- Feb 21, 2005
- 2,292
- 0
- 19,810
MadModMike
Distinguished
- Feb 1, 2006
- 2,034
- 1
- 19,780
MadModMike
Distinguished
- Feb 1, 2006
- 2,034
- 1
- 19,780
I'm gonna spend $500 on a Dual-Core CPU, than buy ANOTHER $300 CPU just for Physics? Please, show me a game that uses physics that I NOTICE or CARE ABOUT and I'll fork over the cash, but physics can only be so good in a game and I think my 2nd CPU or even just 1 CPU is plenty fine to "Phsyics" me, thanks but no thanks Ageia...Great Idea, BAD timing.
~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
- Feb 21, 2005
- 2,292
- 0
- 19,810
I cannot see why you or anyone would hate what is to come it will be the new graphic for all cards soon, this just make sense for all the market nomater who makes it or uses the tech it wont be a hate thing and all the new tools for maya 3dmax and others have the new down loads for the phys rendering all the major graphic artist machines have phys rendering for years but untill now was limited and buddys dual core processor cannot ever match the ppu ability to produce instructions as quickly as the ppu.
read for your self
CPUs and GPUs as Alternatives?
AGEIA did spend a fair bit of time in their whitepaper talking about how the CPU and GPU just don’t have the features and ability to come close to what the PhysX PPU can do. On the CPU side of things, AGEIA points out that even though the CPU has much faster internal memory system compared to GPUs communicating to texture cache, it is substantially less than what the PhysX can do. In the end though, it’s the generalized nature of the CPU that keeps it from completing physics calculations with effective speed, even in dual core versions, and AGEIA feels that the visible roadmaps have no significant jump in physics processing capabilities from AMD or Intel.
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=225&type=expert
read for your self
CPUs and GPUs as Alternatives?
AGEIA did spend a fair bit of time in their whitepaper talking about how the CPU and GPU just don’t have the features and ability to come close to what the PhysX PPU can do. On the CPU side of things, AGEIA points out that even though the CPU has much faster internal memory system compared to GPUs communicating to texture cache, it is substantially less than what the PhysX can do. In the end though, it’s the generalized nature of the CPU that keeps it from completing physics calculations with effective speed, even in dual core versions, and AGEIA feels that the visible roadmaps have no significant jump in physics processing capabilities from AMD or Intel.
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=225&type=expert
Pain
Distinguished
- Jun 18, 2004
- 1,126
- 0
- 19,280
If games would code to use the second core to do the physics calculations then this add in card might not be worth it...unless you want to use it without a dual core of course.
All in all I'm impressed with the videos of it. I won't pay $300 for it, but that price will come down.
All in all I'm impressed with the videos of it. I won't pay $300 for it, but that price will come down.
I agree with mike for now. good idea, bad timing. I'd rather see multi core gpu's, or quad/hecto (or however you call it) core cpus than a seperate phys chip. more stuff to drain $$ from me to play games prettier.
Hardware to run top tier games are already high priced enough. Add this chip onto a GPU, and I'd say it's a worthy buy. But a physix card all by itself I think is a waste of money and space (although I'm still not sure what to put into all those extra pcie/pci slots since I have nearly everything I need (besides the graphics and audio) integrated onto the motherboard. Just more code for the programmers to write leading to more bugs to more headaches.
yes yes it might become one of those things like no longer having integrated graphics chips on mobos, and just having video cards. Or having a seperate seperate sound card to lessen cpu burden, but I'm highly skeptical; unless new games come out so demanding that it requires a physix chip to process all the vectors, size, and speed of random occurences/objects in the virtual world, with HDR bloom, real time raytracing, shadow blur, and object rendering going to the multi core GPU's, while the xxxKHz audio card deciphers all the complexities of 360 degree sound effects required by having so many more objects, and where we need to pass all the instructions/relations of the different cards produced by this environment to compute, along with excellent near chaos theory AI, with the 8 core processors; say a game with real time true environmental interaction (ie. i can blow up whatever wall, rock, tree, mountain i want, then blow it up again until it's dust picked up by the wind, affected by the terrestrial weather patterns of a storm a mile away, that blurs my vision, with tear drops that roll down the face, according to the way dirt and rubble from the blasts have landed on it, and giving different shrapnel damage for every individual pebble or grain that pelts me during an object's destruction.) But getting a $300 card to watch a pre selected building crumble a little faster, with a little more rumbling whoosh, and a little more pretty added just isn't going to be justifiable for me. It's a step into the future, but it's a step I'm not ready to take until the programmers/designers show me a package that's intelligently implemented all that physix mumbo jumbo into a good sound/AI/graphics package..
