The first nails in the PhysX coffin........

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

The obvious alternate to the PhysX add-in-card physics accelerator:-

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=10177

The PhysX no doubt would provide superior performance, but (a) who
is going to pay $300 and (b) what games developer is going to bother
to support it when the above offering from Havok is a natural
alternative and can be readily integrated into the current
multiplatform development environments. Also, within a year dual-core
PCs will be as standard as DVD-roms in PCs today. Every desktop PC
sold will be dual-core capable by merely changing the CPU, if not
already supplied as a dual-core machine.

Seems as if the PhysX is already dead-in-the-water. 5 years too late.

John Lewis
40 answers Last reply
More about nails physx coffin
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Multi-core CPU's will use twice the power to do less than a quarter the
    work. They will also cost more. A dual core CPU right now is going for
    almost 600 dollars.

    When sound cards first came out, they cost about 200 dollars. Yet today
    some kind of dedicated sound processing chip or card is part of just about
    every gaming PC.
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    But the thing about those $200-$300 sound and video cards is that they
    let your computer do something you simply could not do by throwing more
    CPU cycles at the problem.
    On admittedly casual observation, I don't see the same thing applying
    to a physics processor.

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

    "John Lewis" <john.dsl@verizon.net> wrote in message
    news:42dbc5d9.2806200@news.verizon.net...

    > The PhysX no doubt would provide superior performance, but (a) who
    > is going to pay $300

    For a graphics card, they said, way back when ...

    But I've been wondering why nobody has said they're going to do this. Take a
    single-player game of BF2 - imagine playing with 128 or 256 NPC's with their
    AI all running on one core while the other core takes care of everything
    else.
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    "eventerke@nspm.h0tmail.com" <eventerke@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:1121731343.607084.145840@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    > On admittedly casual observation, I don't see the same thing applying
    > to a physics processor.

    A dual core CPU couldn't do the physics of 30,000 rigid bodies
    interacting, either.

    And BTW, most CPU's can do the stuff the soundcard does in software
    (software algorithms are part of DirectSound 3D). Not all of it but most of
    it. Of course it would come at a performance penalty. In fact many less
    expensive sound chips have much of the sound engine itself in software.
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    In article <1121731343.607084.145840
    @g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, eventerke@hotmail.com
    says...
    > But the thing about those $200-$300 sound and video cards is that they
    > let your computer do something you simply could not do by throwing more
    > CPU cycles at the problem.
    Actually you can, GPUs and SPUs are just like CPUs,
    just faster at doing their specialized task then your
    average CPU.

    > On admittedly casual observation, I don't see the same thing applying
    > to a physics processor.
    The real issues here:
    Will the graphics card companies try to make their own
    physics accellerators as add-ons to their GPUs?
    Will the cores in CPUs ramp up enough to be able to
    perform physics on par with dedicated boards?
    Can the PC market support the hardware sales that are
    needed to support development? (given the prolonged
    slump it is in atm)
    Will gamers want the type of physics that the card can
    provide?

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

    > The real issues here:
    > Will the graphics card companies try to make their own physics
    > accellerators as add-ons to their GPUs?

    That's the most logical move to me. A two-in-one, single-slot solution.
    Would the PCI-e bus be able to handle the bandwidth of both a graphics
    processor and a dedicated physics processor?

    The initial game offerings would also have to be backwards compatible with
    CPU-only setups.

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

    factory wrote:
    > In article <1121731343.607084.145840

    > Actually you can, GPUs and SPUs are just like CPUs,
    > just faster at doing their specialized task then your
    > average CPU.

    I should have clarified what I meant - could not do at the time, with
    the hardware available for a PC. I wonder how many games these days
    are CPU bound (I realize that's a chicken-egg question - developers are
    coding for the hardware that's out there).

