Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
nooh said:I saw this and i thought i am going to see some but i came here and there was nothing, never mind and the answer is sorry no i havent.
Terra said:Not even a 8-core CPU would be able to render the physics nearly as effecient as the PPU, but no I havn't seen any benches with a Conroe and no PhysX, but the cloth would kill the Conroe, just like it kills any other CPU.
Terra - Conroe is not ~200 times faster than the other, older CPU's...
Flexmaster said:Wow thats the only thing it has on it? "cloth"
All of a sudden I have the need to spend $300 to see this cloth. But seriously Conroe's and the soon upcoming Quad core kentsfield have no problems with Physics, as the makers of Crysis can point out.
Admittedly these numbers are bit old, and biased, but Ageia says current hardware and software can handle roughly 200 objects while their hardware with proper software can handle about 32,000 objects.
Assuming (generously) they mean 200 objects with a single CPU and just 10% of the processor dedicated to physics then we should be able to estimate an 8 processor situation...
Assuming 7 processors would be used for physics, the other one for everything else we get 7*200 = 1400 objects.
Then (again generously) assuming each processor would effectively be at 80% efficiency (you always lose power when sharing between multiple CPU's), we get 1400*8 = 11,200 objects.
So being reasonably generous to the CPU's, a single 8 core CPU would only get us to about 1/3rd the physics processing power of a single PPU.
And that's all assuming someone bothers to program for multi-processor physics, which would be pointless with PPU's available.
Terra said:You are sadly mistaken.
Do you even know how much faster than a 1-, 2-, 4-, 8- or 16-core CPU?
The design and architechture of a CPU is inherent bad for the type of calculations physcis requires.
http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1029360261&postcount=22
Flexmaster said:CPU's can be programmed to use one core soley for physics calculations and as I said look what Crytek has been able to do. More than Ageia, ATI, and Nvidia combined.
nhusby said:argh.... I had no claims that it was going to be able to replace teh PPU...
I was just hoping for some better performance both with and without the PPU.
I dont remember hearing average FPS's getting much over 20...
Terra said:You simply don't understand.
The CPU is jack of all trades, master of none.
If your claim where to be true the Conroe would be sufficent for graphics to..no need for a GPU
The same applies to the CPU vs. PPU.
The PPU is designed for MASSIVE parallel physcis calcuations...and does that WAY better than any CPU...even a 8 core CPU.
The GPU is designed for MASSIVE parallel pixel, vertex and shading calculations...and does that WAY better than any CPU...even a 8 core CPU.
Even though the pysics and graphics data are treated differently, they are MASSIVE parallel...and not something a CPU is very happy about...
Terra - Please do read up...
Flexmaster said:Hey you can read all you want but what I care about is what I can see, and so far.
Ageia 0
ATI 0
Nvidia 0
And CPU's have given us the effects seen in Half Life 2 and now Crysis.
Go read your PR, while I play games with actual physics.....
Terra said:*ROFL*
Don't know what you are smoking, but it's not good for you...
Terra - Welcome to my ignore...
Flexmaster said:Your the one smoking something if you think they delivered anything because so far they have shown nada, nothing.
CPU's did everything you see in Half Life 2 and that is light years beyond anything AGEIA has shown in plyable form.
P.S. Nobody cares who you ignore...
Atleast someones got it.Killa_2327 said:No shit. Yes, what they are doing is cool and all but until I see something impressive I can use online PhysX means nothing to me. Plus a lot of there stuff really isn't that impressive. The gasoline lava flamethrower thing from Bet On Soldier, it looks so bad when they shoot it. CF isn't too impressive, dull terrain with a shit load of boxes. Heavy Rain, the hair doesn't look that amazing to me. The avalanche in that snowboarding game, horrible. GRAW, come on, it doesn't look that good. The only thing that looked good to me so far was fluids and metal bending, but these are in future titles. They don't have anything going for them and since these aren't released yet we cant make CPU vs PPU tests too see how much of a difference they make.
Come on Terra, make me a believer.
pArTy said:Theres a big difference between games with PPU support and games without PPU support like half life 2. PPUs were created more for physics on extreme scale compared to half life 2. Like watter, fog, or some other liquad which usaly uses tons of little balls to calculate the physics. Unlike half life 2 which just handles objects and nothing complex. I do believe that todays CPUs can handle over 200 object per CPU. I use to do physics rendering for CG movies and the intel P4 at 2.4ghz could do about 5,000 particles in real time. Anything over that and it wouldnt be real time. Conroe is probley about 4 times or more faster than my intel P4. I'm totaly up for PPUs but they are just starting and are no where near what they will be in like 5 years if they can hang around. Personaly I cant wait from 10 years from now where you have real weather, watter, blood and other simulations like that in games. It will be pretty amazing.
Terra said:Terra - This should stop the stupidity...
I don't think anyone is trying to push the product on you, but I agree it's not necessary. It probably won't ever become necessary. It will probably become a nice perk for hardware enthusiasts 2 years from now if titles utilized the card and provided breath taking performance. With alternate solutions like multi core cpus and video card physics processing,Killa_2327 said:Doesn't do anything for me. It's still not being used in a game, and even when it is, you think they are going to use that many blocks, all textured, in a very detailed level with vehicles and multiple players?
I'm looking forward to better things but I'm about sick of falling blocks and exploding boxes.
Monkey_feces said:I don't think anyone is trying to push the product on you, but I agree it's not necessary. It probably won't ever become necessary. It will probably become a nice perk for hardware enthusiasts 2 years from now if titles utilized the card and provided breath taking performance. With alternate solutions like multi core cpus and video card physics processing,
I doubt a physics card will ever become necessary. As of now, physics cards will only appeal /fall into the hands of people who have expendable incomes, don't quite know what they are buying (people who go to dell/alienware and slap together the most expensive pc), or both.
-Feces
Killa_2327 said:Doesn't do anything for me. It's still not being used in a game, and even when it is, you think they are going to use that many blocks, all textured, in a very detailed level with vehicles and multiple players?
I'm looking forward to better things but I'm about sick of falling blocks and exploding boxes.
Killa_2327 said:I know, but I'd like someone to show and give me a valid reason to be excited, which hasn't happened yet.
CPUs will never be an alternate solution anylonger. Did even you look at the first page?Monkey_feces said:With alternate solutions like multi core cpus and video card physics processing,
Do you honestly belive that, once entering a game, a CPU will suddenly perform like dedicated hardware?Killa_2327 said:Doesn't do anything for me. It's still not being used in a game,
You're avoiding the fact you just don't need it. Did you read my posts, or are you here to troll?cyks said:CPUs will never be an alternate solution anylonger. Did even you look at the first page?
Maybe you can load up your physics demos on your multi core CPU and your videocards and run some benchmarks like terra did? Or are you just here to nit pick?
cyks said:Do you honestly belive that, once entering a game, a CPU will suddenly perform like dedicated hardware?
There was little to nothing else left for Terra's CPU to process in that trial, so 50% load with 1 FPS is rather good for a CPU. A game would easily bring 50 --> 20
Do you actually own a PPU? Fear Uncertainty and doubt are only good things when it comes down to ppus. It's a losing gamble. Scenario 1. They never get impemented to full potential, havok is sufficient, ageia goes belly up. 2. PPUs are used to a lesser extent, ageia is top of the line and overly excessive, $100 ppu will cut it. 3. Ageia current gen becomes obsolete, cards w/ 3x power are available at the same price. 4. Whatever the hell you guys can think of for a 4th scenario, I'm all out.Terra said:That and then I noticed I even use 18 MB RAM less when running Cubewall vwith PhysX hardware support...
Must be because the physcis-engine(or part of) and the calculations are offloaded to the PPU and it's onboard RAM...
