if you'd followed my posts, which i am not saying you should but you would see that i am the only one reminding everyone about ATI. i don't give a damn about nvidia!!!!! i think competition is good, i also think on paper ATI's idea is the best. allowing developers to make their own solutions based on their architecture means a level playing field and does not require people using ageia's all or nothing approach.
Point taken about ATI, and I did read the article you posted. However the article I posted compares how the addin physics card differs in functionality from a graphics card doing physics. It seems a logical approach to allow the graphics card to handle the physics involved in rendering graphical effects (smoke and fog come to mind) and allowing a dedicated ppu to handle structural effects, like a grenade hitting a building causing an in game effect.
I'm sure that there will be flexibility. Aegia's site, even now, has side by side comparisons of what difference a dedicated processor will make. Besides, look at the games now; there is no PPU nor is there physics drivers released. The physics are just hard-coded in the game. It's just like the games that are coded to make use of soundcards, not everyone has them, but you still have sound without them. That's flexibility solution you'll most likely see.
some good points made especially about being flexible. this is where i feel microsoft could come in handy for setting a standard. some people might not like it but it has to be said if anyone can force people to use something it's microsoft.
oh and avoi ageia's site, it useless except to promote their product strangely enough.
My apologies for focusing on Nvidia, my post applies to any graphics company. As far as I can tell, in terms of utilizing the graphics system for physics calculation, ATI seems to have a better architecture then Nvidia; it's more flexible. I think for this entire discussion, the hardware really will not matter so much as the software base. I am concerned about proprietary software that will only work with certain hardware set-ups; There likely will be games with physics tailored specifically for Ageia hardware, tailored for ATI hardware, and tailored for Nvidia hardware. This may be a limiting factor for the end user, because they might not be able to run a certain game with physics calculation embedded in the programming unless they use a certain setup.
Suppose Unreal 2K7 will only support Ageia hardware (an example, I really have no idea if it will be limited); Someone who has an ATI or Nvidia solution will not be able to run the game with physics calculations? In a more extreme case, certain titles may require specific hardware sets entirely, and will not run on a machine without those specific features.
This would mean that a consumer will have to buy hardware based on the game titles available for that hardware. There is a computer that already has done this; it's called a console.
My point is that I hope software companies will have flexible applications, and at least partially support alternative hardware configurations. The PC is a universal entertainment platform. Let's hope it stays that way.
Well, PhysX SDK, allows games to run without the PhysX Hardware, although you won´t get the same level of physics you´d get with the card. And it´s a very nice tool (i´ve been reading it´s manuals for start developing on it ).
I know that wasn't the best example. I didn't go into the fact that these processors are only good at mathmatics and even though the opteron only has roughly 5.7 GFLOPS it would blow away these co-processor at other tasks.
if you'd followed my posts, which i am not saying you should but you would see that i am the only one reminding everyone about ATI. i don't give a damn about nvidia!!!!! i think competition is good, i also think on paper ATI's idea is the best. allowing developers to make their own solutions based on their architecture means a level playing field and does not require people using ageia's all or nothing approach.
Point taken about ATI, and I did read the article you posted. However the article I posted compares how the addin physics card differs in functionality from a graphics card doing physics. It seems a logical approach to allow the graphics card to handle the physics involved in rendering graphical effects (smoke and fog come to mind) and allowing a dedicated ppu to handle structural effects, like a grenade hitting a building causing an in game effect.
IMHO, the right tool for the right job.
Sounds about right to me a certain amount of physics done by the GPU like smoke and particles makes sense. The physics done by a PPU should be more colision and gravity based type things.
If nVidia manage to do what they claim and enable their crads to deal with physics as well as graphics than thats a good thing but lets be honest. When all there was was CPU and no dedicated graphics chip look at what graphics we could have (look now at 3dmrak and the cpu tests and how slow the cpu only tests run even on an FX57).
