-
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.
Ageia PhysX Accelerator
- Thread starter Th3D0n
- Start date
I also suppose the PCI slots needed for one will automagically materialise when you open the case panel up and look at the mobo? dunno about you guys but my mobo has 3 pci slots, 1 which is covered by the gfx card and 2 in use by wifi card and sound card.
On SLI systems you'll only have 1 pci slot free too....lol
On SLI systems you'll only have 1 pci slot free too....lol
Associate
- Joined
- 22 Jul 2007
- Posts
- 2
- Location
- Boroughbridge, UK
Here's my system:
Intel Core2Extreme X6800
2GB RAM
Asus P5N32SLI Deluxe SE
GeForce 7950GX2
BFG Ageia Physx card
Now I've been running the Ageia provided tests, and it turns out that the Processor does a btter job at the physics than the physic card (a few FPS faster) However the point you all seem to be missing is that it's all well and good to have the processor or the graphics card dealing with Physics in theory, theory being an environment where they're doing little else, but when you start throwing graphics data and Physics data at a GPU, it'll start to to struggle, the same applies to a processor, after all it's having to cope with the AI of the game and loading the level as you play on modern games. This is where a PPU will take the load off the CPU/GPU and allow them to do what they're designed to do.
Unreal Engine 3 supports Ageia PhysX no matter what the game is, it's just down to whether the developer has taken the time to actually use it.
As for UT3, you all seem to be forgetting what the Ageia card is being used for, it won't affect online match making, as all it is doing is altering what the playing with the card see's for example, when you split someone in half with the Scorpion's blades, physx owners will get a nice bloody dynamic trail between the upper and lower torso as the two are separated while a gamer without Physx will just get a normal particle splattering effect. It also might be used for water effects and such, however Epic has already confirmed that PhysX won't be used for anything that will affect the way the game plays, IE in one of the trailers for the game you see a giant stone archway getting Smashed by the Leviathan's Ion cannon and dropping onto a paladin tank. Both PPU and non-PPU players will experience that.
Intel Core2Extreme X6800
2GB RAM
Asus P5N32SLI Deluxe SE
GeForce 7950GX2
BFG Ageia Physx card
Now I've been running the Ageia provided tests, and it turns out that the Processor does a btter job at the physics than the physic card (a few FPS faster) However the point you all seem to be missing is that it's all well and good to have the processor or the graphics card dealing with Physics in theory, theory being an environment where they're doing little else, but when you start throwing graphics data and Physics data at a GPU, it'll start to to struggle, the same applies to a processor, after all it's having to cope with the AI of the game and loading the level as you play on modern games. This is where a PPU will take the load off the CPU/GPU and allow them to do what they're designed to do.
Unreal Engine 3 supports Ageia PhysX no matter what the game is, it's just down to whether the developer has taken the time to actually use it.
As for UT3, you all seem to be forgetting what the Ageia card is being used for, it won't affect online match making, as all it is doing is altering what the playing with the card see's for example, when you split someone in half with the Scorpion's blades, physx owners will get a nice bloody dynamic trail between the upper and lower torso as the two are separated while a gamer without Physx will just get a normal particle splattering effect. It also might be used for water effects and such, however Epic has already confirmed that PhysX won't be used for anything that will affect the way the game plays, IE in one of the trailers for the game you see a giant stone archway getting Smashed by the Leviathan's Ion cannon and dropping onto a paladin tank. Both PPU and non-PPU players will experience that.
Richdog said:
How is it useless??????. If you plug it in it stops the dust getting into the PCI lane on the motherboard
. Richdog from a fairly knowledgeable guy on the technical sides of life I can't believe you never thought of that 
.Final8y said:
Problem is that multi-core CPU's when used and coded for properly will provide much more power than these dedicated PhysX cards. They're still useless, an unecessary expense.
