Last message on previous page: Just think what a movie will look like in the years to come with this ppu stuff no more 3d glasses for the visual effects
if u do use the gpus though, wouldnt it be the recommended that u buy 2 high end gfx cards, since i do plan buying a new system (sli or crossfire mobos i dont care), but buying a 7900gt and a physics card seem to make more sense to me, even if i bought dual high end cards, i would want all of them to be on the gfx work. i am of course assuming that the physics card to be all its cracked up to be, we cant tell rite now until the retail product comes out and is reviewed
i have read it and do you not think it is strange how that is the only fact they mention. how does that matter. that has also yet to be confirmed. take what manufacturers say (and yes i include ATI) with a pinch of salt.
Its not only the manafacture that this info was its also from all the dedicated sponsors and reviews of this, gamespy for instance has given this a huge + for their network tech news also CAD and Descreet all agree that this will bring the best of processing, dont matter who does better at what this is not a fanboy post its a information listing to gather information on the limited information and use our common sense to a conclusion.
i dont know why you two were even arguing, both of u want to see actual results, wich is the smart thing to do, it dosnt matter how gd things seem on paper, if everything was, amd would be out of business
i jus see it as, if im spending 300+ on a gfx card, like ur ati x1900xt for example, u probably want in with a pure gfx workload to bring that max hdr, max aa and max af setting
understandable, I am into better graphic myself without the cost of the new graphic card but I do know I will need to get one some time so I am getting the physx card, because I got the money to waste and I am very very very very interested in what it will do. I know it is limited in games but I also want to bench with this in and see the difference if any at all
How many times have we seen that in the computer years of hardware falure do to white paper
I should just get somemore oced rolling papers and start puffing like mad
Let's look at it another way. I'll use a sound card as an example, because it fits perfectly. You don't buy a sound card only for better sound quality. You also buy it to take the load of the CPU. The Realtec AC97 codec handles audio processing, yes, but it has to go through the CPU in order to get the throughput.
A physics card works the same way: you buy it to take the load off the CPU. For me, at least, the fact that you get better physics performance in certain games and apps is inconsequential. With this dedicated card, all your processor has to do is calculations it was designed for. The video card handles rendering on screen, the CPU takes care of coordination, score calculation, etc., and the PPU calculates on-screen physics.
Now that we covered that, StrangeStranger, you're saying that taking the calculation load off of a part and putting it on a dedicated part won't help? I agree with the IMAX theory if that's the case.
Now, I'm not saying it's worth $300 (it may, it may not, it's too early to say), but don't say that reducing load makes things slower. That's just ignorant.
I thought the BFG card was going to retail at $199 USD. If that's the case we can probably expect a $100-$150 pricetag online for the Ageia PPU. Until a GPU can handle any game at 32xAA with all the bells and whistles on, I think that it would be beneficial to have a dedicated PPU, if only to leave more power for the GPUs.
Last I heard the cards were going to sell between 250-300$. Also to the 32xAA, I’m not going to say 32x isn't needed, but when using 16xAA in my experience, the only visible aliasing could be blamed on the monitor.
I personally think the ageia is a amazing feat.. watching the 500mb bink video of cellfactor sold me.
The sad thing is that ATI and Nvidia are two huge companies and could probably kick ageia to the curb if they really tried.
IMO the ageia is a good deal, not many people would be willing to spend another $500 on a 7900GTX or highend card just for it to be a physics card???!!
The Ageia option is $300 cheaper and if your swimming in money.. hell you could go for sli or crossfire 7900gtx/1900xtx w/ a ageia card and be overwhelmed by ultra settings with amazing physics!
That would be $1000 for Nvidias Havok option when with Ageia all you have to spend is $280+ for a seperate card that calculates everything.
All they have to do is release UT2007 gameplay vids.. and i bet ageia would be set for good.
The most important thing will be developer support for any of these physics solutions. I want a PhysX card to help take the load off my aging Athlon 2800+ and X1600Pro card so they can do what they do best, run the system and draw the pretty pictures. But if I put down my hard earned cash to build my next system and take one of these 3 paths (PhysX, SLI, or Crossfire) and my favorite game next Christmas doesn't support that direction, I just wasted my money. I'm leaning towards a PhysX card but waiting for third party tests in a few months. It's unlikely I'll ever have money to burn to buy 2 video cards in one system, and other than bragging rights for highest frame rate I doubt 2 highend cards are better than one. Although I know anyone who has SLI has to rationalize the cost somehow.
And just like games now with different code paths, will future games need to have the extra bloat (performance hit?) to be able to support all 3 of these solutions so the game publishers can cover all the bases? By the time we get to DirectX 10 cards we'll have a good idea which solution wins. Possibly all three will remain viable- PhysX on mobo's or paired with low/midrange cards, then Crossfire and SLI for the wealthy. It will depends on what the developers support though, in the end.
Asus claims they are the only developer to be making a card with 256mb. BFG's is 128. I am done thank you. now for my ibput
I think they should make it work exactly like a CPU, this way it can be compatible with so many other games, instead of only ones that the driver works with, and that the games work with.
For instance:
Lets say you have a Ageia PPU, you can then turn up the physics settings on Ghost Recon Adavnced warfighter like crazy, and have super intense physics without losing framerate, compared to just normal physics with the processer. because GRAW has it in the coding support for the PPU
BUT! What if you had a crappy CPU, or some other stuff going on... and you want to play some FEAR or Age of Empires 3 (very CPU intensive), but you always lose framerates because your CPU sucks. Then you could buy a PPU and it would speed this up like crazy giving you no framrate loss. Not SUPER-BETTER physics, but better frames at high CPU intensities, even though it is not in the coding to support the PPU.
If asus's is the same price as BFGs ill buy it. if it is any more than 50$ more, ill just get the 128mb BFG.
Exactly, Sackynut. IMO the vast majority of gamers want playable framerates with good quality graphics without upgrading video cards every year. I'll buy a PhysX card today if it will make my midrange GPU and CPU last 3+ years before they run out of steam. Highend cards get all the glory but the low and midrange cards are where vendors make their revenue. But it's all academic until we see how developer support shakes out.
i think your disallusioned about what this thing is for. the sort of games that are going to use this are going to be high end ones which will tear your gfx card apart. it will not take any strain off of anything unless told to and i fear you'll be dissapointed. it is not going to help you gfx card with gfx, it might take the strain off your CPU but thats it.