So better frames(the video REALLY show how bogged down the CPU is when running), less CPU load and less RAM usage...
3 improvements, 0 degradings...the winner...in the blue corner: PhysX
Terra - I wonder what the next FUD attempt is going to be..soundcard better than the PPU?
How is the x1900xtx crossfire paper weight? How does a gx2 not make a difference in online play? Right now, the conroe is worse than any dual card configuration. Dual card configurations make you pay 2x the money for a 50% performance boost. A $700 conroe will provide a .0009999999 performance boost over a $100 A64 3500+, given that you stress the card enough to offset the bottleneck. Even synthetic benchmarks seem to agree with my. A 7600gt with roughly the same clocks will provide the same 13 fps as my 7600gt w/ a netburst @ 3.3ghz vs a netburst @ 4.8ghz.nhusby said:is it just me, or does the PPU (wether it be a 2nd or 3rd GPU or an Ageia PPU) recieve more resistance and flak than other hardware? I dont know about everyone else, but I dont go into the video card thread and tell people that their x1900 GTO Crossfire rig is a $3000 paper weight... or that their GX2's are worthless because they dont make a difference in online play...
I was simply hoping to see if the new architecture in the Conroe benefits games designed for Ageia's PPU.
a few months back [H] did an article on CPU scaling and found that most games were GPU limited. I want to see if the Conroe makes a difference in Cell Factor.
nhusby said:is it just me, or does the PPU (wether it be a 2nd or 3rd GPU or an Ageia PPU) recieve more resistance and flak than other hardware? I dont know about everyone else, but I dont go into the video card thread and tell people that their x1900 GTO Crossfire rig is a $3000 paper weight... or that their GX2's are worthless because they dont make a difference in online play...
I was simply hoping to see if the new architecture in the Conroe benefits games designed for Ageia's PPU.
a few months back [H] did an article on CPU scaling and found that most games were GPU limited. I want to see if the Conroe makes a difference in Cell Factor.
Digital Viper-X- said:isnt cubewall CODED to run on a PPU vs a CPU? why not get a program that has been programmed to run physics on a CPU and see how well it fares? it might be true that the PhysX PPU is alot better then a cpu at physics calculations, but that could also be because we havnt had powerfull enough cpus / enough cores to run the physics calculations so no one codes for physics on a CPU yet, but now with X2 / PD / Conroe things might change a bit o.0
I could be off here but don't "simulations" use CPUs to do the physics? and those seem to be running ok =p
Monkey_feces said:How is the x1900xtx crossfire paper weight? How does a gx2 not make a difference in online play? Right now, the conroe is worse than any dual card configuration. Dual card configurations make you pay 2x the money for a 50% performance boost. A $700 conroe will provide a .0009999999 performance boost over a $100 A64 3500+, given that you stress the card enough to offset the bottleneck. Even synthetic benchmarks seem to agree with my. A 7600gt with roughly the same clocks will provide the same 13 fps as my 7600gt w/ a netburst @ 3.3ghz vs a netburst @ 4.8ghz.
The ppu gets so much flak because you pay $300 for boxes and explosions.... in demos. No game company will invest precious R&D funds to transfer the boxes and explosions from demos into a game for the 5 people that own a ppu. It's corporate suicide. I guarantee you that when they notice everyone has decent physics calculators on their video cards, they will provide decent physics acceleration/ calculation.
Terra said:Cubewall demo:
NO PhysX hardware support, click image for file:
(Type: avi, 12.34MB)
PhysX HARDWARE support, click image for file:
(Type: avi, 15.84MB)
MY CPU is a Pentium D 950, 2 GB DDR RAM(2-3-3-6) and the preformance is like night and day...
~1FPS with only CPU and 50% load and 5-10 FPS with the PhysX on no CPU to speak of...
Terra - This should stop the stupidity...
