated GPU for PhysX they must upgrade and this means buyin a set of two new Cards in case of AGP Or a new mobo that have two 16x slots with a new card.
And with a mobo swap often CPU and optional Mem must be upgraded to.
One SLI system with ATI in it. two AGP PC here.
So i expect R600 Physic performance and flexibility may be way better then R580 series.
Havok FX will support for the coming year or more effect Physics only.
Unless Dev's Bypass HavokFX and make there inhouse GPGPU Physics engine. To take full potention off the hardware. Most dev's wouldn't do that. For time to market, budged and resources and risk requierments.
Ageia would be the only one having gameplay physx for use through a API for one to two years lead.
The miss use of GPU for physics lies in the General purpousness of the pixel shaders.
SM2.0 doesn't cut it. To low. SM3.0 is more Flexible more general purpose enought that it can be done. SM4.0 these shaders are more flexible then SM3.0. More general purpouse then ever. Supporing PhysX computing way better.
Unified shader ATI upcoming SM4.0 will be more fexible the the Fix VS and PS SM4 shaders of G80. I think.
Keep in mind most people have AGP now or a single slot PCIE16 mobo. So for a dedicated GPU for PhysX they must upgrade and this means buyin a set of two new Cards in case of AGP Or a new mobo that have two 16x slots with a new card.
And with a mobo swap often CPU and optional Mem must be upgraded to.
One SLI system with ATI in it. two AGP PC here.
So i expect R600 Physic performance and flexibility may be way better then R580 series.
Havok FX will support for the coming year or more effect Physics only.
Unless Dev's Bypass HavokFX and make there inhouse GPGPU Physics engine. To take full potention off the hardware. Most dev's wouldn't do that. For time to market, budged and resources and risk requierments.
Ageia would be the only one having gameplay physx for use through a API for one to two years lead.
But as I mentioned, according to Havok, Havok FX will not be working through DirectX, instead a driver will provide a layer between the hardware and api.Pottsey said:
Consider that OpenGL does not work through DirectX either. It has its own driver, much like Havok FX purportedly will.
Whether or not Microsoft implements physics in DirectX is an entirely different matter. In the case of Havok FX, it will not working through DX, but have its own driver. You're welcome to not believe this, but it is what Havok have stated.
The name of the api is Havok FX. I couldn't tell you the name of the driver. Those seem like pretty inane questions though.
The name of the api is Havok FX. I couldn't tell you the name of the driver. Those seem like pretty inane questions though.