So, a physics processing unit?

[linkgoron]

I'm sure you all read this
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2376
What do you think, good idea or a bad one?

 

[Cuular]

Yay. the idea has been around for a long time. And sooner or later either the CPU or the GPU itself will have one as part of the setup.

 

[ribbon13]

POLL?????????????????????????????

WHERE? WHERE IS THE POLL?

 

[linkgoron]

There's a poll feature? sry, I'm new, didn't know

 

[cbuchach]

I can't see myself buying a separate PPU. The only way I see it to be very useful is if both NVidia and ATI incluce the chip as part of their graphic cards. Initially one will choose to do it as first there seems no end in sight as to what they will charge for a graphics card (and what people will pay) and they will want something more to differentiate performance. Then of course the other company will follow.

Also, the idea of a price and model/performance stratification amongst discrete PPU add-in cards seems ridiculous to me.

 

[ribbon13]

Edit your first post.
See the add poll button?
should open a new window or tab
add question
then add answers
yay
...
profit!

 

[linkgoron]

Originally posted by: cbuchach
I can't see myself buying a separate PPU. The only way I see it to be very useful is if both NVidia and ATI incluce the chip as part of their graphic cards. Initially one will choose to do it as first there seems no end in sight as to what they will charge for a graphics card (and what people will pay) and they will want something more to differentiate performance. Then of course the other company will follow.

Also, the idea of a price and model/performance stratification amongst discrete PPU add-in cards seems ridiculous to me.

If a ppu card(?) will cost 50$-100$ and will improve games to a newer funner and realistic level I think I'll buy one. Games will run better, and seeing as how people pay 100$ for a 5-10 FPS increase, for 30-40 FPS increase and more realistic games, people will buy PPU cards for 300$/400$/500$.

 

[slash196]

I'm all for the idea. I love ragdolls and all instances of real physics in games. This is a terrific idea, and I'd be more than willing to drop some coin on something if it means crazy particle effects, total environmental interactivity, and things like that.

 

[ribbon13]

it should be on the GPU

should add that answer "Yes, only if its part of the Video Card"

 

[linkgoron]

It shouldn't be on the GPU, because that means that the nvidia/ati/whatever will have to work harder on two different things. maybe we'll have a MPU, that processes sound graphics and physics? I think puting it on the GPU is a mistake. there should be a PPU, or after there are more cores, like 8 or something, they should move it to the CPU.

 

[linkgoron]

Oh, they'll need to add a physics board too!

 

[DaveSimmons]

Meh. Not worth doing in separate hardware.

This will be a good use for dual-core CPUs, you can code to process the physics in a thread on CPU-2 at least as easily as coding for a wacky new processor type. If it is a single-CPU system your code even still runs, you just disable some of the fancier processing to lighten the load.

 

[MrPickins]

A dedicated ppu sounds awesome for gamers, and depending on price, and market acceptance, I think it can do really well.

I dont like the idea of putting it on the graphics card, as I assume they would be competeing for bandwidth eventually, even with on pci express x16 card. Also seems like there might be power and heat issues.

 

[linkgoron]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Meh. Not worth doing in separate hardware.

This will be a good use for dual-core CPUs, you can code to process the physics in a thread on CPU-2 at least as easily as coding for a wacky new processor type. If it is a single-CPU system your code even still runs, you just disable some of the fancier processing to lighten the load.

Or you could just buy a PPU card for 50$-100$(I hope) and have much better physics, higher FPS, lower CPU load, and better games. Maybe if they add this to DirectX( if they can?) or something it'll become standard.

 

[Lonyo]

It's in Unreal Engine 3.
I will buy one.
heart: Unreal)

 

[phisrow]

The one problem that I'm a bit worried about is how easy it will be to adjust for various levels of hardware performance. With graphics engines, that sort of thing is relatively easy(easy enough for the pros, anyway) as it is pretty obvious to just cut resolution, FSAA, number of polygons and light sources, texture detail, etc. You cannot work miracles; but you can manage a fair bit(e.g. that nutcase who was running Doom3 on dual Voodoo twos a while ago). Physics, on the other hand, seems a lot harder to scale. If you only use it for unimportant stuff, like foliage effects and little waves and stuff, then it will be pretty easy. Everyone with the coprocessor gets real dynamic foliage and waves, everyone else just gets polygons that wiggle, as usual. But what happens when I want to build an engine were accurate physics is necessary to damage modeling, or vehicle handling? Are we going to have to build to totally diffirent physics engines? Will one or the other be a competitive advantage in multiplay? etc, etc. I certainly like the idea, in theory, as the concept of having worlds with real physics is quite attractive; but it seems that it will be difficult to scale between those who have the accelerator and those who don't.

 

[linkgoron]

Originally posted by: phisrow
The one problem that I'm a bit worried about is how easy it will be to adjust for various levels of hardware performance. With graphics engines, that sort of thing is relatively easy(easy enough for the pros, anyway) as it is pretty obvious to just cut resolution, FSAA, number of polygons and light sources, texture detail, etc. You cannot work miracles; but you can manage a fair bit(e.g. that nutcase who was running Doom3 on dual Voodoo twos a while ago). Physics, on the other hand, seems a lot harder to scale. If you only use it for unimportant stuff, like foliage effects and little waves and stuff, then it will be pretty easy. Everyone with the coprocessor gets real dynamic foliage and waves, everyone else just gets polygons that wiggle, as usual. But what happens when I want to build an engine were accurate physics is necessary to damage modeling, or vehicle handling? Are we going to have to build to totally diffirent physics engines? Will one or the other be a competitive advantage in multiplay? etc, etc. I certainly like the idea, in theory, as the concept of having worlds with real physics is quite attractive; but it seems that it will be difficult to scale between those who have the accelerator and those who don't.

It seems as if today everyone has enough money for graphic cards to play games on 16*12. NO those that don't have the money are left out. GFX cards are the standard these days but you just don't notice that people that don't play games can do just fine with a intel integrated.Same with PPU cards in five years PPU cards may be standard for gamers, and people that don't need to play games won't but cards, like GFX cards today. If PPus will be standard in five years, you'll forget that some people don't have PPU cards...

 

[jay75]

the PPU, people, is the next great thing in gaming. its going to make games awesome. better handling in racing games, damaged cars will look damaged. also the animation industry will get real time dynamics! i used to do animation and solving a scene for complex dynamics takes a heck of a lot of time.

 

[PeteRoy]

PPU is a SCAM!

 

[shabby]

Unless the ppu gets faster in every videocard refresh its kinda stupid putting it on the videocard, unless you like paying for something you already have. It should be on its own card.

 

[Gamer X]

PPUs sound very promising but I hope they end up integrated on GFX cards.

 

[Alex]

Originally posted by: ribbon13
it should be on the GPU

should add that answer "Yes, only if its part of the Video Card"

 

[Alex]

on a side note: RIBBON dont u have a social life dude? 82 posts per day... wow :Q

 

[MrControversial]

Nay. I'm in favor of less specialized hardware. The CPU should be in charge of physics. With that said, I'm more in favor of it if it's integrated into motherboard chipsets rather than some add-on card.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: MrPickins
A dedicated ppu sounds awesome for gamers, and depending on price, and market acceptance, I think it can do really well.

I dont like the idea of putting it on the graphics card, as I assume they would be competeing for bandwidth eventually, even with on pci express x16 card. Also seems like there might be power and heat issues.

Plus, graphics cards are increasing greatly in size and complexity. High end cards already have a GPU on there with more than 2x the transistor count of a P4, a high-speed GPU->memory linkup, and the memory itself. And it needs to be able to accomodate the circuitry to distribute enough power to all those parts. Add a PPU, and you might wind up with a full-length expansion card. Example - at the site, click to enlarge the image
Integrating it into the GPU silicon has problems too - larger die, and loads more interconnects. And the heat output....might as well strap an XP-90 heatsink on the thing.

That all aside, a PPU does sound like an excellent idea - more parallel processing power is a good thing. But if it's too expensive, like high end graphics cards - really, the $400+ graphics card market isn't all that big - then it won't have enough of a market share for the gaming companies to go to the trouble of coding games to use it.