Bye bye.. Ageia :)

[iroc409]

You look like you're just asking a question, so I will answer it:

Right now, there is not much reason to buy a PPU. A few games are out that make limited use of it, but they aren't considered to be very good by most of the community here.

Over 100 games are upcoming for it. Most will not utillize it to its full potential, but UT2007 and CF:R are a few notable exceptions. Still, you shouldn't buy a PPU right now. By the time those games come out, the price may have gone down, or a new model may be out that is more powerful.

NVIDIA and ATI are developing a technology that uses an extra GPU (or an existing one, at the expense of graphics performance of course) for physics. This technology may end up winning in the long run, which is another reason why you should not buy a PPU right now.

Havok is developing something that will uitllize extra CPU cores for physics. It will not replace PPU or GPU physics, however. Extra CPU cores still cannot come close to the power of a PPU or GPU for physics. You would probably need at least 16 cores dedicated to physics to equal the PPU. That estimate does not take into account the overhead that is caused when you must get all of those cores to work together, either.

If you are an early-adopter of technology, or want to support new technology to help it be utillized faster, go ahead and buy one. After all, if everyone went out and bought one, it would be utillized within a few months. Unfortunately, its usually the developers who have to act before the consumers will buy.

thanks for the info. i don't really have that great of an understanding of physics, and probably should study up a little bit.

in this day and age where many on the board would consider my 955 presler to be an antiquated, washed-up system, it amazes me that there is something that has so much more power. i can do more with this chip at one time without so much as a hiccup than i've ever been able to in the past.

i guess my real loss is how to correlate or compare physics/graphics processing to cpu. there probably isn't a correlation, but it's diffucult to put into tangible terms. there has to be some sort of correlation though, they're both just updated calculators. why can't such a massively (in this age) powerful processor be able to handle physics, and if aegia's ppu has so much more power than the fastest cpu, why isn't aegia making cpus?

i know they're different types of processing, but that relates to the whole comparative-base issue.

oh well, i'll add it to my list of things to learn.

 

[jimmyb]

Tell me why nVidia would want to enhance the value of the last gen cards, unless it is sitting on stockpiles of unsold GPUs. Their interest is to sell as many as possible high-end cards. Yes, if ATi was adding backwards support, then nVidia may be forced to as well, but there is not certainty about whether it even makes sense -from a computational standpoint- to enable old(er) cards.

I misunderstood the original post. I'll reply to this anyway. It's probably not up to nvidia whether they are supporting something like Havok FX, since it's just running through standard shading languages. Presumably they could break support for the languages, thereby disabling the ability for them to run Havok FX, but that would likely cause major issues elsewhere.

I agree though that from a computational standpoint it's not clear if it makes sense to be doing physics on older cards. That remains to be seen...

 

[HOCP4ME]

Since there isn't any reasonable way to compare the performance of Aegia's option against any of nvidia or ati's solutions yet, it's really difficult to come to a concrete "The ppu is better" conclusion. If a video card can process physics just as well as a PPU, why on earth would you buy a PPU instead of a video card? (Unless you already have two cards in sli, a third video card would be somewhat pointless unless it offered better performance than aegia's option)

One reason to buy a PPU is price. It is less expensive than a G80. Also, it sounds like a second G80 would do physics acceleration and use any extra power to enhance graphics performance. We can reasonaly assume that physics and graphics will both expand and require more power as technology progresses. So you G80 would have to use more power for physics, leaving it with less power for the even higher grahpics load it must cope with. If you have a PPU, you don't have to worry about graphics performance decreasing as physics requirements increase.

I can't wait for the USB processor and the Fan processor all made by Ageia... It is gonna be sweet. I get like a whole .5 FPS gain in GAMING!

I don't quite get what you're saying here. If you're saying that the PPU isn't very useful, you are correct, for now. But hardware physics is here to stay, and whether it is AGEIA, NVIDIA, or ATI, one of the solutions will become standard someday.

i guess my real loss is how to correlate or compare physics/graphics processing to cpu. there probably isn't a correlation, but it's diffucult to put into tangible terms. there has to be some sort of correlation though, they're both just updated calculators. why can't such a massively (in this age) powerful processor be able to handle physics, and if aegia's ppu has so much more power than the fastest cpu, why isn't aegia making cpus?

i know they're different types of processing, but that relates to the whole comparative-base issue.