J.D said:How is it useless??????. If you plug it in it stops the dust getting into the PCI lane on the motherboard
I lose.
there pretty useless it must be said, ageia brought out a product that the world doesn't want/need, hell GRAW2 looks better without a physx card, with one you chuck a grenade at something and loads of random square blocks fly all over the place, thats erm...nice touch that
Gashman said:there pretty useless it must be said, ageia brought out a product that the world doesn't want/need, hell GRAW2 looks better without a physx card, with one you chuck a grenade at something and loads of random square blocks fly all over the place, thats erm...nice touch that
I reckon Ageia should have tried to work with ATI and Nvidia behind the scenes rather than launch the card independently. Square blocks flying over Graw 2 sounds rather poor.
Richdog said:I lose.
ROFL.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 6,606
- Location
- Sydney Australia
Heh we should have a monthly 'Slate Ageia PhysX" thread... oh that's right, we already do. I fully agree with the above comments - Poop - it's not even a handy paperweight - too many sharp edges.
I fully agree with the above comments - Poop - it's not even a handy paperweight - too many sharp edges.
Last edited:
Richdog said:Problem is that multi-core CPU's when used and coded for properly will provide much more power than these dedicated PhysX cards. They're still useless, an unecessary expense.
I lose.
No they will not as they are not designed for the job in the first place.
Do a well enough job for expectations of the near future yes.
Cpu used to be enough for sound & 3Dgfx at one time & thought that dedicated 3Dgfx/sound chips would never be needed for the general consumer.
And the when coded properly can also be applied to the PhysX cards.
Associate
- Joined
- 17 May 2004
- Posts
- 1,585
An ASIC designed and coded specifically to do a single purpose will always beat a general purpose CPU, at that specific task. By the time the CPU catches up then the ASIC has moved on as well.
The CPU not only has to do the actual application that is running, it has to handle Windows, if you are using RAID on SATA then it is being used for handling the RAID calculations as well as the chipset doesn't have that much capability.
Unless you are using a Soundcard then the CPU is also having to deal with working the sound system as well. As we are demanding better sound then this is taking up more resources as well.
If gaming online then it is also working the Ethernet controller as well as the disk controller, the soundcard, likely to be running Anti-Spyware, AV engines as well.
How many cores for my CPU am I supposed to buy. You can be sure that bad coding will eat multi-core cpus up. It will be harder for general software bloat to use up a PPU.
The biggest problem facing physics implementation at the moment is the same as the early 3D Accelerator cards. Which API do you go with. Do you invest time and money in Havok, or Ageia, which one will win out. At the moment no one can be 100% certain. Once you get a standard then you will start to get developers using it.
Look at an early playstation game and see what it is like compared to the last, learning to code for new technology takes time and we are seeing that in the games that are shipping with PPU support.
3D Accelerators didn't go mainstream until DirectX came out and you could write to that one DirectX API. Look at where 3DFX are these days as they backed the wrong horse. I don't know anyone who would say that the 3DFX cards were poor. The problem with the 5000/6000 series was that the world had moved to DirectX by then.
Until Microsft do us all a favour and get there DirectPhysics or whatever they are calling it out then there isn't a single standard out there.
Nvidia and AMD/ATI both have games sponsorship programs and as they are looking to promote physics on there GPU's then they aren't going to be too keen on games developers making full use of a rival technology that is actually available out there too use, whilst I don't believe that AMD/ATI or Nvidia are shipping yet or even seen beta's.
All PC's ship with a DirectX 3D Accelerator, very few ship with a PPU, so if you spend time and effort making a game that will actually utilise a PPU fully then you will cut out a large section of the market as it will be real slow on the machine that doesn't have a PPU. It would be a corageous developer that chose to do so and so far we haven't.
The CPU not only has to do the actual application that is running, it has to handle Windows, if you are using RAID on SATA then it is being used for handling the RAID calculations as well as the chipset doesn't have that much capability.
Unless you are using a Soundcard then the CPU is also having to deal with working the sound system as well. As we are demanding better sound then this is taking up more resources as well.
If gaming online then it is also working the Ethernet controller as well as the disk controller, the soundcard, likely to be running Anti-Spyware, AV engines as well.
