Physx card or crossfire?

Second video card.

While SLi/Xfire have limited benefit, it's far more than that of the PPU.

And considering current performance, the X1900 gives about 4-10 times the processing power of the PhysX card.

If you feel you must, then get a second card.

But IMO, it'd be even more advantageous to simply sell your old card and buy a GF8800 or new R600, and then maybe add an X1300 is you want physics later. That option IMO is better use of your money and likely a better overall gaming experience.

crossfire rocks, go with it. i am extremly biased on this subject so might be best to take my advice with a grain of salt.

Yeah, with UT3* supporting the PhysX card, it may have some benefit.

Well now that I have a new mobo that supports xfire it is tempting. I had only really been tempted to go the physx route because I didn't have xfire. What second card would you guys recommend to go with my exsisting Sapphire ATI x1900xt 512mb? I have a budget of say $300.

doesn't the new unreal engine only support effect based physics using the ageia card?

Yup got a dell 30" running at 2560x1600....not that i'm rubbing it in
Any suggestions for adding a second video card? Kinda new to how the whole xfire thing works. Can I just simply add say a x1300?

Master card? Does that mean a specific modeled card i.e. x1900 crossfire. Is that a master card?

Ok, so does the model type matter, x1300, x1400 etc? I'd go for a x1900 plus regardless but just curious.

If it's not too much to ask, could you just stick it out and wait until ATi's R600 release? (Early March)

I'm not in a huge hurry after buying a new mobo, ram, ps, cpu and nice cpu fan. I can wait and save up for the beast (r600).

I don't see how that's a great thing without a common physics API. It'll just get really damned messy.

Far from it both ATi and nV can get more physics calculations than the PhysX cards. The advantage of the PhysX cards it their level of interaction and game dependant physics. But even this may change with the new VPUs as nV has hinted that the GF8800 has greater ability to communicate with the host system, and even AMD has mentioned that as a benefit to the R600s.

Alot of the published info can be found in this good [H] article;
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/arti [...] VzaWFzdA==

As a published game, UBi will be demoing their application of Havok4 (with HAvokFX effects) in SanFran in March. As for Ageia's published titles, none are much of anything, even GRAW uses HAVOK physics with and AGEIA add-on that essentially does little for game play because the game was built on Havok physics (which has more titles under it's belt and more future titles than Ageia).

As for current Ageia titles, they are tacked on, and pretty poorly sofar;
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/0 [...] be_useless

Only acceptable title is City of Villans, eveyrthing else is essentially a mediocre tech demo.

That's wishful thinking because most of the people already comitted to using the UE3 engine (not UT3 engine) aren't using PhysX, just like RainbowSix Vegas and Gears of War, neither uses PhysX, and many have said they won't bother. Because you use UE3 doesn't mean you get PhysX free, you still have to pay for it, and Epic has not ruled out VPU physics for it's other titles.

BTW, Crysis will support Crytek's own VPU physics implementation, and Valve is behind VPU accelerated physics for their solution as well. So there's no major gaming engine advantage. It will depend on which titles can ake the most use out of it, and based on past games and demos, Crysis looks to be the killer app, and not so much UT3 itself, but UE3 based games if they're like Gears of War may have some legs, but it's still to be seen.

First of all the Xbox can't support the PPU, only VPU physics, and it's an M$ rig, and M$ is going VPU physics for PC to with Direct Physics. Oh an BTW, Havok also supports both as well;
http://www.havok.com/content/blogcategory/30/68/

The reason that the PS3 and Xbox suport Havok and Ageia, is because they support the games, and it's up to the developers to add the features, but there's no PPU in the X360, only in the PS3, but both can do VPU accelerated phsycis. Don't confuse a game power by either Havok or Ageia physics, as having VPU or PPU physics.

Which is about as relevant to the big picture as VIA/S3 and SIS making DX9 and DX10 VPUs.

They already support physics, what they need are PPU or VPU accelerated physics, not just CPU, like most of them now.

Well M$ is bringing a common API, Direct Physics, and it's going the VPU accelerated route according to M$, not the PPU route because of their involvement with the graphics boys already. Future addition of PPU is likely dependent on whether Ageia can give compelling reasons, and IMO that depends on the success of their involvement with UT3.

Just keep your money until the killer game or app regardless of who supplies it, but don't bank on either one, because spending the money on the GF8800GTS or GTX makes more sense now than any of the other wishful options, and maybe even waiting for the R600 or GF8900.

Well it says it supports crossfire, and you can support it at lower rates (like 4X). Larger # of lanes is better, but 16 + 4 or 8+4 will do it also, and likely with little impact, although of course not as nice as 16+8 or 16+16.

You should be fine, but like so many things, Xfire and SLi are tricky with a ton of possible barriers/hiccups/etc.

wait... havok is out?????? when, and where was i? so this means when i do upgrade, if i go with ATI i can use my old x1600 pro? coz that would be sweeeeet!

For the post above this 1, i though you needed shader model 3 for it to work...

bLAKE

Well said TGGA.

Just don't be so sure about all your statements.

I didn't say that PS3 and 360 have a PPU, i said they support the API.
Also the Unreal Engine 3 (not "UE3 engine" ) powered games aren't using it's full potential right now. I believe that more company's will enable Ageia support depending on how successful the implementation in UT2007 will be.
I know that most current games supporting Ageia are crappy, but better then nothing. Ubi's application of Havok4 in SanFran is also a tech demo and not a true game supporting Havok FX. This will come but after some time.
GRAW uses Havok not Havok FX. Any list in future Havok FX games?
I got this for Ageia: http://www.ageia.com/physx/titles.html
Don't get me wrong, i am against PhysX and prefer the VPU acceleration path.
I thought Direct Physics was just speculation. Any official source for that?

Btw,
Quote:
"They already support physics, what they need are PPU or VPU accelerated physics, not just CPU, like most of them now. "
Really?! No $hit!

Just a joke

Thanks for your reply and i'm very interested to hear more of your opinions!

Peace. 8)

So are you saying i'd be smart to go with say a x1900xtx now versus buying a r600 in a few months? Of course I suppose it's all really going to come down to price and buying now vs buying later (spending only $300 plus now for a x1900xtx or $600 plus for a r600)?

Havok has been out for EONs. Havok powered HL2, and Havok3 powers Oblivion and GRAW. However what we are talking about here is HavokFX, a physics add-on to the Havok4 set of physics tools, it's optional, just like Ageia's PhysX portion to their Physics engine, acquired by NoVodex (and upgraded with Meqon acquisition). Two separate portions of the physics equation.

It depends on what people decide to add, look at GRAW as an interesting example, the game-based-dependent (important) physics are by Havok, the shiny physics are Ageia's add-on accelerated portion. So companies can decide to build a game, and then even later buy the upgrade to add-on the hardware accelerated portion. So a game could start out with a quick 'get it to market' edition with system/cpu based physics, and then with the next expansion pack, along with adding maps, add hardware physics support because now it's about the bonuses not just getting the game finished (like most developers seem to experience near the end with pushed back launch dates, etc).

No, you're wrong, understand my statement, you are getting confused between the Novodex engine called PhysX, and the PhysX PPU (like the difference between Havok4 and HavokFX). For that comment of mine I thought it was clear that what I said is that they use the physics engine but obviously do not use the PPU portion as neither supports it (just read the interviews with Epic about both titles, also use your head about how they are going to use a 'PPU' on the X360 when there is none). Even think about the PS3's implementation as nothing more than using the multi-cores in a non-uniform way more than a real PPU.

No you should look into it further, does charge developers to use it. And using the UE3 engine does not guarantee PPU support, just like I said. Read up on it, just like your link above (And also in Mike's post), you need to dig deeper to find the truth.

"The AGEIA PhysX SDK is free for non-commercial use. Standard pricing for commercial use is $50,000/title/platform. Licensed developers who implement PhysX accelerator support in their PC title are not required to pay this fee."

So yeah it's free for all them nice non-commercial games out there or else you pay for it by paying for EPICs PhysX version over their non-PhysX version, just like Havok with Valve and Gambryo (hey notice Gambryo is both Havok and Ageia, does that mean you therefore pay twice according to your logic?).

The point is simply that not everyone is going to pay the premium for PPU support. To Epic and it's clients UE3 is about the ability to easily use and combine tools for game development, not promoting someone else's software/hardware. They will support a bazillion add-ons/plug-ins but not necessarily include any of them. EPIC want to profit from their game engine, they're not trying to re-sell Ageia's software.

Yes I do have a x1900xt 512mb card. I was just entertaining the thought of going the xfire route but then again i've heard of people running sli or xfire and actually getting lower frame rates. Maybe i'm good with just my x1900xt?
I just wanna be ready to go when crysis comes out

I'd say stick with your very competant X1900XT for now, and then when Crysis comes out get the best solution, be it from ATi/AMD, nVidea or even maybe S3/VIA. I understand your situation, and really the best thing for you IMO is to wait for the results. A GF8800 is great for current gaming, but if you focus is Crysis then wait for at least early GOLD/RTM test before deciding on anything.

Only if you needed something right now or just like to upgrade often, would I say to buy something now, and then I'd recommend against Xfire and tell you to get a GF8800 instead because more often than not the cost of selling your X1900XT and then Buying a GF8800GTS would be the same as another X1900XT, and I would say the GTS will outperform more often than not, and also have nice future benefits so you could see if you like the DX10 advantages in Demos before comitting to anything further.

However if you're happy right now I'd say save your money, especially since so much is going to comeout and change the entire landscape (R600, GF8800GTS-320, GF8600/X2600). Unless you NEED it now, wait a few weeks to decide IMO. And if you want to play a particular game like Crysis, maybe wait and see which architecture (G80/R600) does better, and whether any physics benefit is even worth considering (BTW like I said Crytek is going with their own custom GPU-physics solution, so likely alot of 'unknowns' at this point).

Well looks like they changed their tune due to their current situation, making it free to increase adoption.
But one thing you forgot to mention is that like I said hardware support is still separate from software and it is specifically mentioned in the EULA, so they are talking about the software portion;

As part of the 50K part of the updated EULA;
"Fee may be waived at our discretion for multi-platform developers providing PC HW support"

Still not clear if PhysX-HW is any different from HavokFX. So no, I'm still not convinced.

But it does look like they are trying harder, either out of desperation or they understand that they need a support base first, then stop 'waiving' fees.

you cannot describe oblivion as playable at 19x12 all settings maxed. there is no way in hell. maybe we have different opinion on playable but IMO oblivon is unarguable.

with everything maxed on a default config you cannot get 30+ FPS outdoors with a single card.

Agreed, without having things turned off or down, there's no way.

well, i play with all the sliders turned up and most things on except grass and self shadows and i have 16xHQAF and 4xAA enabled throguh the drivers and i hardly think at those settings which are pretty much max your single x1900 can beat my duals.

Yeah you are right. Well i agree that time will tell.
I am currently getting a 8800 gts to keep my new PC for like three months and then sell it for an 8900 or something. Of course i'll wait to see Crisis and UT2007 performance before buying my new gpu (the one after gts) and any PPU unit.
That's me, but i would recomend the same strategy to the OP.

Btw, TGGA thanks for the quality response. I believe that healthy conversations like ours add a lot value in this Forum's community.