-
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.
GeForce 8 graphics processors to gain PhysX support
- Thread starter helmutcheese
- Start date
That's what I was thinking - the other forumers seem to be only focusing on its use in only dual-gpu situations which is odd.
I mean, the 8 series is very parallel, it can execute different instructions at the same time across different shaders, not sure how this'd affect performance, I mean, if the physics were taking up the GPU core while the graphics operations aren't getting much horse power that might just slow things down, but I think for things like UT3 we might actually get a bit of a boost, particularly those of us with weaker CPUs.
You could get a second GTS for not much more than a PhysX card and use it in SLI when you can't use it for physics. You can't do that with a PhysX card.
Certainly an interesting article - but doubt I'll be rushing to download to my single 8800gt ( how much of a hit would it take?) or buy a second/third card.
I like 'pretties' as much as the next man but would prefer better thought out games.
I like 'pretties' as much as the next man but would prefer better thought out games.
Hmm. This raises the question, will the master card need to be nVidia? I have my ATi 3870 in my board (NF4 SLi) but my 8600GT is still lying around, I could throw that in the second slot and use it for... dare I say...
CELLFACTOR!!
CELLFACTOR!!
I think the point is aswell if it works on all 8 series and up, that is a lot of cards out there conpaired to the physx cards if it works on 1 card and above that means a lot of people would be able to use it and when next gen cards come out what are more powerful than the 8 series the physx might improve aswell with one card nevermind 2 or more.
If i stay with nvidia next time and my 320 can do physx i use it for that when i upgrade
If i stay with nvidia next time and my 320 can do physx i use it for that when i upgrade
Associate
- Joined
- 1 May 2006
- Posts
- 597
The real potential here is for there "hybrid SLi" thingy. With a intergrated graphics chip on the motherboard, they could use that to do the physics while you'd only need a single card solution like most people have. Currently there best intergrated GPU is a 8500GT, wonder how good it would be at doing physics.
I hope ATi can get in on the physics game though, because they certainly had the most attractive (second card) option with the X1600 series, which did physics better than the top end Nvidia 7000 series GPU's.
I hope ATi can get in on the physics game though, because they certainly had the most attractive (second card) option with the X1600 series, which did physics better than the top end Nvidia 7000 series GPU's.
What people seem to be missing... the pipeline can run parallel to the rendering task - while it might mean a bit of slowdown with one card... you can still run SLI and physics at the same time.
Which in theory means that as SLI isn't 100% efficent there might be enough overhead to run physics in the spare capacity and not only see no slowdown - but a substantial boost over one card.
Which in theory means that as SLI isn't 100% efficent there might be enough overhead to run physics in the spare capacity and not only see no slowdown - but a substantial boost over one card.
Associate
- Joined
- 11 Feb 2008
- Posts
- 44
Yes possibly, but GPU's are much more suited to the kind of calculations required for physics.
Also, maybe ageia lacked manufacturing and chip design expertise - I don't think we've seen the end of dedicated physics cards yet. Nvidia could use their GPU's and make headless cards that would be dedicated to the task.
arent GPU cores FAR quicker than a cpu is for bandwidth etc? thats why folding at home did some sort of project where you could use your graphics card to calculate things. (i forget the name of the units
)if nvidia do decide to produce headless cards i'd expect it to be under £100 ideally about £50-70 max
Originally Posted by drunkenmaster
"physx" only in games, mostly as theres little it can do,”
I see you started with the flat out lies again. Didnt you have enough of that last time around?
“Originally Posted by drunkenmaster
Physx sales sucked, and support was even worse than the sales,”
How do you know? Have you seen sales figures? Been after sales figures for along time but never came across any.
I find it hard to believe its that bad considering how many big name machines come with PPU’s built into the motherboard. Physx API sales went very well and they are the market leaders for physic API’s. Physx API sales didn’t suck.
Originally Ulfhedjinn
Posted by “The difference being that a second GPU has other uses, a PhysX card doesn't.“
But will that still be the case once the Physx market increase’s massively. Once more game support arrives? What about people with built in IGP’s? They can have sli and Physx support.
Originally Posted by drunkenmaster
“so in a few sli games where the sli performance isn't needed you can turn 2nd card to physx instead. can anyone name one of those games?”
Sorry my Crystal ball isn’t working today I cannot see how many new games will support physx this time next year or after with the GPU and that wont need sli for performance.
For example though take a game like Bioshock performance is fine with 1 GPU. No need for Sli, so now you use the 2nd GPU to do liquid physics like this http://www.ageia.com/developers/index.html (press fluids) which is x100 better then what the CPU does. When sli isn’t needed then using the 2nd GPU for physx could be great. What if you take Crysis but add in the better PPU trees and wind effects from GRAW 2?
"physx" only in games, mostly as theres little it can do,”
I see you started with the flat out lies again. Didnt you have enough of that last time around?