How many cores for my CPU am I supposed to buy. You can be sure that bad coding will eat multi-core cpus up. It will be harder for general software bloat to use up a PPU.
The biggest problem facing physics implementation at the moment is the same as the early 3D Accelerator cards. Which API do you go with. Do you invest time and money in Havok, or Ageia, which one will win out. At the moment no one can be 100% certain. Once you get a standard then you will start to get developers using it.
Look at an early playstation game and see what it is like compared to the last, learning to code for new technology takes time and we are seeing that in the games that are shipping with PPU support.
3D Accelerators didn't go mainstream until DirectX came out and you could write to that one DirectX API. Look at where 3DFX are these days as they backed the wrong horse. I don't know anyone who would say that the 3DFX cards were poor. The problem with the 5000/6000 series was that the world had moved to DirectX by then.
Until Microsft do us all a favour and get there DirectPhysics or whatever they are calling it out then there isn't a single standard out there.
Nvidia and AMD/ATI both have games sponsorship programs and as they are looking to promote physics on there GPU's then they aren't going to be too keen on games developers making full use of a rival technology that is actually available out there too use, whilst I don't believe that AMD/ATI or Nvidia are shipping yet or even seen beta's.
All PC's ship with a DirectX 3D Accelerator, very few ship with a PPU, so if you spend time and effort making a game that will actually utilise a PPU fully then you will cut out a large section of the market as it will be real slow on the machine that doesn't have a PPU. It would be a corageous developer that chose to do so and so far we haven't.
“Heh we should have a monthly 'Slate Ageia PhysX" thread... oh that's right, we already do.”
It is getting a little silly going over the same stuff month after month. If people want I could write a FAQ and we could ask a mod to sticky it near the top. What do people think of this? Is there demand? If there is, write you questions you want to see in a FAQ here.
“hell GRAW2 looks better without a physx card, with one you chuck a grenade at something and loads of random square blocks fly all over the place, thats erm...nice touch that “
I see people are still spreading negative lies about what a physx card does. I don’t know about everyone else but this doesn’t look like lots of random square blocks to me http://www.bit-tech.net/content_images/2007/07/the_laws_of_ageia_physx/hutb.jpg
“Problem is that multi-core CPU's when used and coded for properly will provide much more power than these dedicated PhysX cards.”
That’s not true a dual core quad core CPU when coded for properly has tons less power then a PPU. Just look at the specs. A PPU is more then x50 faster then a CPU at physics.
“Crysis doesn't use a PPU and that has far superior physics to anything I've seen from the amazing PhysX.“
I have yet to see any of these amazing physics in Crysis all the videos have been average at best. Where are there amazing videos can we have a direct link?
“Too bad you can't enable the effects of a PPU unless everyone else has one, making it useless for online play.”
Why do people make this stuff up? That’s just not true and was never true. The first PPU game worked online and the 2nd PPU enabled game was a MMORPG.
It is getting a little silly going over the same stuff month after month. If people want I could write a FAQ and we could ask a mod to sticky it near the top. What do people think of this? Is there demand? If there is, write you questions you want to see in a FAQ here.
“hell GRAW2 looks better without a physx card, with one you chuck a grenade at something and loads of random square blocks fly all over the place, thats erm...nice touch that “
I see people are still spreading negative lies about what a physx card does. I don’t know about everyone else but this doesn’t look like lots of random square blocks to me http://www.bit-tech.net/content_images/2007/07/the_laws_of_ageia_physx/hutb.jpg
“Problem is that multi-core CPU's when used and coded for properly will provide much more power than these dedicated PhysX cards.”
That’s not true a dual core quad core CPU when coded for properly has tons less power then a PPU. Just look at the specs. A PPU is more then x50 faster then a CPU at physics.
“Crysis doesn't use a PPU and that has far superior physics to anything I've seen from the amazing PhysX.“
I have yet to see any of these amazing physics in Crysis all the videos have been average at best. Where are there amazing videos can we have a direct link?
“Too bad you can't enable the effects of a PPU unless everyone else has one, making it useless for online play.”
Why do people make this stuff up? That’s just not true and was never true. The first PPU game worked online and the 2nd PPU enabled game was a MMORPG.
Pottsey said:
I have to say Crysis physics do look impressive. Shooting those palm leaves looks to be very cool, and the waves are simulated beautifully. The nuclear explosion on the tech vid looked bloody good too. Everybit as good as I've seen in any PhysX game if not better at the moment.
Shooting leaves is nothing amassing and it’s a step behind what Ageia do. I have been shotting leaves in games for well over a year now.
Yet again someone says Crysis physics look impressive but where are the videos to show this? The ones I watched had very average physics.
“Everybit as good as I've seen in any PhysX game if not better at the moment.“
Take the leaves example you bought up, in Crysis you can shoot the leaves and they move that’s it. With PhysX not only can you shoot the leaves but wind blows the leaves. Along with explosions cause wind moving leaves unlike Crysis where an explosion has zero impact on leaves.
How does that equal better physics in Crysis over PhysX game’s?
Yet again someone says Crysis physics look impressive but where are the videos to show this? The ones I watched had very average physics.
“Everybit as good as I've seen in any PhysX game if not better at the moment.“
Take the leaves example you bought up, in Crysis you can shoot the leaves and they move that’s it. With PhysX not only can you shoot the leaves but wind blows the leaves. Along with explosions cause wind moving leaves unlike Crysis where an explosion has zero impact on leaves.
How does that equal better physics in Crysis over PhysX game’s?
Associate
- Joined
- 12 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 1,629
- Location
- East London
Shooting leaves is nothing amassing and it’s a step behind what Ageia do. I have been shotting leaves in games for well over a year now.
Yet again someone says Crysis physics look impressive but where are the videos to show this? The ones I watched had very average physics.
“Everybit as good as I've seen in any PhysX game if not better at the moment.“
Take the leaves example you bought up, in Crysis you can shoot the leaves and they move that’s it. With PhysX not only can you shoot the leaves but wind blows the leaves. Along with explosions cause wind moving leaves unlike Crysis where an explosion has zero impact on leaves.
you can really defend it all you want, but when it comes down to it, crysis is probably the most anticipated game of recent times. i wouldnt really start to **** off crysis tbh.
and why cant the particles in graw stay there for more than 3 seconds? youd think a dedicated card can keep them on screen for more than that eh?
Yet again someone says Crysis physics look impressive but where are the videos to show this? The ones I watched had very average physics.
“Everybit as good as I've seen in any PhysX game if not better at the moment.“
Take the leaves example you bought up, in Crysis you can shoot the leaves and they move that’s it. With PhysX not only can you shoot the leaves but wind blows the leaves. Along with explosions cause wind moving leaves unlike Crysis where an explosion has zero impact on leaves.
you can really defend it all you want, but when it comes down to it, crysis is probably the most anticipated game of recent times. i wouldnt really start to **** off crysis tbh.
and why cant the particles in graw stay there for more than 3 seconds? youd think a dedicated card can keep them on screen for more than that eh?
Last edited:
Ok so it looks like un-random square blocks flying all over the place.Pottsey said:
PhysX cards are still very unimpressive, even less impressive when cost is factored in. That i believe is why most gamers are against the PhysX cards.
If they actually offered something worthwhile, there would be more support or at least less negative statements made about them. As it is, imo, PhysX cards are rather useless & a waste of money.
“Ok so it looks like un-random square blocks flying all over the place.
PhysX cards are still very unimpressive,”
That’s how explosions should look. What about all the other effects. Did you watch the video I linked to? What about the soft metal, cloth, wind and everything else? Do you really not find the wind impressive?
PhysX cards are still very unimpressive,”
That’s how explosions should look. What about all the other effects. Did you watch the video I linked to? What about the soft metal, cloth, wind and everything else? Do you really not find the wind impressive?