![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
Effects Physics & Gameplay Physics Explored @ [H]
- Thread starter FrgMstr
- Start date
Physics is nothing new.Netrat33 said:
ATi/Nvidia make their solution out to be everything above glorious, even doable without a physics standard. Why should I believe such a dubious statment? Developers are not "asking" for ageia to produce, but yet they continue to do so.
Brent_Justice
Moderator
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2000
- Messages
- 17,755
Pottsey said:
The same problems with gameplay physics on GPUs also applies for Ageia's PhysX processor. It's all about the games, not the hardware.
The hardware itself, GPUs, and PhysX processor, are capable of effects and gameplay physics acceleration.
It all then comes down to the API and games. Right now HavokFX doesn't accelerate gameplay physics on the GPU, for the reasons stated, but it may in the future. BUT, as I stated early on in this thread you don't have to use HavokFX for physics acceleration on GPUs, there are ways to use the hardware without it doing whatever kind of physics you want, ATI is working on this with developers. But whatever the case, the hardware is capable, it will all come down to the games and what they support, and for both sides right now effects physics is the first step. It is the logical starting place.
I can only assume you aimed that toward me, but it is far from my point.jimmyb said:
It is beyond ATI/Nvidia saying they are better than ageia. It is the fact that they are competitors, they have conflicting standards that cause developers to become complacent. Who delivers? Ageia. Despite ATI/Nvidia already having the wherewithal to produce the output, Ageia is on the shelves first. Ageia has games in development. And ATi/nvidia has what? A 9-12 month setback.
Let me go on the record by saying that the 9-12 month remark I made was in response to a rhetorical question that I didn't want anyone to answer. It was simply there so that those of you without experience with rhetoric would still draw conclusions from my post. Looks as though that effort failed because you have subjectively come to your own conclusion with absolutely no regards to any parts of speech.jimmyb said:
With that aside, wouldn't you feel offended? If I sold you a product capable of services A & B, wouldn't you expect to use both services, A & B? Of course you would. But what if I told you that you needed to wait a year before you could finally use service B? Ask yourself a quick question too: would there even be a service B without Ageia stepping into the picture? All signs point to no IMHO.
Brent_Justice
Moderator
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2000
- Messages
- 17,755
Features lying dormant in GPUs or CPUs for that matter is not a new concept.
How many releases have we had where features just sit there while we wait for games to tap their potential, lots.
How many releases have we had where features just sit there while we wait for games to tap their potential, lots.
I'm personally not of the opinion that it will take that long, I was just asking hypothetically since it was the timeframe you gave.
Now, in regards to being offended, I agree wholeheartedly that Ageia is probably responsible for ati & nvidia working on doing GPU physics, but it's not as if nvidia & ati were sitting around maliciously withholding this terrific technology from the consumer. So no, I'm not offended at all.
Now, in regards to being offended, I agree wholeheartedly that Ageia is probably responsible for ati & nvidia working on doing GPU physics, but it's not as if nvidia & ati were sitting around maliciously withholding this terrific technology from the consumer. So no, I'm not offended at all.
Brent_Justice
Moderator
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2000
- Messages
- 17,755
I think Ageia has accelerated this process (haha i made a pun 
).
If they weren't here now pushing this I think we might not have been hearing much about Physics until at least DX10 was out.
). If they weren't here now pushing this I think we might not have been hearing much about Physics until at least DX10 was out.
cyks said:
Yes Dormant: ASLEEP, INACTIVE b : having the faculties suspended : SLUGGISH c : having biological activity suspended: as (1) : being in a state of suspended animation (2) : not actively growing but protected (as by bud scales) from the environment -- used of plant parts (Souce: Merriam Webster Online Dictionary )
This feature could of been implemented a lot earlier before Sm 3.0 came out as noted since Ageia isn't using it. Thus meaning ATI and Nvidia could of done this a long time ago but it needed maturity. Games only now can really take advantage of physics. Before poly's were kept to an insane low level and any extra poly's would of killed the frame rate. Now is the time games need such a feature and Ageia got out of the gate first. Ageia was only a sign though that there might be a market now for such acceleration it wasn't Nvidia/Ati reacting to losing a market (a market they never owned mind you and is only a small project compared to there main stuff). Ageia isn't competing with ATI/NVIDIA for GPU king. ATI/Nvidia are only providing an option for there customers to utilize such new features.
I don't get why Ageia fans are so affraid of competition though. If it was such a good product there would be no need to flame others and be as forceful and pushy as you all have been. If you have such a big lead enjoy it.
@cyks:
I'm not sure how that disqualifies it as being a dormant feature. But there's no point in discussing the semantic aspects of it. It's not relevant.
It's extremely unlikely that ati and/or nvidia were withholding a feature just to be jackasses, so I'm not sure what you're getting offended about. You are right, they are not the first to the market, but that in itself shouldn't be at all upsetting.