    > The real issues here:
    > Will the graphics card companies try to make their own
    > physics accellerators as add-ons to their GPUs?
    > Will the cores in CPUs ramp up enough to be able to
    > perform physics on par with dedicated boards?
    > Can the PC market support the hardware sales that are
    > needed to support development? (given the prolonged
    > slump it is in atm)
    > Will gamers want the type of physics that the card can
    > provide?
    >
    > - Factory

    Good points. It's starting to seem like a dedicated physics processor
    is more in line with the simulator market (driving, flight) than with
    general gaming. Bundling with a graphics card seems like a great idea.
    It would probably help push along the installed base faster than a
    stand-alone card. I wonder if there are some interesting efficiencies
    that could be realized be accelerating movement and rendering
    calculations on the same hardware (or least out of shared high-speed
    memory).

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

    The physics cards will use not much more bandwith than an Audigy
    soundcard. They will work even with the regular PCI bus. The internal
    calculations of the physics will be very bandwith intensive, which is why
    the cards will have high speed memory ordinarily used on graphics cards.
    However, the actual information it will send back to the PC will be
    relatively simple stuff. The CPU doesn't have to know why the rigid body
    (for example, the ubiquitous crate) moves, it just needs to know where it
    needs to move it.
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 13:26:44 GMT, factory <t@t.com> wrote:

    > Will gamers want the type of physics that the card can
    >provide?

    Personally it is something that would be nice to have, but I am
    certainly not going to much pay extra for it. When I play HL2 and BF2,
    I just enjoy the games, I have never thought to myself "this is good,
    but it needs more physics". Games starting to effectively utilize dual
    core CPU's (which I don't have yet) would be a more interesting
    prospect.
    --
    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.
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Most games now days are very much dependent on the graphics card. Doom 3
    being the perfect example.
  11. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    In article <EScDe.186$xn.73@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
    Magnulus <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote:
    # The physics cards will use not much more bandwith than an Audigy
    #soundcard. They will work even with the regular PCI bus. The internal
    #calculations of the physics will be very bandwith intensive, which is why
    #the cards will have high speed memory ordinarily used on graphics cards.
    #However, the actual information it will send back to the PC will be
    #relatively simple stuff. The CPU doesn't have to know why the rigid body
    #(for example, the ubiquitous crate) moves, it just needs to know where it
    #needs to move it.

    That's funny, I thought it was the job of the PhysX processor to
    determine where it needs to move it. If you hit an object off-center and
    it needs to rotate instead of translate, in your scenario, the main
    processor has to figure this out?

    Then you take 400 of these objects, some connected to each other and
    some bouncing off each other, each collision changing each other's
    trajectory and orientation, at a reasonable rate for realism like 15-20
    times a second, and you propose to pump this through the PCI bus?

    Take a look at the Altivec processing and how it is integrated into the
    PowerPC CPU and you'll see how closely integrated it really needs to be,
    to work.

    Ken.
    --
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mail: kmarsh at charm dot net | Fire Rumsfeld, secure Iraq's borders.
    WWW: http://www.charm.net/~kmarsh | Our border with Mexico too.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
  12. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    All I know is that Ageia believes it will work over the regular PCI bus.
    It would just about have to, as most motherboards only have free PCI slots,
    though they are talking also about PCI-Express versions. I don't know how
    they are going to do that, as at most, new motherboards only have PCI-e x1
    network slots (they do have graphics cards that will work in these slots,
    though, just not every PCI-e motherboard has them), in addition to the PCI-e
    x16 graphics card slot.

    Take a look at how the Audigy soundcard works. It does some very
    complicated stuff in terms of working with geometry reflections, but
    obviously it works, even with the rather old PCI bus.
  13. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    In article <EScDe.187$xn.5@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
    Magnulus <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote:
    Imagine being able to blow holes in walls with
    #rocket launchers anywhere on a map, having real sandstorms, avalanches,
    #rockslides, incredibly realistic explosions with realistic flying shrapnel.
    #You won't be able to do any of those things simply with dual cores.

    And... why not? Simulators are doing all these things with single cores
    right now. They COULD do it better with dual CPU's. (Whether they'll
    bother depends on the stupidity of the game manufacturers.)

    # When people see this stuff in action they will demand it.

    Just like they are demanding better AI?

