Hint of the ATI physics solution

Rhitick

Weaksauce
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
89
Wonder if I can use my old 6600 with nvidias version of it along with my x1900...apparently its similar..

BTW you dont NEED all three cards for physics with ATI, they say there is a 2+1 and 1+1 solution...
 

Terra

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 2, 2004
Messages
2,786
Rhitick said:
Wonder if I can use my old 6600 with nvidias version of it along with my x1900...apparently its similar..

BTW you dont NEED all three cards for physics with ATI, they say there is a 2+1 and 1+1 solution...

ATI does real physics? :eek:
Where?

Terra - I thought they only did eye-candy-wannabe-physics? :p
 

Menelmarar

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 15, 2001
Messages
5,472
Terra said:
Nice PR bit.
Let us keep "effects physics" and REAL physics appart and let the PR snakes be the nes to mix up terms, shall we? :)
It's objects interacting in a realistic manor to provide improved immersion. I see nothing wrong with this, it's still using advanced physics calculations for it. It's not near as amazing as objects that can be interacted with by the user obviously but it's far from calculating physics and realistic realtime events.

Terra said:
I have my doubts, that we will se ANYTHING but eye-candy "physics" on ATI's solution, and their PR "runs great on any X1000 card" is pure PR.
No benches, no proof of anything.
Havok+ATI's solution is the same as Ageia's and others. UT2007 for example is using Ageia's engine in software and the hardware for effects physics. If it was powered by Havok+ATI it would be the same exact thing. There is no difference in implementation.

Terra said:
Lie, several titles have annouced just that, don't waste my time, thank you...
That's a pretty shallow and accusing statement, care to elaborate on who is claiming hardware accelerated interactive physics?

Cellfactor is the only one we have that I know of and the hardware support doesn't really accelerate much...definitely not $300 worth.
 

Menelmarar

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 15, 2001
Messages
5,472
Terra said:
ATI does real physics? :eek:
Where?

Terra - I thought they only did eye-candy-wannabe-physics? :p
ATI hardware is doing the effects accelerated portion of Havok FX engine. Havok still has their gameplay physics just like they have had in tons of past games. Gameplay physics are still there.

This would be just like how Ageia is going to work in UT2007. Software gameplay physics with hardware acclerated effects phyics.

The difference? X1600 cost $99, PhsyX card costs $299. We have comparative benchmarks of neither :(
 

Terra

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 2, 2004
Messages
2,786
Menelmarar said:
It's objects interacting in a realistic manor to provide improved immersion. I see nothing wrong with this, it's still using advanced physics calculations for it. It's not near as amazing as objects that can be interacted with by the user obviously but it's far from calculating physics and realistic realtime events.

More PR.
No GPU interactive physics, fact of life.
No matter how you PR-mouth it...

Havok+ATI's solution is the same as Ageia's and others. UT2007 for example is using Ageia's engine in software and the hardware for effects physics. If it was powered by Havok+ATI it would be the same exact thing. There is no difference in implementation.

More PR spin.
Can ATI's solution do interactive gameplay physics on the "physics"-GPU YES/NO?!


That's a pretty shallow and accusing statement, care to elaborate on who is claiming hardware accelerated interactive physics?[/QOUTE]

One such exsample is the flamethrower in Bet Onn Soldier.
Hardware accelerated interactive fluid-flamethrower.
On the top f my mind a future title that springs to mind is Alpha Prime...
And then of course the UE3-engine ;)

Cellfactor is the only one we have that I know of and the hardware support doesn't really accelerate much...definitely not $300 worth.

Cellfactor is not woth getting a PhysX over, but it's woth getting a new mobo and use 3 graphics cards for?

Terra - BTW what games support or will support ATI-"physics"/HavokFX? :)
 

Terra

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 2, 2004
Messages
2,786
Menelmarar said:
ATI hardware is doing the effects accelerated portion of Havok FX engine. Havok still has their gameplay physics just like they have had in tons of past games. Gameplay physics are still there.

Lets make this simple:
All this will do is add eye-candy physics via a GPU.
The CPU will still be bogged down.

This would be just like how Ageia is going to work in UT2007. Software gameplay physics with hardware acclerated effects phyics.

