Poll: What would the price of Physx card have to be

[Hard Ball]

Just what the question asked; how much would be a reasonable price, according to your taste, to try out this new technology, and to see thousands of particles flying around after an explosion?

 

[JBT]

It would be really nice if it were under $150 but I if alot of games REALLY use what it has to offer I would pay $200 no problem.
I mean christ If Creative can charge 100 for a sound card?

 

[SynthDude2001]

Right now I'd say it would have to be $100 or so, but I know they'll never lower the price that much.

 

[aka1nas]

I'd be willing to pay a bit under what I would pay for a video card. Maybe $150 to $200 max. Of course, I used to be adamantly opposed to paying over $150 for a video card, so I will probably end up buying the PhysX card for $250 if a few games support it. I have messed with the SDK and it looks like it would be fun to program for too.

 

[DeathReborn]

Not in US but i'd pay a max of £150 in the UK for one (Retail, £130 OEM). US no more than $175.

 

[Golgatha]

I'd pay about $150 for one. There would have to be several applications out there for me to pay more.

 

[poohbear]

it kinda sucks that u'd hafta pay an extra 100-$200 ontop of your top of the line $700 vid card. i sure hope nvidia and ati make their own add on physics chip to their gpus. anyways, i would'nt pay more than the cost of a good quality soundcard, i.e. $100. if it goes mainstream, then that's a diff story, but won't it be like eax advanced where only the big hits have it?(heck, do oblivion or WOW, the 2 biggest hits, even use eax advanced?!?)

 

[imported_Crusader]

LOL look at all the people wanting one for <100.. everyone wants something for nothing.

I put <$200 (until it proves itself). But I think its worth $199 if it works at all as displayed in videos.

All I need is one killer app and I'd be dropping $200 for it.
Quake Wars with a fully destructible environment? Count me in.
Or FarCry 2? Count me in as well for this card @$200.

 

[the Chase]

I'd pay a max of $200 if there were a couple of games I cared about that used it. I'd bargain hunt though or wait for a mail in rebate to try to hit the $150 mark unless Crysis uses it fully and it is all that that game looks to be.

 

[xenolith]

Originally posted by: Crusader
LOL look at all the people wanting one for <100.. everyone wants something for nothing.

Must be an indicator of a very good economy when people start to say $100 is nothing to drop on such an extravagant purchase.

I'll wait and see if these things become widely adopted and fall to <$150 before I jump.

 

[Kakumba]

im gonna have to see some great games supporting it befre I buy one at all, and even then, its gotta be reasonably priced (<2/3 cost of a high end GPU like a 7900GT)

 

[ProviaFan]

It's going to have to get support for more applications than just games before I buy one. If they could accelerate Photoshop and Camera RAW conversions (yeah, right, I wish...), I'd buy one in a heartbeat.

 

[Hard Ball]

I think I will pick one up if one falls significantly below $200, there probably won't be too many games supporting it before then anyways, and if I can also afford a decent next Gen graphics card (GF8, maybe; well, running Linux, ATI is not that friendly, maybe things will change then)

By the way, who voted for "whatever price", I'm dying to know.

 

[CP5670]

$100 for me, once a few games come out for it. I wouldn't pay any more than that at least in the near future, since unlike a video card upgrade, it won't do anything for any of my existing games. Although it would be a lot more appealing if it could also speed up numerical computation programs.

 

[Munky]

Let's see now: a $100 graphics card can provide a decent boost in performance over integrated graphics, and sure as hell a huge boost over software rendering. So, for $100 I should be able to buy a semi-decent physx card, and it should still provide a nice boost in gameplay. I'm not asking for 100 million flying barrels in a scene, but if the minimum price is $200, then I doubt AGEIA will be making many sales aside from the minority enthusiast market. For $100 I could just buy a cheap radeon x1600 and try out Ati's physics solution when it's out.

 

[Effect]

<$100 unless it proves to massively improve gameplay. I'd prefer a ATI/Nvidia to make them (integrated or stand-alone), that'll make for competetive prices.

 

[Barkotron]

Originally posted by: DeathReborn
Not in US but i'd pay a max of £150 in the UK for one (Retail, £130 OEM). US no more than $175.

Sounds about right to me. OcUK's charging £217ish inc VAT - not going near unless a) they bring that down a good sixty or seventy quid, or b) every single game from now on looks rubbish without them, but incredible with.

So I guess that'll be a) then .

 

[fierydemise]

If games I'm interested in use it then I'd be willing to go $100 maybe $150 if it can really provide alot. Otherwise nothing.

 

[43st]

Need a poll option for "Don't want one".

I think I'll see what ATI, Nvidia, and dual core bring to the table before spending anything on this. You can already run the demos on regular hardware, no sense in spending the cash if a dual core can take it.

 

[PingSpike]

There aren't even any games out for it yet, so I would pay nothing. And with competition from both dual core processors and the powerhouses of ati/nvidia I wouldn't be surprised if this becomes yet another example of an interesting tech that never gets adopted.

 

[DeathReborn]

Originally posted by: PingSpike
There aren't even any games out for it yet, so I would pay nothing. And with competition from both dual core processors and the powerhouses of ati/nvidia I wouldn't be surprised if this becomes yet another example of an interesting tech that never gets adopted.

There is at least one that I know of that uses PhysX and that is City of Villains.


I know it's not going to happen but if Armed Assault benefitted from this i'd buy it at it's current price (£217).

 

[imported_redlotus]

Kind of a loaded question considering how little we know about the future of these cards. I guess how much I pay would depend on a few things:
1. How often they come out with new generations. If they introduce an upgraded chip every six months, I'm not going to pay over $100 to get a current generation chip. OTOH, a shorter upgrade cycle will increase the chance that I'll wait to buy one used.
2. How many of the games that I play support it. The more games that support it, the more I'm likely to pay. Of course, since I'm a strategy kinda guy, it's not likely that I'd be willing to pay more than $150 even if they only upgrade once every other year.
3. How viable and cost effective the nvidia/ATI solutions are.

If I had to decide today with the current games that are supported, I wouldn't pay more than $50.

-red

 

[Keysplayr]

I'll buy one when it is integrated into the graphics board.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: munky
Let's see now: a $100 graphics card can provide a decent boost in performance over integrated graphics, and sure as hell a huge boost over software rendering. So, for $100 I should be able to buy a semi-decent physx card, and it should still provide a nice boost in gameplay. I'm not asking for 100 million flying barrels in a scene, but if the minimum price is $200, then I doubt AGEIA will be making many sales aside from the minority enthusiast market. For $100 I could just buy a cheap radeon x1600 and try out Ati's physics solution when it's out.

Provided the dev coded for ATI's API.

 

[Crashedout]

It needs to be on the graphics card, in the GPU or on the MB before I would consider it. I don't think it needs to waste one of my slots and bus bandwidth. If it is priced like the sound chips I think they can create a market.