Yes Black has excellent sound (the ching and whoosh of a bullet flying from the chamber) challenges a hi-fi sound card.
Yes Black and White's high definition rippling water and dazzling lighting effects can bewilder any graphics card.
Yes Battlefield 2's mass of detailed textures in very open spaces require large amounts of fast Random Access Memory.
Yes the gazillion instructions from the mobs of players on any MMORPG (like Oblivion) can bring a computer's central processing unit to it's knees.
But I've yet to see or even hear of a game engine with physics so advanced that it requires a seperate physix card.
My lack of faith, that I think many people share might or might now lead to the suffering of Ageia, but with this suffering comes innovation. I hope that innovation sky rockets technology to new levels because if the physics engine really is as good as it should be, then this might spell new things for science, and quantum physics theory. You know what that means, since companies are already developing smellovision/smell-phones and once they get a full body touch suit, or just a head mounted electrical brain stimuli unit, true virtual reality is coming. Then again I might just need sleep because I'm totally talking in ideals.
-kx
-life's short play naked
Hardware to run top tier games are already high priced enough. Add this chip onto a GPU, and I'd say it's a worthy buy. But a physix card all by itself I think is a waste of money and space (although I'm still not sure what to put into all those extra pcie/pci slots since I have nearly everything I need (besides the graphics and audio) integrated onto the motherboard. Just more code for the programmers to write leading to more bugs to more headaches.
yes yes it might become one of those things like no longer having integrated graphics chips on mobos, and just having video cards. Or having a seperate seperate sound card to lessen cpu burden, but I'm highly skeptical; unless new games come out so demanding that it requires a physix chip to process all the vectors, size, and speed of random occurences/objects in the virtual world, with HDR bloom, real time raytracing, shadow blur, and object rendering going to the multi core GPU's, while the xxxKHz audio card deciphers all the complexities of 360 degree sound effects required by having so many more objects, and where we need to pass all the instructions/relations of the different cards produced by this environment to compute, along with excellent near chaos theory AI, with the 8 core processors; say a game with real time true environmental interaction (ie. i can blow up whatever wall, rock, tree, mountain i want, then blow it up again until it's dust picked up by the wind, affected by the terrestrial weather patterns of a storm a mile away, that blurs my vision, with tear drops that roll down the face, according to the way dirt and rubble from the blasts have landed on it, and giving different shrapnel damage for every individual pebble or grain that pelts me during an object's destruction.) But getting a $300 card to watch a pre selected building crumble a little faster, with a little more rumbling whoosh, and a little more pretty added just isn't going to be justifiable for me. It's a step into the future, but it's a step I'm not ready to take until the programmers/designers show me a package that's intelligently implemented all that physix mumbo jumbo into a good sound/AI/graphics package..
Yes Black has excellent sound (the ching and whoosh of a bullet flying from the chamber) challenges a hi-fi sound card.
Yes Black and White's high definition rippling water and dazzling lighting effects can bewilder any graphics card.
Yes Battlefield 2's mass of detailed textures in very open spaces require large amounts of fast Random Access Memory.
Yes the gazillion instructions from the mobs of players on any MMORPG (like Oblivion) can bring a computer's central processing unit to it's knees.
But I've yet to see or even hear of a game engine with physics so advanced that it requires a seperate physix card.
