BFG Tech AGEIA PhysX PPU - bit-tech.net Forums

The_Pope · 8th May 2006, 22:39

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/200..._review/1.html

saeghwin · 8th May 2006, 22:54

They just released the demo of Cellfactor; can anybody figure out how to play it without the card? I'm downloading it right now.

ozstrike · 8th May 2006, 23:06

AFAIK it's not possible to play it without the card. No point anyway.

It looks promising, but it's disappointing that things aren't quite as realistic as they could have been, for example the stone chips disappearing. Also disappointing the lack of supported games as of yet.

MiNiMaL_FuSS · 8th May 2006, 23:16

I actually prefer the shots on the left without PhysX!! I don't like the look of the lil nasty blocks of cr@p coming out of everything. Early days yet maybe it'll look better in future games.

The_Pope · 8th May 2006, 23:33

It definitely adds to the atmosphere somewhat - it feels more immersive to have crap flying everywhere when you're being shot at. But overall, that's not worth paying £200 for right now.

Let's hope they get some more games!

Boon · 8th May 2006, 23:38

By all accounts the implementation of PhysX in GRAW are pretty poor and the general impression left is... meh. As mentioned in the article perhaps future games will show some further benefit but as it is, for the price, it's destined to fail. The nVidia (and ATI) Havok based onboard solution seems to be the best of both worlds and is quite simply the future for dedicated Physics processing. A separate add in card, unless <£50, is never going to gain mass appeal.

The fact that it actually runs noticibly slower with current unimpressive effects doesn't bode well for future titles where the effects may be more spectacular but then have a greater performance hit. I supposed the idea is sound but wonder about the processing power free with dual core and quad core chips of the future.

simosaurus · 8th May 2006, 23:38

it looks crap so far, but im sure Unreal Engine 3.0 will make great use of it. and as the reviewer says, could make the card something special. i think UEngine is also using it for actual physics,(mabye per poly collision?) as apposed to fancy bits of crud flying everywhere.

Fozzy · 9th May 2006, 00:05

cool....The whole point to me of the physx card was to keep from haveing to upgrade every 6 months to a new video card. This sucks. It better get a hell of alot better before I consider it. And the fact that it requires sli is stupid too. It doesnt make sense to me at all. The eye candy isnt good enough to merit the costs and it just sparks the cost of gameing rigs. WTF I'm very mad.

FIBRE+ · 9th May 2006, 00:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by MiNiMaL_FuSS

I actually prefer the shots on the left without PhysX!! I don't like the look of the lil nasty blocks of cr@p coming out of everything. Early days yet maybe it'll look better in future games.

2nd that, UE3 will decide it for me.

US$ 249 = 134.340437 UK£, screwing us Brits over like usual

Zekey · 9th May 2006, 01:08

No way wil I spring fr one of these until the price goes down, more gaes support it, and it doesn't require insane graphics.

valium · 9th May 2006, 03:16

I was kinda wondering if this is even worth 200$ since SLi is supposed to have Physx enabled.

zoot2boot · 9th May 2006, 05:00

it kinda gives the impression it's not really doing anything. given the frame rate decrease what says it's not using that performance hit to compute more bits of crud in the cpu? given that no one would have invested in it if this really was the case it seems like an awfully inefficient way of going about things... why not just do away with the physx and have an option to turn on more physics and take the performance hit in game? i don't believe displaying those few extra bits of crud would make that big a difference to frame rate without the physx.

the anandtech video demo clearly showed the frame rate dropping to near zero whilst presumably the cpu was talking to the ppu before a big explosion. that's not adding to the experience in my world.

Xiachunyi · 9th May 2006, 06:55

Although I am not a gamer at all, I enjoy reading about these reviews.

The only time I will likely consider purchasing one is when they become cheap and more "universal". For example, I bought a laptop with a nVidia 6600 not to play games, but rather to program on.

On page this page, below the cloth simulation, I believe there is a typo: "In that context, it suceeds admirably."

LVMike · 9th May 2006, 08:02

ati and nivida have annouced Havok acceleation but only in sli/crossfire and you have to sacrifice a card so that it can run the physics while the other does the video. So its kind of a wash.

PhyiX was halfassed in GRAW because its not the physics engine... its just kind of layered in to provide a launch game. UT will be the decided as will the PS3 and the move by firms like UBI to support the technology...

I think you will not see physics cards adopted as maine strem untill Microsoft steps in with their physics API just like DirectX during the hole direct3d vs glide of the 90's

Deathrow · 9th May 2006, 10:57

Quote:

...however the fact doesn't throttle down...

First page, shouldent that be "...however the fan doesn't throttle down..."?

Hepath · 9th May 2006, 12:46

I'm all for advancement - but this doesn't yet cut the mustard for me. Not because it doesn't deliver on effects, but as pointed out - I'm restricting my mobo choice...

Until games offer a realistic evironment (such as spray and debris remaining around after the explosion) I wont be going anywhere near it - whats the point in spending effectively £200 for the PPU then having to 'compromise' on a mobo - when you're trying to spec a base system. Especially when its just a 'prettier' bang for buck, adding nothing to gameplay.

eddtox · 9th May 2006, 15:08

O...k... umm... I'm not convinced. Why would I spend an extra £200+ for a performance hit? Ok, so it looks (arguably) better, but as I have said before, it is getting ridiculous. After all not everybody has £3000+ to spend on a gaming machine. I wouldn't mind it if it was provided as an option (for people with more money than sense) but to make new games require it is likely to alienate many gamers. As it stands, consoles are looking more appealing by the day as they dont require a £400+ upgrade twice a year and they don't cost £3000+. Personally, I have been a PC gamer from the very beginning - I have never owned a PS or XBOX or GC because I firmly beleived that computers are much more useful. However, true as that statement may be, it seems that I may have to satisfy my gaming needs in some other way until I win the lottery (or rob a bank). IMHO

-ed out

specofdust · 9th May 2006, 15:14

Well thats what the article was telling us. It's not for everyone, theres only one decent game out, you'd really want SLI. This isn't for people that don't have £3,000 to throw away on a PC, it's for those who do. At least for the time being.

eek · 9th May 2006, 15:56

I don't get what all the surprise is about the performance hit... it was obvious this was going to happen!

When running with a PPU in GRAW there is extra debris... the PPU calculates the physics of this debris, i.e. determining how it is affected by the world, and what happens to it. Once this has been calculated the position/orientation of the debris has to be sent to the GFX card for rendering, hence the card has more stuff to render so it's going to take a hit. This was one of the reasons I guess why SLI/Crossfire is a pre requisite for getting a PPU - the extra grunt is needed to keep up a decent frame rate.

Lazarus Dark · 9th May 2006, 16:20

the article forgot one option for cramped mobos, though to some it may not be pretty or ideal: pci extenders are readily available and not to expensive. this will relocate your xfi, ppu or both so they can fit with your sli/crissfire. but personally, I don't see the benifits of sli over just getting the next gen card, asside from perhaps driving a dell 30" at native res 60fps. but thats another thread. I do see some benifit to ppu if frame rates can be brought up to acceptible, but not as it currently seems.

and this may be for nothing if microsoft comes out with dirctx for physics, if its not compatible with physx hardware

8th May 2006, 22:39	#1
The_Pope Geoff Richards Moderator Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: UK Posts: 2,089	BFG Tech AGEIA PhysX PPU http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/200..._review/1.html

8th May 2006, 22:54	#2
saeghwin Multimodder Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: US Posts: 87	They just released the demo of Cellfactor; can anybody figure out how to play it without the card? I'm downloading it right now. __________________ ExpirationDate.info - Forums for dramatic conclusions. Life, philosophy, games, lucid dreaming, music, etc.

8th May 2006, 23:06	#3
ozstrike yip yip yip yip Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Lake District, UK Posts: 2,922	AFAIK it's not possible to play it without the card. No point anyway. It looks promising, but it's disappointing that things aren't quite as realistic as they could have been, for example the stone chips disappearing. Also disappointing the lack of supported games as of yet. __________________ Last.FM \| Flickr \| Enter the POTM! \| Blog

8th May 2006, 23:16	#4
MiNiMaL_FuSS I Mod, Therefore I Own Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Norwich, Norfolk, UK Posts: 3,079	I actually prefer the shots on the left without PhysX!! I don't like the look of the lil nasty blocks of cr@p coming out of everything. Early days yet maybe it'll look better in future games. __________________ -Yesterday is History, Tomorrow is a Mystery, Take the Present as a Gift-

8th May 2006, 23:38	#7
simosaurus Supermodder Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 348	it looks crap so far, but im sure Unreal Engine 3.0 will make great use of it. and as the reviewer says, could make the card something special. i think UEngine is also using it for actual physics,(mabye per poly collision?) as apposed to fancy bits of crud flying everywhere. __________________ lian-li v1000b 700GB RAID 0 Array X2 4800+ 7800 GTX SLi X-Fi FPS 24" dell Aqua Watercooling

8th May 2006, 23:33	#5
The_Pope Geoff Richards Moderator Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: UK Posts: 2,089	It definitely adds to the atmosphere somewhat - it feels more immersive to have crap flying everywhere when you're being shot at. But overall, that's not worth paying £200 for right now. Let's hope they get some more games!

8th May 2006, 23:38	#6
Boon Supermodder Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 271	By all accounts the implementation of PhysX in GRAW are pretty poor and the general impression left is... meh. As mentioned in the article perhaps future games will show some further benefit but as it is, for the price, it's destined to fail. The nVidia (and ATI) Havok based onboard solution seems to be the best of both worlds and is quite simply the future for dedicated Physics processing. A separate add in card, unless <£50, is never going to gain mass appeal. The fact that it actually runs noticibly slower with current unimpressive effects doesn't bode well for future titles where the effects may be more spectacular but then have a greater performance hit. I supposed the idea is sound but wonder about the processing power free with dual core and quad core chips of the future.

9th May 2006, 00:05	#8
Fozzy Ultramodder Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Olympia, WA Posts: 1,386	cool....The whole point to me of the physx card was to keep from haveing to upgrade every 6 months to a new video card. This sucks. It better get a hell of alot better before I consider it. And the fact that it requires sli is stupid too. It doesnt make sense to me at all. The eye candy isnt good enough to merit the costs and it just sparks the cost of gameing rigs. WTF I'm very mad. __________________ Sponsors: http://www.koolance.com/images/homeimage01.jpg http://www.dangerden.com/templates/r...eader-wide.jpg http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/e...age00001-2.jpg

9th May 2006, 01:08	#10
Zekey Modder Join Date: May 2005 Location: Wells, Maine. Posts: 52	No way wil I spring fr one of these until the price goes down, more gaes support it, and it doesn't require insane graphics. __________________ Let's pretend this is witty or advertising a mod.

9th May 2006, 03:16	#11
valium Supermodder Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: USA, TX Posts: 288	I was kinda wondering if this is even worth 200$ since SLi is supposed to have Physx enabled. __________________ V2 - AMD 4400+ x2, Geforce 7800 GTX, 2x512 Corsair PC3200XL, 2x74gb Raptors (Raid 0)

9th May 2006, 05:00	#12
zoot2boot Multimodder Join Date: May 2006 Location: aus Posts: 75	it kinda gives the impression it's not really doing anything. given the frame rate decrease what says it's not using that performance hit to compute more bits of crud in the cpu? given that no one would have invested in it if this really was the case it seems like an awfully inefficient way of going about things... why not just do away with the physx and have an option to turn on more physics and take the performance hit in game? i don't believe displaying those few extra bits of crud would make that big a difference to frame rate without the physx. the anandtech video demo clearly showed the frame rate dropping to near zero whilst presumably the cpu was talking to the ppu before a big explosion. that's not adding to the experience in my world.

9th May 2006, 06:55	#13
Xiachunyi Ultramodder Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: USA Posts: 1,405	Although I am not a gamer at all, I enjoy reading about these reviews. The only time I will likely consider purchasing one is when they become cheap and more "universal". For example, I bought a laptop with a nVidia 6600 not to play games, but rather to program on. On page this page, below the cloth simulation, I believe there is a typo: "In that context, it suceeds admirably." __________________ Audiophile's Dream...

9th May 2006, 08:02	#14
LVMike Supermodder Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Las Vegas NV & Rolla MO Posts: 412	ati and nivida have annouced Havok acceleation but only in sli/crossfire and you have to sacrifice a card so that it can run the physics while the other does the video. So its kind of a wash. PhyiX was halfassed in GRAW because its not the physics engine... its just kind of layered in to provide a launch game. UT will be the decided as will the PS3 and the move by firms like UBI to support the technology... I think you will not see physics cards adopted as maine strem untill Microsoft steps in with their physics API just like DirectX during the hole direct3d vs glide of the 90's

9th May 2006, 12:46	#16
Hepath Hypermodder Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK, Yokel, Cheltenham Posts: 719	I'm all for advancement - but this doesn't yet cut the mustard for me. Not because it doesn't deliver on effects, but as pointed out - I'm restricting my mobo choice... Until games offer a realistic evironment (such as spray and debris remaining around after the explosion) I wont be going anywhere near it - whats the point in spending effectively £200 for the PPU then having to 'compromise' on a mobo - when you're trying to spec a base system. Especially when its just a 'prettier' bang for buck, adding nothing to gameplay. __________________ C#.Net Certified Application Professional (MCAD) DFI Lan Party NF4 UT SLI-D \| AMD64 4000+ San Deigo (XP90-C) \| OCZ PC4800 DDR Plat \| Seagate 300Mb 8Mb \| PBDV1640P DVD/RW \| TAGAN TG480-U22 480W \| BFG 6800GT OC (Artic Cooling NV5)

9th May 2006, 15:08	#17
eddtox Supermodder Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Medway Posts: 345	O...k... umm... I'm not convinced. Why would I spend an extra £200+ for a performance hit? Ok, so it looks (arguably) better, but as I have said before, it is getting ridiculous. After all not everybody has £3000+ to spend on a gaming machine. I wouldn't mind it if it was provided as an option (for people with more money than sense) but to make new games require it is likely to alienate many gamers. As it stands, consoles are looking more appealing by the day as they dont require a £400+ upgrade twice a year and they don't cost £3000+. Personally, I have been a PC gamer from the very beginning - I have never owned a PS or XBOX or GC because I firmly beleived that computers are much more useful. However, true as that statement may be, it seems that I may have to satisfy my gaming needs in some other way until I win the lottery (or rob a bank). IMHO -ed out

9th May 2006, 15:14	#18
specofdust Banned Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Aberdeen, UK, EU Posts: 7,622	Well thats what the article was telling us. It's not for everyone, theres only one decent game out, you'd really want SLI. This isn't for people that don't have £3,000 to throw away on a PC, it's for those who do. At least for the time being. __________________ Like marmite, only no-one hates it Mmm bop!

9th May 2006, 15:56	#19
eek CAMRA ***. Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: in meh own little world Posts: 1,520	I don't get what all the surprise is about the performance hit... it was obvious this was going to happen! When running with a PPU in GRAW there is extra debris... the PPU calculates the physics of this debris, i.e. determining how it is affected by the world, and what happens to it. Once this has been calculated the position/orientation of the debris has to be sent to the GFX card for rendering, hence the card has more stuff to render so it's going to take a hit. This was one of the reasons I guess why SLI/Crossfire is a pre requisite for getting a PPU - the extra grunt is needed to keep up a decent frame rate.

9th May 2006, 16:20	#20
Lazarus Dark Supermodder Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: US Memphis, TN Posts: 292	the article forgot one option for cramped mobos, though to some it may not be pretty or ideal: pci extenders are readily available and not to expensive. this will relocate your xfi, ppu or both so they can fit with your sli/crissfire. but personally, I don't see the benifits of sli over just getting the next gen card, asside from perhaps driving a dell 30" at native res 60fps. but thats another thread. I do see some benifit to ppu if frame rates can be brought up to acceptible, but not as it currently seems. and this may be for nothing if microsoft comes out with dirctx for physics, if its not compatible with physx hardware __________________ My gun kata is greater than your kung fu.