Physics card price

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/multimedia/display/20050520034045.html

"The cards based on the new AGEIA PhysX processor will start sampling
in Q3 2005, and when they appear in retail in Q4 their price is
supposed to be between $249 and $299"

They are really going to fly off the shelves at that price aren't
they!
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
13 answers Last reply
More about physics card price
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    I really wonder at the use of these, in particular with the advent of
    dual-core cpus.

    If you can make a system call and have the physics off-loaded to this card,
    you could just as easily have the system call look for the presence of a 2nd
    cpu and hand off the task as another thread.

    rms
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Sun, 22 May 2005 06:50:44 GMT, Andrew <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote:

    >http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/multimedia/display/20050520034045.html
    >
    >"The cards based on the new AGEIA PhysX processor will start sampling
    >in Q3 2005, and when they appear in retail in Q4 their price is
    >supposed to be between $249 and $299"
    >
    >They are really going to fly off the shelves at that price aren't
    >they!

    More to the point, if I went out and got one today what games are actually
    going to work with it?
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Sun, 22 May 2005 12:25:27 GMT, Memnoch
    <memnoch@nospampleaseimbritish.ntlworld.com> wrote:

    >More to the point, if I went out and got one today what games are actually
    >going to work with it?

    There are a few games penciled in for supporting it, but I think the
    key issue is that no game (for the forseable future) will require it
    so it will only add a bit of fluff to a game, not affect the core
    gameplay. I really can't see a point of such a card, it stands no
    chance of becoming mainstream, especially at that price point.
    --
    Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
    Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
    please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
    Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    "rms" <rsquires@flashREMOVE.net> wrote in message
    news:jdWje.3838$VS6.1255@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
    >I really wonder at the use of these, in particular with the advent of
    >dual-core cpus.
    >
    > If you can make a system call and have the physics off-loaded to this
    > card, you could just as easily have the system call look for the presence
    > of a 2nd cpu and hand off the task as another thread.
    >
    > rms
    >

    I could see graphics cards possibly adding a physics CPU (a PPU?). I can't
    imagine one physics processor being that much more advantageous over
    another, like with graphics. Other than how many particles it can calculate,
    I guess. But we will see how it pans out. I thought "3D" graphics cards were
    just a gimmick. Until I played Descent 2 with my first Monster 3D card....
    drool.

    However, I can see how not only does a gamer have to worry about a
    motherboard, CPU, and graphics card, but what physics card to get too.
    yikes. So just when you think things are getting better with onboard LAN,
    USB, and sound, you are now filling up your PCI(e) slots with more stuff.

    Unless someone comes up with a way to calculate physics of particles that
    revolutionizes the world, all I can see it needing is pure horsepower which
    will determine how many particles can be calculated.
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Sun, 22 May 2005 06:50:44 GMT, Andrew <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote:

    >http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/multimedia/display/20050520034045.html
    >
    >"The cards based on the new AGEIA PhysX processor will start sampling
    >in Q3 2005, and when they appear in retail in Q4 their price is
    >supposed to be between $249 and $299"
    >
    >They are really going to fly off the shelves at that price aren't
    >they!
    >--

    DEAD-DUCK....

    Developers will use the processing power of the dual-core CPU,
    not program for a minimal-sales peripheral. Anyway, where are
    the extra slots in a PCIe MB not potentially taken up by avid
    extreme gamers ( the only people that might buy this card)
    with extra graphics cards (PCIe) and/or audio/media processing
    cards (PCI) ? The dual-core CPU takes up no extra space !!

    John Lewis

    >Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
    >Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
    >please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
    >Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    x-no-archive: yes

    what is the biggest complain pc gamers have with the obvious
    exception of steam?
    its high cost in pc games

    what is one of the biggest challenges in pc games besides
    fighting steam piracy and consoles?
    controlling the escalation of prices in pc games

    we can't let pc games become a elitist expensive for a minority
    type of entertainment
    pc games must be accessible, affordable and democratic

    so its obvious my answer is NO, a big NO to the introduction
    of proprietary specific dedicated hardware to deal with physics
    processing in pc games
    physics processing must be done by the CPU like it has been done
    since the beginning
    if CPU are not enough powerfull to deal with complex physics
    then its simple... we must wait until they are

    --
    post made in a steam-free computer
    i said "NO" to valve and steam
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    What about latency? Sending physics parameters across the PCIe bus then
    getting the results back is going to be fantastically slow relative to
    having a dual core system with dual FPU's. I predict this is going to be a
    stillborn tech.

    --
    Remove nospam to email
    "Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote in message
    news:7qa091lhsg4fkrqrrrogmaaj2c7k4q2e16@4ax.com...
    > http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/multimedia/display/20050520034045.html
    >
    > "The cards based on the new AGEIA PhysX processor will start sampling
    > in Q3 2005, and when they appear in retail in Q4 their price is
    > supposed to be between $249 and $299"
    >
    > They are really going to fly off the shelves at that price aren't
    > they!
    > --
    > Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
    > Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
    > please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
    > Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On 22/5/05 10:25 PM, Memnoch wrote:

    >>http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/multimedia/display/20050520034045.html

    > More to the point, if I went out and got one today what games are actually
    > going to work with it?

    You could say that about any advance in graphics technology starting
    with the Voodoo.

    The physics processor might well be able to do the physics faster than a
    general-purpose CPU. Certainly a graphics CPU does that job better than
    a general-purpose CPU does.

    My concern is that the job of physics probably involves a lot of
    decision-making that doesn't occur when colouring triangles.
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    In article <4290aaf7.2029329@news.verizon.net>,
    John Lewis <john.dsl@verizon.net> wrote:
    > Developers will use the processing power of the dual-core CPU,
    > not program for a minimal-sales peripheral. Anyway, where are

    Unless one of the major consoles were to integrate a dedicated physics
    chip. In that case, a lot of developers might program for it.

    Rick R.
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Mon, 23 May 2005 04:51:31 +0000 (UTC), rickr@is.rice.edu (Rick
    Russell) wrote:

    >In article <4290aaf7.2029329@news.verizon.net>,
    >John Lewis <john.dsl@verizon.net> wrote:
    >> Developers will use the processing power of the dual-core CPU,
    >> not program for a minimal-sales peripheral. Anyway, where are
    >
    >Unless one of the major consoles were to integrate a dedicated physics
    >chip.

    Provided it cost < $1, since the next-gen consoles will be already
    sold as loss-leaders for at least a year. Anyway, with the multithread
    and parallel processing power that is claimed for both the Xbox360
    and the PS3, emulation of that physics chip should be trivial in those
    consoles and with little or no effect on visible performance. A
    technology brought to market too late.

    John Lewis

    > In that case, a lot of developers might program for it.
    >
    >Rick R.
  11. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    "Sweeney: Well, Unreal Engine 2 just runs single-threaded so you don't get a
    significant benefit from it but in Unreal Engine 3 you'll be able to do
    rendering and animation updates and physics in multiple threads so, I
    wouldn't say it would double, but it'll increase performance significantly"

    This spells the death of this addon card, imho.
    From
    http://forums.beyondunreal.com/showthread.php?p=1818720#post1818720

    rms
  12. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Mon, 23 May 2005 01:42:28 +1000, Richard Cavell <richardcavell@mail.com>
    wrote:

    >On 22/5/05 10:25 PM, Memnoch wrote:
    >
    >>>http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/multimedia/display/20050520034045.html
    >
    >> More to the point, if I went out and got one today what games are actually
    >> going to work with it?
    >
    >You could say that about any advance in graphics technology starting
    >with the Voodoo.

    I was one of those early adopters. Remember that room you could wander around
    in with the different shaped objects just laying around? And when the 3dfx
    patch was released for Tomb Raider? Knocked you sideways back then!

    >The physics processor might well be able to do the physics faster than a
    >general-purpose CPU. Certainly a graphics CPU does that job better than
    >a general-purpose CPU does.
    >
    >My concern is that the job of physics probably involves a lot of
    >decision-making that doesn't occur when colouring triangles.

    True, but I think it will be a less obvious thing than when you bought your
    first 3D accelerator.
  13. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Alot of PC games are going to be graphics intensive. So far, very few PC
    games are physics intensive. That says to me the generalized CPU is a
    better deal. For the 300 dollars a physics card costs, I could put some of
    that money towards upgrading with a new motherboard and CPU.
Ask a new question

Read More

PC gaming Video Games