Comments inside quoteHOCP4ME said:Guys, pleas stop saying that the PPU is worthless because it just gives you piles of boxes. Saying that is like saying that a GX2 is worthless because it just gives you pretty colors and shadows. Hey, at least the PPU gives you something that actually improves gameplay.
It will be a very, very long time before a CPU can keep up with a PPU in physics. Sure, developers can do some awesome things on a CPU today. But they can do much more with a PPU.
Now, let me explain why the PPU is more than boxes:
Say you're in an FPS game. A one-on-one battle between you and your opponent is going on inside a manufactuing plant. There is a stack of packages on the wall. You put a well placed bullet into one of the packages. It falls out of place, causing the entire stack of boxes to come crashing down onto your enemy, killing him instantly. Adds a whole new dimesion of strategy to FPS, doesn't it?
CPU can do that also that is just boxes
Now, imagine you're on a mission to take out the headquarters of your enemy. As you approach the building, however, some guards spot you, and a firefight emerges. Bullets tear through the building left and right. Eventually, the building's structural integrity is compromised, and the building realistically collapses, killing all inside it.
Yet to see it from a ppu yet so who knows if it can handle such depth
Now, imagine you're hiding from an enemy behind a wall. But you don't realize that your enemy is carrying a larger weapon than you anticipated. He fires the weapon through the wall. The PPU calculates exactly how much velocity the bullet is going to have after going through the wall. It determines that, while the bullet won't be going fast enough to kill you, it will be enough to stun you for a few seconds.
Think about a combat flight simulator. Except now, instead of just modeling the exterior of the plane, the fuel lines, hydraulic lines, fuel tanks, and all engine parts are also modelled. An enemy fires several bullets at you. One of them pierces the the fuel line, causing fuel to rapidly spill inside the wing on a realistic path. Another bullet cuts some electrical lines, causing your cockpit lights to go out.
Sounds more like hit detection then physics. If you play quake 3 a bullet to the head is instant kill while a shot to the leg will only injure you slightly. They most likely haven't done anything like this stuff yet is because it's to time consuming and modeling stuff that you wont see is going to push back release dates
The leaking fuel reaches the cut power lines, and the PPU quickly calculates that the resulting explosion will be enough to destroy the hydraulic lines going to the left aeilrons, as well as blow a hole in the wing and destroy the left engine. Pieces of shrapnel from the blast injure you, inhibiting your abillity to operate the controls for several seconds. When you finally regain control, you realize you have a challenge ahead of you; the hole in the left wing makes your plane much less aerodynamic, and keep trying to turn the plane to the left.
You are able to regain control, despite having only one engine, one aeilron, and no cockpit lights. But then you realize that you've forgotten to close the fuel crossfeed. The right engine goes out as the last of your fuel drops from the left wing into the sea below.
With no engines and hardly any control, you know you must make a water landing. But then, you see an island to your left. You fly over to the island and prepare for a crash landing. Because of the damage, your flaps don't work, forcing you to land at a very high speed. Luckily, the landing gear still works, so you may have a chance at survival. As your plane hits the bumpy surface, the PPU goes to work yet again, calculating the damage that will be incurred to the gear and plane. Your nose wheel strikes a rock. flipping the plane over. The PPU quickly determines how much the pilot will be injured as a result of this. You survive the crash, but just barely, and will be unable to fly again. For you, the campaign is over.
PPU dosn't determine the damage you take the game does that with the cpu. Did you see the video of the plane crashing in 3dmarks 2003 i believe it was? Also your PPU will just calculate the explosion your game engine will determine the hit detection and what is damaged.
^Now try doing THAT on a CPU.
Here's what I see happening. Developers will begin by using physics that can be done on either a GPU or a PPU. If you don't want to buy a PPU, you'll have to turn down eye-candy settings to free up your GPU for the physics. Real enthusiasts will buy a PPU so they can have the best eye-candy and physics. Eventually, as the PPU improves and the price goes down, more people will buy one, and developers will begin programming for the PPU only. Once it becomes "required", some companies may begin putting them on motherboards.