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

[Philippine Mango]

Originally posted by: inveterate

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: inveterate

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: inveterate
Guys,, why is it that the cpu can only handle 30-40 physics objects while this thing can do like "30000"

is the card actually 1000 faster than a normal cpu? why not just make a software that can run on a cheapo computer and have that thing supply the physics data?

I TELL U answer to both.. No it's not faster,, and 2 they're assholes who just want me to buy more stuff. like seriously, first it's graphics "accelerator cards" then its SOUND cards,, Then RAM,, wtf was that about,, now PHYSICS accelerators... soon they're gonna make DVD accelerator cards that's only function is to make the tray come out faster...

I'm really pissed off at this. they're just dividing up these computing tasks so they can sell more stuff at once. and u know the sadest part is that i'm gonna have to buy it.. GRRRRRR. Same deal with dual core, instead of making faster processors, they just glued 2 togther so they can sell u 2 processors at one time. Less development cost, excuse to make more money.. I hate this,,, Now i'm gonna go save money to buy this physx crap...!!!!

This is the single, least educated thing i have read about computing in a very long time.

This is right up there with daily comments like " i need to get more memory for storage " and "my computer is only 4 years old and its still fast because i upgraded it 2 years ago"

It is very educated. It breaks down the nonsense that corporate assho*es want you to believe into the raw components of their chicanery. Yet because there is a monopoly on production, one can't make their own computer parts, we're forced to oblige. You're the one that is too quick to judge what I've said. Granted I was typing with aim speech so it probably appears crude.

So you honestly believe that we havent reached a clockspeed ceiling, and both of the corporate assholes, along with the entire microengineering community, are "fooling us" into buying parrallel processors.

You do realize that a CPU cant do Video, Physics, or sound anywhere near the complexity levels that these dedicated cards do, right?

Easy explanation: 2.7ghz cpu does instructions in order, 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 etc...

GPUs, and PPUs do them IN PARRALLEL.

Which means:
GPU: (with 24 pipelines)
1+1+1+1
1+1+1+1
1+1+1+1
1+1+1+1
1+1+1+1
1+1+1+1
1+1+1+1
1+1+1+1
1+1+1+1
1+1+1+1
1+1+1+1
1+1+1+1
1+1+1+1
1+1+1+1
1+1+1+1
1+1+1+1
1+1+1+1
1+1+1+1
1+1+1+1
1+1+1+1
1+1+1+1
1+1+1+1
1+1+1+1
1+1+1+1

Which one do you think is going to finish 1st?

You have no idea what youre talking about, and you look foolish to those who do.

<== EE student, like many on these boards.

The reason CPUs cant be clocked up more is because the MATERIALS SCIENCE OF HUMANITY HASNT COME UP WITH ANYTHING BETTER THAN SILICON YET.

WOWOWO! I didn't say I have any degrees, nor did I say I knew the science or math. All Ive said is that what the corporate machine is doing is done in the biggest portion to get our money. I also didn't say there is anything wrong with it except that I'm forced to dangle on their chain. It makes no difference in my perspective how much math/science you know. They could've integrated everything together, but no they're going to sell us multiple things to get more money.

You're wrapped up in the fact that you think you are smarter than everyone else, and you feel compelled to prove it. Even though it doesn't apply to the point Im making

Corporate machine? WTF are you a hippy? How OLD are you anyways? You sound like me in the 4/5th grade...

 

[Philippine Mango]

Originally posted by: tfcmasta97
I'd pay like $40 to see ****** fly everywhere. i dont think i need to see 10000 boxes fly.... like 100 smoothly would do fine.

You need to look at the big picture.. Boxes are just demonstrations of what the physics cards CAN do and the CPU CAN'T do very well.. Imagine playing a driving game and instead of seeing the usual dings that are pre-programmed and you KNOW it's goanna happen (GTA III come to mind?), you could have the car actually influenced by the real world and body damage would happen according to what you hit, and not predefined limits like they're currently at..

In GTA III You hit a pole, what happens to the hood? It gets dented, run into a wall, it gets detented in the EXACT SAME WAY, everytime, guaranteed. Now if you have a physics card (although they're in their infancy ATM), when you crash into a pole at considerable speed, the front end of the car could warp around where the pole hit, crash the car agian at a different angle and all of a sudden the car's damage is in a different location, warped in a completely different way, entirely unique EVERY TIME. This is why physics needs to take off, I personally like better physics in a game than pretty graphics IMO because it would make the 'world' so much more realistic.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Philippine Mango

Originally posted by: tfcmasta97
I'd pay like $40 to see ****** fly everywhere. i dont think i need to see 10000 boxes fly.... like 100 smoothly would do fine.

You need to look at the big picture.. Boxes are just demonstrations of what the physics cards CAN do and the CPU CAN'T do very well.. Imagine playing a driving game and instead of seeing the usual dings that are pre-programmed and you KNOW it's goanna happen (GTA III come to mind?), you could have the car actually influenced by the real world and body damage would happen according to what you hit, and not predefined limits like they're currently at..

In GTA III You hit a pole, what happens to the hood? It gets dented, run into a wall, it gets detented in the EXACT SAME WAY, everytime, guaranteed. Now if you have a physics card (although they're in their infancy ATM), when you crash into a pole at considerable speed, the front end of the car could warp around where the pole hit, crash the car agian at a different angle and all of a sudden the car's damage is in a different location, warped in a completely different way, entirely unique EVERY TIME. This is why physics needs to take off, I personally like better physics in a game than pretty graphics IMO because it would make the 'world' so much more realistic.

Wouldn't this have anything to do with how the game is programmed? I'm not sure you can just add a Physics Processor, then play "GTA III" for example and expect the hood to magically dent in a different place. It takes programming to make that happen.

ADD: I'm not so sure a physics processor is even needed for this to happen. It's all in the game coding.

 

[OptimisTech]

This kinda' strikes me as the new 3DFX VooDoo1, if anyone even remembers those.

It's a sorta cool jury-rigged solution for something that will be integrated in to either the CPU or GPU in the next year or two.

Still, I would love to see it in action.

 

[the Chase]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Philippine Mango

Originally posted by: tfcmasta97
I'd pay like $40 to see ****** fly everywhere. i dont think i need to see 10000 boxes fly.... like 100 smoothly would do fine.

You need to look at the big picture.. Boxes are just demonstrations of what the physics cards CAN do and the CPU CAN'T do very well.. Imagine playing a driving game and instead of seeing the usual dings that are pre-programmed and you KNOW it's goanna happen (GTA III come to mind?), you could have the car actually influenced by the real world and body damage would happen according to what you hit, and not predefined limits like they're currently at..

In GTA III You hit a pole, what happens to the hood? It gets dented, run into a wall, it gets detented in the EXACT SAME WAY, everytime, guaranteed. Now if you have a physics card (although they're in their infancy ATM), when you crash into a pole at considerable speed, the front end of the car could warp around where the pole hit, crash the car agian at a different angle and all of a sudden the car's damage is in a different location, warped in a completely different way, entirely unique EVERY TIME. This is why physics needs to take off, I personally like better physics in a game than pretty graphics IMO because it would make the 'world' so much more realistic.

Wouldn't this have anything to do with how the game is programmed? I'm not sure you can just add a Physics Processor, then play "GTA III" for example and expect the hood to magically dent in a different place. It takes programming to make that happen.

ADD: I'm not so sure a physics processor is even needed for this to happen. It's all in the game coding.

You're right- a physics processor would not be needed and the developer could just code this to happen- IF and a big if- we had CPU's capable of the computations that it would take to make that code run and run it at a decent enough speed to still be playable. As of yet they haven't made such a CPU to my knowledge.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Philippine Mango

Originally posted by: tfcmasta97
I'd pay like $40 to see ****** fly everywhere. i dont think i need to see 10000 boxes fly.... like 100 smoothly would do fine.

You need to look at the big picture.. Boxes are just demonstrations of what the physics cards CAN do and the CPU CAN'T do very well.. Imagine playing a driving game and instead of seeing the usual dings that are pre-programmed and you KNOW it's goanna happen (GTA III come to mind?), you could have the car actually influenced by the real world and body damage would happen according to what you hit, and not predefined limits like they're currently at..

In GTA III You hit a pole, what happens to the hood? It gets dented, run into a wall, it gets detented in the EXACT SAME WAY, everytime, guaranteed. Now if you have a physics card (although they're in their infancy ATM), when you crash into a pole at considerable speed, the front end of the car could warp around where the pole hit, crash the car agian at a different angle and all of a sudden the car's damage is in a different location, warped in a completely different way, entirely unique EVERY TIME. This is why physics needs to take off, I personally like better physics in a game than pretty graphics IMO because it would make the 'world' so much more realistic.

Wouldn't this have anything to do with how the game is programmed? I'm not sure you can just add a Physics Processor, then play "GTA III" for example and expect the hood to magically dent in a different place. It takes programming to make that happen.

ADD: I'm not so sure a physics processor is even needed for this to happen. It's all in the game coding.

As long as youre ok with this "new GTA" freezing up every time you hit something while it calculates physics, dual core will be just fine. :roll:

 

[Acanthus]

April 7 , 2006

Gaijin Entertainment to Integrate AGEIA PhysX SDK into Dagor Game Engine

Russian Publisher Akella Signs Publisher-wide Agreement with AGEIA, Supports AGEIA PhysX Processor

Abyss Lights Studio Supports AGEIA PhysX Processor in Abyss Lights: Frozen Systems

Russian Publisher Buka Entertainment Signs Publisher-wide License for AGEIA PhysX Technology

Russian Publisher Noviy Disk Inks License Agreement for AGEIA PhysX Technology

and 2 new games appear on BFGs website under physics cards:
Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter
Rise of Nations: Rise of Legends

Also on the front page of Ageias website: Microsoft and Sony are listed as developers.

And now ageia is advertising that over 100 games from 60 developers are in the works on the Ageia SDK.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Philippine Mango

Originally posted by: tfcmasta97
I'd pay like $40 to see ****** fly everywhere. i dont think i need to see 10000 boxes fly.... like 100 smoothly would do fine.

You need to look at the big picture.. Boxes are just demonstrations of what the physics cards CAN do and the CPU CAN'T do very well.. Imagine playing a driving game and instead of seeing the usual dings that are pre-programmed and you KNOW it's goanna happen (GTA III come to mind?), you could have the car actually influenced by the real world and body damage would happen according to what you hit, and not predefined limits like they're currently at..

In GTA III You hit a pole, what happens to the hood? It gets dented, run into a wall, it gets detented in the EXACT SAME WAY, everytime, guaranteed. Now if you have a physics card (although they're in their infancy ATM), when you crash into a pole at considerable speed, the front end of the car could warp around where the pole hit, crash the car agian at a different angle and all of a sudden the car's damage is in a different location, warped in a completely different way, entirely unique EVERY TIME. This is why physics needs to take off, I personally like better physics in a game than pretty graphics IMO because it would make the 'world' so much more realistic.

Wouldn't this have anything to do with how the game is programmed? I'm not sure you can just add a Physics Processor, then play "GTA III" for example and expect the hood to magically dent in a different place. It takes programming to make that happen.

ADD: I'm not so sure a physics processor is even needed for this to happen. It's all in the game coding.

As long as youre ok with this "new GTA" freezing up every time you hit something while it calculates physics, dual core will be just fine. :roll:

Acanthus, give me a break man. You don't really know if that will or will not happen.
Why don't we just wait and see how beneficial this PhysX processor in the real world instead of blindly defending it. At this point in time, and the near future, It is not crucial.
Couple of years? Sure. But what else will be crunching physics by then?

I have an open mind about this and can believe that it will be a necessity for enthusiast gamers and the like. But down the road a piece. And I don't see how any of you can not see that this form of physics crunching will be onboard GPU's in no time, or at the very least, on the cards.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Philippine Mango

Originally posted by: tfcmasta97
I'd pay like $40 to see ****** fly everywhere. i dont think i need to see 10000 boxes fly.... like 100 smoothly would do fine.

You need to look at the big picture.. Boxes are just demonstrations of what the physics cards CAN do and the CPU CAN'T do very well.. Imagine playing a driving game and instead of seeing the usual dings that are pre-programmed and you KNOW it's goanna happen (GTA III come to mind?), you could have the car actually influenced by the real world and body damage would happen according to what you hit, and not predefined limits like they're currently at..

In GTA III You hit a pole, what happens to the hood? It gets dented, run into a wall, it gets detented in the EXACT SAME WAY, everytime, guaranteed. Now if you have a physics card (although they're in their infancy ATM), when you crash into a pole at considerable speed, the front end of the car could warp around where the pole hit, crash the car agian at a different angle and all of a sudden the car's damage is in a different location, warped in a completely different way, entirely unique EVERY TIME. This is why physics needs to take off, I personally like better physics in a game than pretty graphics IMO because it would make the 'world' so much more realistic.

Wouldn't this have anything to do with how the game is programmed? I'm not sure you can just add a Physics Processor, then play "GTA III" for example and expect the hood to magically dent in a different place. It takes programming to make that happen.

ADD: I'm not so sure a physics processor is even needed for this to happen. It's all in the game coding.

As long as youre ok with this "new GTA" freezing up every time you hit something while it calculates physics, dual core will be just fine. :roll:

Acanthus, give me a break man. You don't really know if that will or will not happen.
Why don't we just wait and see how beneficial this PhysX processor in the real world instead of blindly defending it. At this point in time, and the near future, It is not crucial.
Couple of years? Sure. But what else will be crunching physics by then?

I have an open mind about this and can believe that it will be a necessity for enthusiast gamers and the like. But down the road a piece. And I don't see how any of you can not see that this form of physics crunching will be onboard GPU's in no time, or at the very least, on the cards.

You honestly believe a dual core CPU, which with new video drivers both cores are already at least partially utilized, can compete with a 16 core processor dedicated and optimised for doing that function, all with half the bandwidth, in an infanately parrallel task.

We have already seen how far single cores take us, nowhere, oh yey, enemies fall down with ragdoll physics. Explosions look completely fake or are wholly scripted. Effects like water, cloth, and smoke still cause massive performance hits.

Freeing up more cpu for this kind of task so it can be used on things like AI that isnt completely retarded just makes sense, there are better uses for CPU cycles.

Edit: and i am adamantly against physics processors on graphics cards, if they integrate it into the GPU they are using die real estate on a function other than video/3d. Also i dont want to be paying for the damn physics processor every time i buy a new card. Just like the ATi All in wonder series, a discreet card makes more sense.

Edit2: did you see the cellfactor video? do you think that level of complexity can be done in software on dual core?

 

[the Chase]

For the same reason we don't see GPU's doing sound processing. ATI or Nvidia could buy Creative and integrate sound onto the GPU's/boards also. But GPU's are for graphics. Sound cards are for sound. Hard drive controller cards are for controlling hard drives. CPU's are for general computations. Physics cards are for physics. Is it the name AGEIA that people don't like? I guess Nvidia and ATI roll off the tongue easier. And we all know if they can buy/beat out/destroy AGEIA they will supply all the physics processing we need at a much cheaper price....There nice that way.....

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Philippine Mango

Originally posted by: tfcmasta97
I'd pay like $40 to see ****** fly everywhere. i dont think i need to see 10000 boxes fly.... like 100 smoothly would do fine.

You need to look at the big picture.. Boxes are just demonstrations of what the physics cards CAN do and the CPU CAN'T do very well.. Imagine playing a driving game and instead of seeing the usual dings that are pre-programmed and you KNOW it's goanna happen (GTA III come to mind?), you could have the car actually influenced by the real world and body damage would happen according to what you hit, and not predefined limits like they're currently at..

In GTA III You hit a pole, what happens to the hood? It gets dented, run into a wall, it gets detented in the EXACT SAME WAY, everytime, guaranteed. Now if you have a physics card (although they're in their infancy ATM), when you crash into a pole at considerable speed, the front end of the car could warp around where the pole hit, crash the car agian at a different angle and all of a sudden the car's damage is in a different location, warped in a completely different way, entirely unique EVERY TIME. This is why physics needs to take off, I personally like better physics in a game than pretty graphics IMO because it would make the 'world' so much more realistic.

Wouldn't this have anything to do with how the game is programmed? I'm not sure you can just add a Physics Processor, then play "GTA III" for example and expect the hood to magically dent in a different place. It takes programming to make that happen.

ADD: I'm not so sure a physics processor is even needed for this to happen. It's all in the game coding.

As long as youre ok with this "new GTA" freezing up every time you hit something while it calculates physics, dual core will be just fine. :roll:

Acanthus, give me a break man. You don't really know if that will or will not happen.
Why don't we just wait and see how beneficial this PhysX processor in the real world instead of blindly defending it. At this point in time, and the near future, It is not crucial.
Couple of years? Sure. But what else will be crunching physics by then?

I have an open mind about this and can believe that it will be a necessity for enthusiast gamers and the like. But down the road a piece. And I don't see how any of you can not see that this form of physics crunching will be onboard GPU's in no time, or at the very least, on the cards.

You honestly believe a dual core CPU, which with new video drivers both cores are already at least partially utilized, can compete with a 16 core processor dedicated and optimised for doing that function, all with half the bandwidth, in an infanately parrallel task.

We have already seen how far single cores take us, nowhere, oh yey, enemies fall down with ragdoll physics. Explosions look completely fake or are wholly scripted. Effects like water, cloth, and smoke still cause massive performance hits.

Freeing up more cpu for this kind of task so it can be used on things like AI that isnt completely retarded just makes sense, there are better uses for CPU cycles.

Edit: and i am adamantly against physics processors on graphics cards, if they integrate it into the GPU they are using die real estate on a function other than video/3d. Also i dont want to be paying for the damn physics processor every time i buy a new card. Just like the ATi All in wonder series, a discreet card makes more sense.

Edit2: did you see the cellfactor video? do you think that level of complexity can be done in software on dual core?

And what happens when they come out with a new and improved physics card every 6 to 8 months? Are you going to buy it all over again? Another 200 bucks? And try to sell off your old one when everyone knows what the new one can do over the old one? Maybe for some, but not for me. It's enough I have to recycle my graphics cards when I want to upgrade. No thanks.

And were you adamantly against geometry processors on graphics cards? Were you one of the guys raging that video cards should only process video at that they should make a discreet GPU? Well, look what happened. Everything is a GPU today from NV and ATI. Even Volari. Not sure about intels stuff. Mark my words bro, GPU's will be renamed over this to GPPU's or something like it, in short order.

You seem to think I am saying you are wrong. I'm not. I don't know that yet. Only that there are other things cooking besides just AGEIA.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: the Chase
For the same reason we don't see GPU's doing sound processing. ATI or Nvidia could buy Creative and integrate sound onto the GPU's/boards also. But GPU's are for graphics. Sound cards are for sound. Hard drive controller cards are for controlling hard drives. CPU's are for general computations. Physics cards are for physics. Is it the name AGEIA that people don't like? I guess Nvidia and ATI roll off the tongue easier. And we all know if they can buy/beat out/destroy AGEIA they will supply all the physics processing we need at a much cheaper price....There nice that way.....

Your own post here shows a point you are missing. What does GPU stand for?
That's right. Geometry Processing Unit. Some geometries are offloaded from the CPU which originally handled ALL geometry processing before GPU's came around.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Philippine Mango

Originally posted by: tfcmasta97
I'd pay like $40 to see ****** fly everywhere. i dont think i need to see 10000 boxes fly.... like 100 smoothly would do fine.

You need to look at the big picture.. Boxes are just demonstrations of what the physics cards CAN do and the CPU CAN'T do very well.. Imagine playing a driving game and instead of seeing the usual dings that are pre-programmed and you KNOW it's goanna happen (GTA III come to mind?), you could have the car actually influenced by the real world and body damage would happen according to what you hit, and not predefined limits like they're currently at..

In GTA III You hit a pole, what happens to the hood? It gets dented, run into a wall, it gets detented in the EXACT SAME WAY, everytime, guaranteed. Now if you have a physics card (although they're in their infancy ATM), when you crash into a pole at considerable speed, the front end of the car could warp around where the pole hit, crash the car agian at a different angle and all of a sudden the car's damage is in a different location, warped in a completely different way, entirely unique EVERY TIME. This is why physics needs to take off, I personally like better physics in a game than pretty graphics IMO because it would make the 'world' so much more realistic.

Wouldn't this have anything to do with how the game is programmed? I'm not sure you can just add a Physics Processor, then play "GTA III" for example and expect the hood to magically dent in a different place. It takes programming to make that happen.

ADD: I'm not so sure a physics processor is even needed for this to happen. It's all in the game coding.

As long as youre ok with this "new GTA" freezing up every time you hit something while it calculates physics, dual core will be just fine. :roll:

Acanthus, give me a break man. You don't really know if that will or will not happen.
Why don't we just wait and see how beneficial this PhysX processor in the real world instead of blindly defending it. At this point in time, and the near future, It is not crucial.
Couple of years? Sure. But what else will be crunching physics by then?

I have an open mind about this and can believe that it will be a necessity for enthusiast gamers and the like. But down the road a piece. And I don't see how any of you can not see that this form of physics crunching will be onboard GPU's in no time, or at the very least, on the cards.

You honestly believe a dual core CPU, which with new video drivers both cores are already at least partially utilized, can compete with a 16 core processor dedicated and optimised for doing that function, all with half the bandwidth, in an infanately parrallel task.

We have already seen how far single cores take us, nowhere, oh yey, enemies fall down with ragdoll physics. Explosions look completely fake or are wholly scripted. Effects like water, cloth, and smoke still cause massive performance hits.

Freeing up more cpu for this kind of task so it can be used on things like AI that isnt completely retarded just makes sense, there are better uses for CPU cycles.

Edit: and i am adamantly against physics processors on graphics cards, if they integrate it into the GPU they are using die real estate on a function other than video/3d. Also i dont want to be paying for the damn physics processor every time i buy a new card. Just like the ATi All in wonder series, a discreet card makes more sense.

Edit2: did you see the cellfactor video? do you think that level of complexity can be done in software on dual core?

And what happens when they come out with a new and improved physics card every 6 to 8 months? Are you going to buy it all over again? Another 200 bucks? And try to sell off your old one when everyone knows what the new one can do over the old one? Maybe for some, but not for me. It's enough I have to recycle my graphics cards when I want to upgrade. No thanks.

And were you adamantly against geometry processors on graphics cards? Were you one of the guys raging that video cards should only process video at that they should make a discreet GPU? Well, look what happened. Everything is a GPU today from NV and ATI. Even Volari. Not sure about intels stuff. Mark my words bro, GPU's will be renamed over this to GPPU's or something like it, in short order.

You seem to think I am saying you are wrong. I'm not. I don't know that yet. Only that there are other things cooking besides just AGEIA.

Ageia has said multiple times that physics cards will have a much longer life cycle than video cards. Functionality can be added to physx with edits to the API and drivers. It is fully programmable.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: the Chase
For the same reason we don't see GPU's doing sound processing. ATI or Nvidia could buy Creative and integrate sound onto the GPU's/boards also. But GPU's are for graphics. Sound cards are for sound. Hard drive controller cards are for controlling hard drives. CPU's are for general computations. Physics cards are for physics. Is it the name AGEIA that people don't like? I guess Nvidia and ATI roll off the tongue easier. And we all know if they can buy/beat out/destroy AGEIA they will supply all the physics processing we need at a much cheaper price....There nice that way.....

Your own post here shows a point you are missing. What does GPU stand for?
That's right. Geometry Processing Unit. Some geometries are offloaded from the CPU which originally handled ALL geometry processing before GPU's came around.

I always thought it stood for graphics processing unit.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: the Chase
For the same reason we don't see GPU's doing sound processing. ATI or Nvidia could buy Creative and integrate sound onto the GPU's/boards also. But GPU's are for graphics. Sound cards are for sound. Hard drive controller cards are for controlling hard drives. CPU's are for general computations. Physics cards are for physics. Is it the name AGEIA that people don't like? I guess Nvidia and ATI roll off the tongue easier. And we all know if they can buy/beat out/destroy AGEIA they will supply all the physics processing we need at a much cheaper price....There nice that way.....

Your own post here shows a point you are missing. What does GPU stand for?
That's right. Geometry Processing Unit. Some geometries are offloaded from the CPU which originally handled ALL geometry processing before GPU's came around.

I always thought it stood for graphics processing unit.

No sir. Geometry Processing Unit was the original use of the acronym "GPU".

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Philippine Mango

Originally posted by: tfcmasta97
I'd pay like $40 to see ****** fly everywhere. i dont think i need to see 10000 boxes fly.... like 100 smoothly would do fine.

You need to look at the big picture.. Boxes are just demonstrations of what the physics cards CAN do and the CPU CAN'T do very well.. Imagine playing a driving game and instead of seeing the usual dings that are pre-programmed and you KNOW it's goanna happen (GTA III come to mind?), you could have the car actually influenced by the real world and body damage would happen according to what you hit, and not predefined limits like they're currently at..

In GTA III You hit a pole, what happens to the hood? It gets dented, run into a wall, it gets detented in the EXACT SAME WAY, everytime, guaranteed. Now if you have a physics card (although they're in their infancy ATM), when you crash into a pole at considerable speed, the front end of the car could warp around where the pole hit, crash the car agian at a different angle and all of a sudden the car's damage is in a different location, warped in a completely different way, entirely unique EVERY TIME. This is why physics needs to take off, I personally like better physics in a game than pretty graphics IMO because it would make the 'world' so much more realistic.

Wouldn't this have anything to do with how the game is programmed? I'm not sure you can just add a Physics Processor, then play "GTA III" for example and expect the hood to magically dent in a different place. It takes programming to make that happen.

ADD: I'm not so sure a physics processor is even needed for this to happen. It's all in the game coding.

As long as youre ok with this "new GTA" freezing up every time you hit something while it calculates physics, dual core will be just fine. :roll:

Acanthus, give me a break man. You don't really know if that will or will not happen.
Why don't we just wait and see how beneficial this PhysX processor in the real world instead of blindly defending it. At this point in time, and the near future, It is not crucial.
Couple of years? Sure. But what else will be crunching physics by then?

I have an open mind about this and can believe that it will be a necessity for enthusiast gamers and the like. But down the road a piece. And I don't see how any of you can not see that this form of physics crunching will be onboard GPU's in no time, or at the very least, on the cards.

You honestly believe a dual core CPU, which with new video drivers both cores are already at least partially utilized, can compete with a 16 core processor dedicated and optimised for doing that function, all with half the bandwidth, in an infanately parrallel task.

We have already seen how far single cores take us, nowhere, oh yey, enemies fall down with ragdoll physics. Explosions look completely fake or are wholly scripted. Effects like water, cloth, and smoke still cause massive performance hits.

Freeing up more cpu for this kind of task so it can be used on things like AI that isnt completely retarded just makes sense, there are better uses for CPU cycles.

Edit: and i am adamantly against physics processors on graphics cards, if they integrate it into the GPU they are using die real estate on a function other than video/3d. Also i dont want to be paying for the damn physics processor every time i buy a new card. Just like the ATi All in wonder series, a discreet card makes more sense.

Edit2: did you see the cellfactor video? do you think that level of complexity can be done in software on dual core?

And what happens when they come out with a new and improved physics card every 6 to 8 months? Are you going to buy it all over again? Another 200 bucks? And try to sell off your old one when everyone knows what the new one can do over the old one? Maybe for some, but not for me. It's enough I have to recycle my graphics cards when I want to upgrade. No thanks.

And were you adamantly against geometry processors on graphics cards? Were you one of the guys raging that video cards should only process video at that they should make a discreet GPU? Well, look what happened. Everything is a GPU today from NV and ATI. Even Volari. Not sure about intels stuff. Mark my words bro, GPU's will be renamed over this to GPPU's or something like it, in short order.

You seem to think I am saying you are wrong. I'm not. I don't know that yet. Only that there are other things cooking besides just AGEIA.

Ageia has said multiple times that physics cards will have a much longer life cycle than video cards. Functionality can be added to physx with edits to the API and drivers. It is fully programmable.

I admit, it sounds like a nice piece of hardware.

 

[TantrumusMaximus]

I think there is an option missing in the Poll.

Not going to buy until at least 20+ games are supported etc etc.

 

[the Chase]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: the Chase
For the same reason we don't see GPU's doing sound processing. ATI or Nvidia could buy Creative and integrate sound onto the GPU's/boards also. But GPU's are for graphics. Sound cards are for sound. Hard drive controller cards are for controlling hard drives. CPU's are for general computations. Physics cards are for physics. Is it the name AGEIA that people don't like? I guess Nvidia and ATI roll off the tongue easier. And we all know if they can buy/beat out/destroy AGEIA they will supply all the physics processing we need at a much cheaper price....There nice that way.....

Your own post here shows a point you are missing. What does GPU stand for?
That's right. Geometry Processing Unit. Some geometries are offloaded from the CPU which originally handled ALL geometry processing before GPU's came around.

Yep. So you agree with my reasoning then?

 

[Keysplayr]

Nevermind.

 

[Philippine Mango]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Philippine Mango

Originally posted by: tfcmasta97
I'd pay like $40 to see ****** fly everywhere. i dont think i need to see 10000 boxes fly.... like 100 smoothly would do fine.

You need to look at the big picture.. Boxes are just demonstrations of what the physics cards CAN do and the CPU CAN'T do very well.. Imagine playing a driving game and instead of seeing the usual dings that are pre-programmed and you KNOW it's goanna happen (GTA III come to mind?), you could have the car actually influenced by the real world and body damage would happen according to what you hit, and not predefined limits like they're currently at..

In GTA III You hit a pole, what happens to the hood? It gets dented, run into a wall, it gets detented in the EXACT SAME WAY, everytime, guaranteed. Now if you have a physics card (although they're in their infancy ATM), when you crash into a pole at considerable speed, the front end of the car could warp around where the pole hit, crash the car agian at a different angle and all of a sudden the car's damage is in a different location, warped in a completely different way, entirely unique EVERY TIME. This is why physics needs to take off, I personally like better physics in a game than pretty graphics IMO because it would make the 'world' so much more realistic.

Wouldn't this have anything to do with how the game is programmed? I'm not sure you can just add a Physics Processor, then play "GTA III" for example and expect the hood to magically dent in a different place. It takes programming to make that happen.

ADD: I'm not so sure a physics processor is even needed for this to happen. It's all in the game coding.

As long as youre ok with this "new GTA" freezing up every time you hit something while it calculates physics, dual core will be just fine. :roll:

Acanthus, give me a break man. You don't really know if that will or will not happen.
Why don't we just wait and see how beneficial this PhysX processor in the real world instead of blindly defending it. At this point in time, and the near future, It is not crucial.
Couple of years? Sure. But what else will be crunching physics by then?

I have an open mind about this and can believe that it will be a necessity for enthusiast gamers and the like. But down the road a piece. And I don't see how any of you can not see that this form of physics crunching will be onboard GPU's in no time, or at the very least, on the cards.

You honestly believe a dual core CPU, which with new video drivers both cores are already at least partially utilized, can compete with a 16 core processor dedicated and optimised for doing that function, all with half the bandwidth, in an infanately parrallel task.

We have already seen how far single cores take us, nowhere, oh yey, enemies fall down with ragdoll physics. Explosions look completely fake or are wholly scripted. Effects like water, cloth, and smoke still cause massive performance hits.

Freeing up more cpu for this kind of task so it can be used on things like AI that isnt completely retarded just makes sense, there are better uses for CPU cycles.

Edit: and i am adamantly against physics processors on graphics cards, if they integrate it into the GPU they are using die real estate on a function other than video/3d. Also i dont want to be paying for the damn physics processor every time i buy a new card. Just like the ATi All in wonder series, a discreet card makes more sense.

Edit2: did you see the cellfactor video? do you think that level of complexity can be done in software on dual core?

And what happens when they come out with a new and improved physics card every 6 to 8 months? Are you going to buy it all over again? Another 200 bucks? And try to sell off your old one when everyone knows what the new one can do over the old one? Maybe for some, but not for me. It's enough I have to recycle my graphics cards when I want to upgrade. No thanks.

And were you adamantly against geometry processors on graphics cards? Were you one of the guys raging that video cards should only process video at that they should make a discreet GPU? Well, look what happened. Everything is a GPU today from NV and ATI. Even Volari. Not sure about intels stuff. Mark my words bro, GPU's will be renamed over this to GPPU's or something like it, in short order.

You seem to think I am saying you are wrong. I'm not. I don't know that yet. Only that there are other things cooking besides just AGEIA.

Your post lacks a point.. For now, you can play your games w/out a physics card just like back in the old days of software rendering, but once you see a game with a physics card, you'll WANT the card.. Even with a fast processor NFS III looks like ass with out a 3D accelerated card, I can't believe people could be so pessimestic about a technology like this, can you NOT see this as a repetition of the 3DFX days!?

 

[Polish3d]

There's a big difference between something fundamental like GRAPHICS and something extra like Physics. This is more in the category of an AI speciality card or something.


Look, I'm down for it, but frankly I've been pretty fking pissed off with crappy games that are poorly designed and sloppily rely on expensive-ass hardware to run.

There is no way in hell I'm going to pay 250 bucks to watch a bunch of stupid barrels fly around. If the physics card adds real value like fully destructable environments or what not, and is REASONABLY PRICED, like say, 100 dollars, I'll get one.

Otherwise, forget it.

 

[Heartbreaker]

I think this is a strictly for the hardcore gamer crowd that buys the fastest CPU/Vidcard/memory and still wants more.

I wouldn't pay anything for this. Either it is included on the MB/Vidcard or I will never get it. I wont' even buy a soundcard anymore. I use an Nforce with soundstorm and that is plenty good.

 

[TantrumusMaximus]

Suit yourself. I myself am thankful for technological progress that better immerses me into the gameworld. I want to play games that have buildings that crumble and fall to the ground etc etc.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: TantrumusMaximus
I think there is an option missing in the Poll.

Not going to buy until at least 20+ games are supported etc etc.

100 titles are currently in production.

Depending on how far along the games were at introduction, it could be anywhere from months to years before we see them though. Im waiting for a major title i want to play (probably UT2007) before i jump.

 

[DeathReborn]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: TantrumusMaximus
I think there is an option missing in the Poll.

Not going to buy until at least 20+ games are supported etc etc.

100 titles are currently in production.

Depending on how far along the games were at introduction, it could be anywhere from months to years before we see them though. Im waiting for a major title i want to play (probably UT2007) before i jump.

Not to mention all games that are made using the Unreal 3 Engine will be able to use the PhysX PPU (unless they disable that part of the code). I see it as a case of when it takes off rather than if it takes off.