Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Does anyone actually use a physics card lol?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
March 26, 2007 3:35:14 PM

I mean... some of the specs I saw a few years back when I looked them up were pretty cool.. but I don't see how/what it would actually do in conjunction with other cards.

I guess I just wanted to hear some stories from actual users as to the effectiveness of a physics card.

More about : physics card lol

March 26, 2007 3:47:13 PM

I have not used one, however I will say I've never heard of anyone who has one that is satisfied with it.

There's just no games to support it in a meaningful way yet, and I don't expect any soon.
March 26, 2007 3:52:17 PM

waste of money in my opinion. your better off spending the extra cash on a better gpu.
Related resources
March 26, 2007 3:54:01 PM

Well as far as i know -no one :lol:  so much for Aegia haahahahahahaha :twisted: i am eeevvill :lol: 
March 26, 2007 3:55:00 PM

Well I've been reading up on Aegiaiiiaeiai's site, and it seems that they are pretty actively working with developers to try to put some more titles on the table.

However, one could argue as to the degree that these titles would encorporate the PhysX engine, as there is a WIDE range of degree that developers can choose to add or leave out when developing their games.

I dunno, I was just kind of curious. They make it sound like re-usable hardware that you don't have to upgrade, but that just seems a bit too optimistic...
March 26, 2007 4:10:41 PM

A challenge has been issued! Someone report back to us with a positive experience!!!

Personally, I'm not holding my breath on this one.
March 26, 2007 4:16:38 PM

Quote:
A challenge has been issued! Someone report back to us with a positive experience!!!

Personally, I'm not holding my breath on this one.


Yeah, no kidding. I have yet to hear anything positive.
March 26, 2007 4:32:22 PM

Sounds like Ageia is on the Titanic with AMD. Hopefully neither one goes down with the ship and is rescued. :D 
March 26, 2007 4:40:48 PM

I was thinking maybe someone had a story of how they were used for an alternate purpose... something like Folding @ Home or maybe some fancy 3D application. I've long since given up on any positive feedback from gaming usage.
March 26, 2007 4:41:15 PM

All the people that dropped $249 for these things are too ashamed to reply.
March 26, 2007 4:43:15 PM

Quote:
All the people that dropped $249 for these things are too ashamed to reply.


Exactly. :lol: 
a b U Graphics card
March 26, 2007 5:07:16 PM

Don't have one and don't know of anyone who does.

It's seems as thought the physics gpu hype down real quick when nVidia and ATI announced that they would incorporate physics into their line-up. I would also expect Ageiaeiaeia to slowly slip away into obscurity.

Ageia? Who? What? Huh?
March 26, 2007 5:21:22 PM

I loled at work.. hahaha
March 26, 2007 5:45:12 PM

Quote:
Sounds like Ageia is on the Titanic with AMD. Hopefully neither one goes down with the ship and is rescued. :D 

Performance isn't the main problem.
It's just not done correctly. Objects and interactions still just don't behave right yet.
I expect many are aware of this and things will get fixed over time.
So, I don't think hardware accerated physics is on the Titanic. But maybe Ageia is.
March 26, 2007 5:50:49 PM

Quote:

So, I don't think hardware accerated physics is on the Titanic. But maybe Ageia is.

I strongly agree. If either Nvidia or Ati put a PPU-chip on one of their GPU's, it would be a nice surplus. I believe this is the only future for hardware physics...
BTW: they should have sold the company of Ageia to Nvidia or ati when they were hyping. I'm quite sure it would have been much more profitable...
March 26, 2007 6:10:37 PM

The only way the Ageia Phyx chip set will ever become mainstream would be either;
a). Bought by Nvidia/ATI and incorporated onto existing/future video card designs.
b). Sold to Motherboard vendors who then incorporate into existing/future on-board chip sets.

The current Ageia set-up, as a stand-alone PCIe expansion card, is too expensive and technically hampered to ever be truly viable. Unless the chipset is running in tandem with either the CPU or GPU, it wastes too much time going through the PCIe bus, and therefore can actually impose a penalty for processing, as opposed to helping.

