• 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

Along with SLI, they could probably impliment physx into their onboard 8xxx solutions too. So you'd have physx built into your motherboard using the IGP.

With one GPU, you might have to run your game at 1024 or turn off AA if you wish to us the physx. That is how it's going to work.
 
i'll say it again, Physx sales SUCKED COMPLETELY. how do i know, i don't have one, no one i know has one, yet they all have graphics cards. until physx sells in equal quantities to graphics cards so everyone has support, the sales suck. i assume you aren't trying to say they ship similar quantities to nvidia/ati? thought not. Even despite that, even for a limited market, sales sucked, again how do i know. I don't know a single sane person that wants one. I know plenty of people who would drop £600 on an sli setup for high res gaming and again not a single one of them will or do buy physx cards. SALES SUCK for physx, the entire industry has said so, common sense says so, anyone with a remote amount of logical thought thinks so.

AS to better looking water in the game, other than 2 instances i can recall, the start, and one bit early in the game i can't actually remember much water in the game at all. sure theres water OUTSIDE, which wouldn't look any different, but theres barely any water in the game, theres maybe two places you can electrocute people in water, one of thems barely a puddle. The water looking better, OR worse, would have made NO EFFECT whatsoever on the gameplay. it would not have changed my opinion of it in the slightest.

not to metion the fact that had you been able to do that ingame, would have required a PPU card, which barely no one has, which means the Dev's would have to make and make work an extra level of effects for water, which gives them nothing, but peeve's off loads of people buying the game as they can't enable it. there is not a single reason to implement it.

Yet again i'll point out that, everything you can see in an OTT PPU demo CAN be done more efficiently by using estimated answers in software.

This is where the ppu fails completely, its going for ultimate accuracy so it can say in advertising how realistic it is, thats all well and good but its a game, everything is fake. An estimated idea of how the water reacts would like 99.9% as good as the 100% but the 100% takes improbably large amount of power to come up with the answer, when the estimate surfices. IF they'd just gone for "speeds up" rather than the "ultimate realism" then it might, just might have been useful.

its the same way that a calculator can work out 4.00012435 x 5.9989877 faster than i can and perfectly accurately, but even given the time of inputting the numbers and getting the answer, i could simple estimate 4x6 , get basically the same answer in a fraction of the time. Something to speed up the estimating type "almost realistic" engines already in games would have offered real speeding up and the ability to add more objects, but because firstly, it insists you have to use code based for their hardware, and its more realistic than any engine would normal concieve of using, its completely not compatible, so it all becomes pointless.

I don't care if a particle from an explosion drops to the floor in 2 seconds or 2.00548 seconds, and i don't care if it flys 1 metre, or 2 metres, it just doesn't remotely matter in any way at all. the basic calculation of where and estimating how long it will fly gives a perfectly good effect, we can't do the math's in our head, so WE literally could never tell which was the "accurate" effect. This is the ultimate reason physx has/will fail, because its gone for completely non noticable realism vs speeding up/usefulness/easy to intergrate into any existing engine.


you should also, REALLY REALLY realise that Bioshock made a game with SOME water in it, they didnt' focus ages on water looking 100% realistic because its completely stupid, why would you make the water the best looking water ever, when its on screen for less than 1% of game time. you are comparing something that got next to no work, against a demo thats made purely to show the best case water it can make, you can't see that in any game as its pointless, no game company would spend as much time or as much power making something like that.

you're not comparing apples to apples plus physx, you're comparing apples to oranges and claiming a victory.
 
“why would you make the water the best looking water ever, when its on screen for less than 1% of game time.”
Did you ever stop to think that the fact an underwater city that’s badly leaking and flooding didn’t have much water in due to the CPU not being able to handle it? They had to limit the water due the CPU.
Water was more than 1% of the game and it would have been more if the CPU wasn’t so bad at physics.





“you're not comparing apples to apples plus physx, you're comparing apples to oranges and claiming a victory.“
Well yeah of course I am comparing apples to oranges. That’s because the CPU cannot do 3d liquids/fluids at playable speeds. That’s my whole point and why I think physics needs to be moved away from the CPU. I don’t care if it’s Ageia, ATI or someone else. The fact is the CPU’s is holding us back big time when it comes to physics.

If any PPU or GPU doing physics becomes wide spread we would get those types of water effects in games and be better off because of it.





“AS to better looking water in the game, other than 2 instances i can recall, the start, and one bit early in the game i can't actually remember much water in the game at all.”
What! Did you even play the game?




“This is where the ppu fails completely, its going for ultimate accuracy so it can say in advertising how realistic it is, thats all well and good but its a game, everything is fake. An estimated idea of how the water reacts would like 99.9% as good as the 100% but the 100% takes improbably large amount of power to come up with the answer,”
You’re wrong. The PPU is not forced into ultimate accuracy. You can go for estimated idea of how the water reacts. It’s up to the developer/person coding how much accuracy they want. Most games choose to go the path of less accuracy. None of the fluids in PPU games go for ultimate accuracy.





“I don't care if a particle from an explosion drops to the floor in 2 seconds or 2.00548 seconds, and i don't care if it flys 1 metre, or 2 metres,”
You’re missing the point. Its 5 boulders or few bolders avalanche with the CPU or 100+ boulders with a GPU/PPU. Its not about working out 0.005 seconds faster. It’s about increasing the objects on the screen so it really feels like an avalanche. An avalanche with tons of objects kills the CPU which is why you dont get decent avalanche's with CPU only games.