“Originally Posted by drunkenmaster
Physx sales sucked, and support was even worse than the sales,”
How do you know? Have you seen sales figures? Been after sales figures for along time but never came across any.
I find it hard to believe its that bad considering how many big name machines come with PPU’s built into the motherboard. Physx API sales went very well and they are the market leaders for physic API’s. Physx API sales didn’t suck.
Originally Ulfhedjinn
Posted by “The difference being that a second GPU has other uses, a PhysX card doesn't.“
But will that still be the case once the Physx market increase’s massively. Once more game support arrives? What about people with built in IGP’s? They can have sli and Physx support.
Originally Posted by drunkenmaster
“so in a few sli games where the sli performance isn't needed you can turn 2nd card to physx instead. can anyone name one of those games?”
Sorry my Crystal ball isn’t working today I cannot see how many new games will support physx this time next year or after with the GPU and that wont need sli for performance.
For example though take a game like Bioshock performance is fine with 1 GPU. No need for Sli, so now you use the 2nd GPU to do liquid physics like this http://www.ageia.com/developers/index.html (press fluids) which is x100 better then what the CPU does. When sli isn’t needed then using the 2nd GPU for physx could be great. What if you take Crysis but add in the better PPU trees and wind effects from GRAW 2?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 3,975
Pottsey I didnt even have to look at your name to tell it was you rabbiting on about physics in games again. What about it excites you that much? It's bizarre, every time you appear it feels like you're a plant.
Personally I think it'd only work if the GPU could do both - i.e. it would take on the Physx work with ease AND provide additional FPS to the game, beyond what a single card you could provide. I know Pottsey will say it will naturally assist the FPS by removing the physics calculations, but then if it sits there doing other than physics who would really shell out for it?
I am always quite impressed with realistic physics-based environment (anybody remember Trespasser?
) but I dont think it warrants another card & more money.
Personally I think it'd only work if the GPU could do both - i.e. it would take on the Physx work with ease AND provide additional FPS to the game, beyond what a single card you could provide. I know Pottsey will say it will naturally assist the FPS by removing the physics calculations, but then if it sits there doing other than physics who would really shell out for it?
I am always quite impressed with realistic physics-based environment (anybody remember Trespasser?
) but I dont think it warrants another card & more money.“What about it excites you that much?”
Did you not look at http://www.ageia.com/developers/index.html (press fluids). Stuff like that in games excites me along with the rest like wind, soft metel e.c.t
or this only with better fluids like above.
EDIT:
I just finished Bioshock and I couldn’t help but notice how poor the water is and how much better real fluids would be in that game. Just think of Bioshock with the above video effects. I don’t care who does it Ageia, Nvidia someone else. But it’s the type of physics games need. Not all games but some would be so much better.
EDIT:
Here's another link
Did you not look at http://www.ageia.com/developers/index.html (press fluids). Stuff like that in games excites me along with the rest like wind, soft metel e.c.t
or this only with better fluids like above.
EDIT:
I just finished Bioshock and I couldn’t help but notice how poor the water is and how much better real fluids would be in that game. Just think of Bioshock with the above video effects. I don’t care who does it Ageia, Nvidia someone else. But it’s the type of physics games need. Not all games but some would be so much better.
EDIT:
Here's another link
Last edited:
Indeed, I don't know where some people are getting their info from saying you need a second GFX card to use CUDA !
The nvidia dev statement states clearly that ALL GF8 cards support it and it may encourage people to get a second GPU for dedicated PhysX processing but of course a single card is still capable.
I suppose if your GPU is beefy like an 8800GT then a 2nd would not be a requirement as opposed to if the card was say.... an 8600GT.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 3,975
Associate
- Joined
- 26 Sep 2006
- Posts
- 1,945
- Location
- West Bridgford
Looks good, I assume this means that there will be pipes/shaders/whatever on an 8 series that are better used doing physics than their standard graphics.
Associate
- Joined
- 17 May 2004
- Posts
- 1,585
The real advantage that this will bring is that as a games developer you have to look at what the installed base is out there.
There are a lot more 8xxx series Nvidia cards out there then PPU cards, so more likely to develop a game that actually uses the physx capability properly rather then limiting to a few extra levels in a game.
Pretty much any Nvidia card released in the future will run CUDA so the market penetration for hardware assisted Physx calcs will become even larger making more worthwhile to develop with the SDK to actually make proper use of the assistance that the Nvidia card could do.
There are a lot more 8xxx series Nvidia cards out there then PPU cards, so more likely to develop a game that actually uses the physx capability properly rather then limiting to a few extra levels in a game.
Pretty much any Nvidia card released in the future will run CUDA so the market penetration for hardware assisted Physx calcs will become even larger making more worthwhile to develop with the SDK to actually make proper use of the assistance that the Nvidia card could do.