.

Hmmm. A 3 graphics card solution for physics.

Not sure what to make of that really... But interesting to see ati's take

:)
 
Finally!!! I'm still not sold on the Physics stuff yet, but this would def make a good CF mobo.
 
Best thing about that new tech is there would be no need for a dongle. I don't know when physics processing will start to take footing, but right now (as with AGEIA) it is in it's infancy and pointless (no apps). When it does come around, ATI will know what to do with their resources. This seems like a decent idea, but what about a coprocessor? http://hardocp.com/news.html?news=MTkyNTgsLCxobmV3cywsLDE=That would be good for offloading the CPU(s) and provide excellent physics processing power. Man, AGEIA had the right idea, but I am afraid their technology won't set in stone. I wouldn't buy one right now if I HAD extra money.
 
The $1,000,000 question is, what kinds of game enhancements will we see with these video card physics solutions, and how beefy of a GPU will they need to run smoothly? Havok, ATi, and nVidia have been talking about this for a while now, but we have yet to see any games with it implemented.
 
There is a large negative opinion about Graw due to only eyecandy physics. Wich I agree with. But what Havok FX is just that. Aimed at eye candy Physics?
How ever the Eye candy Physics implementation is not that welld one. So it could be better. By Havok FX?
Cell Factor Clothes wo need that. That's Eye candy Physics. Havok FX speciality.Eye candy Physics.

there isn't a Game or demo wich use several Gameplay Phsyics features and use it right to create a better and emursive gameplay. Wich is a problem for Havok FX wich don't support that at all. I wonder why? Ageia support that. Only waiting for a game that have that as a key features.
Exciting time to come.
 
There are a few games to come out that will incorporate HavokFX.

My plan is to buy the next new DX10 card early next year, then use my X1900XTX for what ATi is touting as 9x the physics the ageia ppu can deliver.


We will see if it works out that way. :)
 
i'd bite on it if i could stick an X1600 in my box rather than a physX card that costs twice as much, and if ATI's drivers played nice with my NVIDIA drivers.

still though, does ATI really think people would buy 3 X1900s just to relegate one to physics processing? i'm sure someone would, but come on now...
 
ScotteusMaximus said:
i'd bite on it if i could stick an X1600 in my box rather than a physX card that costs twice as much, and if ATI's drivers played nice with my NVIDIA drivers.

still though, does ATI really think people would buy 3 X1900s just to relegate one to physics processing? i'm sure someone would, but come on now...
Click to expand...

Its really not the point of would you do it, but really the point that you can do it. I see great things with this, and if this is going to be big, the X1600XT is going to sell majorly. As long as it also plays nice with my 7900GT... I dont think Ageia is in a good position now. Only thing they are going to be remembered as, are the people are set off the dedicated physics processing...
 
ATI and NV killed the PPU star :D hehe

Nah, actually it is way to early to make that kind of a judgement, who knows what's going to happen, it will all work itself out in the end thoug. I look forward to testing all methods and finding which one delivers the best gaming experience.
 
ScotteusMaximus said:
i'd bite on it if i could stick an X1600 in my box rather than a physX card that costs twice as much, and if ATI's drivers played nice with my NVIDIA drivers.

still though, does ATI really think people would buy 3 X1900s just to relegate one to physics processing? i'm sure someone would, but come on now...
Click to expand...
actually the physics vid card can be any vid card from the same class
so instead of 3 x1900's you buy 2 x1900's and 1 x1300 and the 1300 will do all the physics stuff as its gpu will be dedicated in doing that
 
this is just beefed up Havox still same stuff just eyecandy and some basic stuff

im not buying till one of these things makes stuff fall right and not as if it was in a vacume

go drop a pice of paper or feather in Oblivion and youll see what i mean

till i can drop a feather in a game it flutters down im not biting
 
Soparik2 said:
actually the physics vid card can be any vid card from the same class
so instead of 3 x1900's you buy 2 x1900's and 1 x1300 and the 1300 will do all the physics stuff as its gpu will be dedicated in doing that
Click to expand...

yeah, i know that you can use a lesser card. i was commenting more on the fact that a lower end GPU would have to be able to do everything the physX could for me to jump on board, and the fact that ATI had a setup with 3 top end GPUs.

can you imagine if there came a day when you'd have to have five (quad SLI/crossfire + physics) top of the line GPUs just to play a game to its fullest potential?


