PCI-E should be a little slower. The increase in bandwidth will not do much as little is used over the slot. But PCI-E has worse latency which is important. Ageia main reason for going PCI over PCIE was the latency problem. I bealive that was way the first PCIE card was scrapped.
-
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 + UT3
- Thread starter Rangler
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 6,606
- Location
- Sydney Australia
How curious - do you know what causes the latency?
I don’t understand how slots work well enough (Been years since I read about ho PCIE slots work). All I know is Pci-E gives more bandwidth at the cost of worse latency. Which isn’t a problem for most things like graphic cards. Only soundcards and PPU’s and to a lesser extent network cards are effected.
If you Google PCI express white paper or PCI v PCIE you should get a pdf or something explaining the difference. The extra latency is something to do with the way extra bandwidth is created off the top of my head.
EDIT: Trying to read up on it and its confuseing. Some say PCIE have lower latency some say higher.
If you Google PCI express white paper or PCI v PCIE you should get a pdf or something explaining the difference. The extra latency is something to do with the way extra bandwidth is created off the top of my head.
EDIT: Trying to read up on it and its confuseing. Some say PCIE have lower latency some say higher.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 6,606
- Location
- Sydney Australia
I wonder how chipset dependent the PCI-E slots are. It may provide some reasoning for the discrepancies.
Associate
- Joined
- 17 May 2004
- Posts
- 1,585
There is a different mode on the PCI-E for reducing the latency for things like soundcards etc. I believe it requires slightly different coding to normal mode which is why been slow to arrive.
i agree, thats a good speed boost, and the implementation of the ppu in UT3 is how i believe other games shoudl go about using the ppu. that way it does not effect gameplay for online use, and older systems can get a speed boost.
i want to see how the ppu effects the slower single core cpus, if the boost is sufficient ill be getting a ppu for the old athlon xp system to let it play ut3 network with my main rig,
If the PPU was £25, everyone would have one
If they gave it to me for free or if most games i played implemented it, i'd have one. Going the right way on the games front, Ageia should've nailed Cryengine2 for PPU support though, even though it doesn't use the Ageia physics.
This has always been my problem too.
I've no free PCI slots, but the PCI-E slots (with the exception of gfx) are doing nothing.
As for comparing gains with the PPU, in UT3 for example, I guess it's hard.
I mean, for the PPU to come into its own, it has to have extra physics stuff written for it, such as these special ONE LEVEL bonus physics levels etc.
What I'm trying to say, is, in UT3 for example, they'd have to write a level for PPU or not. If they write a level that can run on normal CPUs, then they'd obviously have to cut back on the effects that they use, therefore making the PPU almost useless, as the level has been written so the CPU can handle the physics. The PPU has nothing to do. Maybe it would add slight gains, by offloading this small work from the CPU, but nothing special.
On the other hand, levels written specifically for a PPU should look a lot more impressive. Of course, catch 22, there aren't going to be many of these, as not many people have a PPU, and not many people are going to buy a PPU until more levels require a PPU.
It's a shame that they couldn't release one of these levels, written to take advantage of a PPU, with all it's fancy tornados, or whatever, but, also allow it to be run on a standard CPU. Or even make it so you NEED a dual core cpu at least, so one core can be dedicated to just physics.
That way, we could see how the CPU and PPU perform, doing "proper" physics, and not just a cut down version, that the CPU can run anyway.
It would be a bit like UT3 graphics being written for software, they couldn't add much in the way of effects, as they'd have to allow for a single CPU to run it, but if you have a graphics card, maybe have one bonus bilinear filter or something.
Not the best comparison I know, but the point I'm trying to make is that PPUs really won't come into their own, until games are written that require them, not just offload a few % from the CPU... but that introduces that catch 22 again.
Shame the consoles didn't get a PPU fitted. If they came with one as standard, and therefore all games could be written in the knowledge there's one in there, we could all see the benefits, and I'm sure would drive up PC sales of he cards too.
I'd still need a PCI-E version though
I personally hope they do finally start to take off. A game like UT3 could easily have the mod community release single levels, some of which require a PPU, as it's not like they have to write an entire game around it, just one level at a time. Maybe some of these can finally show what a PPU is capable of.
(On the other hand of course, I've never seen one of these "special" PPU levels running, and maybe they're not that special at all?)
I'd like to think that all future games would be able to have fully interactive and destructable environments, as standard, rather than that most irritating of "features" where you're an über-soldier, armed to the teeth, rocket launchers, grenades... oh, but wait... this door is locked!
V1N.
I'd like to think that all future games would be able to have fully interactive and destructable environments, as standard, rather than that most irritating of "features" where you're an über-soldier, armed to the teeth, rocket launchers, grenades... oh, but wait... this door is locked!
V1N.
Lol. I hate that and normally they are wooden doors as well. I can't beleive that in COH:AA that you can't get through a standard 1944 wooden door with a anti tank weapon which can take out a Tiger tank.