I'm not sure how that disqualifies it as being a dormant feature. But there's no point in discussing the semantic aspects of it. It's not relevant.
It's extremely unlikely that ati and/or nvidia were withholding a feature just to be jackasses, so I'm not sure what you're getting offended about. You are right, they are not the first to the market, but that in itself shouldn't be at all upsetting.
You think the difference between repurposed vertex shaders and dedicated physics processors is a matter of semantics?jimmyb said:
GPU physics do not unlock any new features, they repurpose older features to simply look like a new feature. Very different.
Do you know what a shader is?jimmyb said:
Do you know what dedicated means?
Edit: you cannot dismiss everything simply because it requires strong english skills to reason with what has been given to us via marketing and account directors-- for that was their very goal.
Yes, believe it or not I know what those words mean.
Physics being done on a GPU is a new feature, on old hardware. Ergo, it was/is a dormant feature. There is little sense in discussing what we should call it. It is what it is, hence my suggestion to leave semantic arguments alone.
Physics being done on a GPU is a new feature, on old hardware. Ergo, it was/is a dormant feature. There is little sense in discussing what we should call it. It is what it is, hence my suggestion to leave semantic arguments alone.
I agree. If it weren't for Ageia, physics processing would still be a non-starter. You have to give them props for giving it a good kickstart, and for producing what seems to be some pretty good hardware right off the bat. Unfortunately for Ageia, there are a few factors that are working against them, and which I think will eventually relegate them to very little or no marketshare.Brent_Justice said:
First, there's the matter of time, caused by a catch-22. It'll take a while before games will require off-CPU physics processing, simply because few people can take advantage of it. And few people will seek out physics-capable cards (Ageia or ATi or nVidia) until they either need it to play their new game or want it for the eye candy. In this case, ironically, Ageia will be helped by nVidia and ATi. Most, if not all, future graphics cards will support physics to some degree, enabling game developers to program with the expectation that computers will be able to do physics calculations. This will take time, however, and with time, Ageia's competitors will be able to improve their hardware and drivers to match or exceed Ageia's performance.
Second is this: any card with more physics processing capability is going to be relegated to effects processing, at least in a multiplayer environment. The game has to allow for the least common denominator for gameplay physics. So even if you have a card that's 50x more powerful at physics than another player's, it'll only be using a tiny portion for gameplay physics, leaving the rest for effects. As we've seen, effects physics have so far failed to provide any convincing sales pitch.
Third is this: nVidia and ATi are much bigger than Ageia, with much larger engineering resources and better-established supply channels. That means that any performance advantage Ageia now enjoys might be quickly gobbled up, and that physics-capable video cards will likely be cheaper to produce.
Ok, I'm done, except for this wrap-up. Much like Netscape (a while ago, and Firefox now) did us all a great service by forcing Microsoft to develop IE, Ageia is forcing nVidia and ATi to develop their physics processing capabilities. Like Netscape, though, Ageia (as a company) might not survive to see the fruits of its labor.
Mohonri said:
If it wasn't for the +60 developers and +100 games annouced using the PhysX API you would have been correct.
But it's like saying that INTEL is bigger than both ATI and NVIDIA, have a bigger market share, WAY more engineering resources and better-established supply channels than both and thus should be making better graphics products...
Terra - Does that hold true?
Flexmaster
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 141
Terra said:
You cant compare those because Intel isnt trying to make High end GPU's if they did then it would hold true.
Flexmaster
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 141
GPU's with all of the PPU's functionality.Terra said:
Ball in your court....
Brent_Justice
Moderator
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2000
- Messages
- 17,755
Terra said:
I believe that is the point you are missing. GPU's can be PPU's, and other things as well, they are very versatile now, like CPUs.
I'm happy to see this thread is getting like a broken record
GPU's can function as PPU's all while rendering frames. Don't know why that is so hard to understand. Last I checked I was able to convert video files with my GPU alot faster than my CPU could. Oh yeah, that shouldn't be possible either because the CPU should be doing it.
GPU's can function as PPU's all while rendering frames. Don't know why that is so hard to understand. Last I checked I was able to convert video files with my GPU alot faster than my CPU could. Oh yeah, that shouldn't be possible either because the CPU should be doing it.
Nice example but for games GPU is busy with is core task rendering Graphics. So you need a extra or a lot more powerfull GPU to do GPU physics. Oh every one has a GPU but taking budged into acount like student or pore people wich aford a x1300. Not much Physics can be done. A X1600XT is a bit better but its still played a lot of new games with a IQ trade off.
And then if you want GPU physics you have to upgrade.
Havok stated a long time ago that you need a extra card to take good use off GPU physics.
Or a high-end card wich has some decent margin to do some physics beside rendering. But that a small audience.
SLI CF audience are ready for GPU Physics but trade CF/SLI play in for Physic and it's a small audience.
for most people doesn't matter Ageia or Havok sulotion it will cost some thing.
Most importanly de game deside wich one you need. want to play a lot of new games you need both a extra GPU and a PPU.
First a PPU later a extra GPU.
And then if you want GPU physics you have to upgrade.
Havok stated a long time ago that you need a extra card to take good use off GPU physics.
Or a high-end card wich has some decent margin to do some physics beside rendering. But that a small audience.
SLI CF audience are ready for GPU Physics but trade CF/SLI play in for Physic and it's a small audience.
for most people doesn't matter Ageia or Havok sulotion it will cost some thing.
Most importanly de game deside wich one you need. want to play a lot of new games you need both a extra GPU and a PPU.
First a PPU later a extra GPU.
Brent_Justice said:
A CPU can't act like a GPU yes...but the GPU will be faster.
I havn't seen anything that makes me think that the GPU "playing" PPU will nearly as fast a dedicated PPU.
I remember last time ATI/NVIDA tried rehashing their hardware to do SSAA, without adding new hardware.
Poor preformance.
It's wasn't untill they add the transitors they got decent preformance.
Dedicated (designed) hardware has always been better.
And if the GPU can do it today, why havn't they relased a simple techdemo?
Why is that so hard?
My guess:
Cause DX9 hardware SUCKS at it, they'll keep their PR-ball rolling untill they got some DX10 hardware out.
Wich suit's like a glove with ATI's "9-12" month delay...
Terra - Ockhams razors in action...
Terra said:
My guess that they havn't released a demo yet is because that would mean they would have to implement it into there drivers so they would need to write it into the video drivers which right now I am guessing arn't that mature yet. I am sure they would rather work more on there drivers and hope people have patients then to release something before it is ever put to use and have it be buggy as all hell.
Brent_Justice
Moderator
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2000
- Messages
- 17,755
I've seen ATI and NV show off demos of the technology. They've shown objects interacting with other objects and getting good framerates, ATI showed off a 20,000 object demo at Computex with high framerates. A few pics here http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTA3OSwsLGhlbnRodXNpYXN0
Brent_Justice
Moderator
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2000
- Messages
- 17,755
hah, no, that is not me
i'm geekier
i'm geekier
Brent_Justice said:
Terra will just note those are very controlled enviroments and they arn't public demo's which is what he wants.
At that stage though I am sure the drivers/api were in barley alpha form and could only handle specific tasks like the one's shown. Hopefully they will release something for us before xmas even if it was just tech demo's.
Please feel free to point out an architectural deficiency that makes DX9 class hardware not good at doing physics. Or at least point out a change that will make DX10 class hardware significantly better.Terra said:
I have no doubt that newer cards will be faster. There might also be some changes made to specifically speed up physics calculations. This is the nature of newer hardware.
I'm also inclined to agree with you in believing that most dedicated PPUs will be faster than most video cards, but this is something we clearly cannot know at this point.
QFT Always has been, always will be.Terra said:
Not that it is hard-- it's just that brand recognition is *much* easier. Why go about all the effort of spiffing up your hardware the way you promise it to work and producing apples/apples benchmarks when you can simply slap a red/green sticker on a box to sell it, and do the real work later? Because, as of right now, ATI/Nvidia want to sell DX9 GPUs, nothing else. They push their hardware as PPU emulators (even though some consumers ignore what ATI/Nvidia say and believe they are really selling PPUs), the consumers buy up some units for that very purpose, and then they are told to wait 9-12 months-- enough time for the GPU industry to advance to DX10!Terra said:
DX10 hardware should be better because the graphics will be more geometrically in-depth, allowing for more seamless physics.jimmyb said:
DX9 hardware is dominated by pixel shaders, not vertex.
Change that fact and will likely run into new bottlenecks. Adding more and more balls doesn't change that fact (which is what ATI shows off), adding more collisions does. ATI/Nvidia do not want to R&D new DX9 Hardware-- so they simply glorify their old hardware with PR and call it a day.
cyks said:QFT Always has been, always will be.
Not that it is hard-- it's just that brand recognition is *much* easier. Why go about all the effort of spiffing up your hardware the way you promise it to work and producing apples/apples benchmarks when you can simply slap a red/green sticker on a box to sell it, and do the real work later? Because, as of right now, ATI/Nvidia want to sell DX9 GPUs, nothing else. They push their hardware as PPU emulators (even though some consumers ignore what ATI/Nvidia say and believe they are really selling PPUs), the consumers buy up some units for that very purpose, and then they are told to wait 9-12 months-- enough time for the GPU industry to advance to DX10!
Wow that's really fishing for dirt there. Really how many people have bought a Video card for PPU use? Also emulation is not the term that is used for what they are doing. To emulate your taking an a standard already presented and trying to make different hardware simulate the previous. What Nvidia/ATi are doing is making there own standard and running everything there own way and at a raw hardware level. So it's not emulating anything.