That is why it's nice that the UE3-engine(and titles who license it get FULL PhysX Physics..as the UE3 engine will supoort Physx fully ;) )
And again, what games support ATI's solution? :)

The difference? X1600 cost $99, PhsyX card costs $299. We have comparative benchmarks of neither :(

What a load of PR.
You forgot that the PPU can do interactive Physics on the PPU, some they are the only ones that can do.
Your are comparing apples and oranges.
Where will ALL the gameplay physics be calculated on ATI's solution? :)

Terra - Don't "PR" me...I find it insulting, thx...
 

nst6563

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 15, 2003
Messages
4,023
slightly OT here, but I noticed in that link that the ATI chipset "automatically" oc's the PCI-E bus. What advantage does that have other than simply saying "I oc'd the shit outta my PCI-E bus too"???

I googled for a short bit and found some instances at extremeoverclockers where the people were increasing the PCI-E bus and were able to stabilize an overclock. For the life of me I don't remember if it was a system oc or gpu...but it did something with the stability.

Personally I'd use an x1600 card to do physics if the drivers supported it. I wouldn't be running CF b/c I have a DFI NF4 board...but wouldn't they support the "physics" portion even on NON-ATI based boards? It would make sense...but you never know...
 

HighTest

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 17, 2005
Messages
1,245
Terra said:
Can ATI's solution do interactive gameplay physics on the "physics"-GPU YES/NO?!

NO, the confusion is that while Havok FX will have gameplay physic's you have to look at what does the SM 3.0 feature specifically provide?

Note this article directly from Havok http://www.havok.com/content/view/187/77/

Look at this specific quote from the article
Havok FX will support a new type of rigid-body object called a Debris Primitive. A Debris Primitive is a compact representation of a 3D collidable object that can be procedded via Shader Model 3.0 (SM3.0) in a very efficient manner. Debris Primitives can be pre-modeled as part of a game's static art content (e.g. custom/textured boulders, space junk, or collateral objects waiting for an explosive charge). They may also be generated on the fly during game play by the CPU, based on the direction and intensity of a force (e.g. brick and stone structure blown apart by a cannon blast). Once generated by the CPU, Debris Primitives can be dispatched fully to the GPU for physical simulation and final rendering - comprising a powerful blending of physics and state-of-the-art shading effects for particulate and large scale phenomenon.

Note the "static art content" portion of what a SM 3.0 GPU is capable of accelerating. Note that "static art content" is visual eye candy and not truely interactive physics that changes the game play element. Note that the CPU is used for the remainder of the physics calculations with portions that are handed off to the Debris Primitive for the "eye candy enhancement".


Note the particular wording of the following portion of the article
Havok FX Debris Primitives can even interact with game-play critical objects, through an innovative approach that will provide the GPU with a one-way transfer of critical information that will allow Debris Primitives to respond to game-play objects and large-scale world definitions.

See how it specifically mentions the "one-way transfer" to the GPU? That is because the GPU calculations cannot be transfered back into Havok FX. So the Debris Primitives do interact with the user, but these interactions are "pre-calculated" by the CPU before the "eye candy portion" is rendered by the SM 3.0 on the GPU.

YAWN :eek:
 

Menelmarar

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 15, 2001
Messages
5,472
Terra said:
Lets make this simple:
All this will do is add eye-candy physics via a GPU.
The CPU will still be bogged down.
Isn't this what GPU's already do anyway? I dont' see the problem if it really does improve eye-candy. HDR, AA, AF, pixel shaders etc etc all eye-candy, we all like eye candy.

CPU bogged down by what? Gameplay physics? PLEASE show me where Ageia's hardware improved the FPS in a game using gameplay physics, can you? Let me show you one where it doesn't appear to give $300 worth of improvement. 1-4fps with a dualcore system? Not impressed. This much I can see.
http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1029445660&postcount=25

Terra said:
That is why it's nice that the UE3-engine(and titles who license it get FULL PhysX Physics..as the UE3 engine will supoort Physx fully ;) )
And again, what games support ATI's solution? :)
"what we are doing in UT2007 is using the physics hardware only for accelerating special effects objects, things where the server tells the client, Spawn this special effect here! The client responds with an explosion with thousands of particles, and each of those operates as a seperate physics object but it doesn't effect the gameplay... its just purely a visual effect there." --Sweeney

Maybe UE3 has support, but if they aren't going to use it.....my $300 purchase isn't going to get utilized. What are these titles that are going to be using it fully when the guys who created it decided it wasn't going to be good to use the hardware for more than special effects?

Terra said:
What a load of PR.
You forgot that the PPU can do interactive Physics on the PPU, some they are the only ones that can do.
Your are comparing apples and oranges.
Where will ALL the gameplay physics be calculated on ATI's solution? :)
I'm struggling understanding the second sentence. The gameplay physics will be calculated on the CPU just like it is being done for Ageia in titles like UT2007. I think I've said that 3-4 times now. Not impressive. Cellfactor really didn't benefit much from having the gameplay physics run on the hardware so I'm not sure why that is much of a concern.

Terra said:
Terra - Don't "PR" me...I find it insulting, thx...
I'm not really concerned if I insult you and hurt your internet feelings. thx...
 

Terra

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 2, 2004
Messages
2,786
Menelmarar said:
Isn't this what GPU's already do anyway? I dont' see the problem if it really does improve eye-candy. HDR, AA, AF, pixel shaders etc etc all eye-candy, we all like eye candy.

That is the way it is now...that is what the PPU is going to change.
The main goal of the PPU is to offload the CPU and even go WAY beyound what a CPU can do with physics.
You are talking about keeping the status quo, I wan't to evolve.

CPU bogged down by what? Gameplay physics? PLEASE show me where Ageia's hardware improved the FPS in a game using gameplay physics, can you? Let me show you one where it doesn't appear to give $300 worth of improvement. 1-4fps with a dualcore system? Not impressed. This much we know.

How much of the PPU is being used there?
Of it's abilities?
Of it's computingpower?
What?
No answer?
*Aims for thrashcan*

You do realize you are punking "eye-candy physics" but at the same time prasing ATi eye-candy physics solution? :rolleyes: :D

"what we are doing in UT2007 is using the physics hardware only for accelerating special effects objects, things where the server tells the client, Spawn this special effect here! The client responds with an explosion with thousands of particles, and each of those operates as a seperate physics object but it doesn't effect the gameplay... its just purely a visual effect there." --Sweeney

Maybe UE3 has support, but if they aren't going to use it.....my $300 purchase isn't going to get utilized. What are these titles that are going to be using it fully when the guys who created it decided it wasn't going to be good to use the hardware for more than special effects?

How long has it taken to get games to utilize dual-GPU?
And yes the UE3(fuck UT2007, I didn't mention that, thank for trying to put wrds into my mouht...not!) ENGINE fully supports it.
The UT2007 has more to do with NETWORKBANDWITH...it's a online gamer...please think.

I'm struggling understanding the second sentence. The gameplay physics will be calculated on the CPU just like it is being done for Ageia in titles like UT2007. I think I've said that 3-4 times now. Not impressive. Cellfactor really didn't benefit much from having the gameplay physics run on the hardware so I'm not sure why that is much of a concern.

You are saying that eye-candy physics dosn't impress you...OWN GOAL! *ROFL*
Nice one...


I'm not really concerned if I insult you and hurt your internet feelings. thx...

And I am not interested in empty PR.
That is for trolls/fannybois...

Terra - But you do PR, then I do facts okay? :)
 

HighTest

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 17, 2005
Messages
1,245
Menelmarar said:
CPU bogged down by what? Gameplay physics? PLEASE show me where Ageia's hardware improved the FPS in a game using gameplay physics, can you? Let me show you one where it doesn't appear to give $300 worth of improvement. 1-4fps with a dualcore system? Not impressed.

You are currently correct Menelmarar. Terra was directly responsible for Aegia releasing their PPU before a commercially available product actually used the PPU for "interactive gameplay physics". Damn you Terra :D

All kidding besides, Aegia had originally held off shipping the PPU until they had product being released at the same time as no one would purchase the card if it didn't benefit them yet. Marketing really screwed up though in not waiting even longer to ensure that the gaming products shipping actually had more than just "eye candy" benefits from the PPU. Havok, ATI and nVIDIA are correct in that they can to the "eye candy" just as easily and due to a reduction in the pipleline of the process (sending it directly to the SM 3.0 portion of the GPU without preprocessing in the PPU) faster than the PPU could.

But if they had held off until product actually used it for true "interactive game physics", such as being able to pickup, manipulate and other types of functions, before they shipped their PPU we wouldn't be having this debate. For "eye candy" only type games, there really is no benefit to using the Aegia PPU (unless you want to do this eye candy with a system that only has PCI slots available so you can't do Cross-Fire or SLI for more SM 3.0 acceleration, yes even AGP users will be able to realize this "eye candy", how do ATI and nVIDIA address those users?).