    Ken.
    --
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mail: kmarsh at charm dot net | Fire Rumsfeld, secure Iraq's borders.
    WWW: http://www.charm.net/~kmarsh | Our border with Mexico too.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
  14. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    "Ken Marsh" <kmarsh@fellspt.charm.net> wrote in message
    news:wReDe.8$fb1.1406@news.abs.net...
    > And... why not? Simulators are doing all these things with single cores
    > right now.

    Most simulations have much simpler physics than you think.
  15. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    "John Lewis" <john.dsl@verizon.net> wrote in message
    news:42ddc0af.1412458@news.verizon.net...
    > AI is far more important to the single-player experience than physics
    > perfection. And obviously you have not played with the bots in Unreal
    > Tournament 2004 after a little tweaking on the custom settings.

    But hardly anybody talks about the AI in Unreal Tournament, because it's
    an online game.

    DICE and good AI don't go together. I daresay the AI in Starwars
    Battlefront was better than in any DICE game. And it didn't cause much
    slowdown. But again, people don't rave about the AI in what is basicly a
    multiplayer game. Multiplayer game= no AI needed.

    > The dual-core can equally handle Havok's multi-thread physics
    > computations and the AI computations,

    In my cynical mind, I see the upcomming games having no better AI than in
    the past. Really, how much AI do you need in a singleplayer game that is
    heavily based around scripting and trigger points, which seems to be what
    most FPS games are doing? OTOH, a single core 2 GHz CPU can only handle a
    few hundred rigid body physics calculations. A dual core CPU will at most
    handle a thousand or so. It will not be able to handle fluids or thousands
    of particles.

    >
    > PhysX is dead-duck in today's computer-gaming market. And the
    > consoles certainly won't be embeeding a PhysX chip any time
    > soon. So the multi-platform developers would have to specially
    > accommodate the few purchasers of the PhysX card....
    > that won't happen..

    I for one would like to see fewer multiplatform games. Consoles can do
    what they want, I want to see what PC developers can do.

    Your arguement is also foolish. Rockstar added EAX support to Grand Theft
    Auto, even though they didn't have to, as there was nothing similar on the
    PS2 or XBox. Assuming consoles developers won't add similar physics support
    to at least some PC ports is absurd, especially considering Ageia has
    licensed their middleware engine to several console developers, including
    Epic Megagames (Unreal).
  16. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On 19 Jul 2005 13:42:55 -0700, "eventerke@nspm.h0tmail.com"
    <eventerke@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >
    >
    >factory wrote:
    >> In article <1121731343.607084.145840
    >
    >> Actually you can, GPUs and SPUs are just like CPUs,
    >> just faster at doing their specialized task then your
    >> average CPU.
    >
    >I should have clarified what I meant - could not do at the time, with
    >the hardware available for a PC. I wonder how many games these days
    >are CPU bound (I realize that's a chicken-egg question - developers are
    >coding for the hardware that's out there).
    >
    >> The real issues here:
    >> Will the graphics card companies try to make their own
    >> physics accellerators as add-ons to their GPUs?
    >> Will the cores in CPUs ramp up enough to be able to
    >> perform physics on par with dedicated boards?
    >> Can the PC market support the hardware sales that are
    >> needed to support development? (given the prolonged
    >> slump it is in atm)
    >> Will gamers want the type of physics that the card can
    >> provide?
    >>
    >> - Factory
    >
    >Good points. It's starting to seem like a dedicated physics processor
    >is more in line with the simulator market (driving, flight) than with
    >general gaming. Bundling with a graphics card seems like a great idea.
    > It would probably help push along the installed base faster than a
    >stand-alone card. I wonder if there are some interesting efficiencies
    >that could be realized be accelerating movement and rendering
    >calculations on the same hardware (or least out of shared high-speed
    >memory).

    I wonder how well that would work. Presumably a Physics card would not
    only need to receive data, but it would also need to push back its
    results to the CPU. AGP is great for RECEIVING data (usually textures
    directly from memory), but its not really a two-way street; the
    bandwidth in the other direction is pretty minimal in comparison. And
    the GPU probably hogs that all to itself already, so an AGP
    GPU/Physcard could very well have bandwidth issues.

    Of course, with the industry slowly moving to PCI-E, this may not be
    an issue... but I don't know if PCI-E's bandwidth is asymetrical or
    not.


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

    On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 01:27:45 -0400, "Magnulus"
    <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote:

    >
    >"John Lewis" <john.dsl@verizon.net> wrote in message
    >news:42ddc0af.1412458@news.verizon.net...
    >> AI is far more important to the single-player experience than physics
    >> perfection. And obviously you have not played with the bots in Unreal
    >> Tournament 2004 after a little tweaking on the custom settings.
    >
    > But hardly anybody talks about the AI in Unreal Tournament, because it's
    >an online game.
    >
    > DICE and good AI don't go together. I daresay the AI in Starwars
    >Battlefront was better than in any DICE game.

    Have you played BF2 ? SP mode ? Or are you still stuck on Joint
    Operations ?

    >And it didn't cause much
    >slowdown. But again, people don't rave about the AI in what is basicly a
    >multiplayer game. Multiplayer game= no AI needed.
    >
    >> The dual-core can equally handle Havok's multi-thread physics
    >> computations and the AI computations,
    >
    > In my cynical mind, I see the upcomming games having no better AI than in
    >the past. Really, how much AI do you need in a singleplayer game that is
    >heavily based around scripting and trigger points, which seems to be what
    >most FPS games are doing?

    Far Cry. I'm sure that Crytek is drooling right now over the AI
    possibilities with a second full CPU at their disposal. The
    autonomous-AI implementation in Far Cry was constrained by
    processor load. And Far Cry's physics ( and BF2's physics also) are
    just fine forme and probably 99% of other action-gamers. Sorry,
    I want bots that behave more like real-live opponents BEFORE
    I kill them ( or they kill me...) Exactly how they fly apart after I
    blast them I care little - rag-doll is just fine.

    > OTOH, a single core 2 GHz CPU can only handle a
    >few hundred rigid body physics calculations. A dual core CPU will at most
    >handle a thousand or so. It will not be able to handle fluids or thousands
    >of particles.
    >

    Who cares........really....unless you are a submarine or aircraft
    designer.

    >>
    >> PhysX is dead-duck in today's computer-gaming market. And the
    >> consoles certainly won't be embeeding a PhysX chip any time
    >> soon. So the multi-platform developers would have to specially
    >> accommodate the few purchasers of the PhysX card....
    >> that won't happen..
    >
    > I for one would like to see fewer multiplatform games. Consoles can do
    >what they want, I want to see what PC developers can do.

    The exclusive-PC developer is unfortunately a rapidly dying breed.
    Sorry...
    >
    > Your arguement is also foolish. Rockstar added EAX support to Grand Theft
    >Auto, even though they didn't have to, as there was nothing similar on the
    >PS2 or XBox.

    So what --- they added it to their previous game-ports to the PC. The
    tooling is simple, and probably 90% of action-gamers have Creative
    audio in their machines.

    > Assuming consoles developers won't add similar physics support
    >to at least some PC ports is absurd, especially considering Ageia has
    >licensed their middleware engine to several console developers, including
    >Epic Megagames (Unreal).

    Use Ageia software and port over to multicore PC, sure - as a
    potential alternate to Havok.

    Support Ageia hardware ( i.e PhysX ) -- few or no takers.

    So, please let us know when:-

    (a) you buy your PhysX board

    ( b) you buy a dual-core CPU

    If I was a betting person, I would take odds on (b) happening
    long before (a)......... Of course, I am making the rash assumption
    that you need to budget your PC-related expenditures; that you are
    not rolling in so much dough that you can buy anything to which
    you take a fancy, with ot without game-developer support.

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

    You don't think fluids or particles are important? People talk about
    pushing graphics and photorealism- well, you aren't going to be able to do
    those things unless the physics to make them behave realisticly is there.
    Paying 250 dollars for a physics card is relatively trivial compared to the
    500 dollars for a dual core CPU, and in either case, support will depend on
    developers. Getting a dual core CPU won't automaticly mean anything for
    games. In general game applications right now a dual core CPU does very
    little.
  19. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 03:26:24 -0400, "Magnulus"
    <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote:

    > You don't think fluids or particles are important? People talk about
    >pushing graphics and photorealism- well, you aren't going to be able to do
    >those things unless the physics to make them behave realisticly is there.
    >Paying 250 dollars for a physics card is relatively trivial compared to the
    >500 dollars for a dual core CPU, and in either case, support will depend on
    >developers. Getting a dual core CPU won't automaticly mean anything for
    >games. In general game applications right now a dual core CPU does very
    >little.

    But in a year or two's time, dual core CPU's will be common place and
    a lot cheaper, and there will be about 5 people that will have bought
    a PhysX card.
    --
    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.
  20. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    "Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote in message
    news:l9vrd1tu15emcnicbqki4tgidim4jk1nf3@4ax.com...
    > But in a year or two's time, dual core CPU's will be common place and
    > a lot cheaper, and there will be about 5 people that will have bought
    > a PhysX card.

    In a year- no. The Dell's of the world have zero interest in multi-core
    computers except maybe for their very high end gaming rigs. The PhysX chip
    will be out later this year. That's one year's head start.

    And JL is missing a big fact. The PS3 is not a multi-core processor.
    It's just a single core with 7 DSP's. Not that different in theory from
    the PhysX chip or the Audigy's processor. Which means there will only be
    one really multi-core console, and even then most developers will use the
    other cores for prefetching of data initially, not for running multiple
    threads.
  21. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    See my clarification above - I didn't mean impossible, just not
    technically feasible at the time.

    I still think there is a fundamental difference between what 3d
    accelerators and sound cards brought to the gaming experience and what
    a physics processor could add, on a $/CPU cycles vs. WOW factor.
    After all, we interact with our PCs mainly through what we see and
    hear. If I break a window or blow a hole in a wall in a game, I'm not
    sure how much more fun it would be knowing the interactions of every
    shard of glass and piece of brick were calculated to the nth degree of
    precision ;).
    On something like a flight or driving simulator you could have the
    physics processor handling complex aero calculations or a
    high-precision tire and suspension model, freeing up the CPU for much
    better AI (which is very noticable in the single-player portions of
    these games). That's something I really might consider paying $100+ to
    have - several of the best sims are highly CPU-bound. But it's all
    about developer support - you know they'll do something to properly
    take advantage of dual-core CPU's before they do anything like PhysX
    support.

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

    On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 05:09:57 -0400, "Magnulus"
    <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote:

    > In a year- no. The Dell's of the world have zero interest in multi-core
    >computers except maybe for their very high end gaming rigs. The PhysX chip
    >will be out later this year. That's one year's head start.

    The PhysX card is purely aimed at high end gaming. How many casual
    gamers would fork out $250 for a PhysX card? I am at the geeky
    relatively high end of PC gaming and I am not at all interested in
    buying one at that price. Dual core CPU's are already available, that
    is even more of a head start.
    --
    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.
  23. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Keep in mind the PhysX chip will come down in price over time, just as
    sound cards have . Initially the Audigy card was more than it is today, too.
    Also, the expectation is that a physics card/chip will have a longer, more
    stable life cycle than a graphics card, because the hardware is not going to
    advance as quickly. Thus it will mirror sound cards more than graphics
    cards.
  24. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    eventerke@nspm.h0tmail.com wrote:
    > But the thing about those $200-$300 sound and video cards is that they
    > let your computer do something you simply could not do by throwing more
    > CPU cycles at the problem.
    > On admittedly casual observation, I don't see the same thing applying
    > to a physics processor.
    >
    > Kendt
    >

    Why not?

    Nobody thought a piece of silicon would be doing to pixels what they are
    now doing.

    More CPU cycles, by definition, equals more processing for the same
    instruction set which means more physics calculations.

    --
    Walter Mitty
    -
    Useless, waste of money research of the day : http://tinyurl.com/3tdeu
    " Format wars could 'confuse users'"
    http://www.tinyurl.com
  25. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Magnulus wrote:
    > "eventerke@nspm.h0tmail.com" <eventerke@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:1121731343.607084.145840@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    >
    >>On admittedly casual observation, I don't see the same thing applying
    >>to a physics processor.
    >
    >
    > A dual core CPU couldn't do the physics of 30,000 rigid bodies
    > interacting, either.
    >
    > And BTW, most CPU's can do the stuff the soundcard does in software
    > (software algorithms are part of DirectSound 3D). Not all of it but most of
    > it. Of course it would come at a performance penalty. In fact many less
    > expensive sound chips have much of the sound engine itself in software.
    >
    >

    Which of course is a load of bollox.

    If your PC is not being utilised 100% then fine : use the spare
    bandwidth for sound SW processing. The entire point of HW is that it
    takes the load off the CPU.

    There is no difference between a GFX HW card and a sound card in that
    respect : the CPU still has to do some work to buffer instructions,
    sound codes etc, but far better that the workhorse part is done on chip.

    --
    Walter Mitty
    -
    Useless, waste of money research of the day : http://tinyurl.com/3tdeu
    " Format wars could 'confuse users'"
    http://www.tinyurl.com
  26. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    "Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote in message
    news:pqksd1hm844bemfj3chdgu3bn66v7n3kam@4ax.com...
    > On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 05:09:57 -0400, "Magnulus"
    > <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote:
    >
    >> In a year- no. The Dell's of the world have zero interest in
    >> multi-core
    >>computers except maybe for their very high end gaming rigs. The PhysX
    >>chip
    >>will be out later this year. That's one year's head start.
    >
    > The PhysX card is purely aimed at high end gaming. How many casual
    > gamers would fork out $250 for a PhysX card? I am at the geeky
    > relatively high end of PC gaming and I am not at all interested in
    > buying one at that price. Dual core CPU's are already available, that
    > is even more of a head start.
    > --

    I might of considered the PhysX card if price wise it was more like a decent
    sound card, i.e £50-£60.
  27. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    In article <w2hDe.11330$xn.569@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
    Magnulus <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote:
    # Take a look at how the Audigy soundcard works. It does some very
    #complicated stuff in terms of working with geometry reflections, but
    #obviously it works, even with the rather old PCI bus.

    Sound cards are nearly ideal CPU off-loaders because they don't write
    much back besides status.

    Mostly, sound cards take a musical score from the CPU and perform it.
    Compare the data size difference between the 10MB PDF of a symphonic
    score, and the 700MB CD required to hold the corresponding performance
    of the orchestra.

    Sound cards don't write back much info to the application, beyond
    status. At worst they might DMA an input music stream for MP3 encoding.
    When they do that, you can count on some steady CPU load.

    Ken.
    --
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mail: kmarsh at charm dot net | Fire Rumsfeld, secure Iraq's borders.
    WWW: http://www.charm.net/~kmarsh | Our border with Mexico too.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
  28. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Hi,

    In article <bZeDe.2391$xn.733@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
    Magnulus <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote:
    #"Ken Marsh" <kmarsh@fellspt.charm.net> wrote in message
    #news:wReDe.8$fb1.1406@news.abs.net...
    #> And... why not? Simulators are doing all these things with single cores
    #> right now.
    #
    # Most simulations have much simpler physics than you think.

    Probably. Since we're talking about what *could* happen with dual
    cores, I'm hoping things will get better, not worst.

    The last simulator I had extensive experience in modeled orbital, lunar,
    planetary and solar physics, their affect on the satellite's orbit, a
    1st to 5th magnitude star map oriented spacially to trigger the star
    sensor, all while running an emulation of the Satellite Control
    Processor (SCP) which was running the same compiled Flight Software
    object code of the actual satellite. It ran in real-time, or a manuever
    trial mode where it ran as fast as possible but maintained all the
    timing relationships.

    It ran OK on a single CPU server, but much better on a tightly coupled
    dual CPU box.

    Ken.
    --
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mail: kmarsh at charm dot net | Fire Rumsfeld, secure Iraq's borders.
    WWW: http://www.charm.net/~kmarsh | Our border with Mexico too.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
  29. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    I was thinking of sims like MSFS 2004. Combat flight simulators are more
    of the same- usually in most sims the AI planes/cars etc. don't even use a
    full physics model.
  30. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 05:09:57 -0400, "Magnulus"
    <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote:

    >
    >"Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote in message
    >news:l9vrd1tu15emcnicbqki4tgidim4jk1nf3@4ax.com...
    >> But in a year or two's time, dual core CPU's will be common place and
    >> a lot cheaper, and there will be about 5 people that will have bought
    >> a PhysX card.
    >
    > In a year- no. The Dell's of the world have zero interest in multi-core
    >computers except maybe for their very high end gaming rigs.

    If TRUE, then Dell will be a second-tier PC vendor next year. If
    FALSE, then Dell will retain its top position.

    Q.E.D -- Not true !!

    Obviously you have never used a multi-processor PC. Remember that
    little hour-glass, while your thumbs twiddle ? Especially when you
    have a bunch of proigrams open in multiple windows. Well, you see a
    lot less of that with a multi-processor/core PC.

    As I mentioned earlier in this thread, the de-facto PC shipment one
    year from now will be a dual-core-capable PC. Whether the PC is
    actually shipped with a dual-core processor will be up to the
    purchaser. All home desktopPCs not DEDICATED to gaming are likely
    to be shipped dual-core - Intel will have moved most of their desktop
    CPU production to dual-core by this time next year, except for a few
    of the fastest single-core parts, and of course will have a loud
    marketing campaign to back up the move.

    >The PhysX chip
    >will be out later this year. That's one year's head start.
    >

    Nope. 5 years late.

    > And JL is missing a big fact. The PS3 is not a multi-core processor.
    >It's just a single core with 7 DSP's.

    Which can run appropriately programmed threads.

    > Not that different in theory from
    >the PhysX chip or the Audigy's processor. Which means there will only be
    >one really multi-core console, and even then most developers will use the
    >other cores for prefetching of data initially, not for running multiple
    >threads.
    >

    Really ?

    Anyway, nVidia shortly going to release a multithreaded video driver,
    and Havok is taking a big interest in multithreaded physics
    computation, so regardless of the console applications, the PC
    will benefit. Hopefully your PC is upgradable to dual core.
    Certainly if you are contemplating building a new PC, you had
    better make sure that it is dual-core compatible (even if a
    single-core is initially installed) if you intend to use it for games
    scheduled for release in 2006 or later.

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

    On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 14:08:22 -0400, "Magnulus"
    <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote:

    > Keep in mind the PhysX chip will come down in price over time, just as
    >sound cards have .

    Catch 22 ----- sales volume. PhysX won't make it. Too late.

    John Lewis

    > Initially the Audigy card was more than it is today, too.
    >Also, the expectation is that a physics card/chip will have a longer, more
    >stable life cycle than a graphics card, because the hardware is not going to
    >advance as quickly. Thus it will mirror sound cards more than graphics
    >cards.
    >
    >
  32. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    I never said that dual core wouldn't take off, I don't think it's a
    substitute for a dedicated physics processor though. And the economics of
    single core processors are still not good for gaming. In fact dual core
    processors run slower in current games than high end single-core processors.
  33. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    eventerke@nspm.h0tmail.com wrote:
    > See my clarification above - I didn't mean impossible, just not
    > technically feasible at the time.
    >
    > I still think there is a fundamental difference between what 3d
    > accelerators and sound cards brought to the gaming experience and what
    > a physics processor could add, on a $/CPU cycles vs. WOW factor.
    > After all, we interact with our PCs mainly through what we see and
    > hear. If I break a window or blow a hole in a wall in a game, I'm not
    > sure how much more fun it would be knowing the interactions of every
    > shard of glass and piece of brick were calculated to the nth degree of
    > precision ;).

    Yes you would because it would be rendered on your screen as realistic
    physics : and THAT is a wow factor.

    See the stuff that people are doing with HL2 and their physics : and
    this is SW only.
  34. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Quoth The Raven "Andrew"<spamtrap@localhost.> in
    pqksd1hm844bemfj3chdgu3bn66v7n3kam@4ax.com
    > On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 05:09:57 -0400, "Magnulus"
    > <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote:
    >
    >> In a year- no. The Dell's of the world have zero interest in
    >>multi-core computers except maybe for their very high end gaming
    >>rigs. The PhysX chip will be out later this year. That's one year's
    >>head start.
    >
    > The PhysX card is purely aimed at high end gaming. How many casual
    > gamers would fork out $250 for a PhysX card? I am at the geeky
    > relatively high end of PC gaming and I am not at all interested in
    > buying one at that price. Dual core CPU's are already available, that
    > is even more of a head start.

    I would only be influenced to buy a new graphics from what ever manufacturer
    if they included the physx chip. but I wont buy a physx card alone.

    --
    I loaded Windows and it slammed on my fingers!

    Take out the _CURSEING to reply to me
  35. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    > Quoth The Raven "Andrew"<spamtrap@localhost.> in
    > pqksd1hm844bemfj3chdgu3bn66v7n3kam@4ax.com
    >> The PhysX card is purely aimed at high end gaming. How many casual
    >> gamers would fork out $250 for a PhysX card? I am at the geeky
    >> relatively high end of PC gaming and I am not at all interested in
    >> buying one at that price. Dual core CPU's are already available, that
    >> is even more of a head start.
    >
    > I would only be influenced to buy a new graphics from what ever
    > manufacturer if they included the physx chip. but I wont buy a physx
    > card alone.

    or if a motherboard carried the chip onboard and was aimed at gamers.

    --
    Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things.

    Take out the _CURSEING to reply to me
  36. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    If people wanted good AI, they wouldn't buy multiplayer games like BF2.
    Even in UT 2004 most people are playing it for the multiplayer.
  37. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    John Lewis wrote:
    > The obvious alternate to the PhysX add-in-card physics accelerator:-
    >
    > http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=10177
    >
    > The PhysX no doubt would provide superior performance, but (a) who
    > is going to pay $300 and (b) what games developer is going to bother
    > to support it when the above offering from Havok is a natural
    > alternative and can be readily integrated into the current
    > multiplatform development environments. Also, within a year dual-core
    > PCs will be as standard as DVD-roms in PCs today. Every desktop PC
    > sold will be dual-core capable by merely changing the CPU, if not
    > already supplied as a dual-core machine.
    >
    > Seems as if the PhysX is already dead-in-the-water. 5 years too late.
    >
    > John Lewis

    Sony is to include a PhysX chip on the PS3
    http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20050721_140938.html
  38. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 16:55:39 -0400, "Magnulus"
    <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote:

    > If people wanted good AI, they wouldn't buy multiplayer games like BF2.

    I want good AI in SP games, in bot assisted MP games, and I play MP
    only games. The bots in BF2 are good, but playing online on a good
    server is much more stimulating and enjoyable. I would much rather
    developers concentrate on improving AI over adding massive amounts of
    physics just for the hell of it.

    >Even in UT 2004 most people are playing it for the multiplayer.

    Well it is a multiplayer dominated game, although personally I have
    played it more offline than online.
    --
    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.
  39. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 19:41:22 +0100, Les Steel <a@aolnot.com> wrote:

    >Sony is to include a PhysX chip on the PS3
    >http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20050721_140938.html

    I think that goes to show how stupidly inflated the cost of the PhysX
    card truly is, they are selling just the card for probably nearly as
    much as the PS3 will retail for.
    --
    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.
  40. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Quoth The Raven "Les Steel"<a@aolnot.com> in
    3ka8igFtc24kU1@individual.net
    > Sony is to include a PhysX chip on the PS3
    > http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20050721_140938.html

    wow, ps3 was already looking 3 times more powerful than the xbox360, now its
    going to be a whole lot more.

    --
    Armoured knights raised their visors to identify themselves when they
    rode past their king. This custom has become the modern military
    salute.

    Take out the _CURSEING to reply to me
Ask a new question

Read More

PC gaming Games Physx Video Games