My lack of faith, that I think many people share might or might now lead to the suffering of Ageia, but with this suffering comes innovation. I hope that innovation sky rockets technology to new levels because if the physics engine really is as good as it should be, then this might spell new things for science, and quantum physics theory. You know what that means, since companies are already developing smellovision/smell-phones and once they get a full body touch suit, or just a head mounted electrical brain stimuli unit, true virtual reality is coming. Then again I might just need sleep because I'm totally talking in ideals.
-kx
-life's short play naked
Rustol3um
Distinguished
- Jan 26, 2006
- 187
- 0
- 18,680
Ya I agree with Mike also for now....I will take a wait and see attitude....and see what developes over the next 6 months to a year......While I am a huge UT fan, I am gonna wait as I am sure they will launch a second gen PPu before UT2007 gets released......so for now, I will not make that kind of investment
While I won't be the first on the block to get one, I do plan on it. 20 some games in 2006 will support it, with more on the way. It can do a much better job at it than a general purpose CPU or GPU. While the initial cost of $250-$300 is a bit steep, in the long run I expect it to be cheaper, at least for me. It's a card that can migrate to the next system rebuild, so it will last a while. It offloads work from the GPU so I can get a mid-range card instead of a $500 top end video card (or more for SLI). It offloads work from the CPU, so I don't have to spend $700 on the top end CPU. But I for one don't do benchmark racing so I don't need bleeding edge frame rates to brag about. As long as my favorite games are playable and look good it's enough for me. It should still be faster (and cheaper) than Nvidia's proposed solution which is only SLI based. And with ATI trying to figure out a way to do it also, it's the way of the future. But we'll see
Without getting into semiconductor topics (google around as you please), I can tell you that any specialized chip will far outperform at a given task than the same task performed by a general purpose chip. If a general purpose chip was as capable, ATI could save a bundle on R&D by using an AMD CPU on it's cards. Nvidia could put an Intel socket on and hit any price point they choose. But they need a single purpose chip that only does 3D. Thus, we now have highly evolved GPU's on discrete cards because it was realized some time ago that the CPU was limited in what it could do in for 3D rendering, plus its ongoing burden or running the system. Also, we have $250 sound cards instead of using AC97 onboard. Long ago Motorola's cellular sector designed it's own chips for phones, why didn't they just use the already in production CPU chips from their semiconductor sector? (Don't answer, I spent 13 years in Moto's chip fabs.) Specialization is the key to top performance, just as Lance Armstrong doesn't compete in downhill mountain bike races.
- Feb 21, 2005
- 2,292
- 0
- 19,810
The proof is what you read all software developers and hardware, Asus, Bfg Intel, Alis, Descreet, Arc soft, and many more are extremely eager and are sponsors with this, almost every technical point of view is very positive all research is excited with this processing. Something was always missing with processing it has the Brain (cpu), eyes (gpu) and now the final part is the body (ppu). If you search for physx you will discover the proof you need to satisfy your need to understand the potential of a PPU, any way you look at such a positive on look of the PPU it bring the user one step closer to reality in a game if someone wants this or not don’t matter what does matter is the prospect of a wonderfull thing to processing power and that is what all PC addicts want.
Stranger, it's clear from your posts (from the extremely short time I've been on this forum) that we could put the answers on an IMAX screen and you couldn't see it. But no offense. 
Since nobody except developers have had this card yet, let's all just wait for the real life reviews and data next month. Then we can all come back here and beat the crap out of each other's posts.
> oh and i felt that post was a bit preachy and i ain't that stupid as to need it.
Since nobody except developers have had this card yet, let's all just wait for the real life reviews and data next month. Then we can all come back here and beat the crap out of each other's posts.
> oh and i felt that post was a bit preachy and i ain't that stupid as to need it.
- Feb 21, 2005
- 2,292
- 0
- 19,810
http://physx.ageia.com/footage.html
here is the new look of a ppu compared to what is now first step of proof
here is the new look of a ppu compared to what is now first step of proof
Heyyou27
Splendid
- Jan 4, 2006
- 5,164
- 0
- 25,780
proof please. Your dual core processor isn't capable of producing nearly as many floating point calculations. Even processors like the Conroe at 3.33GHz won't be able to compete with an AGEIA PhysX in these sorts of scenarios.
