Ageia PhysX - Another Kick in the Wallet

bonkrowave said:
If I could use the physics processor for programs like Solidworks, or other 3D technical design software it would appeal a lot more to me.
Click to expand...

3DStudioMax uses physics (Havok). If you've tried making a softbodied segmented box and moving it around to make it jiggle, or using the particle generators and deflectors to make a thousand marbles roll over it. That's the physics at work. There should be the example with the firehydrant and cigarette somewhere in the tutorials too.

spine said:
I really can't see this taking off at all in it's current form.

People don't wanna spend loads on soemthing that has little or no software support, and the software companies aren't gunna be willing to work on something for such a tiny audience.


It'll only really take off if it gets shoved into a future console. That's what it's gunna take.
Click to expand...

I still have no faith in AGEIA by itself, if the developer has to code the game for that one specific hardware. If DirectX creates a support for a physics API however, it would take off more smoothly, for one, all developers would automatically have access to a standard set of physics tools as well as documentation from MS on how to get started. As well as acceptable comprimises on what to do if you don't have the accelerator (DirectX emulates certain features in software if there's no hardware support)

I'd like to see how DirectX is gonna handle this. If you were to compare it to video acceleration, ATI and nVidia as well as each of their own cores render graphics differently, this is mainly because of all the comprimises they do to speed up the rendering. Legacy (no shortcuts, no comprimises) is the best rendering mode and all rendered images would look identical regardless of core, but it's far from practical.

You can't do that with physics, swapping a PPU from a different manufacturer with a different physics engine will cause major gameplay issues.

EDIT: Changed a bit
 
When I complain about prices I usually don't worry much about what something costs in another country. I feel your pain as you deal with your higher prices, but Americans still get to be grumpy too =)

Tsumari
 
Tsumari said:
When I complain about prices I usually don't worry much about what something costs in another country. I feel your pain as you deal with your higher prices, but Americans still get to be grumpy too =)

Tsumari
Click to expand...
QFT. d-:


Anyway, it seems to me like PPU differences between manufacturer can be compensated via CPU. Theoretically differences shouldn't be that extreme since physics ARE grounded in reality after all. That said, I really find the implication that some sort of standard or API or something would not be released eventually to just be simply inconceivable. Whether it will be directx or maybe just some other less integrated thing, I just can't imagine it not happening. Even if Ageia were the only one out there years from now they'd still need some kind of official standard and such. Well, this is the cost of letting someone else be the first out there. They get to dictate at least some standards and you'll have to at least start from that and provide something better if you want your own standards, so third parties will have to just contend with that.
 
one thing to note is if anything, ageia will help pump the processor business.

a building breaking into 10000 pieces when it explodes is HELL on a lighting engine when its having to calculate light and shadows for every single piece
 
Uhm, isn't the video card supposed to be doing that? I know they are supposed to do lighting already since directx 7 or so as part of hardware T&L. I could have sworn shadows were video card as well these days as part of lighting or something.

CPU is, more than anything else, things like physics, AIs, doing the non-hardware parts of audio processing (such as decoding) and etc. I think things like you mention are video though. I know that CPUs these days are far too much really for a game. I've seen games in the not so far past that required one serious video card but under cpu requirements said "Intel Pentium 3 800MHz or better."
 
S1nF1xx said:
That's part of the problem. What else besides games would use this? In a normal desktop environment that is, not a high-end workstation. You have to drop $300 and the only thing you get is faster physics in games. At least with a video card I can pull myself into denial and say things like "yeah, the computer NEEDS one to even work" then I justify that the $500 makes everything, not just games, more pretty. :p
Click to expand...


Voodoo1 any one iirc it was about that when it came out and it was only for games and look were we are now :cool:
 
Nazo said:
QFT. d-:


Anyway, it seems to me like PPU differences between manufacturer can be compensated via CPU. Theoretically differences shouldn't be that extreme since physics ARE grounded in reality after all. That said, I really find the implication that some sort of standard or API or something would not be released eventually to just be simply inconceivable. Whether it will be directx or maybe just some other less integrated thing, I just can't imagine it not happening. Even if Ageia were the only one out there years from now they'd still need some kind of official standard and such. Well, this is the cost of letting someone else be the first out there. They get to dictate at least some standards and you'll have to at least start from that and provide something better if you want your own standards, so third parties will have to just contend with that.
Click to expand...

this is all just like the voodoo1 days
give it time with MS Sony Epic Ubisoft Atari and others backing this its only a matter of time till we see "Driect Physics" or something like that
 
The biggest question is this!!!!!

Will titles ship with one physics engine or will there be a software and hardware physics mode in upcoming titles.

Scenario One - One Single Physics Code
Basically in this scenario, the PPU will be there primarily there to offload calcs from the cpu which is good right? Well not so fast. It could be that the PPU is very efficient when calculating complex calculations but does little for basic calculations. This would lead to a nightmare scenario where you would see a reduction in FPS when physics are not being calculated. 90% of the game when you are just walking around, the PPU still needs to take inventory of all of the objects on the screen to see what deltas (changes) have occured from the last frame. Basically, the GFX renderer will need to wait for the 'OK' from the PPU to begin rendering the scene with the correct data. For all intents and purposes an ARTIFICAL FPS CAP. Now, the small upshot is that the PPU will make the game run more smoothly when complex calcs are taking place. Less choppynes when a pile of boulders is chasing you down the hill.

Scenario B - 2 Physics Codes (Software and Hardware)
Despite the fact that it's just one more thing that can go wrong, the problem with this scenario is that you are simply shelling out money for features that will not impact gameplay. Example: The core gameplay between the HWPPU and SWPPU versions will need to be identical. Basically, for scripted sequences there can be little to no variations in the way the PPU does its calcs sooooo, you will be able to get more realistic physics with the GPU but you will not be rewarded or penalized in the game either way which equates to basic eye-candy. Also, it's possible that your CPU is faster at calcing the SWPhys than the PPU is at the HWPhys which will also lead to a FPS reduction.


The general problem: PPU Vendor X had a perfect opportunity to do something useful, and that was to create a software PPU engine that would run on Dual-Core or HT machines. They could charge for this 'application' if you will and it would really push developers to seriously consider using all of the PCs resources. Right now, 1 of my cores is just sitting idle when I play CS:S because game developers have already said that breaking up games for multicore is simply too hard with the OOO operations and calculations. This is why there is a small riot in the dev community with the next gen consoles. Sony has like 7 cores to play with and 360 has 6! A software PPU could have run in anyone of these cores but instead they felt it easier to create custom silicon. I am not sure about you, but I am really sick of computer games that do not even have widescreen resolutions, support dual displays, have poor input support, use only one core, lack HQ sound and have poor AI. We have become soo focused on cranking up the visual detail that FUN was left out of the equation because you can't capture fun in a screenshot. Now...the PPU will murky-up the waters and once again, your next 'hot-title' will get all sorts of oooos and ahhhhs but on level 25 you will realize...THIS SUCKS (doom3)!!!!!!! You will say.. "I get it ok...nice shadows, wow...great physics, that's a cool effect......wait, i'm bored...I think I'll go play with myself instead!" and right when you are cleaing up your mess...you will say...THAT WAS FREE...AND THE PHYSICS WERE GREAT! And you will smile and wish you had your money back!
 
Elios said:
this is all just like the voodoo1 days
give it time with MS Sony Epic Ubisoft Atari and others backing this its only a matter of time till we see "Driect Physics" or something like that
Click to expand...
I was around in those days. Didn't have a voodoo 1, but, I definitely remember going from the video card basically just being a buffer between the CPU and the monitor (where the video requirements listed on the typical game would be something to the effect of "1MB SVGA") to the video card being something that made it possible for the CPU to concentrate on other things like physics. I don't miss the days before 3d acceleration, though I am still a little upset at the complete absolute death of 2d (anyone else miss side-scrollers?) *sigh*

Anyway, while technically the current utilization hasn't made the CPU a huge bottleneck, this is mainly just because programmers were afraid to do it. They tend to have to try to assume the user will have a peice of junk and try to make it upwardly scalable to some extent. With video cards this can consist of lowering textures, decreasing resolution, and other such things that aren't so hard to implement. With CPU it's not so simple since the CPU gets used for everything from physics to AI, most of which aren't so easily scalable. However, I can see how physics are indeed scalable (like I said, we're talking something such as perhaps less shards on a lower end setup, more, smaller, shards -- perhaps spinning in air or somesuch -- on a higher.) I hope that the invent of physics acceleration will make the programmers brave enough to attempt to actually do this now.


EDIT: PPU won't get info from the GPU, though the GPU may get info from the PPU. The game world itself is being handled by the CPU with the GPU attempting to display it, and, theoretically, the PPU trying to help with some of the control of it. Also, it wouldn't be noticably slower if done correctly, else it defeats the purpose. The PPU is an accelerator, not decelerator, so it's able to handle some pretty complex things faster than the CPU, freeing up that CPU to do other things. And, I don't see why it is said over and over that it's an issue that they'd have to absolutely be the same. Like I said earlier, physics are physics. They are based 100% on reality. In other words, you use real algorithms. So, differences between one and the other would be speed related (one may be good at a certain type of calculation and bad at another) but, not quality related (they'd still come out with the same answer and if they did otherwise there'd be a LOT of complaints and a lot of threats to the company to fix it or they'll buy the alternative.)
 
If it makes games better...I WANT IT.
(Ramen for breakfast lunch dinner FTW!!!)
 
Mysogonist said:
The biggest question is this!!!!!

Will titles ship with one physics engine or will there be a software and hardware physics mode in upcoming titles.

Scenario One - One Single Physics Code
Basically in this scenario, the PPU will be there primarily there to offload calcs from the cpu which is good right? Well not so fast. It could be that the PPU is very efficient when calculating complex calculations but does little for basic calculations. This would lead to a nightmare scenario where you would see a reduction in FPS when physics are not being calculated. 90% of the game when you are just walking around, the PPU still needs to take inventory of all of the objects on the screen to see what deltas (changes) have occured from the last frame. Basically, the GFX renderer will need to wait for the 'OK' from the PPU to begin rendering the scene with the correct data. For all intents and purposes an ARTIFICAL FPS CAP. Now, the small upshot is that the PPU will make the game run more smoothly when complex calcs are taking place. Less choppynes when a pile of boulders is chasing you down the hill.

Scenario B - 2 Physics Codes (Software and Hardware)
Despite the fact that it's just one more thing that can go wrong, the problem with this scenario is that you are simply shelling out money for features that will not impact gameplay. Example: The core gameplay between the HWPPU and SWPPU versions will need to be identical. Basically, for scripted sequences there can be little to no variations in the way the PPU does its calcs sooooo, you will be able to get more realistic physics with the GPU but you will not be rewarded or penalized in the game either way which equates to basic eye-candy. Also, it's possible that your CPU is faster at calcing the SWPhys than the PPU is at the HWPhys which will also lead to a FPS reduction.


The general problem: PPU Vendor X had a perfect opportunity to do something useful, and that was to create a software PPU engine that would run on Dual-Core or HT machines. They could charge for this 'application' if you will and it would really push developers to seriously consider using all of the PCs resources. Right now, 1 of my cores is just sitting idle when I play CS:S because game developers have already said that breaking up games for multicore is simply too hard with the OOO operations and calculations. This is why there is a small riot in the dev community with the next gen consoles. Sony has like 7 cores to play with and 360 has 6! A software PPU could have run in anyone of these cores but instead they felt it easier to create custom silicon. I am not sure about you, but I am really sick of computer games that do not even have widescreen resolutions, support dual displays, have poor input support, use only one core, lack HQ sound and have poor AI. We have become soo focused on cranking up the visual detail that FUN was left out of the equation because you can't capture fun in a screenshot. Now...the PPU will murky-up the waters and once again, your next 'hot-title' will get all sorts of oooos and ahhhhs but on level 25 you will realize...THIS SUCKS (doom3)!!!!!!! You will say.. "I get it ok...nice shadows, wow...great physics, that's a cool effect......wait, i'm bored...I think I'll go play with myself instead!" and right when you are cleaing up your mess...you will say...THAT WAS FREE...AND THE PHYSICS WERE GREAT! And you will smile and wish you had your money back!
Click to expand...


if you read the site the API it uses can work in both software and hardware mode
if it detects the card it runs in hardware if not to defalts to software

NOTE:
wile physics in game atm looks very good there are alot of tricks thay use
its not perfict look at HL2 for one mess with the stuff in game and you can see where thay goof on it
remeber this can do more then let you have more bodys on screen it could say let you chenge the path of a bullet as it passes threw glass or a wall
or how bout smoke, clouds and trees that blow in the wind
then theres sims the sim fans would go nuts for this thing flight sim could use the card to run the flight engine and actly tell if the plane would fly based on the why it would fly in real life

there more then just blowing things up here
 
To me the only thing that is "gaming" in my machine is the video card. All the other features (as listed in my sig) are used for multiple tasks (school, video editing, matlab, etc). These tasks do push my rig to 100% quite often. So when I look at $400 for a video card every two years...I don't even blink. No different than buying than buying a new console every two years.

-tReP
 
chameleoneel said:
depending on how the next crop of games run on my computer i.e. call of duty 2, oblivion I will probably do one more upgrade, and then i am gone from pc gaming for the most part. its so damn expensive for such little return, seriously. PCs have a really narrow crop of games that fall into basically 3 categories, FPS, RTS, and MMORPG, with various twists on each, and the occasional, and i mean occasional other kind of game or console port. also, PCs are really really innefficient, we drop $1000 to $1500 dollars onto a new mostly top end system to start out, then every year or two drop 200 - 500$ on a graphics card alone to "keep up" with the latest 3 games that are actually good. heh, its a friggin waste. I've had consoles and PCs coexisting in my house for awhile now, fighting for my gaming time, but PC is losing out. for 300 - 400 dollars (the price of a current top end graphics card) I can get me an xbox 360 or playstation 3 which will last me 4 to 5 years, keeping a nice pace with pcs and scaling nicely to current demands and graphical trends. both contain either an ati or nvidia graphics chip which both companies state is just as or more powerful than what they expect from their "next-gen" pc counterparts (which are usually refreshes, sigh...) and considering the efficiency of a console, they are realistically much better. so basically for that one time good price, you get a system that will be better than pc for awhile, run atleast even with PC for even longer, and when finally eclipsed....still not be that far behind really. so basically my oppinion on 200 or 300 for another damn card to put into my pc is go shove it computer companies. same with 200 and 300 dollar sound cards, friggin rediculous. like it or not, PC are way too expensive, and their price to performance ration is crap. at best, you get like 2---maybe 2.5 years out of your 400 dollar graphics card, I can get 5 out of my 300 - 400 dollar ps3, and late adopters can get it for 250, or 200!! I dunno, I could go all day about this
Click to expand...


You're forgetting rpgs. Consoles are great and all, but you can't mod games with them, and its just not the same as playing and tinkering a pc.
 
From what I have read and seen at Quakecon about the Physics chip, its going to do a lot more then what any of us have ever experienced in a game. Fluid dynamics anyone? Imagine a huge vat of liuquid steel and having it spilled onto a bunch of people or over grates or something. A CPU would choke in a second, but this thing can calculate all of it in real time without a problem. The average number of ragdolls that a modern CPU can handle without any slow down is around 16-20, the physics chip bumps that to 16,000! I don't care if the thing costs 300 bux. If there is a game that uses it, and uses it well, I'm getting one. I am just hoping that Valve updates the source engine to use it, and Crytek updates the cryengine to use it. Have you guys seen that video for the new crytek engine and DX10? OMG, that is freakin sweet. The other thing I hope will use it is dukenukem forever, i want to be able to take a piss and piss all over the seat. Intead of just a flush like Duke3d :) Last but not least, lets not forget what realistic physics can do for boobies!
 
Jiggaman2576 said:
Last but not least, lets not forget what realistic physics can do for boobies!
Click to expand...

^ The argument to end all arguments about the worthiness of the Physics Processor!
 
Ya...they'll start to bounce...less?

For a butt example, play Soul Calibur 3 and watch Cassandra when she jumps up and down before a fight. It's definately not made of muscle!

Tsumari
 
Tsumari said:
Ya...they'll start to bounce...less?

For a butt example, play Soul Calibur 3 and watch Cassandra when she jumps up and down before a fight. It's definately not made of muscle!

Tsumari
Click to expand...

they never are (IRL).
 
Jiggaman2576 said:
From what I have read and seen at Quakecon about the Physics chip, its going to do a lot more then what any of us have ever experienced in a game. Fluid dynamics anyone? Imagine a huge vat of liuquid steel and having it spilled onto a bunch of people or over grates or something. A CPU would choke in a second, but this thing can calculate all of it in real time without a problem. The average number of ragdolls that a modern CPU can handle without any slow down is around 16-20, the physics chip bumps that to 16,000! I don't care if the thing costs 300 bux. If there is a game that uses it, and uses it well, I'm getting one. I am just hoping that Valve updates the source engine to use it, and Crytek updates the cryengine to use it. Have you guys seen that video for the new crytek engine and DX10? OMG, that is freakin sweet. The other thing I hope will use it is dukenukem forever, i want to be able to take a piss and piss all over the seat. Intead of just a flush like Duke3d :) Last but not least, lets not forget what realistic physics can do for boobies!
Click to expand...

Yet another reason for duke nukem forever to be delayed roffles.
 
S1nF1xx said:
That's part of the problem. What else besides games would use this? In a normal desktop environment that is, not a high-end workstation. You have to drop $300 and the only thing you get is faster physics in games. At least with a video card I can pull myself into denial and say things like "yeah, the computer NEEDS one to even work" then I justify that the $500 makes everything, not just games, more pretty. :p
Click to expand...
don't even know where to start but this post makes no sense :)

don't buy it if u dont need it... it's not required... and if you buy your $500 card thinking it will make anything better other than maybe 3 rendering (3d studio max) you are a fool
 
It's ment for your hard core gamer more than anything.
I know I will buy one for sure.
If you love games and want games to run faster, the Ageia PhysX card will help you out because it will take a lot of the calculations away from the CPU and GPU for Physics related actions.
 
Here's why this will never work: I wont buy it. Some of you may buy it, but then I'll just sit back and laugh at you. Introducing a new technology that is dedicated to one and only one specifice purpose in a handful of specific programs for more than twice what the programs themselves cost is unreasonable. You want something to give you physics? Get a high end graphics card and a decent processor.
 
Thats fine, but high end CPU and GPU doesn't mean that its going to help your game give you more realistic Physics, the Ageia card's whole job is to allow you to enjoy all things Physic's in a game to the 100th percential. realistic water, better explosions, perma-damage that lasts forever, super effects involving many objects at once. Things that a CPU and a GPU can't improve can be improved by the Ageia Card.

But you don't want one, so there is no reason you need to post one more time in here; you have already stated you think its stupid and that anyone who gets one is also stupid. :rolleyes:
 
Seizure Explosion said:
Here's why this will never work: I wont buy it. Some of you may buy it, but then I'll just sit back and laugh at you. Introducing a new technology that is dedicated to one and only one specifice purpose in a handful of specific programs for more than twice what the programs themselves cost is unreasonable. You want something to give you physics? Get a high end graphics card and a decent processor.
Click to expand...
ah... very solid logic you've got there :)
It won't work because you wont buy it
rolleyes.gif


A lot of us need our 7800GTXs to run our UBER Windows desktop
 
Seizure Explosion said:
Here's why this will never work: I wont buy it. Some of you may buy it, but then I'll just sit back and laugh at you. Introducing a new technology that is dedicated to one and only one specifice purpose in a handful of specific programs for more than twice what the programs themselves cost is unreasonable. You want something to give you physics? Get a high end graphics card and a decent processor.
Click to expand...