Then came along the dedicated graphics chip. Good old 3DFX. But do we remember how we felt about them. A waste of money people said. We dont need great graphics the cpu can do what we need was what was being said at first. But then as games developed we cant live with out graphics cards anymore. If you want to play even the shitest of games you need an ATI or nVidia card. Even better two. (Aply the same to sound cards)
Now what happens when someone comes along and creates a new card dedicated to another aspect of gaming. The Physix Card. The same will happen but at the end of the day if you want to play the best games looking at their best, sounding thier best and now acting, reacting and moving (clothes, trees, building, explosions, wind hair etc) their best then you will need all the dedicated hardware you can get.
In the end games developers will begin to program all their games to use the new physix chip. Games like Unreal 3 and Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter are already starting. All will follow.
I understand what people are saying about nVidia and ATI having powerful graphics chips that could theoretically handle physics but why spend money on sli if one will do physics and one graphics. In the end games will run slow again. A dedicated chip is the only true way to go when performance is concearned. I dont want to sacrifice graphics performance for the sake or hair moving realistically in the wind. I want a dedicated card for physics so that when hair is moving in the wind while being lit by 100 light sources all different colurs (extreme example but you get the picture) it looks realistic and thanks to a dedicated graphics card itll look as good as it moves and thanks to a dedicated sound card itll all sound great and thanks to the cpu ill be able to look at it at any angle etc
All in all
Dedicated Sound great
Dedicated Graphics amazing
Dedicated Physics PERFECT
i think you're looking at this the wrong way, no offense. the PPU will allow developers to push games FURTHER, and allow you to to enable physics beyond what your graphics cards are capable, seeing as how they have to keep up with the ever increasing demand for graphical rendering. can you imaging what crysis will demand of your GPU/GPUs when displaying it at 1920x1200 or 2560x1600? dont you think that allowing something other than the GPU to do the physics would allow you to use their power for say HDR, AA, etc? your assumption doesnt take into account that games will continue to progress, or the fact that games now can push your system to its limits, even with SLI.
i am not questioning or debating the fact that the GPU can be used, or even used well, for physics processing.
This PPU hype is nice and if applied correctly, can become the next big thing. However, as with all first-time stuff, there is one possible problem:
bugs
Remember the first GPU's? The ones that were called graphics deccelerators? I hope he same doesnt happen to the PhysX cards, because then we will have to wait a while for proper physics goodness.
you also forget that gfx cards are always progressing. from what i've heard not all the gpu is utilised at once. a gfx card may struggle with fps but it doesn't mean to say every ounce of the gpu's power is being used. crysis is not out for a long time yet and the gfx cards will, as they always do, have the power to run them.
ok, once again, it appears you are determined not to try and view this any other way. you ignored the fact that youll be able to have better games developed because of the addition of the PPU and that hardware and software capabilities/requirements go back and forth as to which is keeping up with which. food for thought: why is the cell processor supposed to be so great?
on the other hand, nice rig. mine is very similar. just ordered the 2405fpw, getting it tuesday. thinkin about the x-fi, not sure yet. my case, PSU, and Memory are way better tho. jp
CPU: Athlon64 X2 4400+
Motherboard: ASUS A8N-E
Graphics Card: EVGA 7800GT
Memory: 2048 Corsair XMS DDR 500
Hard Drive: WD Raptor 73.6
Cooling: Zalman CNPS9500
Power Supply: PC Power & Cooling 510
Speakers: Logitech Z-2300's
Monitor: soon to be 2405fpw
Case: Lian-Li V2000B
Technology is a lot stronger today and more testing is done before products are released. Think about it. There is a lawsuit for every city in the country, so companies are more and more sure about their products as they are released.
As far as practicality? Games are encorporating more complex physics involving situations so more dedication is required: ppu.
i am not being narrow minded or stubborn here. i am the one of the only ones here keeping an open mind. no one know how a properly developed game based on physics with ah GPU will fare agaist a game developed for AGEIA. the cell processor ain't supposed to be that good. in fact it can only handle things that are spoon fed to it. overall a pc cpu takes it with ease.
strip back all the hype concerning products and wait till actual evidence exists then we shall see.
oh and my case is the best, and out of interest what timings you get with that memory.
).
