-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
havok 4.0 video
- Thread starter dafloppyone
- Start date
“Why do I have to spend £200 on a card if Havok 4.0 can do all that on a GPU and multi-core CPU without getting in the way of graphics work?”
It sounds like its not for single GPU’s you need to buy motherboard with a 3rd physics slot then fit a physics card in that slot.
“ghost recon was better without the agiea ppu. there was a review done somewhere that tested this and it showed that stupid thngs happen when the ppu is active, like doors that fall off cars seem to hover on thier edges.”
You not what’s really funny about that? Havok was the API engine that did all the cars and it was Havok that caused the problems with things hovering on their edges. All those stupid things had nothing to do with the PPU it was all Havok. The stupid stuff happened without a PPU due to Havok.
“ill see if i can find that article then put agiea to shame.”
Try the Toms hardware review I believe that’s the one
”hence my sacrasim”
Your blaming Havoks flaws in Ghost Recon on the Ageia PPU. Real fair.
It sounds like its not for single GPU’s you need to buy motherboard with a 3rd physics slot then fit a physics card in that slot.
“ghost recon was better without the agiea ppu. there was a review done somewhere that tested this and it showed that stupid thngs happen when the ppu is active, like doors that fall off cars seem to hover on thier edges.”
You not what’s really funny about that? Havok was the API engine that did all the cars and it was Havok that caused the problems with things hovering on their edges. All those stupid things had nothing to do with the PPU it was all Havok. The stupid stuff happened without a PPU due to Havok.
“ill see if i can find that article then put agiea to shame.”
Try the Toms hardware review I believe that’s the one
”hence my sacrasim”
Your blaming Havoks flaws in Ghost Recon on the Ageia PPU. Real fair.
The guy said many times in the video that it is "running entirely on the GPU," and while that could mean a single GPU or SLI/Crossfire configuration, the fact that the Playstation 3 will use Havok 4.0 indicates the former.Pottsey said:
The more I see you post, the more I think you're posting from your job in viral marketing.
“ The guy said many times in the video that it is "running entirely on the GPU,"
The more I see you post, the more I think you're posting from your job in viral marketing..“
Alternatively you could read my post which says I am at work and skipped sections and was going try and watch the full thing at dinner which is at 12.30. I also didn’t have sound on so I missed the running entirely on the GPU part.
Nivida and ATI are talking about motherboards with 3 slots and useing the 3rd slot for physics cards. What is why I said it sounds like Havok means a new motherboard and extra cards. Yes Havok might be running entirely on the GPU but that does not mean its for a single GPU. We just dont know.
The more I see you post, the more I think you're posting from your job in viral marketing..“
Alternatively you could read my post which says I am at work and skipped sections and was going try and watch the full thing at dinner which is at 12.30. I also didn’t have sound on so I missed the running entirely on the GPU part.
Nivida and ATI are talking about motherboards with 3 slots and useing the 3rd slot for physics cards. What is why I said it sounds like Havok means a new motherboard and extra cards. Yes Havok might be running entirely on the GPU but that does not mean its for a single GPU. We just dont know.
havok sounds like a proper implementation of physics with deformable terrain and interactive environments.
agiea is just eyecandy so far with nothing really interactive, and where it is interactive like in cellfactor its just totally botched.
agiea is just eyecandy so far with nothing really interactive, and where it is interactive like in cellfactor its just totally botched.
Well it's been said enough times in this thread.Pottsey said:
Correction; ATI are talking about using the second or third slot for a graphics card doing the work of a PPU, not "using a third slot for a physics card." Nvidia might be making a PPU, but if they do it'll be just as redundant as an Ageia PhysX card.Pottsey said:
As for wether or not we know this Havok 4.0 video is demonstrated on a single GPU, it's more likely that is as it's a tech demo for both the PC and PS3 (which has one GPU core.)
“havok sounds like a proper implementation of physics with deformable terrain and interactive environments.”
You mean like Joint Task force which is an Ageia title?
“agiea is just eyecandy so far with nothing really interactive, and where it is interactive like in cellfactor its just totally botched.”
Botched how? The only botched thing I have seen is Havok in Ghost Recon. You yourself where saying how bad Havok physics where thinking it was Ageia when it was really Havok.
How can you say something like ftp://66.220.3.57/cfr_hd.zip is nothing really interactive?
“Well it's been said enough times in this thread. ”
You know I didn’t once say it wasn’t rendered on a GPU. All I said was it’s sounding like Nvidia want you to use a 3rd physics card with a GPU style shaders on it.
You mean like Joint Task force which is an Ageia title?
“agiea is just eyecandy so far with nothing really interactive, and where it is interactive like in cellfactor its just totally botched.”
Botched how? The only botched thing I have seen is Havok in Ghost Recon. You yourself where saying how bad Havok physics where thinking it was Ageia when it was really Havok.
How can you say something like ftp://66.220.3.57/cfr_hd.zip is nothing really interactive?
“Well it's been said enough times in this thread. ”
You know I didn’t once say it wasn’t rendered on a GPU. All I said was it’s sounding like Nvidia want you to use a 3rd physics card with a GPU style shaders on it.
Last edited:
Which has nothing to do with this topic, where did anyone mention the rumoured Nvidia PPU before you did?Pottsey said:
I know, I know. Your job in viral marketing requires you to bash the competition at every opportunity, even if it's nothing to do with what's being discussed, but at least try to stay on-topic.
It's been said many times in that video and more than a few in this thread that those physics were done entirely "on the GPU," which means either SLI/Crossfire physics (unlikely as it's a tech demo for both PC and PS3) or simply that Havok 4.0 can do amazing physics on the GPU and multi-core CPU without getting in the way of graphics or requiring a redundant and expensive PPU regardless of who makes them.
Last edited:
“Which has nothing to do with this topic, where did anyone mention the rumoured Nvidia PPU before you did? ”
Its perfectly on topic I just said with all the talk about Nvidia using a 3rd motherboard slot we shouldn’t assume Havok 4.0 is for a single GPU as in 1 GPU in the system. There is a good chance Havok 4.0 is for the physics GPU used in the 3rd slot Nvidia are talking about. Having all the physics work done on the 3rd slot is still a single GPU.
If you go back and read you will see I said it “It sounds like its not for single GPU’s” & “Though I could be wrong there’s a lot of contradicting info”. Its unclear is Havok is for a single GPU s or if it’s on a single GPU in a 2nd or 3rd slot that’s devoted to physics.
You seem to be reading my posts as though they say something different from what I am typing. All I said was its unclear which is going on and we shouldnt assume its for single GPU systems.
“Havok 4.0 can do amazing physics on the GPU and multi-core CPU without getting in the way of graphics or requiring a redundant and expensive PPU regardless of who makes them.“
Does the video clearly say the GPU is rendering both the graphics and physics or just the physics? I cannot hear sound till I get home. If it is physics only then hows it any different from other PPU options? As its no cheaper.
Its perfectly on topic I just said with all the talk about Nvidia using a 3rd motherboard slot we shouldn’t assume Havok 4.0 is for a single GPU as in 1 GPU in the system. There is a good chance Havok 4.0 is for the physics GPU used in the 3rd slot Nvidia are talking about. Having all the physics work done on the 3rd slot is still a single GPU.
If you go back and read you will see I said it “It sounds like its not for single GPU’s” & “Though I could be wrong there’s a lot of contradicting info”. Its unclear is Havok is for a single GPU s or if it’s on a single GPU in a 2nd or 3rd slot that’s devoted to physics.
You seem to be reading my posts as though they say something different from what I am typing. All I said was its unclear which is going on and we shouldnt assume its for single GPU systems.
“Havok 4.0 can do amazing physics on the GPU and multi-core CPU without getting in the way of graphics or requiring a redundant and expensive PPU regardless of who makes them.“
Does the video clearly say the GPU is rendering both the graphics and physics or just the physics? I cannot hear sound till I get home. If it is physics only then hows it any different from other PPU options? As its no cheaper.
Last edited:
I don't think the Ageia card is bad, the only problem with it is two things.
1) The price.
2) Still needing more games.
I think once Nvidia and ATi get their physics solutions out (and if Ageia are still around) then a good old comparison is needed for features, fps, cost, pro's and con's. Nice and fair!
If anything do people not think we should be greatful of the Ageia solution as it seems to have "spurred" on Nvidia and ATi's contribution imo. All in all it leads to better cards / implementations for us buyers.
1) The price.
2) Still needing more games.
I think once Nvidia and ATi get their physics solutions out (and if Ageia are still around) then a good old comparison is needed for features, fps, cost, pro's and con's. Nice and fair!
If anything do people not think we should be greatful of the Ageia solution as it seems to have "spurred" on Nvidia and ATi's contribution imo. All in all it leads to better cards / implementations for us buyers.
Firegod said:I don't think the Ageia card is bad, the only problem with it is two things.
1) The price.
2) Still needing more games.
I think once Nvidia and ATi get their physics solutions out (and if Ageia are still around) then a good old comparison is needed for features, fps, cost, pro's and con's. Nice and fair!
100% agree, there needs to be more games which can showcase the PPU.
Well, this morning I went to my friends house who recently purchased a brand new UFOware computer - can't say the actual name because of competitor (you can guess it I'm sure) - well anyway he purchased it with a PhysX PPU card. Unfortunately, the card provided to be more of a hindrance to him than benefit.
We tried various games, including City of Villains with the physics turned up to the highest level. 100% of the time PhysX produced a negative effect in the game-play. (reduced fps and physics lag! There was an inherent gap between the explosion and the movement of the objects) - which I am sure is a communication problem between the components - or at least linked to software which controls the ppu (what ever the case, it was not up to a decent standard)
Once we removed the PPU, everything seemed better. Using software to do the physics calculation, provided better performance and fluidity (sp?). Shame there was not enough games to test it on.
At the moment, I wouldn't advise anyone to purchase a PPU - at least until there is a sufficient number of games which can flawlessly perform with the addition of a PPU. On the flip-side of things, AGEIA are working hard and making strides in closing the gap between performance and utilisation of the PPU. Let's see how well they do in the coming year.
Hopefully soon, with Nvidia and ATI releasing their physics bits n pieces I'm sure it will promote good competition, especially against AGEIA.
Pottsey said:
Only these: http://www.havok.com/content/blogcategory/37/78/
But to be honest, using Havok is not the same as using Havoc FX - so I really can't be sure what will be used! But since it's up-coming games, more than likely to use FX.
Hopefully soon we can lots of titles signing up to use Havoc FX as we should see with PhysX.
Last edited:
“We tried various games, including City of Villains with the physics turned up to the highest level. 100% of the time PhysX produced a negative effect in the game-play.”
That’s odd and gives very different results from what the review benchmarks say. Does he have an ATI card? I also assume you have the newest drivers?
That’s odd and gives very different results from what the review benchmarks say. Does he have an ATI card? I also assume you have the newest drivers?