If they can afford a high end graphics card and processor, I think it's safe to assume they can also afford this new little piece. And just because *you* won't buy it, doesn't mean it will 'never work'. Regardless of wether or not you're interested in buying one, there is a market for these cards.
 
Seizure Explosion said:
Here's why this will never work: I wont buy it. Some of you may buy it, but then I'll just sit back and laugh at you. Introducing a new technology that is dedicated to one and only one specifice purpose in a handful of specific programs for more than twice what the programs themselves cost is unreasonable. You want something to give you physics? Get a high end graphics card and a decent processor.
Click to expand...


heh dont remember back when Voodoo 1 came out do you
youn'ens :rolleyes:
 
Nuzzles said:
On the reference card, there's a little bit sticking up on the top of the card, but this isn't on the Asus board. Do you have an idea as to what it's for? 'SLI' Physx? :D
Click to expand...
let's not say ridiculous things now shall we :) hehe
 
Nuzzles said:
On the reference card, there's a little bit sticking up on the top of the card, but this isn't on the Asus board. Do you have an idea as to what it's for? 'SLI' Physx? :D
Click to expand...

That's a PCI-E 1x connector. It is only one the engineering sample boards, so we wont see this type of connect in the first generation cards.
 
Light Blue... What are they thinking, thats not a standard ASUS colour.

It would be nice to have it in BLACK!
 
I'm going to see if I can expain physics in game little better, by reiterating somethings people have said, and going more in depth on others.

First of all, Why do we need a physics card?
Well this question is the wrong one to be asking. Since when has 'need' had anything to do with better games. I will be comparing this alot to graphics cards, because it's very similar to how they started. When graphics cards came out, they weren't needed. The graphics in the games were fine. You could tell what everything was, you could do quite a few things in it. Heck there was a time when games didn't even have graphics and it was great, so why this 'need' for graphics. Text is just fine. There was no 'need' other than a desire to have better and more realistic games. So graphics cards were born. And they were great. Try going back and playing Quake 1 in software mode in a resolution at 640 or less. Then fire up GLQuake and just compare the difference.

What will a physics bring to the table that I would even want it for?
Let me first point out that physics aren't something that is going to be brought to games after the card comes out. Games are already using physics and have been for a couple of years. I'm not even talking about simple things like rocket and grenade paths. I'm talking about things like Ragdoll physics, fluid water, and just advanced partical systems. UT2003 anyone? And that's not the only game with physics in it:
UT2, 2k3 and 2k4
Battlefield 2
Doom 3
Half-life 2
up coming games are going to use them even heavier.
Oblivion is going to use heavy physics, and Duke Nukem if it ever comes out has even moved to use a physics engine.

Heck even Silent Storm, a turn-based strategy system used physics and building structures to show how other genre's greatly benifit from physics.

My point with this question is that this isn't bringing a new thing to the table, just like graphics cards before it, the phyics are already there, software rendered. But as with all things software rendering is slow and has it's limits. So someone has finally decided to bring a hardware solution so that we can keep improving this line.

I'm not going to buy this card
That's perfectly fine. No one expects everyone to go out and buy these cards as soon as they come out. Very few games are going to even have a benifit from them at first. Again, it's very similar to graphics cards.
There were graphics cards available way back in the Quake 1 days (though they were just accelerators) and not many games actually used them. Very few people bought them. In fact it wasn't until Quake 3 said it was going to require using a Graphics card. (that's approx. a 3 year span from the time graphics cards came out till the first game required them). And you know what, Quake 3 ended up not even requiring them. Id decided to lower the requirements because to many people still didn't want to buy graphics cards...even in the quake 3 era there were till people who didn't see the 'need' for a graphics cards.