“i'll say it again, Physx sales SUCKED COMPLETELY. how do i know, i don't have one, no one i know has one, yet they all have graphics cards.”
That’s silly logic. I don’t know anyone with an ATI card anymore, no one I know has one and I host Lans. Also an IT tech and it’s been ages since I came across one. Yet I don’t go around saying ATI sales suck, completely. You cannot take the small area you live in and apply who has what to the wide world based on that local area.
Unless you have sales numbers you taking a complete guess. Worse you’re going around and acting like your guess is fact.






“the entire industry has said so, common sense says so, anyone with a remote amount of logical thought thinks so.”
Post a link to the industry saying so. Or is this something else you making up? So your saying all the Dell, Alienware PC’s and others that have PPU’s in never sold? Strange I thought the Dell XPS laptops where pretty popular.






“The water looking better, OR worse, would have made NO EFFECT whatsoever on the gameplay. it would not have changed my opinion of it in the slightest.”
Well no one is talking about just changing the water to look better or worse. I was talking about adding real 3dwater to change gameplay and that would change the game a lot making it much better.
Water was clearly very limited in Bioshock and holding the game back due to the CPU not being able to handle decent water. There where tons of places where the water could have been better and made a difference. Like in the rooms that where flooding but the water level never changed as it was just a cheap rubbish water effect. Or the puddles that never got bigger, or the water that was going down the drain but the water pool never changed e.c.t there where 100’s of place’s that could have benefited from real 3d water. I lot of great things couldn’t be done as the CPU could handle the water. Like a room or whole map flooding and you had to get out before the water got to deep.






“Yet again i'll point out that, everything you can see in an OTT PPU demo CAN be done more efficiently by using estimated answers in software.”
You keep saying that then when asked for proof you conveniently disappear or don’t post any. The CPU just cannot do the type physics a PPU or GPU can.
Show me those type of physics more efficiently by using estimated answers in software at playable FPS. What about the tearing cloth effects? Or wind and bendable trees? Show me that.
 
Bring physx to gpu's, i'm all for that, will make games feel even more immersive. Pottsey is making some increadibly valid points here, and all drunkenmaster can do is troll them away with no backup at all...

I too know absolutely nobody with an ati card, i guess their sales must be non existant too :rolleyes:

And i really had to LOL at the 'where's the water in bioshock' part... try playing the game dude, it just happens to be pretty much everywhere...



EDIT: and what he sais \/
 
Dedicated physics will eventually be the norm, wether it be on a graphics cards or dedicated board. Nvidia obviously thinks so and if they are going to invest heavily in it, its not going to fail. I think they know more about it than we do.

Personally, I say great, potential of these is high.
 
melbourne720 said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, there aren't--the graphics pipes/shaders/whatever are already pretty well optimised for doing physics anyway.
Graphics processors are optimised for doing lots of similar calculations very quickly with a little bit of margin for error, which is what a physics processor would require.
 
Hey Pottsey, how come you said a gfx card couldnt do physics as good as a PPU before Agiea got bought? Now you seem to have no problem with it LOL
 
“Hey Pottsey, how come you said a gfx card couldnt do physics as good as a PPU before Agiea got bought? Now you seem to have no problem with it LOL“
Well two reasons. First Havok FX was effects physics only on the GPU with no gameplay physics. This new method does gameplay physics on the GPU. So my main problem with GPU physics is fixed.

Second although I said a PPU should be faster at physics then a GPU, I have been saying for years a GPU is far better than a CPU at physics. I haven’t changed my stance. I still think a GPU is the 2nd best option but 2nd best it far better then what we have now.

It’s still true a GPU cannot do physics as good as a PPU. But that doesnt make a GPU a bad option. Not now it does gameplay phsyics.

If you look at my old posts I often said GPU physics are good its only CPU physics I have a problem with.

EDIT: In a way this is best of both worlds. You should be able to use either a GPU or a stand alone PPU. Both use the same physics API. Not sure what happens if you have both.
 
Last edited:
nvidia will bring it to the mass market and that is good with luck by the time nvidia gets it all sorted next gen cards are out and will pack a big punch.
 
I think one of the main advantages of this could be that you could use your old card as a dedicated physx processor, instead of it being a very expensive doorstop or having to sell it.

E.g. say you upgrade to gf9, you could then move your gf8 to the 2nd pci-e slot and have it doing PhysX stuff.
 
Great, even more happy i got 2 cards now :)

btw, can the cards in SLi work as both PPU aswell as calculating for gfx at the same time? or is it just 1 workload it can work with?
 
Last edited:
Perfect_Chaos said:
Great, even more happy i got 2 cards now :)

btw, can the cards in SLi work as both PPU aswell as calculating for gfx at the same time? or is it just 1 workload it can work with?
Click to expand...

Well based on the posted text that one card will be able to help process physics effects then one would assume that two cards could run SLI with physics also or they could run one card for graphics and one for physics.

Its going to be interesting finding out which one runs games faster :D:D:D
 
i don't understand how everyone's not got this so far. the 8800 GPU was designed to be as flexible as possible. there are bits of the GPU that so far, haven't been used because there haven't been any instructions to run on them. nVidia is saying that the 8800's (and 8-series in general) will be able to process physx at the same time as graphics.

you must take into account that Physx cards are OLD and small, and 8800's are new and enormous! one 8800 easily has twenty or thirty times the processing power of a single physx card.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom