News Ageia outlines plans for PhysX

It might be able to get close to the PPU, but at what TCO? I am sure that the PPU uses less power than an 8800GTS.
It really is a good idea, just a bit too pricey and not enough support yet.

 

the 8800GTS still probably cant handle the same level of physics as a physics card
GFX cards just aren't designed to do physix calculations, although because they are quite parallel they do a better job then a CPU - it still cant compare to a PPU

 

randomsome: We won't know that for sure until the drivers come out to enable it. At the moment if you have 2x8800GTX you'll be unlikely to use even the full power of one, so why not use the second to do some PPU style work?

F@H has a program designed to run on the GPU and I have a friend who's trying to benchmark power relative to CPU?

 

G80 is actually incredibly good at doing any massively parallel calculation providing it's optimised for the architecture, as is the case with a PhysX card.

 

well if we ever see some good adoption of Physics calculations we may one day be able to judge the performance
Although the hardware is likely to be only as good as the software, and i would like to believe that programming for a card designed to do physics is easier then one designed for graphics

BTW has nvidia actually released any GPGPU software yet ? or are they still developing it

 

Plans should include
- Stop ripping people off with unwanted crap
- Shutdown company before bankruptcy

 

That was what I was thinking.

As far as I was aware, the only two things that actually seem to use the PhysX are the Cell Factor tech demo (comes with the card) and Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter (also tends to come with the card...)

Of course, PhysX might actually become useful when Unreal Tournament 3 (2007... whatever...) comes out. But I doubt it...

 

Are you guys seriously comparing the PhysX PPU to nVidia's 8800's? Man...you may or may not be right about the 8800 being able to do more physics than the PPU, but please acknowledge some of the major problems with the comparison:

First of all, look at the heat sinks and think about them. With a quick google search, the PPU eats roughly 20-30 Watts. 8800? Neighborhood of 150-200 Watts. You could run 5 PPU's for the same power budget...or overclock the hell out of the existing one. The 8800 is running at the bleeding limits of what a giant heatsink/fan/heatpipe system can deal with.

Second: I'm not sure how the VAT's work, but here in the US, newegg now sells the PPU card for $159. The cheapest 8800, with 320MB, sells for $279 after rebate. PhysX is selling for a good chunk cheaper...if taxes make the price closer, I don't think that Ageia needs to be blamed for overpricing their hardware.

Third: PhysX is new...so it can't be mass-produced at the same level (or with the same company resources) as an nVidia/ATI GPU. Just comparing the look of the card, I'm guessing the current PPU would be $40 if researched/produced by a bigger company that was using the weight of past research dollars (instead of all of their research so far being invested in one product). The card really looks like an nVidia 5000 series card. It'll be cheap one day, if it gets off the ground....

Fourth: if you're using the graphics card to do physics, you're wasting silicon. A GPU has silicon that is capable of physics, yes...but it's got other silicon and circuits that are suited for graphics exclusively. Why pay for that if you're not going to use it?

Fifth: A GPU is not designed to talk back to the CPU. 90% of the information flow is toward the GPU (not back to the CPU, after processing by the GPU). As things stand now, a GPU is good for "effects physics" (yes, that is changing in the future....). This means "eye candy" that doesn't effect gameplay. A PPU is designed to do useful physics...

Sixth: this is the first product put out by Ageia...how many generations has nVidia been working on graphics cards? Do you really think a first-generation company like Ageia could get away with selling a card that costs $500 and eats 200 Watts? They're starting at 20 Watts to show you exactly what such a "simple" level of PPU design can do. If they're successful in getting people to adopt that, think about what they'd be capable of in the 100-Watt power budget.

At the very least, you people should be arguing that Ageia should license their ideas to another company (like Nvidia) that has better mass-production capabilities. Maybe you should argue that Ageia chips should be added to an 8800 board. Maybe a PPU should actually be one of the cores on an intel processor (an actual PPU, not just a regular core dedicated to doing physics tasks). But man, please don't suggest that it's a good idea to make a high end graphics card, with all that graphics-exclusive silicon, do only physics.

 

if only they had made it more open......

 

it seems to me at that power usage and such, would it be that far of a stretch to say in the future graphics cards would alot some extra silicone specifically FOR the task of physics rendering if it was that specialized and or different then general computing or graphics processing, I agree that a specialized standalone chip will always delieve a significant advantage than general processors or gpus, but I don't it's that wild for say an already specialized processor like a gpu to incorporate some chip space towards physics processing.
I think that's the clincher right there, no one wants to have to shell out for yet another add on card, and unfortuantely in physics the results right now aren't as tangible, you won't see more pixels.

 

Yes, it would be a stretch. Graphics cards don't need larger chests.