While some of the effects and such appear interesting, it has been noted that frames often drop during actions that actually use the card. And, rather unfortunately, the effects really aren't that spectacular. Ageia claimed they where the greatest thing since the introduction of the Video card, but for all intents and purposes they have really failed to live up to all the hype they generated.
March 26, 2007 6:13:55 PM

I'm no expert on this but as far as I'm aware the physics algorithms and whotnot are hard coded into the card so to speak, which means they can be easily surpassed by GPUs. Addionally I managed to get CellFactor running on my computer without a physX card, There was some noticable performace drop when major explosions happened, but nothing worth £150 or whatever Agaya are charging for their bunk card.
March 26, 2007 6:41:17 PM

I'm not 100% sure, but don't the G80's already do their own physics anyway?
March 26, 2007 6:43:09 PM

Quote:
All the people that dropped $249 for these things are too ashamed to reply.

Or they died because of stupidness.

The PPU is useless now, unless games are coded to take major advantage of it, no one will need one. Not to mention nVidia and AMD (ATI) are enhancing their physics on new chips.
March 26, 2007 6:44:22 PM

I purchased one.
I can say that I can tell a huge difference when playing old SNES games. Yoshi's eggs roll and break just like they would in real life. THe modeling in 1942 when your ship is destroyed is fantastically realistic, and my favorite, tetris. With Ageia installed, Tetris blocks fall just like they might in real life which adds soo much to the game. Sometimes, one of the blocks will crack, break, or get stuck in the block-shoot when they get warn out.


Not only does this physX card rewrite all my games to take advantage of it, but I get a noticeable increase in FPS.

I run 2x OC 8800GTX cards, but when I put in the Physx card, I gain about 3fps in most my emulated games. Very cool and worth every penny.
March 26, 2007 6:49:37 PM

Ut3 will be using there physics in the game. :p  they are using the API not the PPU card though as far as i know.
March 26, 2007 6:50:32 PM

Quote:
I purchased one.
I can say that I can tell a huge difference when playing old SNES games. Yoshi's eggs roll and break just like they would in real life. THe modeling in 1942 when your ship is destroyed is fantastically realistic, and my favorite, tetris. With Ageia installed, Tetris blocks fall just like they might in real life which adds soo much to the game. Sometimes, one of the blocks will crack, break, or get stuck in the block-shoot when they get warn out.


Not only does this physX card rewrite all my games to take advantage of it, but I get a noticeable increase in FPS.

I run 2x OC 8800GTX cards, but when I put in the Physx card, I gain about 3fps in most my emulated games. Very cool and worth every penny.


:lol:  :lol:  good one :lol: 
March 26, 2007 7:26:16 PM

Quote:
Unless the chipset is running in tandem with either the CPU or GPU, it wastes too much time going through the PCIe bus, and therefore can actually impose a penalty for processing, as opposed to helping..


I thought it was a PCI card... not a PCIe?

And actually.. the more I was thinking about it... the more it might actually be relevant NOW as opposed to when it hit the market.

What's the #1 reason holding back crazy FPS/graphics in systems right now? The CPU. The CPU cannot keep up w/the instructions it needs to send to the GPU. If there was a separate card dedicated to linking this path up, perhaps one *could* actually utilize a highEST end card, as is impossible w/current CPUs.

Hmm.. I might see if someone wants to get rid of one for a very very low price on ebay...
a b U Graphics card
March 26, 2007 7:37:20 PM

Quote:
Ut3 will be using there physics in the game. :p  they are using the API not the PPU card though as far as i know.


Actually UT3 is supposed to use PPU accelerated physics, not just the Ageia Novodex/PhysX engine but the card.

While it's a terribly small install base I have a feeling that alot of the talk between Ageia and the others is to open up their support for other solutions, so they can gracefully withdraw from the market and still profit off of their IP.

BTW, to everyone saying they should include PPU into a VPU, it's a waste of time/space IMO. The VPUs can now do far more interactive operation then when they were already dominating the PPUs in raw performance, so the last piece of the puzzle is done, the only thing left is perfecting the API support for VPU physics, be it from a specific company like Havok, or a generalized API like DirectPhysics.

The advantage of not putting sometimes useless PPU transistors into the VPU, is that the current VPU design when not used for physics can do more graphics, whereas in unsupported games the PPU segment would be just a waste of silicon. Improving generalized FP power even makes more sense that dedicated PPU circuitry.
March 26, 2007 7:43:28 PM

I accidently had my e6600 clocked to 1.6ghz (x6 instead of x9) and my 8800gts was badly bottlenecked by the processor. I can see how a 8800gtx might be matching what a e6600 can process, and 2 of those cards would be a waste.


However, if the game does not support PPU processing, then it wont help and will be a waste of money.
a b U Graphics card
March 26, 2007 7:48:08 PM

Quote:
And actually.. the more I was thinking about it... the more it might actually be relevant NOW as opposed to when it hit the market.


Nope, more relevant whe muti-core was still a small install base. Now that both multi-core support and VPU physics have had some time to mature, there is less need than when the PPU first launched and was the 'only soution' to the offloading problem.

PS, Ageia said that their performance issues had nothing to do with the PCI slot, it's not the choke point according to them.
March 26, 2007 7:50:43 PM

Next Ageia might declare we as gaming consumers need one of their cards per processor core to be effective.
a b U Graphics card
March 26, 2007 8:22:02 PM

Well I don't see that being any more effective a sales strategy than just buying 1 at all.

If people aren't buying 1 at half the price because they see no benefit, it's unlikely they'll buy 2 of them since twice the benefit is still nada.
March 26, 2007 9:24:37 PM

You know a game with great physics was Red Faction 1. Where did it go? Musta been alien programming now locked away in area 51.
May 31, 2007 1:15:57 PM

Quote:
A challenge has been issued! Someone report back to us with a positive experience!!!

Personally, I'm not holding my breath on this one.
I have an AGEIA PhysX card! Playing Cell Factor is fun...for about 10 minutes... and well, uhh, the card wasn't too hard to install? Power consumption isn't too bad... I guess... and hey, it comes with a blue led on the fan! :lol: 
May 31, 2007 2:07:33 PM

GRAW2 supports it, the next UT engine supports it and they can be had for only £100 ish over here now, I may well consider getting one in the near future
May 31, 2007 2:24:11 PM

Quote:
A challenge has been issued! Someone report back to us with a positive experience!!!

Personally, I'm not holding my breath on this one.


Read some of the reviews on Newegg. It's hilarious seeing some of these fools defend their purchases.
May 31, 2007 2:45:13 PM

I have a Ageia card.
The problem is that Nvidia and ATI talks the card to death, and their is not to many games that support it.

R600 and G80 don't support physics the same way Ageia does. And the Ageia does more than just physics.

I think its great that they have startet to incorperate the physics enginge in other games engines.
For example Motorstorm on PS3.
It is powerd by Ageia. The physics make that game. It is incredible.

All the negative people here, are they who stop progress. Instead of crying: go out and buy a card. If all did that, then we would have more great games.

It is sad that PS3 did not incorporate the Aegia chip. It would have been a revolution.
May 31, 2007 3:05:07 PM

Quote:

It is sad that PS3 did not incorporate the Aegia chip. It would have been a revolution.


and raise the price even more than what it already is?? If the whole system was cheaper, then sure..it would have been great. But seeing as it costs so much any way, adding another chip would probably raise the price a fair bit more. Im guessing they didnt do it,cause they thought it would never sell....atleast it would sell less than it already is.
May 31, 2007 3:24:47 PM

if i was gonna build a PC over £1k (excluding MOniter) then i would consider it. but no way under that.
May 31, 2007 3:50:43 PM

Quote:
if i was gonna build a PC over £1k (excluding MOniter) then i would consider it. but no way under that.


For £1k Not a chance.... youd want to spend at least £2.5k to even consider one
a c 101 U Graphics card
May 31, 2007 4:10:22 PM


the only noticeable improvement from PhisX

Look at how ATI cards kick some ass there :( 

Well they would if the game did not have to turn off dual core support to make ATI cards not go corrupt to hell when task switching.

Soooo anyone with a 2900xt should go get the demo and add "-renderthread 1" to the game to test it for me :)  alt tab often.....take a few tries
May 31, 2007 4:13:53 PM

Quote:
You know a game with great physics was Red Faction 1. Where did it go? Musta been alien programming now locked away in area 51.


It was quite an amazingly well done game, i remember shooting panes of glass from different angles just to see how they would shatter... Or staking arms sticking out walls in the fingers was always a fun game! Or staking the gouls in the cloaks through the shoulders, against walls and watching them wriggle before you sent that final killing shot... :D 

There was a Red Faction 2, though i have never played it so can't comment on that one i'm afraid. Maybe they improved the physics further? Does anyone know?