A CPU is made as a general processor meant to handle all sorts of jobs. It can do video encoding, math, some 2D graphics, raytracing (a new type of 3D graphics that is being developed), multitasking, system management, services, and folding. Because it can do all of these things, however, it isn't very good at each of them. Sure, there are a few jobs, such as video encoding, that work great on the CPU. But many tasks, such as graphics and physics, don't work very well on a CPU. The reason why is that graphics and physics both require parallel caluclations. A CPU isn't very good at this due to its lack of pipelines.

A GPU or PPU, however, is very good at physics and graphics because it has many pipelines, and is developed specifically for the purpose of doing graphics or physics (which happen to be quite simillar, BTW). Since these chips are specialized for one task, they can do that one task very well - much better than a generalized CPU, anyway.

A GPU or PPU cannot, however, be used as a CPU, since although they work great for parallel calculations, they suck at everything else. And since a CPU needs to be able to do all sorts of jobs, a GPU or PPU would not work as one.

 

[Spewn]

One reason to buy a PPU is price. It is less expensive than a G80. Also, it sounds like a second G80 would do physics acceleration and use any extra power to enhance graphics performance. We can reasonaly assume that physics and graphics will both expand and require more power as technology progresses. So you G80 would have to use more power for physics, leaving it with less power for the even higher grahpics load it must cope with. If you have a PPU, you don't have to worry about graphics performance decreasing as physics requirements increase.

A GPU or PPU cannot, however, be used as a CPU, since although they work great for parallel calculations, they suck at everything else. And since a CPU needs to be able to do all sorts of jobs, a GPU or PPU would not work as one.

Some problems with the bolded parts. First; How do you know what a bargain basement G80 will cost 6 or 8 months from now? Aegia's entry price-point was higher than any entry-level current-gen gfx card.

Second; I'll do this as simply as possible. Yes, devoting some of the extra G80's power to physics will take some away from graphics *and* increase the graphics overhead. Will Aegia's PPU *not* increase the graphics overhead?(of course it will) The point is very, very simple; If you buy a GPU and PPU, you will NEVER be able to choose enhanced graphics INSTEAD OF enhanced physics. If you buy two GPU's(and assuming the G80's performance equates roughly to that of Aegia's PPU when it comes to physics), you can choose; Do I want blistering framerates@full-detail in Quake 4? Or do I want Good framerates with lots of extra objects/interactivity in <insert physics enhanced game here>. The statement you make ignores the fact that the two GPU's are what set the benchmark. When you say "you don't have to worry about graphics performance decreasing as physics requirements increase." You're talking about graphics performance decreasing to the level of having only one GPU and PPU. Until you get to that point, the 2x GPU option will outperform. Get it?

Third; Do some reading. Folding@home code has been written to run on the x19xx series GPU's. From what I've read, they're faster than any cpu out there at the job. Who knows what else might benefit from parallel processing?

 

[Sovereign]

Once I can put my videocards outside my case (PCI-E 2.0 has an external spec) and thus have room, then I might care about Aegia/PhysX but I'm not ditching my X-Fi for something that has yet to be showcased in its "killer app." Yes the deformable objects video is pretty good, but I want to see PhysX + DX10, then we'll talk.

 

[factory81]

I argued to death when I first heard of the PPU from them. I reasoned with ATI / Nvidia will not allow another competition in such a gaming area. They would be bought by them, or nvidia/ati would create their own version of it.
It might have 2 years left....or something. Like a state of denile Rambus is in? Yet they continue to strike deals with all kinds of companies (Rambus).
Only example of a gamer card that exists and will always exist, the Creative Sound Card line-up. Some people will not bother to upgrade audio, but many do. Say you got audio pci, wifi pci (or use 10/100/1000 onboard), and then you can have dual graphics cards, you can't include a PPU in there, or a Killer NIC. Both of which would be great to have to brag about.
2 dual gpu video cards
killer nic
ppu
audigy phatty
wifi
tv tuner
high end raid card even.......
Yeah......we can't do it.....without some gay ass USB

 

[drizzt81]

I misunderstood the original post. I'll reply to this anyway. It's probably not up to nvidia whether they are supporting something like Havok FX, since it's just running through standard shading languages.

While you are certainly correct, there is a nonzero chance that there are hooks for en/ disable the hardware acceleration on Havok FX. Bottom line: I think we are likely to find out in the future what will happen

 

[Hvatum]

Slow down there, Turbo.

People have said that being able to use an old card would be *nice*, but not that it's the only reason the option is more attractive.

If I'm looking at getting a new video card AND a ppu in the future(say, after the G80 is available and processing physics in games), here are my options:

1) Buy one graphics card and one physics card and be stuck with a specific level of performance.

2) Buy two graphics cards, leaving me with a versatile setup.

The fact is simple; Aegia's PPU will NEVER be able to enhance my graphics performance, while nvidia's G80 appears very likely to be able to enhance both graphics and physics. Why buy a product that can only do one thing when you can buy a product that does both?

Sorry, you can't have your cake and eat it too. First you guys on the Anti-Physics crowd state that Ageia is sunk because games which are programmed for a physics card (API) would always require physics processing. Now you're saying that you'll be able to choose between physics and increased graphics processing. Which is it, are games very versitale, allowing everyone to choose whether to spend more money on a PPU or GPU, or will anything programmed expecting hardware physics always require hardware physics?

Since there isn't any reasonable way to compare the performance of Aegia's option against any of nvidia or ati's solutions yet, it's really difficult to come to a concrete "The ppu is better" conclusion.

Yet it's so easy for you to assume that "a video card can process physics just as well as a PPU." Or do you just enjoy asking stupid rhetorical quesitons?

Aegia's PPU will NEVER be able to enhance my graphics performance

Um, actually it would. Did you read the primer on how the quantum physics engine will be implimented? Nvidia is not grabbing processing power out of the sky to process physics. They are not adding a new processing layer which was not there before, which would need to be the case for your argument to make any sense. They are taking it away from the graphics card. It therefore follows that if you have a relatively cheap dedicated physics card alleviating this burden from your very expensive G80 graphics card you would indeed have enhanced graphics performance.

Now, obviously a physics card will not increase your graphics performance in older games such as Doom 3 or Half-Life 2 which are not heavily physics based. But neither will upgrading from a 7900 GTX to a 8800 GTX. Honestly, if you're just going to be playing old games I don't see why you're worrying about any of this.

 

[HOCP4ME]

How do you know what a bargain basement G80 will cost 6 or 8 months from now? Aegia's entry price-point was higher than any entry-level current-gen gfx card.

That doesn't really matter. The point is, when NVIDIA G80 is released (and they try to promote it with the QP Engine), it will cost more than a PPU. By the time its price goes down, the PPU's price may also go down. You can't say "it might be cheaper in six to eight months" without applying that to the competing product as well.

...Until you get to that point, the 2x GPU option will outperform. Get it?

You don't get to choose between physics and graphics. Physics (gameplay, at least) can't be turned down like graphics because it would affect the gameplay too much. If a game uses gameplay physics, you must use whatever processing power is requried to use them.

One advantage that the GPU does have, however, is that it will give you extra graphics performance in games that don't require an entire GPU worth of physics. We will see how well this works. But if it does, then you have a point there.

Third; Do some reading. Folding@home code has been written to run on the x19xx series GPU's. From what I've read, they're faster than any cpu out there at the job. Who knows what else might benefit from parallel processing?

And what does F@H process? Oh yeah, physics.

nly example of a gamer card that exists and will always exist, the Creative Sound Card line-up. Some people will not bother to upgrade audio, but many do. Say you got audio pci, wifi pci (or use 10/100/1000 onboard), and then you can have dual graphics cards, you can't include a PPU in there, or a Killer NIC. Both of which would be great to have to brag about.
2 dual gpu video cards
killer nic
ppu
audigy phatty
wifi
tv tuner
high end raid card even.......
Yeah......we can't do it.....without some gay ass USB

If you have dual graphics cards and are a supporter of GPU physics, you don't need a PPU. Unless, of course, you want full SLI graphics performance along with physics, in which case you shouldn't be a supporter of GPU physics.

The killer NIC is totally unnecessary. Integrated NIC works fine. And unlike the PPU, the killer NIC will never be useful.

Wifi and RAID are already on the mobo, and buying a dedicated card does next to nothing.

If you have VIVO and digital cable or satellite, you don't need a TV tuner. And if you do need one, they come in USB, which isn't "gay a**" either.

Sorry, you can't have your cake and eat it too. First you guys on the Anti-Physics crowd state that Ageia is sunk because games which are programmed for a physics card (API) would always require physics processing. Now you're saying that you'll be able to choose between physics and increased graphics processing. Which is it, are games very versitale, allowing everyone to choose whether to spend more money on a PPU or GPU, or will anything programmed expecting hardware physics always require hardware physics?

Exactly what I was wondering.

Yet it's so easy for you to assume that "a video card can process physics just as well as a PPU."

I think we can agree that that statement was correct. Unless, of course, NVIDIA, ATI, and Havok all lied to us. But if they lied, couldn't AGEIA have lied as well?

For now we have to trust the hardware companies' claims.

Um, actually it would. Did you read the primer on how the quantum physics engine will be implimented? Nvidia is not grabbing processing power out of the sky to process physics. They are not adding a new processing layer which was not there before, which would need to be the case for your argument to make any sense. They are taking it away from the graphics card. It therefore follows that if you have a relatively cheap dedicated physics card alleviating this burden from your very expensive G80 graphics card you would indeed have enhanced graphics performance.

He was talking about buying a second GPU vs buying a PPU.

 

[Obi_Kwiet]

The point here some people are making is that, while a PPU must either process physics or do nothing, a second GPU could either process physics, or add GPU power providing more flexibility.

What I hope is that we get some sort of DX esce physics API, that will replace all these stupid proprietary ones.

 

[SuperGee]

What most people forget is. That if you want your seccond GPU for Physics, be also for optional use as SLI/CF. It must be the same kind of G-card just like the one for rendering.
That mean the cheap point X1600XT only is valid if you got a X1600XT for rendering.
That is a bad Platform for enhanced Physic game wich requier a decent game rig.
If you have a X1950 you need a X1950 ish for CF.
Same for SLI. 7800GTX512 a other one would be nice.

If you use your old card for Physics next to a new better one. No CF/SLI.
So no SLI/CF plus point.
If CF and SLI is a must you need a third card.

Plus Games decide wich solution you must have. If you like HavokFX but also PhysX games. To play them optimal you need both solutions. Or make a choice to play one in optimum Physics and the other not.

I wonder I have a SLI mobo. PPU in it but could put a R600 later on it and put the old X1800XL for Physics.

I hope HavokFX doesnt requier CF mobo for aTI card Phyisics but SLI will do to. As long as it are PCIe16x slots.

 

[HOCP4ME]

What most people forget is. That if you want your seccond GPU for Physics, be also for optional use as SLI/CF. It must be the same kind of G-card just like the one for rendering.
That mean the cheap point X1600XT only is valid if you got a X1600XT for rendering.
That is a bad Platform for enhanced Physic game wich requier a decent game rig.
If you have a X1950 you need a X1950 ish for CF.
Same for SLI. 7800GTX512 a other one would be nice.

If you use your old card for Physics next to a new better one. No CF/SLI.
So no SLI/CF plus point.
If CF and SLI is a must you need a third card.

That's a good point. I think by now everyone has admitted that you will need a G80 to do GPU physics. But unless SLI specification changes, you will need whatever card you have in the other slot. So, if you get an 8800GTX, you will need another 8800GTX for physics if you want the SLI benefit. In that case, it's not a question of $300 vs $200, it's $500 vs $200 for a GPU and PPU, respectively.

Plus Games decide wich solution you must have. If you like HavokFX but also PhysX games. To play them optimal you need both solutions. Or make a choice to play one in optimum Physics and the other not.

Yes, that is the problem. That is exactly why we need Microsoft (or third-party companies, as long as they can agree with each other) to make a physics API to standardize this. Otherwise, its going to get to the point where you will need both physics solutions to play all of the games on the market. Who cares which is more expensive, has more benefits, is more powerful...etc? If we don't see a standard API, both system will end up being necessary.

And if we get a standard API, we can finally agree and stop arguing about which physics solution should "win". With a standard API, both]/b] will work fine, and the customer can choose the option that's best for him.

 

[freddiepm61]

It is the same as in the early days of 3D, however these things will work them selves out.

As there are three pcie16x slots on the newest 680i mobos for intel core 2, I would surmise (as many probably have before me) two for sli one for physics, or one for gpu one for physics.

Now, think about the floating point numbers for GPU, they are extremely powerful machines, therefore a 7600gt would probably be enough to do physics, as they would not say effect physics is solely for 8800gtx. why? the companies are clearly viewing physics as the next 3D. they have dollar signs in their eyes, they do not want physics to just be another quad sli for a niche market. they want it to have a wide take-up with users from all walks of life.

However where this will fall down is that as grpahics can be turned down without affecting gameplay, you cannot turn down physics, unless they are just eye candy, and not integral to the game such as with halflife 2.

However I most certainly see this as not being the last, I also do not see physics being moved across to the CPU, not for power reasons or whatever, but simply money. Why have it moved across to existing hardware, when they can sting you for another $300!!!

I do not see myself buying such an item for the next 2 years or so, when miucrosoft brings out DirectP or whatever it is called, as there will just be too many incompatiibilites and problems. However as with this first days of 3D props to those as has them!
f

 

[factory81]

I am not here to try and hijack a thread, but USP 2.0 highspeed....480mbs or whatever....is nothing compared to PCI-TV Tuners, or firewire.
You cannot use USB in the a/v world and get away with it. Transfering from DV cam's.....or using it to capture a/v properly.
Your chances of getting glitched a/v (audio off sync, mess-ups with the video, and other annoying problems) is much higher when using USB for tv tuner capture.
Go to any A/V forum and look...........many have sticky threads containing why USB sucks.
Put it this way...PCI...pretty well perfected won't you agree? USB....newer shit...more problems. You can't use it as rationale because wouldn't serial or parallel be more stable then USB? No, but USB replaced them and made it possible for many non-geeks to install printers. You had to be atleast somewhat of a person with a drive or tech savvy...to install parallel devices before. USB came along, fixed that...made it faster for newer devices....but not beating firewire.

I agree with the person above that you should be able to still have a 3-4 pci slots of freedom if you choose to use sli. Or don't allow SLI to be marketed. It is a very 3Dfx like thing to do, and it was the rage or bragging point of why our computers kicked ass many times among other reasons over store bought brands. We have 4.5..6 even PCI slots of freedom. Times have changed, not much uses PCI 1x like we thought we should be seeing though, and if your a hardcore gamer with a big bang and you go SLI........your auto-opt out of having many other cards. Which isn't a good spot for gamers or people who build workstations even to be in....we still do need tv tuners, high end 3-ware raid card's, sound cards.....hell maybe even a Killer NIC if we ran the server of death off.
My point is......what happened to the days when you could blow $500 on a video card...you had top bragging rights.......and you had your live/audigy.....wifi card....and whatever else...and you had room for it all.
Now you are being forced in to USB crap....yes


On the thread topic.....give AMD/ATI.....and Nvidia a year or so to have Ageia out of the game. One of them buys them, or if the technology is patented, they come up with the most similar yet not patent infringing technology.
It would be interesting to go over what patents Ageia has, which could be stopping ATI / Nvidia from even building technology, or add-on card's.
Transmeta is tryin to stop Intel now hehe, you know it won't work, but Transmeta will get whats owed to them if intel did what is said. This would be the same case with Ageia....only way Ageia lives...they get like Creative is with EAX...license their PPU to nvidia and or ati...don't go public until things are cooled down. Or allow customers to purchase their card's solely, in combo with allowing nvidia/ati to ship card's with their ppu's on them with gpu's from nvidia or ati as well.
Right now there goal is to create a demand for PPU's.....so they even make it per say. Yes they have card's....but there card's could be like an Aureal card....3Dfx...card soon.

 

[HOCP4ME]

I am not here to try and hijack a thread, but USP 2.0 highspeed....480mbs or whatever....is nothing compared to PCI-TV Tuners, or firewire.
You cannot use USB in the a/v world and get away with it. Transfering from DV cam's.....or using it to capture a/v properly.
Your chances of getting glitched a/v (audio off sync, mess-ups with the video, and other annoying problems) is much higher when using USB for tv tuner capture.
Go to any A/V forum and look...........many have sticky threads containing why USB sucks.
Put it this way...PCI...pretty well perfected won't you agree? USB....newer shit...more problems. You can't use it as rationale because wouldn't serial or parallel be more stable then USB? No, but USB replaced them and made it possible for many non-geeks to install printers. You had to be atleast somewhat of a person with a drive or tech savvy...to install parallel devices before. USB came along, fixed that...made it faster for newer devices....but not beating firewire.

Okay then, firewire. My PC has three of those. Not a problem.

 

[Spewn]

That's a good point. I think by now everyone has admitted that you will need a G80 to do GPU physics. But unless SLI specification changes, you will need whatever card you have in the other slot. So, if you get an 8800GTX, you will need another 8800GTX for physics if you want the SLI benefit. In that case, it's not a question of $300 vs $200, it's $500 vs $200 for a GPU and PPU, respectively.

What, you can't run cheap cards in SLI? The problem right now is that it's impossible to compare prices. Not *just* because we don't actually know what price points the G80 will be available at(or what Aegia's card will cost at that point), but also because we have no idea how they compare to one-another(in terms of computational power, or how the G80's graphics calculating ability scales as the physics demands go up). Even at $500 vs 200 you have to know what you're getting for each price.

To flat out say the PPU is the better option definately isn't taking everything into account. I'm not saing 2 GPU's would be the better option, IIRC in my original post I stated what the *appeal* of using a 2nd GPU for physics was. I didn't say that it would be the most economically viable reason, but I also can't say it won't be.

 

[Russ]

I think we can agree that that statement was correct. Unless, of course, NVIDIA, ATI, and Havok all lied to us. But if they lied, couldn't AGEIA have lied as well?

Uh, what? Look at the hardware, kiddo. PPU = 250 million transistors, GPU = 300 million transistors. PPU can do 8,000 objects simultaniously (no lie, look at the videos they released like almost a year ago that showed the liquids flowing over the car. A PPU can do that in real time) with 250 mill. You think that a GPU (7x00 series or equivilent) could possibly come close to the power of a card designed purely for physics from the ground up while still having about the same size by transistors???

Trying to claim that running physics on the graphics card as well as graphics is about the same as a PPU is just plain outrageous.

What, you can't run cheap cards in SLI?

Can cheap cards do anything well??? Are you seriously proposing buying SLI 7200's or something, one for graphics and one for physics, and thinking of keeping up with a 7800+ GPU and a PPU? Surely you must see the flaw in that.

-----------

Basically, this is my opinion. While the PPU has a lot of support, they aren't great games that will support it, besides UT2k7. Rather than having everybody develop their own API's for physics (Ageia's solution, Havok3D (or whatever it is) for ATI, and most ridiculous of all, Quantum Processing or whatever that name is for nVidia, we need to have a unified API that works for every game. That's the day that I buy a PPU. This whole splitting thing is just stupid, and it just means game makers can only sell to 1/3 of the physics solutions out there at once. Which is just dumb.

Here's to the hope for a DXPhysics.

 

[SuperGee]

250M?
90nm GPU have 300. And drawing much power.
PPU is a 130nm low power chip. I thought something in the 100M.
That's why ATI claim that there X1600XL can beat PPU because . They compete with more raw power.
the only thing PPU have a plus on that it's Specific optimised for Physics solution. The impact of that is unknow.
But Transister count Diespace and klok have a impact on performance where GPU stands out vs PPU.

 

[StevetheFox]

I have to agree with the OP.

IF GPU + Havok = PPU
AND Said PPU >= Ageia + Graphical Processing ability.

Ageia doesn't seem to have a leg to stand on anymore...

Havok showed us gameplay physics with their Brick War demo. So basically they stole the legs right out from under PhysX.

 

[Verge]

I hope that MS does NOT make a DX physics API, since I'd much rather see some nice, OS independent API, like OpenGL be used for physics. After all, Microsoft isn't the only company in the world producing software and finally getting some third party involvement would be nice.

if somebody has the opportunity to make money off of something, then chances are they are going to make money off of it.