Elios said:
im not buying till one of these things makes stuff fall right and not as if it was in a vacume

go drop a pice of paper or feather in Oblivion and youll see what i mean

till i can drop a feather in a game it flutters down im not biting
Click to expand...

QFT. i really want realistic physics, not more bouncing balls and rolling boulders. everybody raves about the physics in the source engine, but i think they're crap. gordon freeman's a badass, but to think that he could dive underwater while carrying an empty barrel that has enough buoyancy to lift a steel cage and wooden plank? i played sin episode 1, and everything felt "floaty," for lack of a better word. not to mention the fact that i could pick up a couch and toss it out the window.
 
With those falling chess pieces it seems that the ATI solution is capable of more than just effects physics. That might change when it's finally released, but if gameplay physics can be done by the ATI solution Ageia will really be in trouble.
 
Can you use the X1600 as a physics card in any 965 conroe compatible motherboard, or is it only possible with the ATI Xpress 3200 Intel Edition board?

It would be nice to start with something like the X1600, and when the R600 comes out, use the old X1600 as the physics card.
 
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?
 
ScotteusMaximus said:
still though, does ATI really think people would buy 3 X1900s just to relegate one to physics processing? i'm sure someone would, but come on now...
Click to expand...


I would :eek:
 
Well i have a crossfire mobo and a spare x1300 just sitting around doing nothing. So when ATI releases the drivers, i'm getting hardware physics basically for free. So long as it runs on the old ati CF mobo chipset.
 
Tomorrows headlines will read nVidia does 5 graphics cards.

4 for Quad SLI and 1 for Physics, OEMs only. Just wait and see ;)
 
Keep in mind devs do not have to use Havok FX to take advantage of the GPU physics. Just like on a CPU. For example, Crytek will be using their own hombrewed physics tech in Crysis that will use the GPU for some physics effects.
 
I really like this idea...

I can finally put my "old" X1600XT to work rather than have collect dust on the shelf.

My biggest complaint about video card upgrades is what to do with the old card? I used to buy only mid-range cards, so the resale value wasn't as great as the high-end ones, but their cost wasn't low enough to just throw the product away. This solves one of my dilemas and creates a new revenue stream for ATI.
 
So, according to [H], ATI wants you to buy another video card for physics and that is a good thing.

However, Ageia wants you buy another card for physics and that is not a good thing.


What's the difference here? Is it because it is ATI?
 
kraken0698 said:
So, according to [H], ATI wants you to buy another video card for physics and that is a good thing.

However, Ageia wants you buy another card for physics and that is not a good thing.


What's the difference here? Is it because it is ATI?
Click to expand...
IIRC Hard liked the Ageia dedicated idea and was extremely curious about it.

Until it apparently flopped giving us in the case of GRAW, unimproved performance, and mediodcre improvement in gameplay. And until showing that in the cellfactor demo that supposedly requires the Physx card, that chaning an INI file setting lets you run it without and with practically the same performance.

If ATI's is essentially a slop and doesn't improve gameplay, I'm willing to bet the [H] gods and readers alike will bash it as well. Until then here's to hoping ATI does it right!
 
kraken0698 said:
So, according to [H], ATI wants you to buy another video card for physics and that is a good thing.

However, Ageia wants you buy another card for physics and that is not a good thing.


What's the difference here? Is it because it is ATI?
Click to expand...
I am pretty sure it is. This solution really doesn't make sense to me. What would be the difference of using an X1300 as opposed to an X1900 for physics? I really think a dedicated solution is going to be the way to go. Especially since I'm sure ATI's is going to have a problem if you use an NV card.
 
Skirrow said:
Well i have a crossfire mobo and a spare x1300 just sitting around doing nothing. So when ATI releases the drivers, i'm getting hardware physics basically for free. So long as it runs on the old ati CF mobo chipset.
Click to expand...


Unless you have 3 PCIe 16x slots, or 2x 16 and one 8 - no, so it wont be free for many people cause now you have to buy a new motherboard.
 