So don't buy the first generation, it's not for everyone. Some people will buy it though. You don't have to see the benifit this year, but think about how it will be in 3-5 years. Think of how games will benifit.

I'm sorry I went so long, but I think some people are misunderstanding what these cards are meant to do, and why they are so cool. These cards aren't bringing anything new to the games, they are going to help, greatly improve what is already being used by most modern games out there.
 
Chimowowo said:
I'm going to see if I can expain physics in game little better, by reiterating somethings people have said, and going more in depth on others.

First of all, Why do we need a physics card?
Well this question is the wrong one to be asking. Since when has 'need' had anything to do with better games. I will be comparing this alot to graphics cards, because it's very similar to how they started. When graphics cards came out, they weren't needed. The graphics in the games were fine. You could tell what everything was, you could do quite a few things in it. Heck there was a time when games didn't even have graphics and it was great, so why this 'need' for graphics. Text is just fine. There was no 'need' other than a desire to have better and more realistic games. So graphics cards were born. And they were great. Try going back and playing Quake 1 in software mode in a resolution at 640 or less. Then fire up GLQuake and just compare the difference.

What will a physics bring to the table that I would even want it for?
Let me first point out that physics aren't something that is going to be brought to games after the card comes out. Games are already using physics and have been for a couple of years. I'm not even talking about simple things like rocket and grenade paths. I'm talking about things like Ragdoll physics, fluid water, and just advanced partical systems. UT2003 anyone? And that's not the only game with physics in it:
UT2, 2k3 and 2k4
Battlefield 2
Doom 3
Half-life 2
up coming games are going to use them even heavier.
Oblivion is going to use heavy physics, and Duke Nukem if it ever comes out has even moved to use a physics engine.

Heck even Silent Storm, a turn-based strategy system used physics and building structures to show how other genre's greatly benifit from physics.

My point with this question is that this isn't bringing a new thing to the table, just like graphics cards before it, the phyics are already there, software rendered. But as with all things software rendering is slow and has it's limits. So someone has finally decided to bring a hardware solution so that we can keep improving this line.

I'm not going to buy this card
That's perfectly fine. No one expects everyone to go out and buy these cards as soon as they come out. Very few games are going to even have a benifit from them at first. Again, it's very similar to graphics cards.
There were graphics cards available way back in the Quake 1 days (though they were just accelerators) and not many games actually used them. Very few people bought them. In fact it wasn't until Quake 3 said it was going to require using a Graphics card. (that's approx. a 3 year span from the time graphics cards came out till the first game required them). And you know what, Quake 3 ended up not even requiring them. Id decided to lower the requirements because to many people still didn't want to buy graphics cards...even in the quake 3 era there were till people who didn't see the 'need' for a graphics cards.

So don't buy the first generation, it's not for everyone. Some people will buy it though. You don't have to see the benifit this year, but think about how it will be in 3-5 years. Think of how games will benifit.

I'm sorry I went so long, but I think some people are misunderstanding what these cards are meant to do, and why they are so cool. These cards aren't bringing anything new to the games, they are going to help, greatly improve what is already being used by most modern games out there.
Click to expand...
My thoughts exactly. Very well said.
 
I think this physics card will catch on just fine. Judging from how many people I see floating around here with Athlon FX57's, 55's, 4800+ X2's, with 7800GTX SLI's, and so on, this thing has potential as many of these people would probably add it to their rig. Just because the average consumer might not be willing to take the plunge, doesn't mean that it's going to flop and not sell. The Athlon FX57 is not a high volume product in the sense as the mainstream cpu's are, but you can't doubt that AMD is making a good bit of money from it.
 
I would have no problem paying $200-$250 for an add-in physics card given the following conditions:
1. Major game support (and app support would also help)
2. The one I buy today would be the same one used for a few years, and not slung on some 6-12 month dev cycle.

I think #2 is doable..
But what exactly would it bring to the table for gamers? A game dedicated to using the processor would be neat, but wont have much of a market so it probably wont happen. Games developed for everyone might run a little faster, but is it worth it? It's not like the AI will suddenly become smarter because the CPU is freed up..
Does anyone think any developer is going to sacrifice major performance just to cater to those who have the card? I doubt it. They will make the physics engine run on the average system, thus going back to just having a little speed boost for those of us who buy the chip.
Or are they going to extend the dev cycle out just to build a completely separate path for physics processing just for those who have it, so they can beef up other areas that use CPU power?
Right now I believe all we will see is a slight speed boost and little to no extra features in the game. I want a physics processor when it means the game will have a bunch of extra stuff to take up that freed CPU load.
 
-freon- said:
I would have no problem paying $200-$250 for an add-in physics card given the following conditions:
1. Major game support (and app support would also help)
2. The one I buy today would be the same one used for a few years, and not slung on some 6-12 month dev cycle.
Click to expand...

AoE3? UT07? Unreal3? Ghost Recon AW? Warhammer MMO?
City of Vilans?

are thay not big games?
 
-freon- said:
...It's not like the AI will suddenly become smarter because the CPU is freed up...They will make the physics engine run on the average system...Right now I believe all we will see is a slight speed boost and little to no extra features in the game...I want a physics processor when it means the game will have a bunch of extra stuff to take up that freed CPU load.
Click to expand...


You're right, and it's fine if you wait until you see a benifit for it. A few people will get the first gen. Most won't. That's fine.

I'm just going to expand a couple of points of yours.

The AI won't just suddenly become smarter because the CPU is freed up. But it does free up the CPU to do better AI. It's up to the game developers to use that extra CPU power to make better AI. Some will, most probably won't. At the [H] workshop at Quakecon the Ageis guy even said that it could make writing AI harder because now you will have to make the AI respond to the physics...and we know how good AI is right now at not doing stupid things. So like you said, the card won't make AI better...it's a physics card, not an AI card. But it does give the potential for better AI.

As far as making the engine run on the average system...that's mostly right. That again is up to the designer. Most designers want it to run on average systems so they can get more customers. That's why it will take a couple of years for us to really get a huge benifit. But some designers (Id, Epic, Bethesda) like to push the envelope. Bethesda has already said Oblivion won't run well on an average system. So both before and after these cards come out, most games will not require it. But some people will continue to push the envelope and drive development. In fact if I remember correctly, I believe Epic has already said it will use and benifit from a PPU.

As far as right now seeing very little boost in speed and little extras...that's true. As with all technologies (dual core, graphics, physics) you get no benifit (and sometimes even less performance) if it's not written for the new technology. This isn't being made for modern games that aren't going to use it. It's being made for future games that will provide benifit.

So like I said at the beginning, you are right. And it's perfectly fine to wait till the second gen or third gen, or until it finally becomes required. Not everyone upgrades every chance they get. But just because there won't be a benifit from the first gen, doesn't mean the whole thing should be scrapped. It just means that we need to be patient.
 
Now that I think on it more, frankly, there is one problem that I see. This thing is useless until it becomes "accessable." What I mean is, the CPUs are being SERIOUSLY underutilized in games. This is not because the programmers can't make better AIs and such, but, that they have to make the game playable on pretty low end hardware. They all insist on the assumption that the majority have crappy systems. Until they can assume that those with the crappy systems have at least a low end physics accelerator, we'll only see a few braven enough to support it. I don't give a crap if it's in four or five major games, I want to see it in just about all of them, kind of like where 3d acceleration is today.

This is the part that worries me. It may be useless until it's a decent price. But, then again, we are talkinga bout introductory price here. Even if they are moronic enough to not realize that there is a larger potential market on the lower end (especially if overclocking comes into play) they'll probably lower the price after a while anyway. So I hope anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top