As for using a physics card I guess there is a place for the physics processing as realism in games increases, to what extent though i am not sure. At this point it's not something i would consider purchasing.
May 31, 2007 4:19:15 PM

Ageia failed. They had a good idea, but they failed to make it happen. When the first cards came out, there was almost no support by any titles and the cards were way too expensive.
Developers are not going to embrace Ageias way of doing physics in their games because they simply can´t. To truly use the possibilities offered a game would need to be programmed with their solution in mind and no publisher will fund such a insane idea since there is no customer base.
Instead games get a slight boost out of ageias cards because the support for them is somwhat "patched into" the games. And that´s just a marketing move since a company that is "Physx enabled" gets free advertisment by Ageia (they really try to sell their crap!) which offsets the additional cost of implementing "diet physics".
I assume that for the features implemented a way weaker physics card would´ve sufficed. And that´s what Ageia should´ve done. Build a weaker and cheaper card. If a gamer could buy an additional card for 70$, it wouldn´t be much of a decision anymore - buy it, try it. If it´s crap it´s "only" 70$ - that´s not the world. And with a growing user base developer support would´ve grown. After a while the 70$ physics card would´ve become to weak and they could´ve brought a more powerful one to the market or a line up of different cards. I´m sure that it would´ve worked.
As it is, no one is willing to risk 200+$ for a card that might do something in some games. It´s too much money for the average gamer.

Before someone comes around telling me about GPU physics again - Show me. Where can i buy those? :twisted:
They are not sold. Nvidia and AMD only speak of them to keep Ageia from establishing a market. It´s unneeded since Ageias marketing strategy did that job already. Yet both companies keep talking about how great their GPUs will do physics - if it ever arrives. The graphic solution offers a lot of benefits, yes, but its late. Ageia should´ve exploited that fact but failed.
a b U Graphics card
May 31, 2007 10:01:20 PM

Quote:
I have a Ageia card.
The problem is that Nvidia and ATI talks the card to death, and their is not to many games that support it.

R600 and G80 don't support physics the same way Ageia does. And the Ageia does more than just physics.


Actually the R600 and G80 can be programmed to support physics in just the same way and better as they don't need to go back to the CPU, but unlike the X1Kand G7 can access the CPU/Memroy the way the PhysX cards do. So really there is no advantage to Ageia's PhysX card anymore from a host perspective.

Quote:
I think its great that they have startet to incorperate the physics enginge in other games engines.
For example Motorstorm on PS3.
It is powerd by Ageia. The physics make that game. It is incredible.


There is no dedicated PhysX card in the PS3, all their precessing is done on the CELL CPU assigning FPUs in the same way you could assign SPUs.
I don't doubt it's nice but it's not something that can't be done elsewhere.

Quote:
All the negative people here, are they who stop progress. Instead of crying: go out and buy a card. If all did that, then we would have more great games.


You're the one crying here. Ageia did little to get adoption in the gaming community, and like TruForm it may be cool, but without killer app titles people will not buy the expensive hardware. It's over a year later and there is sill no reason to buy one, unless you're a fan of a specific title, and even then they are simply tack-on effects. Unlike a PhysX card, a graphics card has multiple uses, once ATi and nV said they were getting into this market Ageia should've started making it important, it didn't achieve anything near vaidation for it's $250 price, now it's much cheaper and still not worth it to most people.

Quote:
It is sad that PS3 did not incorporate the Aegia chip. It would have been a revolution.


And it would have further increased their costs, and Sony would lose even more money, and it wouldn't have done much to improve either company's situation. Include it in the Wii or X360, and maybe it'd matter, add it to another small market player and you have made the product even more niche.

At this point who cares? If UT3 can sell them then all the best, I will promote it as a cool must have feature, but until then I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who isn't the biggest GRAW or City of Villans fan in the world. Just like people will spend $100 for a special edition Z-board for their favourite game, the Phys-X has been reduced to that same boutique/niche market.

It need to launch with far more titles, and far better performance/effects than it did. Ageia never recovered after that terrible GRAW launch
.
a b U Graphics card
May 31, 2007 10:28:37 PM

Quote:
Before someone comes around telling me about GPU physics again - Show me. Where can i buy those? :twisted:


I can show you where to buy GPUs if you really need help. :tongue:
I agree though, there's little beyond demos for GPU physics right now, but the other thing is they don't need physics to sell, and every day there's still 1,000 time more physics capable cards being sold than Ageia is selling, and that number is just getting bigger all the time. And that's what will win out. The day after any GPU physics solution is announce is the day Ageia's stock halves and they sell all their hardware IP to somone else (IMO intel, nv or AMD). The idea of PhysX will die without UT3 being completely revolutionized by it (being 5-10% better won't cut it, the difference will need to be night and day).


Quote:
They are not sold. Nvidia and AMD only speak of them to keep Ageia from establishing a market.


Actually, no not completely, remember ATi and nVidia were talking about this long before Ageia's hardware solutions were even an idea. From as far back as the first BrookGPU tests. I will agree with you though that AMD and nV are piling on though to make the matter worse especially while they wait, but it's not like it's just Ageia that was their motivation, but Ageia likely made them show something before either they or the software devs (M$, Havok, etc) were ready, and so rush 'proof of concepts flooded to ensure their early work wasn't lost.

Quote:
Ageia should´ve exploited that fact but failed.


I don't think Ageia could've exploited anyting, they couldn't get started so then need to have interest before they can exploit any lack of opposition.

Quote:
It´s unneeded since Ageias marketing strategy did that job already. Yet both companies keep talking about how great their GPUs will do physics - if it ever arrives. The graphic solution offers a lot of benefits, yes, but its late.


Well they'll keep talking about it, but it's not an overnight thing for them. Neither of them make a physics API unlike Havok and Ageia (who bought their physics software by acquiring Novodex, without which they'd have a useless card). Without the rest of the equation there's little nVida and AMD can do other than to show tumbling boulders, exploding boxes and sloshing liquid. Those prove that VPU physics is here and it is real, but what they don't do is show benefits to games yet.

As a Sad footnote, Crytek said in a recent article, that they will not support hardware accelerated phsyics of any kind at this time, all the work will be done with the CPUs, which is both shocking and dissapointing considering their early comments on GPU physics. Considering there's little Quad-CPU suppor built into CryEngine to exploit more than 2 cores, I don't expect anything super-special anymore.

So near term it looks like no one wants to make the effort for accelerated physics, and it will likely be up to Epic and UT3 to save it from becoming an afterthought.

I'm now pessimistic for all hardware physics, because if you wanted a nice feature with a huge pre-existing install base, VPU-physics is the candidate IMO. But that's not happening right now despite the obvious dollar benefits to both AMD and nV of getting something out there. DX10 hardware support is younger and less common than VPU-physics hardware support support, and yet the number of physics titles from any solution will be a fraction of the DX10 titles this year, let alone next.

Too bad, I think the hype has died even for AMD and nV as nything more than another checkbox on the spec sheet.
a c 101 U Graphics card
June 1, 2007 2:43:20 AM


should i get one yet :) 
June 1, 2007 2:08:29 PM

Naw, You only play 12 hours a week.


Linage2 (pre 2nd expansion pack) was the best MMORPG ever created.
a c 101 U Graphics card
June 2, 2007 1:31:25 AM

used to be higher......work gets in the way :( 
June 2, 2007 2:41:17 AM

Quote:
Before someone comes around telling me about GPU physics again - Show me. Where can i buy those? :twisted:


I can show you where to buy GPUs if you really need help. :tongue:
I agree though, there's little beyond demos for GPU physics right now, but the other thing is they don't need physics to sell, and every day there's still 1,000 time more physics capable cards being sold than Ageia is selling, and that number is just getting bigger all the time. And that's what will win out. The day after any GPU physics solution is announce is the day Ageia's stock halves and they sell all their hardware IP to somone else (IMO intel, nv or AMD). The idea of PhysX will die without UT3 being completely revolutionized by it (being 5-10% better won't cut it, the difference will need to be night and day).


Quote:
They are not sold. Nvidia and AMD only speak of them to keep Ageia from establishing a market.


Actually, no not completely, remember ATi and nVidia were talking about this long before Ageia's hardware solutions were even an idea. From as far back as the first BrookGPU tests. I will agree with you though that AMD and nV are piling on though to make the matter worse especially while they wait, but it's not like it's just Ageia that was their motivation, but Ageia likely made them show something before either they or the software devs (M$, Havok, etc) were ready, and so rush 'proof of concepts flooded to ensure their early work wasn't lost.

Quote:
Ageia should´ve exploited that fact but failed.


I don't think Ageia could've exploited anyting, they couldn't get started so then need to have interest before they can exploit any lack of opposition.

Quote:
It´s unneeded since Ageias marketing strategy did that job already. Yet both companies keep talking about how great their GPUs will do physics - if it ever arrives. The graphic solution offers a lot of benefits, yes, but its late.


Well they'll keep talking about it, but it's not an overnight thing for them. Neither of them make a physics API unlike Havok and Ageia (who bought their physics software by acquiring Novodex, without which they'd have a useless card). Without the rest of the equation there's little nVida and AMD can do other than to show tumbling boulders, exploding boxes and sloshing liquid. Those prove that VPU physics is here and it is real, but what they don't do is show benefits to games yet.

As a Sad footnote, Crytek said in a recent article, that they will not support hardware accelerated phsyics of any kind at this time, all the work will be done with the CPUs, which is both shocking and dissapointing considering their early comments on GPU physics. Considering there's little Quad-CPU suppor built into CryEngine to exploit more than 2 cores, I don't expect anything super-special anymore.

So near term it looks like no one wants to make the effort for accelerated physics, and it will likely be up to Epic and UT3 to save it from becoming an afterthought.

I'm now pessimistic for all hardware physics, because if you wanted a nice feature with a huge pre-existing install base, VPU-physics is the candidate IMO. But that's not happening right now despite the obvious dollar benefits to both AMD and nV of getting something out there. DX10 hardware support is younger and less common than VPU-physics hardware support support, and yet the number of physics titles from any solution will be a fraction of the DX10 titles this year, let alone next.

Too bad, I think the hype has died even for AMD and nV as nything more than another checkbox on the spec sheet.Let's hope Epic can really do things with the PhysX card; if they do, it could get GPU physics moving as people are going to want more physics solutions. Also, Unreal3 is a pretty popular engine these days...
June 2, 2007 2:46:00 AM

Quote:
A challenge has been issued! Someone report back to us with a positive experience!!!

Personally, I'm not holding my breath on this one.


One day, at band camp, I overcocked my dual core physics cards and blew the keys offa my girlfriend's flute.

That was certainly a positive experience.
a b U Graphics card
June 2, 2007 2:56:44 AM

Quote:
Let's hope Epic can really do things with the PhysX card; if they do, it could get GPU physics moving as people are going to want more physics solutions. Also, Unreal3 is a pretty popular engine these days...


Here's the thing, many people like myself are going to buy UT3 on pre-order, so regardless of gameplay reviews etc we'll buy it, now it's not an option for me, but if I were on a desktop and like it alot, and then find out that reviewers say the PhysX card adds alot more to the game, then for ~$100 I might be willing to buy it.

The only problem I see is that I don't see how the physics could be that integral and interactive for online play. If I have one and someone else doesn't, then what? 'Cause seriously, I don't play/buy UT for botmatches.

I think Crysis was the game with the potential to really revive physics with what looks to be a strong single player campaign, but UT3 seems to be the title we have to hold the hardware-physics banner. Hopefully they have something cool to push the feature forward.
June 2, 2007 3:19:03 AM

Quote:
Before someone comes around telling me about GPU physics again - Show me. Where can i buy those? :twisted:


I can show you where to buy GPUs if you really need help. :tongue:
I agree though, there's little beyond demos for GPU physics right now, but the other thing is they don't need physics to sell, and every day there's still 1,000 time more physics capable cards being sold than Ageia is selling, and that number is just getting bigger all the time. And that's what will win out. The day after any GPU physics solution is announce is the day Ageia's stock halves and they sell all their hardware IP to somone else (IMO intel, nv or AMD). The idea of PhysX will die without UT3 being completely revolutionized by it (being 5-10% better won't cut it, the difference will need to be night and day).


I can´t argue about that. The sad thing is, that by damaging or preventing Ageia from establishing a market, Nvidia and AMD damage the overal physics market and drive the user and developer interest into oblivion. Right now Ageia offers a full physics suite but no developer is interested because Nvidia and AMD offer a better solution that is non existent yet. This prevents all development efforts regarding Ageias solution from being thorough wich in turn prevents developers from investing into it. No market, no competition, no nothing. Just big words, fancy pictures and quite lame in-game features.

Quote:

They are not sold. Nvidia and AMD only speak of them to keep Ageia from establishing a market.


Actually, no not completely, remember ATi and nVidia were talking about this long before Ageia's hardware solutions were even an idea. From as far back as the first BrookGPU tests. I will agree with you though that AMD and nV are piling on though to make the matter worse especially while they wait, but it's not like it's just Ageia that was their motivation, but Ageia likely made them show something before either they or the software devs (M$, Havok, etc) were ready, and so rush 'proof of concepts flooded to ensure their early work wasn't lost.

Yes, but i would call that "testing the water". Both were looking for another field to kick the competition just in case their Graphic cards are slower than their counterparts offering. It didn´t work out because Ageia came along. That´s my thesis though.

Quote:

Ageia should´ve exploited that fact but failed.


I don't think Ageia could've exploited anyting, they couldn't get started so then need to have interest before they can exploit any lack of opposition.

They needed to establish a market, i agree. It´s easier to establish a market if your product is cheap and your marketing is good. What would´ve happend if Dell, HP and companions would´ve offered most of their mid-range gaming rigs with those cards included? Thats no impossibility if the cards are priced right and the media coverage is good. Ageia failed to invest into it. While they were first to market they totally failed to leverage their advantage. I´m sure they sold a decent amount of cards - at least enough to make some money or lure some investors into wasting theirs.

Quote:

It´s unneeded since Ageias marketing strategy did that job already. Yet both companies keep talking about how great their GPUs will do physics - if it ever arrives. The graphic solution offers a lot of benefits, yes, but its late.


Well they'll keep talking about it, but it's not an overnight thing for them. Neither of them make a physics API unlike Havok and Ageia (who bought their physics software by acquiring Novodex, without which they'd have a useless card). Without the rest of the equation there's little nVida and AMD can do other than to show tumbling boulders, exploding boxes and sloshing liquid. Those prove that VPU physics is here and it is real, but what they don't do is show benefits to games yet.

As a Sad footnote, Crytek said in a recent article, that they will not support hardware accelerated phsyics of any kind at this time, all the work will be done with the CPUs, which is both shocking and dissapointing considering their early comments on GPU physics. Considering there's little Quad-CPU suppor built into CryEngine to exploit more than 2 cores, I don't expect anything super-special anymore.

So near term it looks like no one wants to make the effort for accelerated physics, and it will likely be up to Epic and UT3 to save it from becoming an afterthought.

I'm now pessimistic for all hardware physics, because if you wanted a nice feature with a huge pre-existing install base, VPU-physics is the candidate IMO. But that's not happening right now despite the obvious dollar benefits to both AMD and nV of getting something out there. DX10 hardware support is younger and less common than VPU-physics hardware support support, and yet the number of physics titles from any solution will be a fraction of the DX10 titles this year, let alone next.

Too bad, I think the hype has died even for AMD and nV as nything more than another checkbox on the spec sheet.

I perfectly understand Cryteks decision. They decided against the risk to use Ageias solution which will loose once NV and AMD start offering theirs and they couldn´t use a GPU solution since there is none available. Epic is risking a lot if they fully implement Ageias offering. If they only implement physics light, as seen in GRAW, Gothic 3 and other games, then they could better leave it out and invest more into better optimization and more eye candy. On the other hand if they fully implement physics they risk alienating their customer base - the crowd that buys a game that costs about 250$ (50 for the game and 200 for the Physics-card) is quite small. It could pay off though, which in turn would make epic the physics reverence and posterboy - in the long run. I doubt that though.
June 2, 2007 4:15:00 PM

Wow. There are some really passionate people on this board (that can type very fast.) I hunt and peck so...

I'd like to see the ppu market mature, but only if it truly works. I saw the cell factor vids and they are impressive. Especially so for the one where dude is shooting the tapestry. That is really something. But i don't know what the future holds.

What will mature first, ppu's or dx10? haha.
!