Everyone who is talking down the PhysX does not wish to pay 250-300$ for more complex physics, which is understandable, however their arguments of multi core CPUs or GPU physics calculations(Better of the two) won’t be as efficient and could end up costing more in the long run.
theaxemaster
Distinguished
- Feb 23, 2006
- 375
- 0
- 18,780
Do you know where you are?!?
Anyway, did you get a look at the pins on that thing? its perfectly square! That'll cause more than a little confusion!
Heyyou27
Splendid
- Jan 4, 2006
- 5,164
- 0
- 25,780
It doesn't matter if your X1900 is capable of 375 Gflops of GRAPHICAL computing power, you won't be able to use all of it for physics calculations. Also, you say over 750 with a Crossfire solution? Oh please; you don't get a 2X improvement with current Crossfire graphics performance, so what makes you think you're receive it with physics calculations?
Heyyou27
Splendid
- Jan 4, 2006
- 5,164
- 0
- 25,780
My friend, I never once mentioned Gflops; I stated the PhysX would be capable of more floating point calculations than the Conroe. Do you honestly believe a processor that that only performs 20% better than an FX60 will be able to compete in physics calculations with an AGEIA PhysX card? If you'd rather spend $500 on a second GPU for physics calculations, that's your own business; as for me, I'll buy a cheaper AGEIA PhysX card.
hmm... cool footage. like i said before though it's just blowing up the same thing only prettier. Shrapnel damage would be awesome. It looks like they are just adding more objects, and i do notice a lot more slow down in the ppu version of the video. Maybe once they work it out so that it can not only look good, but perform well also, I'd be more willing to shell out a few hundred. Just seeing the samples right now though, don't seem to wow me all that much. It's like watching explosions on low details or high details. Plus, the rubble dissapears from the screen anyhow, making it a 1-2 second "oh it's so pretty" light show. I'm not impressed, feels more like an add on graphics card that just gives more "ummpfhhh" to the looks, I don't feel more immersed like they say I was going to. Should have higher collision physics, like when a piece of rubble hits the wall or the ground, it causes a dent or a hole you can take cover behind or in. Then again I just might be asking a toddler, who just learned how to walk, to run a marathon. It's deciding whether I want to add a phys card or SLI/xFire the computer rig. Then again if I had the money to blow on an SLI/xFire setup with the top end cards, what's another $300? In the future I hope they implement the ppu more extensively in not only the graphics, but gameplay as well. If you can afford it, shell out the money so that the R&D departments can get some incentive on improving this stuff, or you can not shell out any money and hope that they get the message to utilize it more fully before they release it to the public.
-kx
-life's short play naked
-this would be an awesome addon for a graphics workstation computer. 3D design/rendering would be done so much faster if this was put in the workstation, but to say this is a card for gamers is saying too much. It's like giving a downhill mountain biker Lance Armstrong's bike, and telling him "But it's so light weight, and can go so fast!"
-kx
-life's short play naked
-this would be an awesome addon for a graphics workstation computer. 3D design/rendering would be done so much faster if this was put in the workstation, but to say this is a card for gamers is saying too much. It's like giving a downhill mountain biker Lance Armstrong's bike, and telling him "But it's so light weight, and can go so fast!"
- Feb 21, 2005
- 2,292
- 0
- 19,810
Well now we agree with one thing ATI and Nvidia I'm sure will come up with a physx system but that is in the future planning and buying a new vcard that will cost a arm and a leg included the physx chip. I think people that say yes I like my video card now and want the extra boost of physx makes sense, anyone to say different is senseless.
i just finished watching the cell factor demo, and dayem... that thing is awesome. i can see how a phys card would improve the gameplay on that game, but 'til it comes out, I still say that the lust to buy a card to improve the gameplay of a game depends on how much i want to play a game in that way. I still wish you could say blow up one of the cement columns, or rip it in two, then toss it at the choppers.
hmm... i wonder how this game would look without the phys card...
-kx
-life's short play naked
hmm... i wonder how this game would look without the phys card...
-kx
-life's short play naked
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram