Why I don't think PhysX is a big deal

[SunnyD]

Misinterpreted your results. Sorry.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: apoppin
yes, really *look* at 'em

Many of them are old - and buggy like Gothic3; from '06 - some are older. A lot of them look to be SW physX titles. How many are exclusively Hardware PhysX titles that require a Nvidia GPU to run?

How many will play well when PhysX is implemented?

Finally, what confirmed AAA NEW PC titles are coming out in the next year that will implement Hardware PhysX?
- now that would be a useful list

i really don't care about games scheduled for mid-2009 .. the dates get less and less reliable, the further the Devs project for their release dates

Right now, not many. The ones gaining support now are the titles that were previously PPU accelerated, which only really show how pathetic PhysX support was under Ageia, but does show how well GPGPUs run hardware PhysX.

The bright side is from the various slides, it looks like the software PhysX titles can be easily converted as the PhysX SDK allows for multiple "back-end solvers". So basically hardware PhysX implementation would most likely require a PhysX patch with updated effects like what you see with UT3 along with a change to the PhysX files in the games directory that point to the GPU back-end solver. There's a good chart of this in one of the previews, I'll see if I can find it.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: apoppin
You are forgetting one thing, chizow

Nvidia has made an enemy of Intel who also has much clout in gaming

and intel sees fit to join with AMD to implement Havok to compete with Nvidia

So .. PhysX is not a done deal. i suspect we will see either dual implementations of physics in PC gaming or be forced to choose.
- but i would not say "Nvidia wins"

Well like I stated earlier, Havok is a non-issue until it can be accelerated faster than what can be done on a CPU. The earliest that will happen is 2009/2010 with Larrabee. NV cards will be 100% compatible with both AMD and Intel CPUs for the foreseeable future (even SLI on X58/Nehalem with NF200 it seems now). Whether or not you think hardware physics is worthwhile or not, I don't think there's any doubt NV has the best implementation right now with PhysX. Its flexible with both software and hardware back-ends, has a huge user-base, allows for hardware flexibility and has actual games/demos that show whats possible.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Nvidia has made an enemy of Intel who also has much clout in gaming

Pure FUD and you know it. AMD is suing Intel right now I guess they are best friends.

and intel sees fit to join with AMD to implement Havok to compete with Nvidia

Which currently only deals with CPUs which has nothing to do with this discussion. Do some research before posting misinformation.

 

[apoppin]

dp .. read on .. next post ..>>>>>

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: apoppin

Nvidia has made an enemy of Intel who also has much clout in gaming

Pure FUD and you know it. AMD is suing Intel right now I guess they are best friends.

and intel sees fit to join with AMD to implement Havok to compete with Nvidia

Which currently only deals with CPUs which has nothing to do with this discussion. Do some research before posting misinformation.

What are you talking about. Intel does have a competing solution with Havok and it IS CPU based. That suits their upcoming processor just fine.

AMD and Intel usually are suing each other - over something. What distraction are you trying to make here? Clearly Nvidia and Intel are at odds over much and it suits Intel and AMD to support Havok. Do you know for sure that Havok will never find itself also on the GPU?

Perhaps PhysX is not such a big deal that you make it to be and you assume much about Nvidia having its way with PC gaming.

i'd suggest you do your own research also

==========

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: apoppin
You are forgetting one thing, chizow

Nvidia has made an enemy of Intel who also has much clout in gaming

and intel sees fit to join with AMD to implement Havok to compete with Nvidia

So .. PhysX is not a done deal. i suspect we will see either dual implementations of physics in PC gaming or be forced to choose.
- but i would not say "Nvidia wins"

Well like I stated earlier, Havok is a non-issue until it can be accelerated faster than what can be done on a CPU. The earliest that will happen is 2009/2010 with Larrabee. NV cards will be 100% compatible with both AMD and Intel CPUs for the foreseeable future (even SLI on X58/Nehalem with NF200 it seems now). Whether or not you think hardware physics is worthwhile or not, I don't think there's any doubt NV has the best implementation right now with PhysX. Its flexible with both software and hardware back-ends, has a huge user-base, allows for hardware flexibility and has actual games/demos that show whats possible.

As you know the best solution does not always "win"

i personally like PhysX but i do not think it is a big deal until late 2009 at the earliest - when "must have" AAA titles [hopefully] implement it.

i do not see it as any reason to chose Nvidia over AMD - atm!
- later, we will see clearly

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: apoppin

What are you talking about. Intel does have a competing solution with Havok and it IS CPU based. That suits their upcoming processor just fine.

It's vaporware right now unless you can link to their driver for it?

AMD and Intel usually are suing each other - over something. What distraction are you trying to make here? Clearly Nvidia and Intel are at odds over much and it suits Intel and AMD to support Havok.

Is that why Intel chipsets will now be supporting SLI? Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

Do you know for sure that Havok will never find itself also on the GPU?

Not anytime soon. Do you know for sure NVIDIA won't support it when the day comes (if ever).

Perhaps PhysX is not such a big deal that you make it to be and you assume much about Nvidia having its way with PC gaming.

It's not a big deal to you because your card does not support physics.

Which is pretty much what this whole thread boils down to.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: apoppin

yes, really *look* at 'em

Many of them are old - and buggy like Gothic3; from '06 - some are older. A lot of them look to be SW physX titles. How many are exclusively Hardware PhysX titles that require a Nvidia GPU to run?

How many will play well when PhysX is implemented?

Finally, what confirmed AAA NEW PC titles are coming out in the next year that will implement Hardware PhysX?
- now that would be a useful list

i really don't care about games scheduled for mid-2009 .. the dates get less and less reliable, the further the Devs project for their release dates

How many do your video card support? Because that's clearly what it boils down to. Because ATI fails here and the fanboys are trying to downplay it.

This thread was flamebait from the start by calling out keys and it's clearly just sour grapes through out.

This was the same when ATI did not have SLI, SM3 and Purevideo etc.

Now they don't have Phyx and even though it's been proven to work and it supported in several games, the FUD spreaders are doing their best to do damage control.

:thumbsdown:

Which one of my videocards .. i think my 8800GTX supports all of them. But it doesn't support DX10.1 - which is a non-issue to you just as PhysX is a non-issue to me atm.

i don't see a failure with AMD because i don't see success with Nvidia. i see AMD having Havok as an alternative; with intel backing it also.

You have to have "sweet grapes" for someone to call them sour. You have nothing yet. Just future *promises* and lots of marketing Hype.

Nvidia is famous for their Hype. Look at the GX2 launch - a temporary card that i told everyone was a "stopgap" - just to steal the thunder from 3870X2. And then they hyped the hell our of their overpriced GT280 and was forced to SLASH the price and take it in their partner's shorts because it fell SHORT of its HYPE. They they had an OverPriced GT260 they were FORCED to OC because it fell short of Nvidia HYPE - and also severely discounted it.

Now Nvidia is HYPING PhysX and CUDA as the salvation of the PC universe

well it is still HYPE

and we know how their HYPE - since G80 - has turned out
- not such a good 18 month track record imo
- just awesome Hyper-marketing that some of you purchased at the full rate

===========

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: apoppin

What are you talking about. Intel does have a competing solution with Havok and it IS CPU based. That suits their upcoming processor just fine.

It's vaporware right now unless you can link to their driver for it?

PhysX taking over the PC world is your hype

AMD and Intel usually are suing each other - over something. What distraction are you trying to make here? Clearly Nvidia and Intel are at odds over much and it suits Intel and AMD to support Havok.

Is that why Intel chipsets will now be supporting SLI? Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

Do you ever get tired of distracting from the real topic? Do you deny that intel and AMD are pushing Havok as a Phyics solution? And playing down Nvidia's own as unnecessary and possibly "costly" to FPS?

Do you know for sure that Havok will never find itself also on the GPU?

Not anytime soon. Do you know for sure NVIDIA won't support it when the day comes (if ever).[/quote]
i could ask the same question about Intel and AMD licensing PhysX; clearly they don't want to atm

Perhaps PhysX is not such a big deal that you make it to be and you assume much about Nvidia having its way with PC gaming.

It's not a big deal to you because your card does not support physics.

Which is pretty much what this whole thread boils down to.

[/quote]
One of my cards does. As i said, no biggie to me personally. And IF it is - someday - then i will get a PhysX solution. i don't see it as an issue for another year. Like SM3.0 you mentioned earlier. i did not miss a single thing in my gaming by adopting later when more than a couple of games featured it

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Which one of my videocards .. i think my 8800GTX supports all of them. But it doesn't support DX10.1 - which is a non-issue to you just as PhysX is a non-issue to me atm.

I posted a list of games that support Physx. Please post me this long list of games and the benefits of DX10.1 also the list of games that ATI has physics support for. Come on. I want to see the link.

i don't see a failure with AMD because i don't see success with Nvidia. i see AMD having Havok as an alternative; with intel backing it also.

Please link to where AMD has a Havok driver.

You have to have "sweet grapes" for someone to call them sour. You have nothing yet. Just future *promises* and lots of marketing Hype.

I've posted a long list of game and another long list of upcoming games. So far you have yet to back up any of your statments.

Nvidia is famous for their Hype. Look at the GX2 launch - a temporary card that i told everyone was a "stopgap" - just to steal the thunder from 3870X2. And then they hyped the hell our of their overpriced GT280 and was forced to SLASH the price and take it in their partner's shorts because it fell SHORT of its HYPE. They they had an OverPriced GT260 they were FORCED to OC because it fell short of Nvidia HYPE - and also severely discounted it.

Now Nvidia is HYPING PhysX and CUDA as the salvation of the PC universe

well it is still HYPE

This rant is funny because you mention Havok and DX10.1 You really should look up the word irony.

and we know how their HYPE - since G80 - has turned out
- not such a good 18 month track record imo
- just awesome Hyper-marketing that some of you purchased at the full rate

Please go check the financial posting for both NVIDIA and AMD over those last 18 months. Also check out the market share for the last 18 months.

Once again I'm sorry to have to use facts against you.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Well, everyone has there own thoughts about it. That's normal.

As far as Physx eating up GPU muscle, I'm not so certain that it does. Don't get me wrong, the GPU has to render much more content when heavy Physx is used. More debris, crumbling buildings etc.. But last night, I tried running 2x9800GTX+'s. Not in SLI, but GPU1 rendering and GPU2 for Physx. There was an increase in framerate, but not staggering, which leads me to believe that Physx doesn't really take that much of a toll on shader power. I have some preliminary bench scores I will post in that dedicated thread in a short bit.

See, this is an interesting statement. You ran 2 9800GTX+'s, and got an increase in framerate though ever so slight. However the the typical configuration will be a single GPU running both physics and graphics, and as your own benchmarks show it does indeed take a toll on the hardware with framerates dropping easily 25%.

The only thing that your post goes to show is that the PhysX implementation from NVIDIA does not do anything in terms of detail if the framerates are actually going up. If there is more happening on the screen, then I seriously doubt there's any additional detail showing up. It's probably indeed accelerating the details that are already there somewhat (hence the better frame rate), but other than that I seriously doubt any other benefit.

But you're missing one critical thing. When Physx is enabled, there is MUCH more for the graphics card to render. So even if there were no Physx involved, but those objects were still there to render, the card would still have a higher graphics toll on it no matter what. More objects to render and THAT is what seems to be taken the most toll. So I'm thinking that Physx takes less of a toll on shaders than most believed it would.

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: solofly

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
I will be trying it on the 12th of august.

Me too, right along my brand new powerhouse HD4870X2...

lucky bastages. Ati owns.

 

[apoppin]

Once again I'm sorry to have to use facts against you.

i can agree with you being sorry

i haven't seen any "facts" from you yet; except perhaps for a list of games that somehow impresses you and very few others of us. And plenty of distraction to suggest i look at stock and marketshare reports. Nvidia is clearly not delivering on their hype for the past 18 months and have even made a few serious stumbles in their hurry to take on intel.

Please post something other than your opinion as fact .. this IS an opinion thread and you have swallowed the Nvidia Hype, hook line and sinker and obviously you DO think PhysX is a big deal.

I say *show me* more than these silly tech demos and a few maps and *hype* and more promises and hype from Nvidia.
-then perhaps i will believe

until then, i will remain skeptical of PhysX being important to my PC gaming until long after my 4870 is in someone elses pc
btw, my 2900xt and 2900p have found a good home .. and i never even got to use the tesselator

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: solofly

Originally posted by: ajaidevsingh
DOes no one care that Physx eats up the Gpu muscles ??

Good point. Now if you have a 280gtx and a small monitor you may be ok but those with lower end (or older) 88xx's and large screens won't be happy. (I know I wouldn't)

Your post ignores the facts that PhysX can be used with multiple cards, and I get minimum fps in the mid 20s (25/26 range) when running the PhysX levels of UT3 at 19X12 0X16X on a 9800GTX+ (<$200).

A 9800GTX+ is not a GTX280, and a 24" monitor is not "small" to most people. (although it is to me )

Maybe I should throw my 9800GX2 in a box and see what kind fps $280 will buy a person. I'm thinking it will likely be high enough even for you Solofly.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: apoppin

i haven't seen any "facts" from you yet;

Fact NVIDIA has hardware physics support
Fact AMD currently has only 18% of the graphics market
Fact ATI currently has no real plans to support GPU physics
Fact anyone using a NVIDIA card will be able to use the upcoming Havok physics
Fact there is a long list of games supporting PhsyX with more on the way.
Fact next week a free Physx driver pack is coming that includes a FREE GAME and FREE MAPS for UT3.

Now please list your facts Apoppin.

I'm betting you are shooting blanks.

 

[SSChevy2001]

Is it me or does Nvidia Physx look to be very CPU bound or is it just far from being optimized?
link

@Wreckage - This is the list apoppin wanted. Upcoming games of which Bionic Commando is more that like the only one I'm interested in, which I doubt will play much different on Nvidia Physx.

Aliens: Colonial Marines
Backbreaker
Bionic Commando
Borderlands
Cryostasis
Empire: Total War
Mirror?s Edge
MKZ
Nurien

@MarcVenice and Solofy - I'm with both of you guys 4870x2 is next on my list.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: apoppin

i haven't seen any "facts" from you yet;

Fact NVIDIA has hardware physics support
Fact AMD currently has only 18% of the graphics market
Fact ATI currently has no real plans to support GPU physics
Fact anyone using a NVIDIA card will be able to use the upcoming Havok physics
Fact there is a long list of games supporting PhsyX with more on the way.
Fact next week a free Physx driver pack is coming that includes a FREE GAME and FREE MAPS for UT3.

Now please list your facts Apoppin.

I'm betting you are shooting blanks.

You lose. Bang!

Fact: You are leaving intel out of your calculations
Fact: AMD and Intel are supporting Havok together
Fact: You don't know AMD's "real Plans"
Fact: i have an Nvidia card also and can see if i like it
Fact: your long list is mostly older games with 'how much' support we don't know
Fact: we do not know the penalty for enabling PhysX on FPS
Fact: they are dribbling out a map at a time and an occasionally impressive demo

Where is the beef?
============

Thanks, SSChevy2001

what i was looking for .. the Beef
likely full implementation of PhysX =D

Aliens: Colonial Marines
Backbreaker
Bionic Commando
Borderlands
Cryostasis
Empire: Total War
Mirror?s Edge
MKZ
Nurien

Next year or this year?

 

[OCGuy]

So in order for people to feel better about thier 4870 purchase, they have to try and bring down NV? Odd...

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: apoppin


Fact: You are leaving intel out of your calculations
Fact:Intel does not have a solution out yet.
Fact: AMD and Intel are supporting Havok together
Fact: Neither have a solution out.
Fact: You don't know AMD's "real Plans'
Fact: "real plans" is an opinion of yours and has nothing to do with what exists
Fact: i have an Nvidia card also and can see if i like it
Fact: your trolling and main rig speak of your feeling on this matter
Fact: your long list is mostly old games with how much support we don't know
Fact: the above is your opinion not a fact
Fact: we do not know the penalty for enabling PhysX on FPS
Fact: Again "do not know" is not a fact it's your guessing again
Fact: they are dribbling out a map at a time and an occasionally impressive demo
Fact: you are lying again as the are also releasing a FULL GAME FOR FREE

Where is the beef?

Now you are just trolling as usual. You keep bringing up CPU physics which are not out yet in a discussion of GPU physics which are currently available.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
So in order for people to feel better about thier 4870 purchase, they have to try and bring down NV? Odd...

don't you think it is the other way 'round here

both Tesla and r700/770 architecture is nice but the Nvidia fans are saying AMD is *lost* without PhysX

this thread is a active defense against the "necessity" for PhysX

as though AMD graphics card owners are "missing" anything important

we are not - no more than when we missed SM 3.0 for it's first year and certainly no more than Nvidia Graphics users are "missing" DX10.1 features

AMD and Nvidia like to see us discuss their cards features and that is what this forum is supposed to do. Some get carried away saying "you card is trash because it lacks "x" feature". Which is silly imo. Unless you are gaming on Intel extreme graphics, you are not lacking anything with a modern GPU.

PhysX is no big deal for AMD owners. Just for nvidia fans.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: apoppin


Fact: You are leaving intel out of your calculations
Fact: AMD and Intel are supporting Havok together
Fact: You don't know AMD's "real Plans'
Fact: i have an Nvidia card also and can see if i like it
Fact: your long list is mostly old games with how much support we don't know
Fact: we do not know the penalty for enabling PhysX on FPS
Fact: they are dribbling out a map at a time and an occasionally impressive demo

Where is the beef?

Now you are just trolling as usual. You keep bringing up CPU physics which are not out yet in a discussion of GPU physics which are currently available.

don't be ridiculous

http://arstechnica.com/news.ar...h-new-partnership.html

The fact that AMD now owns ATI puts Intel (and AMD for that matter) in an odd position. The two CPU manufacturers may be bitter rivals and direct competitors, but they share an interest in ATI product performance and in holding NVIDIA at bay. To that end, Havok and AMD intend to "investigate the use of AMD?s massively parallel ATI Radeon GPUs to manage appropriate aspects of physical world simulation in the future." According to David O'Meara, managing director of Havok, "the capabilities of massively parallel products offer technical possibilities for computing certain types of simulation. We look forward to working with AMD to explore these possibilities."

. . . it's possible that Phenom's performance in physics-heavy scenarios will improve as a result. Despite the recent focus on GPU-based physics, Havok maintains that CPU performance and scalability are the factors that drive the core game play experience. AMD obviously likes the idea of any technology that could give its quad-core and triple-core products an edge in gaming, but we'll have to wait and see whether or not PR rhetoric can be turned into hardware functionality.

AMD's newfound alliance with Havok may also be a hedge bet against any physics functionality NVIDIA incorporates into current and future GeForce products.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: apoppin

don't be ridiculous

Since you have not once responded to any of the facts I have posted, I will keep applying the pressure on you to prove yourself.

Please link to ATI GPU support of Havok.

Games or a driver. Anything. Come on.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
So in order for people to feel better about thier 4870 purchase, they have to try and bring down NV? Odd...

don't you think it is the other way 'round here

both Tesla and r700/770 architecture is nice but the Nvidia fans are saying AMD is *lost* without PhysX

this thread is a active defense against the "necessity" for PhysX

as though AMD graphics card owners are "missing" anything important

we are not - no more than when we missed SM 3.0 for it's first year and certainly no more than Nvidia Graphics users are "missing" DX10.1 features

AMD and Nvidia like to see us discuss their cards features and that is what this forum is supposed to do. Some get carried away saying "you card is trash because it lacks "x" feature". Which is silly imo. Unless you are gaming on Intel extreme graphics, you are not lacking anything with a modern GPU.

PhysX is no big deal for AMD owners. Just for nvidia fans.

Thats wierd you speak for all AMD owners.......

If the 280 started craping golden bricks, there would be a thread on here saying:

"Why I think GT200 crapping golden bricks isnt a big deal."


Im going to start a thread that says "Why I think $30 to get a 9800GTX+ over a 4850 isnt a big deal". The ATi'ers love to point out that little price gap, but for a lot of people $30 is nothing.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31


Im going to start a thread that says "Why I think $30 to get a 9800GTX+ over a 4850 isnt a big deal". The ATi'ers love to point out that little price gap, but for a lot of people $30 is nothing.

Then they will tell you to void the warranty and add a $40 HS/F so it runs as cool as the GTX+

 

[SSChevy2001]

This is all i could find apoppin. Most are multiplatform which I doubt will play much different without physx ready gpu. Though I could be wrong. Maybe there will be bonus physx levels like UT3? Again nothing major to justify a physx gpu purchase.

Aliens: Colonial Marines - TBA 2008 360/PS3/PC
Bionic Commando - Winter 2008 - 360/PS3/PC
Backbreaker - TBA 2009 - 360/PS3/PC
Borderlands - TBA 2009 - 360/PS3/PC
Cryostasis - 10/10/2008 - PC
Empire: Total War - Q1 2009 - PC
Mirror?s Edge - 11/13/08 - 360/PS3/PC
MKZ - Winter 2008 - PC
Nurien - Winter 2008 - PC

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: apoppin

don't be ridiculous

Since you have not once responded to any of the facts I have posted, I will keep applying the pressure on you to prove yourself.

Please link to ATI GPU support of Havok.

Games or a driver. Anything. Come on.

First, you have no facts .. just bits and pieces of info tied together with hype, marketing and your opinion. Clearly what i have responded to, you have ignored and ended up repeating yourself - over-and-over.
secondly, i have nothing to prove here; my credibility has been long established

and Did you not even look at my post above yours?
:roll:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ar...h-new-partnership.html

Havok and AMD intend to "investigate the use of AMD?s massively parallel ATI Radeon GPUs to manage appropriate aspects of physical world simulation in the future." According to David O'Meara, managing director of Havok, "the capabilities of massively parallel products offer technical possibilities for computing certain types of simulation. We look forward to working with AMD to explore these possibilities."

want another?
http://www.ubergizmo.com/15/ar...e_physics_for_amd.html

Havok is owned by Intel and provides a good physics library for game developers. CPU makers are saying that physics is critical to games and that gameplay related physics should run on the CPU, because the AI (artificial intelligence) needs to know what?s happening in the virtual world.

Of course, these comments are aimed at NVIDIA?s vision of computing physics on the GPU. They have recently bough AGEIA that has its own ?PhysX? library for developers. So, should physics run on CPUs or GPUs? Answer: Both. Game-related physics on the CPU uses simple and less numerous bodies, while ?eye-candy? physics can run on the GPU at rates that CPUs just can?t match.

More?

http://www.engadget.com/2008/0...sics-engine-bandwagon/

AMD likely buckled under pressure to come up with a better physics program for its chips and just went with what Rick Bergman of AMD called "the clear market leader in physics software." AMD will add the Havok Physics engine to both its multi-core CPUs and GPUs, but AMD managing director noted that the focus is on CPUs given feedback from gaming developers who like the idea of offsetting physics computation to CPU cores.

am i missing what you need? note it is all from the past few weeks:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/m...hysics_Technology.html

Advanced Micro Devices and Havok, a wholly owned subsidiary of Intel Corp., said that they would collaborate to optimize Havok physics engine for AMD?s x86 microprocessors as well as investigate possibilities to optimize the engine for the company?s ATI Radeon graphics processing units (GPUs).

?As the complexity and visual fidelity of video games increases, AMD wants to take advantage of opportunities to improve the game experience. By working with the clear market leader in physics software, AMD can optimize our platforms to consistently deliver the best possible visual experience to the gamer,? said Rick Bergman, senior vice president and general manager of graphics products group at AMD.

i don't feel so left out

want more *details*? Finally something OLD - that shows what AMD has been planning for the last couple of years. They were not caught napping by Nvidia's acquisition of Aegia, imo

http://arstechnica.com/news.ar...20061006-7927.html?rel

The slides are full of talk of GPU-based physics acceleration, and in particular they hint at enhancements to the chipset that enable greater two-way communication between the GPU and CPU. The current, output-oriented nature of the CPU-GPU link is a problem for the kind of physics acceleration that actually affects game play, as we've pointed out previously. From our article on the AMD/ATI merger:

However, the GPU does not feed very much data back to the CPU as a result of its physics calculations, which means that nothing that the GPU produces in the way of physics simulation can really affect gameplay. So you couldn't use the GPU to simulate the partial demolition of a structure that's holding some NPCs, because the CPU wouldn't know enough about the results. The simulated demolition would go from the GPU straight to the framebuffer and onto the screen, like so many water or particle effects, but nobody would tell the actual game code running on the CPU where the large chunks of debris (fallen beams, pieces of wall, the inevitable barrels and crates) had fallen and where the new gap in the wall appeared.

The take-home point here is that a real PPU has to collaborate closely with the CPU?the two must talk back-and-forth quite a bit because the physics output of the PPU affects gameplay. In contrast, the more "eye candy"-oriented physics output from the GPU does not affect gameplay, so that output goes straight from the GPU to the screen.

AMD/ATI is no doubt intent on fixing this problem, and that's behind some of what they're doing with the Crossfire Xpress chipsets. In the next generation of chipsets from AMD/ATI, a GPU that's acting as a PPU will have a fast two-way link with the rest of the system, which means that this "PPU" will be able to talk not only to the CPU but also to the other GPU(s) that are working on graphics rendering. This is where AMD/ATI is taking their chipsets . . .

At least *i* know what i am talking about

Thats wierd you speak for all AMD owners.......

it might be weird but it is obviously true
- or they would dump their 48X0s for a Tesla if they believed the Nvidia Hype about PhysX


it is unproven since the future of Physics is quite unclear in PC gaming. Believe either Intel and AMD about Havok or believe Nvidia about PhysX.

. . . and if you find the GPU that shits golden bricks, break it open and see what made it work
:roll:

=========

Thanks, SSChevy2001

Like maybe .. maybe ... five games this year

i am so overwhelmed by Nvidia's progress with the PC devs i will become an nvidiot and toss my 4870 in the trash .. where it must belong according to some of us


Hypemasters ... all of you PhysXers
:lips: