• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Physics chip vs dualcore/multithread

Malladine

Malladine

Diamond Member
So this physics chip thing is going to happen and I got to thinking: if developers programmed physics to run on the 2nd core of dual core systems, wouldn't that provide more or less the same performance as the added expense (assuming dual/multi core systems become standard one day) of the physics card?

In other words, won't full acceptance of multi core technology negate most of the usefulness of the physics chip?
 
No. No way generic processor performance can match Special hardware performance.
CPU is generic, while it is flexible and can do a lot of tasks, it's performance in specific task is limited

For example, a dual core CPU cannot use its second core for processing graphic even if the whole core is dedicated to it. The performance of a dedicated CPU core for graphic processing is close to zero

The same goes for PSU. A CPU can model 100 rigid bodies with AI running together, perhaps it can model 200-300 rigid bodies when it is dedicated to physics processing. But this cannot match the ten thousand rigid body modelling of the PSU can offer
 
I hope it does, I don't care to pay another 200 - 400 dollars for more mandatory hardware. 200 - 300 rigid bodies is enough for me anyway 🙂.
 
Originally posted by: dullard
You are not thinking far enough in advance. Imagine the PPU as just another core on the chip.
Click to expand...
I bet that's where we're headed, totally makes sense.

Annihilator: why the difference? I mean, isn't the performance of the 2nd core commensurate with the skill of the programmers?
 
The PPU would put dual core to shame in that arena. However the CPU does more work than just the physics in the game.
 
I'm sick of this question. Dual core processors are NOT the answer to everything. This just as dumb as asking "why don't graphics processors just get integrated into the CPU?"

Doesn't ANYONE realize that a CPU, PPU, and GPU, are completely different beasts? It makes no sense to integrate a PPU into a CPU. Does everyone need a CPU? Yes. PPU? No. Hence, it makes more sense as an add-in card.
 
Originally posted by: Malladine
Originally posted by: dullard
You are not thinking far enough in advance. Imagine the PPU as just another core on the chip.
Click to expand...
I bet that's where we're headed, totally makes sense.

Annihilator: why the difference? I mean, isn't the performance of the 2nd core commensurate with the skill of the programmers?
Click to expand...

Not in the slightest. CPU != PPU. It's not about programming, it's about the processor design.
 
Originally posted by: RaiderJ
Originally posted by: Malladine
Originally posted by: dullard
You are not thinking far enough in advance. Imagine the PPU as just another core on the chip.
Click to expand...
I bet that's where we're headed, totally makes sense.

Annihilator: why the difference? I mean, isn't the performance of the 2nd core commensurate with the skill of the programmers?
Click to expand...

Not in the slightest. CPU != PPU. It's not about programming, it's about the processor design.
Click to expand...
Can you explain further? How exactly is a PPU designed to process the data involved with realtime physics better than a CPU programmed to do so, beyond the fact that the PPU is marketed as such?
 
Originally posted by: Malladine
Originally posted by: RaiderJ
Originally posted by: Malladine
Originally posted by: dullard
You are not thinking far enough in advance. Imagine the PPU as just another core on the chip.
Click to expand...
I bet that's where we're headed, totally makes sense.

Annihilator: why the difference? I mean, isn't the performance of the 2nd core commensurate with the skill of the programmers?
Click to expand...

Not in the slightest. CPU != PPU. It's not about programming, it's about the processor design.
Click to expand...
Can you explain further? How exactly is a PPU designed to process the data involved with realtime physics better than a CPU programmed to do so, beyond the fact that the PPU is marketed as such?
Click to expand...

Because it's designed from the ground up to do so. Thinking otherwise would be like asking your mechanic to "just add 4 cylinders to my Honda" and thinking it would all of a sudden be a Mack truck.

As for the specifics of the PPU and how it does physics better, read up on the AGEIA board.
 
this is the same argument that people said when 3D graphics cards were created.....look at whats up now....maybe someday they will be integreated on a mainboard...but who know...
 
Originally posted by: Malladine
Can you explain further? How exactly is a PPU designed to process the data involved with realtime physics better than a CPU programmed to do so, beyond the fact that the PPU is marketed as such?
Click to expand...
Try this example.

You have 50 kids to get from one city to another city 100 miles away by a highway. Everyone has a car (CPU in this analogy). The car can fit a driver + 5 kids (remember the car still must be very fast and it must fit in house garages, so it is limited in size). There are various speeds of cars (MHz of CPU). But even the fastest car is limited -lets say at 200 mph for this example. In one hour, the car travelling 200 mph can go there and back one time delivering 5 kids. So to deliver all 50 kids, you need 10 trips and 10 hours.

Car manufacturers come along and develop dual compartment cars. You can now hold a massive 10 kids at once! Speed is only minimally effected if you have a good enough car driver (programming). Thus now you can deliver 10 kids an hour, or all 50 kids in 5 hours. Things are great.

But wait, someone develops a new product called a bus (PPU in this analogy). The bus is designed from the beginning to do one task well - move many kids at once. This bus cannot win a race and only travels at 50 mph. The bus cannot park in a normal parking lot like a CPU can. The bus cannot fit in a garage like a CPU can. A bus cannot go to a drive through ATM. The bus has many limitations. Very few people have a bus. But it has the ability to carry 50 kids at once since the designers did not focus on those other aspects (remember everyone has cars for those tasks). So in two hours, this bus takes all 50 kids from one city to another. Buying the bus is far better than using two cars (or a dual car).

Ideally, I'd like to see a dual car/bus. Where you can go 200 mph while carrying 50 kids and still park in a standard size garage. That is the possibility of a PPU on a multiple core chip.
 
I think it is more likely that the PPU will end up integrated into the Graphics Card than anything else, after all, they are both used for basically only games.
 
Specialized parts is definatley the way to go for drastically improved performance. Shortly after the introduction of the GPU, I'd thought to myself about the possibility of physics and even AI processors where games could just tap those resources and the CPU would be almost only there for tying everything together and managing traffic and communication. Although something like that is highly expensive and would make most sense if it was placed into dedicated gaming consoles. These next gen systems are similar with multiple cores and threads to access, but it isn't quite the same.
 
I think a "gaming card" would be cool. Drop in your own GPU, PPU, RAM, etc. and game-on. Actually, I've just described a video game console (sort of).

Some talk I've heard is about integrating the PPU with next-next gen consoles. I think it would be a great idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top