Until they release a real interactive PPU utilizing product there is not a real reason to debate. But as you can see from my post #48 above, the ATI and nVIDIA solutions are really ho hum as well and not a real innovation to gameplay.

Let's put this into persective as in the days of the first 3D accelerators and still awaiting a DirectX standard. Remember the Matrox Millennium? It had 3D acceleration but only for gourad (sp?) and phong shading. But it had been out long before 3dFX and others. The result was that it wasn't a standard and outside of AutoCad was of little interest. There was even a knight fighting demonstration but it was cheesy and the only benefit to gamers. Finally 3Dfx came along with Glide and their Voodoo series of cards, along with a single game "Tomb Raider" individuals finally saw a benefit to having a 3d accelerator. Soon Quake and others had OpenGL/Glide implementations that allowed even more benefit to be garnered from the early 3Dfx products. Eventually MS released the DirectX standard from 3D gaming (even though it was underwhelming and everyone wondered why wasn't Glide just made the standard).

We are currently in the same situation right now. Although I view GPU PPU "eye candy" physics like the gourad and phong shading features of the Matrox Millenium. A road bump in the Physics development, but of no real significant impact. Sadly we'll continue waiting for the real PPU capable "games" to finally show if we've reached an impressive new technology or not.

But like Terra asks, why are you dissing the Aegia "eye candy" solution but praising ATI's? More customers can utilise the PPU "eye candy" in a PCI slot than those limited to either an SLI or Cross-Fire solution.
 
Joined
Jun 20, 2004
Messages
821
No spare PCI slots. I have a sound card. Why can't they just integrate Physics on Master card or better yet the motherboard. Ohh well just got Ageia physics card with my crossfire and sound card leaves very little space for cooling.
 

Menelmarar

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 15, 2001
Messages
5,472
I'm getting weary, just a couple of quick things.
Terra said:
You are saying that eye-candy physics dosn't impress you...OWN GOAL! *ROFL*
Nice one...
You didn't read what I had typed. The not impressive was in reference to the Physx's inability to accelerate gameplay physics.

Terra said:
Terra - But you do PR, then I do facts okay? :)
Facts huh? You never really answered this question:
Menelmarar said:
PLEASE show me where Ageia's hardware improved the FPS in a game using gameplay physics, can you?
 

Menelmarar

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 15, 2001
Messages
5,472
HighTest said:
But like Terra asks, why are you dissing the Aegia "eye candy" solution but praising ATI's? More customers can utilise the PPU "eye candy" in a PCI slot than those limited to either an SLI or Cross-Fire solution.
I don't mean to praise it, I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I have severe doubts about them too, mainly developer support.

However, adding a $99 graphics card sounds better on my wallet than a $299 physx card to get the same special effects type physics....
 

jebo_4jc

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - April 2011
Joined
Apr 8, 2005
Messages
14,555
Night_Hawk-19 said:
No spare PCI slots. I have a sound card. Why can't they just integrate Physics on Master card or better yet the motherboard.
They did. It's called crossfire. You can dedicate part of your GPU power to physics if you want to. The problem is, this might impact your FPS. Also, it has been rumored that integrated motherboard video chipsets may be able to act as a PPU, but integrated chipsets are so pitiful that I'm sure their performance would be disappointing. And if they were to put a good GPU on a motherboard we would be talking about a $400 motherboard.
 

HighTest

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 17, 2005
Messages
1,245
Menelmarar said:
However, adding a $99 graphics card sounds better on my wallet than a $299 physx card to get the same special effects type physics....

True about that for "eye candy phsyics" and if that's all you really desire at this point. But the $99.00 graphics card pricing is deceptive. The reason is that both ATI and nVIDIA require that you have a multi-GPU solution, CrossFire or SLI. For those without one of those motherboards, you'd need a new $199.00 motherboard in combination with the $99.00 GPU.

Total those up and you are in the same pricing range as the physx card. Some already can take advantage of a multi-GPU configuration and garner the extra "eye candy" for free or a low cost purchase, where as others will need to upgrade and the cost will be as high as a Aegia solution.

Aegia is also trying to work with MB makers to include the solution on their motherboards and as a PCIe solution instead of PCI. But I suspect that MB makers won't do this until compelling content is released.

Either way, there really isn't compelling content that makes me want to purchase another GPU for physics or for an Aegia PPU. HardOCP, Anandtech and many others pointed this out in their Aegia reviews. That the technology had the "potential" to be of significant impact, but that no compelling products exist to encourage this market. This market is also "eye candy physics" in my opinion. I didn't want GRAW at all, and the eye candy makes no difference. Just not a genre that I'm interested in.
 

Soparik2

Gawd
Joined
Feb 28, 2005
Messages
683
this thread is turning out to be one that might have existed when 3dfx was first coming to the market with 3d accelerator cards aka "Voodoo"

im sure ppl didnt think that Voodoo was gonna be good back in the time, and there mustve been arguments about why the normal matrox millenium or the normal rage are still better
 

osalcido

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 10, 2005
Messages
1,481
just wait for crossfire physics.... ATi's new method of sucking money out of your wallet :rolleyes:
 

Terra

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 2, 2004
Messages
2,786
PLEASE show me where Ageia's hardware improved the FPS in a game using gameplay physics, can you?

How many times need I point out the flamethrower in Bet On soldier as interactive physics? :confused:
And why do you think a PPU would improve FPS?
More ATI PR-Bull?!
A PPU is about ADDING physics that would bog the CPU(that still does ALL the gameplay-physics in ATI's wannabe-solution) in a regular game...
Let me cut it in stone for you:
The PPU does the "wannabe-physics" and the GAMEPLAY physics
The GPU renders the GRAPHIC
Your soundchip does the SOUND.
Your CPU does the rest and cordinates the others.

Terra - Se the MISSING part from ATI's solution?
 

Elios

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 12, 2004
Messages
7,254
ill say what i said befor

till i see objects the player can interact with behave how thay should ie.. NOT FALLING AS IF IN A VACUME im not buying in to ether camp

frist one do things like air resistence gets my money
 

pxc

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 22, 2000
Messages
33,064
Elios said:
till i see objects the player can interact with behave how thay should ie.. NOT FALLING AS IF IN A VACUME im not buying in to ether camp

frist one do things like air resistence gets my money
QFT, sort of. I agree that physics accelleration is in its infancy. Brent said this is currently like 3dfx/voodoo graphics when useful 3D was starting, but I think it's more like the WinG stage right now... and Ageia is acting like it just created DX9.0c.
 

mjz_5

2[H]4U
Joined
May 24, 2001
Messages
3,637
RadCliffeX said:
My biggest issue here is where on earth do we put our sound cards on boards like that?


Whats the point of Awsome Physics and Graphics if the sound quality is crappy?


QFT++
 

Menelmarar

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 15, 2001
Messages
5,472
Terra said:
How many times need I point out the flamethrower in Bet On soldier as interactive physics? :confused:
And why do you think a PPU would improve FPS?
More ATI PR-Bull?!
A PPU is about ADDING physics that would bog the CPU(that still does ALL the gameplay-physics in ATI's wannabe-solution) in a regular game...
Let me cut it in stone for you:
The PPU does the "wannabe-physics" and the GAMEPLAY physics
The GPU renders the GRAPHIC
Your soundchip does the SOUND.
Your CPU does the rest and cordinates the others.


So ...I missed the facts showing the frame rate comparisons in Bet On Soldier. You did say you only work based on facts..right? got some links? All your doing is spewing Ageia PR over and over about wha the PPU can do, with little to no examples that show it's worthy of $299.

This whole concept of the PPU doing everything from effects physics and gameplay physics is great! except if the trend continues like UT2007 and the developers don't use it for both.....then you might as well have Havok FX/ATI/nVidia's solution......

Take another example, a big game coming out is Crysis. Uses it's own software physics engine and the devs seem pretty happy with it. Have you seen the movies, plants that bend and reactive to you, destructible terrain, interactive environment. AND it doesn't need a $299 PPU card....THAT's what I'm talking about!

Terra said:
Terra - Se the MISSING part from ATI's solution?
Is roughly $200 that Ageia is bleeding you over.
 

MrNasty

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 11, 2006
Messages
221
Menelmarar said:
Take another example, a big game coming out is Crysis. Uses it's own software physics engine and the devs seem pretty happy with it. Have you seen the movies, plants that bend and reactive to you, destructible terrain, interactive environment. AND it doesn't need a $299 PPU card....THAT's what I'm talking about!

Is roughly $200 that Ageia is bleeding you over.

No-oooo... You're saying you want an extra x1900xt and a new mobo because Crysis doesn't need a PPU. Shucks I bet ATi is happy you'd love to be sportin' their logo on your comp before a single game has even been announced.

And those are precisely the things that ATi's solution will never offer...

You just did a great job of explaining what a "meh" idea this whole graphics card physics idea is as it stands now.

Oh, btw...

I've just come up with an amazing way to do realistic looking yet non-interactive physics using a combination of a used pentium 100, some snake oil, a fairy tea-cake and a warm cup of tea - all wired up to isolating pixel quad unit pushing more than 60 Gflop/s at 80Ghz. I have pictures too. (following soon)

Can I brand MrNasty on your ass yet? :p
 

ivzk

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Messages
291
You don't need an 1900 series card for ATI's solutin.

Selective reading, to be expected from someone sporting Ageia in their sig.
 

MrNasty

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 11, 2006
Messages
221
ivzk said:
You don't need an 1900 series card for ATI's solutin.

Selective reading, to be expected from someone sporting Ageia in their sig.

So because ATi tells you an x1600 can handle anything you throw at it you think that's on the money? If I replaced the x1900 in my statement with x1600 how does that affect the point I make. Oh oh, rhetoric warning: Not at all.

Tell me how well the x1600 performs as a graphics card. Crap right? So how else can they shift all that stock? By saying it's an ideal Physics GPU perchance? Oh dear you bought into that idea without even seeing an actual game use it? Who's selectively reading? Me?

pffft.

Don't give me that crap - there's been no in game demonstration for any of ATi's lesser cards. The one they keep comparing to Ageia's PPU is the x1900 which they state has 3 times the processing power. This without knowing the PPU's specs.

Ageia have never stated the PPU's faster than anything else. They've said Shader model 3.0 works, but sounds technologically jury-rigged.

I happen to like Ageia's idea. I also like a lot of other (more capable) physics middleware way better than Havok.

Care to explain your one-liner better?
 

Terra

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 2, 2004
Messages
2,786
Menelmarar said:
So ...I missed the facts showing the frame rate comparisons in Bet On Soldier. You did say you only work based on facts..right? got some links? All your doing is spewing Ageia PR over and over about wha the PPU can do, with little to no examples that show it's worthy of $299.

Try and get your head out of the graphics FPS circle you are stuck in...this is not graphics, this is about PHYSICS.
And again, please find where I state higher FPS with a PPU?
I have always stated the extra physcis was about gameplay, not FPS...
Next time you try and corner someone with an argument, make sure your "target" is a valid target...just just missfired ;)

This whole concept of the PPU doing everything from effects physics and gameplay physics is great! except if the trend continues like UT2007 and the developers don't use it for both.....then you might as well have Havok FX/ATI/nVidia's solution......

UT2007 dosn't support HavokFX or Ati's "solution".
Neither is UT2007 the UE3 enigne in full gear.
But how many times need I aks you this:
NAME ME ONE TITLE THAT SUPPORTS ANYTNING BUT PHYSX?

Take another example, a big game coming out is Crysis. Uses it's own software physics engine and the devs seem pretty happy with it. Have you seen the movies, plants that bend and reactive to you, destructible terrain, interactive environment. AND it doesn't need a $299 PPU card....THAT's what I'm talking about!

I'm sure it runs fine, but unlike you I don't limit myself to the current and say"Fine, no need to do more"...
But then again, I am sure you got benhces to show how great Crysis run?
Or? :rolleyes:


Is roughly $200 that Ageia is bleeding you over.

Can you show me(preformance based of course) just how much better ATI is than Physx?
(including the cost/prefromance ratio for effect-physcis and real gameplay physics)
Or do you just have PR slides talking about beating PhysX at eye-candy physics in selcted functions and nothing else? :rolleyes:

Terra - The choice is half-breed or full-breed...simple choice...when you dump the PR :cool:
 

Elios

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 12, 2004
Messages
7,254
ivzk said:
You don't need an 1900 series card for ATI's solutin.

Selective reading, to be expected from someone sporting Ageia in their sig.


you fail to relaise that IF ANY ONE can do what i want its Ageia right?

and Terra I HAVE GREAT idea lets use another GPU as a SOUND CARD! yea thall kill creative :rolleyes:


PhysX may be price now but i have siad befor look at the cost of a Voodoo Graphics back in the day

being on the cutting edge isnt cheap just becouse you cant aford to shell out doesnt mean its bad tech what ATi is doing here is just 'eye-candy' stuff as far as i can tell it can do things like calulate drag, cloth dynamics, or even do any kind a fluid caluations
AIR is a fluid for the sake of doing the math
and its going to take a card built just for that kinda math to do it
wile GPUs may do math close its not same what ATi has here is a HACK
its hardware ment for one thing doing some thing else

and then theres middleware pricing with Ageia it efftivly FREE if thay support the card which isnt hard to do its more or less setting a few extra settings at complie
and it doesnt lock out ppl with out the card since there middle ware can do its thing on a CPU just as well and its multi-threaded

give it time the price WILL come down
 

Bicarus

Weaksauce
Joined
Feb 6, 2006
Messages
69
Did any1 notice how that middle card looks? Do they have a x16 to x1 converter in there? Or perhaps an x16 extender? As those are the only way I can see why that card is mounted higher than the two outside ones.. :confused:

1149562136LKJxy5fFg4_1_8_l.jpg
 

ivzk

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Messages
291
MrNasty said:
So because ATi tells you an x1600 can handle anything you throw at it you think that's on the money? If I replaced the x1900 in my statement with x1600 how does that affect the point I make. Oh oh, rhetoric warning: Not at all.

Tell me how well the x1600 performs as a graphics card. Crap right? So how else can they shift all that stock? By saying it's an ideal Physics GPU perchance? Oh dear you bought into that idea without even seeing an actual game use it? Who's selectively reading? Me?

pffft.

Don't give me that crap - there's been no in game demonstration for any of ATi's lesser cards. The one they keep comparing to Ageia's PPU is the x1900 which they state has 3 times the processing power. This without knowing the PPU's specs.

Ageia have never stated the PPU's faster than anything else. They've said Shader model 3.0 works, but sounds technologically jury-rigged.

I happen to like Ageia's idea. I also like a lot of other (more capable) physics middleware way better than Havok.

Care to explain your one-liner better?


Down boy, down.

Let's recap, shall we

you said, and I quote "You're saying you want an extra x1900xt and a new mobo..."

to which I responded "You don't need an 1900 series card for ATI's solution"

Plain english as far as the eye can see. You think you're $300 paperweight (currently) will be able to handle all the PPU functions in the upcoming years because Aegeia told you so. Explain how your line of reasoning is any different then mine.

pffffft. ;)
 

MrNasty

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 11, 2006
Messages
221
I don't appreciate the dog reference :roll:

If I was someone else I could have reported you for trolling, but I'm fonzy cool here, baby :cool:

You initially implied that using an x1600 would be done due to cost, and hence I replied "and performance...?", to which you automatically knee-jerked "speculation" - which is what you were doing in the first place.

You stating that my points are as much speculation as yours is incorrect, as my point was, actually, that in terms of calculation potential we have numbers for Ageia in terms of RBI and partuculate/fluids systems, but no such numbers from ATi/nV at all. I never claimed that a PPU would be enough "for years to come" or that I believed Ageia's "claims" that it would be plenty - I'm not sure where they've ever claimed that. Hence any guess as to what GPU will be comparable in performance to a PPU is entirely speculation.

This doesn't contradict the fact that in order to have GPU physics you will need to buy/acquire another GPU and, possibly, motherboard (for non xfire users/xfire board-owning peeps out there) - which was part of my original points:

1) ATi has yet to comment on exactly what the x1600's capabilities wrt physics are - they've shown graphs showing they're about 12x faster than a 7900GTX. Same sort of stuff they always show before a new product launch tbh. It's all GFLOP/s here and GFLOP/s there...

2) Ageia has some concrete stats and while the architecture is pretty veiled if you look at the patents you can see just how different it is from a GPU's. 9 times out of 10 specialized hardware runs rings around reverse-engineered parts, so it's pretty obvious that in order to match its performance there will have to be some hefty hardware involved. An x1600 is not particularly hefty hardware - see below.

For a real discussion and examination of the architectures involved look Here. (hint: it's not speculation, it's logical deduction). :)
 

ivzk

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Messages
291
I'm sorry, but all logic was lost during the 5900 era. On paper anything looks great. I'll wait for actual reviews of a fully functiong game utilizing the PPU before I post my opinions, unlike smillie boy who is just spamming every thread that opposes his view.

As of right now, there is nothing out there that proves Aegeia's superiority. If and when that time comes I will congratulate you for being an early adopter as I'm ordering a PPU for half of what you paid for it (maybe).
 

silentsammy

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 4, 2006
Messages
342
ivzk said:
I'm sorry, but all logic was lost during the 5900 era. On paper anything looks great. I'll wait for actual reviews of a fully functiong game utilizing the PPU before I post my opinions, unlike smillie boy who is just spamming every thread that opposes his view.

As of right now, there is nothing out there that proves Aegeia's superiority. If and when that time comes I will congratulate you for being an early adopter as I'm ordering a PPU for half of what you paid for it (maybe).

QFT! :D
 

cyks

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
1,234
ivzk said:
I'll wait for actual reviews of a fully functiong game utilizing the PPU before I post my opinions
Smart move...

ivzk said:
As of right now, there is nothing out there that proves Aegeia's superiority.
Ooops? Smells like an opinion to me.

There is also nothing out there to disprove Ageia's superiority (You *do* know that all we really have from ATI is on paper right? *yawn*), but I couldn't care less what you think due to your fondness of flaming.
 

SuperGee

Gawd
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
551
I wonder could ATI and ageia solution coexist beside each other. If ATI solution is the eye candy physics king. So be it. If there power claims are a bit right.
However Ageia Gameplay Physics strong point stands. And can do all.
It could be that Game could support both and split the load.

For People wo focus on games and nothing then game and just aquier what needed to Play them as ment to be. You put both solution's to use.
that means a extra card for Havok FX and a Ageia thing.

For gamers ATI has the price plus point in budged Gcards. For Dev's Ageia have a very large Price plus point.
In case of large AAA title project, Havok FX would fit the budged. The double licencing fee.
But small or budged minded project are more in ageia favor. Off course some other points would take in account to.
All new hardware need a killer game to reach the mainstream gamers.
Atho UT2007 use overly eyecandy Physics but doin it right, may do good to ageia, because it need a PPU to do it not a G-card.
A other well done title close in it shadow with gameplay Physics could push it some more.

Well just wait and see, only it takes a year or so.
 

ivzk

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Messages
291
cyks said:
Smart move...

Ooops? Smells like an opinion to me.

There is also nothing out there to disprove Ageia's superiority (You *do* know that all we really have from ATI is on paper right? *yawn*), but I couldn't care less what you think due to your fondness of flaming.


Again there is nothing to prove ageia's superiority other than paper, so you just proved my point. Thanks.

I assume you also consider Cell factor an actual game. Sad, sad day when you and the rest of the viral ppu brigade promote cloth waving in the wind on one demo, as proof of the end all be all of physics.

Also you seem to be quite skilled at quoting out of context. Smillie boy has taught you well. This was a thread about ATI physics. Pretty safe to say you are in here to flame.
 

Terra

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 2, 2004
Messages
2,786
SuperGee said:
I wonder could ATI and ageia solution coexist beside each other. If ATI solution is the eye candy physics king. So be it. If there power claims are a bit right.
However Ageia Gameplay Physics strong point stands. And can do all.
It could be that Game could support both and split the load.

PhysX does both, so what it the point?
And I don't want more effect-physcis, I want more gameplay physcis.
Game programmers needs to learn(and hollywood too) that bullets don't make sparks.
Intuitor Insultingly Stupid Movie( and games too) Physics

For People wo focus on games and nothing then game and just aquier what needed to Play them as ment to be. You put both solution's to use.
that means a extra card for Havok FX and a Ageia thing.

And I end up paying extra for yet another card(GPU), that we have no proof of what can do.
And for what?
For doing something that I already have the hardware for(PhysX)?

For gamers ATI has the price plus point in budged Gcards.

And a BIG minus in fatures...for gamers.

For Dev's Ageia have a very large Price plus point.

Yup, they played that one smart ;)
Unlike someone else here who tried to tell us that AGIEA wanted to make money on their software...not hardware...

In case of large AAA title project, Havok FX would fit the budged. The double licencing fee.

Paying $0 is better than paying $250.000..for a lesser solutuion.

But small or budged minded project are more in ageia favor. Off course some other points would take in account to.
All new hardware need a killer game to reach the mainstream gamers.
Atho UT2007 use overly eyecandy Physics but doin it right, may do good to ageia, because it need a PPU to do it not a G-card.

UT2007 will be effect-physcis only , but the UnrealEngine3 will be FULLY physX capable.

A other well done title close in it shadow with gameplay Physics could push it some more.

I look forward to Joint Task Force later this year ;)

Well just wait and see, only it takes a year or so.

Nope, the first fully PhysX capable games are comming out this year ;)

Terra - But we still have NO ETA on ATI/NVIDA/HavokFX...only PR...nothing more...
 
Top