I dont know about you guys, but I'm a stingy bastard, and I like all the prolonged bang for the buck I can get. I should add it to my sig, but my comp is 6+ years old. If I built a comp right now it'd have 2 x1600PRO's ($129 256MB DDR3) and an overclocked D805.
my reason being that I could use both cards in crossfire config for games without physics, and a 1 rendering + 1 physics for games that support it. This feature adds value to the existing crossfire setup, and also older hardware (for those that have upgraded beyond x1600) if that setup can run full hardware physics, then I'm finally going to bite the bullet and build a new rig.
 
Menelmarar said:
IIRC Hard liked the Ageia dedicated idea and was extremely curious about it.

Until it apparently flopped giving us in the case of GRAW, unimproved performance, and mediodcre improvement in gameplay. And until showing that in the cellfactor demo that supposedly requires the Physx card, that chaning an INI file setting lets you run it without and with practically the same performance.

If ATI's is essentially a slop and doesn't improve gameplay, I'm willing to bet the [H] gods and readers alike will bash it as well. Until then here's to hoping ATI does it right!
Click to expand...

[H] Never previewed PhysX - just have a search. There's not even any commentary on press releases or other sites' previews.

Cellfactor uses a different physics path when it runs without the hardware - hence no cloth or fluids. Ageia has stated they are confident that upcoming PhysX software will be able to do basic fluids and cloth as well - take note in software.

Also they have revised their pricing scheme for the SDK. It's open-licence so anyone can use it for non-commercial purposes by applying. There is a $50,000 licencing fee for using the SDK commercially, which is waived if the developer includes hardware PPU support.

That's one fifth of the price of Havok's SDK without HavokFX, dropping to zero if the developer includes hardware support.

Take a dev's perspective on this - There's an SDK which is promising software fluids and cloths which costs 1/5th of the price of a competing product which doesn't. Crossfire systems are, what, almost as prevalent as PPU enabled systems now? So any way you argue it Ageia's SDK is an extremely attractive option.

This "3 cards in a system" crap is just a way for Havok to keep milking devs and Nv/ATi to milk consumers. Notice how they've both stopped saying one card can handle physics and graphics?

Wasn't that one of the huge plus points about HavokFX? Or am I mistaken?

Are any games signed up to use HavokFX yet?

This market's brand new and it's already filled with crap and misleading press releases...

Sad

:(
 
Yes we are all helpless until microsoft saves us. Seriously though we all knew the ppu had an uphill battle to fight with the software and the egg problem. A microsoft api wont change that. (And one can expect that their api wont work with physics hardware, but will likely be a software solution that will later be accelerated by something)
 
Assuming that there are the apps to support a PPU in the near future, I think this is a great step by ATI. I could definetly see myself going this route if I could only get past the lack of expandable slots on the board. I still dont trust onboard sound 100% and if I went with this new chipset I wouldnt have any room for a sound card. :(
 
MrNasty said:
[H] Never previewed PhysX - just have a search. There's not even any commentary on press releases or other sites' previews.

*snip*
Click to expand...
I didn't claim that Hard has previewed it. I'm still waiting for a full out review of Physx from these guys.

All I'm saying is that everyone was really optimistic when it was first being talked about. But now that it's here and we've seen user reports of what it can/cannot do for them, and it's been here for how long? it first launched in Dell's/Alienwares roughly 2 months ago and most of us still don't see a good reason to spend $299 on it.....It's dissappointing.

Not to long ago an interview with Sweeney said that they will only be using for client side effects physics with little to no gameplay effect. This was the greatest benefit to using the Physx engine...if noone is going to use it except for the rogue demo such as Cellfactor.....then $299? wow...pretty steep for one demo in my opinion.
 
mashie said:
Slide 4 here looks quite interesting.
Click to expand...

So a new Mobo, 1 more X1900 and still no gameplay physics looks interesting compared to just adding a PPU and getting BOTH "effect-physics"(should be a crime to label it "physics"! :mad: ) and REAL physics...care to explain why? :)

Terra - Neiter price nor "physics"-preformance will be better :confused:
 
kraken0698 said:
So, according to [H], ATI wants you to buy another video card for physics and that is a good thing.

However, Ageia wants you buy another card for physics and that is not a good thing.


What's the difference here? Is it because it is ATI?
Click to expand...

Aegia wants me to buy a dedicated $300+ card to improve gameplay on a couple of games.

I believe most of us have spare video cards lying around. If those spare cards can be put back into service... I don't see anything wrong with that idea. It doesn't matter if the idea came from ATI or nVidia (nVidia probably has the same type of solution in mind for their products).
 
Terra said:
So a new Mobo, 1 more X1900 and still no gameplay physics looks interesting compared to just adding a PPU and getting BOTH "effect-physics"(should be a crime to label it "physics"! :mad: ) and REAL physics...care to explain why? :)

Terra - Neiter price nor "physics"-preformance will be better :confused:
Click to expand...
If the objects interact realistically, it's still physics even if the player can't interact with it.

The way I envision ATI's proposal for myself looking future toward my upgrade to conroe and maybe others that aren't looking for spending a fortune into their PCs is something like a SLI/Crossfire mobo which are pretty common these days and a single X1800/1900 with a second $99 X1600 for physics. Assuming reviews show that Havok FX + ATI will provide real benefit. This would indeed be much cheaper than an X1900 + PhysX card, $200 cheaper.

Right now we have no games out or in the future that look to be doing interactive physics. Does Cellfactor even count since it has been shown that it's interactive physics work just as well without hardware acceleration and without any real performance hit.

The only thing I don't like about Havok FX and ATI is they don't proclaim to have any developer's jumping onboard with them. Ageia has a pretty nice list of developers creating games with their engine. Havok's FX page is kind of void of any proof of industry support.
 
JohnnyH24 said:
Aegia wants me to buy a dedicated $300+ card to improve gameplay on a couple of games.
Click to expand...

That would be +100 titles in the working for PPU, not "a couple"...
BTW when are the first gaming supporting ATI's "physics" coming out?
You got any date or did you argument really backfire in a bad way? :)

I believe most of us have spare video cards lying around. If those spare cards can be put back into service... I don't see anything wrong with that idea. It doesn't matter if the idea came from ATI or nVidia (nVidia probably has the same type of solution in mind for their products).
Click to expand...


Lets stick to the facts shall we?
It's not about "having an old card around"...
It's about a NEW trippleslot Mobo AND a X1000 card...
So you would have to get a NEW mobo + a new card(unless you have a "spare" X1000 around) in order to get ATi's "physics"

Terra - And I still see NO benches or proof of REAL physics from ATI... :rolleyes:
 
Menelmarar said:
If the objects interact realistically, it's still physics even if the player can't interact with it.
Click to expand...

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? :)

The way I envision ATI's proposal for myself looking future toward my upgrade to conroe and maybe others that aren't looking for spending a fortune into their PCs is something like a SLI/Crossfire mobo which are pretty common these days and a single X1800/1900 with a second $99 X1600 for physics. Assuming reviews show that Havok FX + ATI will provide real benefit. This would indeed be much cheaper than an X1900 + PhysX card, $200 cheaper.
Click to expand...

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.

Right now we have no games out or in the future that look to be doing interactive physics.
Click to expand...

Lie, several titles have annouced just that, don't waste my time, thank you...

Does Cellfactor even count since it has been shown that it's interactive physics work just as well without hardware acceleration and without any real performance hit.
Click to expand...

Here is the "funny" part.
GRAW uses the eyecandy "physics" that HavockFX/ATI is trying to sell to everyone...
CellFactor seems to be the same.
So all the people dissing AGEIA, but liking this "IQ solution" are having a problem...
They punk something from one company, but praise the SAME thing from another company...and even a LESSER solution regarding features :rolleyes:

The only thing I don't like about Havok FX and ATI is they don't proclaim to have any developer's jumping onboard with them. Ageia has a pretty nice list of developers creating games with their engine. Havok's FX page is kind of void of any proof of industry support.
Click to expand...

Now that would be something to think about wouldn't it?
AGEIA got the develpers aboard...
But can ANYONE name me just 1 title that will supoort this ;)

Terra - Like I keep saying:"Empty PR to steal focus from PhysX" :D
 
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...
 
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...
Click to expand...

ATI does real physics? :eek:
Where?

Terra - I thought they only did eye-candy-wannabe-physics? :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top