Graphics card physics

[BubbySoup]

Well, it's not anymore. Until Ageia came along, the concept of purchasing an extra GPU card to get physics wouldn't have been considered, much as very few of us would consider splurging on a quad SLI rig. It's gutting to think that as consumers we have fallen into the idea that we 'need' any of this, well more accurately, been told we 'need' this.

I believe that it comes back to a previous point, ATI and Nvidia are happy to provide the vehicle for lazy coding so that they can sell more pointless high end hardware to the dupes with more money than brains (nasty premonition of Steve spending his hard earned cash on an extra vid card for physics ).

ATI and Nvidia have seen the market created by Ageia and gone "We'll have a piece of that", especially when ATI are talking about using the X1600 chipsets which price in at around £60-£100 thus pricing PhysX out of the market...

I'm not seeing your point here. Why pick on physics per se? Would you have said the same thing when the graphics market took off with 3dfx? Back then I was happily running along on some Trident or Cirrus Logic graphics card playing Bards Tale in block-o-vision and I was happy. 3DFX came along and suddenly everyone said, oh you need one of these to play games at their best. I can't remember the pricing of them but I know it was a hell of a lot more than my CL card. Sure, people complained, but look where we are now.

Granted physcis has a far more subtle effect on a game over graphics, but it's the same arguement otherwise. Nobody is saying you need these, they are saying you will require some form of extra hardware IF you want MORE complex, real time physics than is currently around. You can't get something for nothing

 

[SteveOBHave]

I'm not seeing your point here. Why pick on physics per se? Would you have said the same thing when the graphics market took off with 3dfx? Back then I was happily running along on some Trident or Cirrus Logic graphics card playing Bards Tale in block-o-vision and I was happy. 3DFX came along and suddenly everyone said, oh you need one of these to play games at their best. I can't remember the pricing of them but I know it was a hell of a lot more than my CL card. Sure, people complained, but look where we are now.

Granted physcis has a far more subtle effect on a game over graphics, but it's the same arguement otherwise. Nobody is saying you need these, they are saying you will require some form of extra hardware IF you want MORE complex, real time physics than is currently around. You can't get something for nothing

There is a fundamental difference in the 3DFX vs PhysX situations. In the case of 3DFX and the Voodoo graphics chip, it was a proven technology making its name in arcades before it was implimented in the home PC. When it was finally implimented, it actually created a marked improvement in graphics performance.

In the case of the PhysX card, Ageia have created an idea, granted a very good idea, but the implimentation has not been anything spectacular and certainly nothing that a current PC and GPU configuration is not capable of reproducing. Personally I see no advantage in paying £200 to get some non persistant poorly rendered fragmentation in my game.

In answer to your question, why am I 'picking' on physics? That is what this thread is about.

Now there is the possiblity that to play the high end games with bells and whistles, I will need to purchase a high end mobo (£150), 2 video cards in Xfire (£500-£1000) and an extra video card for graphics (£70-£100). To power all of this I will likely need a new 7-800W PSU (£100). So we are looking at a minimum outlay of £800. I see that as something to have a good old fashioned whinge about, don't you?

What I am trying to say is:

-Current high end PCs are more than capable of running the physics that Ageias PhysX card is demonstrating.

-The reason that they don't, is because the coders have been handed the vehicle to get lazy with their Dev.

-ATI and Nvidia smell cash, and they are coming to get it.

 

[JRS]

-ATI and Nvidia smell cash, and they are coming to get it.

Well, shock horror. Heaven forbid that two businesses try and make money.....

 

[div0]

Aegia = complete fad that will hopefully die out quicker than the vegetarian lion (990BC-899BC)

Well seeing as that would mean they could still be around 90 years from now - then I guess they'd be quite happy!!!!

 

[SteveOBHave]

Well, shock horror. Heaven forbid that two businesses try and make money.....

LOL, no need to be facetious

I'm not suggesting that they shouldn't make money, what I am suggesting is that they try to hold their customers interests at least in view. Are you happy about the idea of spending so much money on your gaming machines or are you playing devils advocate?

 

[Goksly]

Im also not seeing your point tbh.... I can understand why you dont want to purchase another piece of hardware -> im in the same boat for sure, but something like this is needed for progression - thus its not an artifical market, just one that hasnt been explored in the home pc sector.

The cards will come down - that im sure of. For all we know ATI and Nvidia might (and Ageia have the power to force them should their solution take off as well) allow us to pair a X1900XT with a X1300 with the former doing the graphics and the latter doing the physics. I think its a bit to early (and extreme) to hope for them to burn in hell. Games need physics -> realistic graphics with fisher price physics... well its just not realistic.

And no.... if I want to play realistic FPSs I am not going to Iraq

 

[SteveOBHave]

Im also not seeing your point tbh.... I can understand why you dont want to purchase another piece of hardware -> im in the same boat for sure, but something like this is needed for progression - thus its not an artifical market, just one that hasnt been explored in the home pc sector.

The cards will come down - that im sure of. For all we know ATI and Nvidia might (and Ageia have the power to force them should their solution take off as well) allow us to pair a X1900XT with a X1300 with the former doing the graphics and the latter doing the physics. I think its a bit to early (and extreme) to hope for them to burn in hell. Games need physics -> realistic graphics with fisher price physics... well its just not realistic.

And no.... if I want to play realistic FPSs I am not going to Iraq

Sorry "burn in hell" is just a vent


What I am bothered by is one of the major players perpetuating the solution that Ageia created. I'm calling the PPU market artificial because (as in a previous post) high end PCs are capable of reproducing the same effects that the PhysX card currently produces. Yes games need physics, but for my well being and sanity, I need my money more

IMO ATI and Nvidia should be working to make optimising the use of their hardware by games producers a priority - and yes I realise that realistically if they can turn a bigger buck/bob by selling extra hardware (still stunned by the 3 video card scenario) then it makes business sense to do so. Surely it makes better long term business sense to look after your customers?

LOL @ Iraq

EDIT: I'm waiting for Ageia and/or whoever else creates an indipendant PPU scenario to prove the viability of the extra hardware, then I will happily eat my words...

 

[JRS]

LOL, no need to be facetious

I'm not suggesting that they shouldn't make money, what I am suggesting is that they try to hold their customers interests at least in view. Are you happy about the idea of spending so much money on your gaming machines or are you playing devils advocate?

I was actually playing devils advocate, but my point does still stand - ATi, nVidia et al are businesses, their main priority is always going to be selling stuff to customers.

As far as I was aware, ATi and nVidia weren't in the business of forcing people to upgrade. Desire to have the fastest computer possible does that job for them - they just release either a speed-bumped new video card, or create a way to bridge two cards together to output images faster, or design a system where one card does physics calc's and one does the image, and people go out and buy their new product. And yes, the early adopters usually end up paying more for the bleeding edge kit - the industry wouldn't work without those people. Forgive me for stating the obvious here, but if everyone waited for the few months down the line for the price-drop, the price-drop wouldn't happen!

 

[SteveOBHave]

I was actually playing devils advocate, but my point does still stand - ATi, nVidia et al are businesses, their main priority is always going to be selling stuff to customers.

As far as I was aware, ATi and nVidia weren't in the business of forcing people to upgrade. Desire to have the fastest computer possible does that job for them - they just release either a speed-bumped new video card, or create a way to bridge two cards together to output images faster, or design a system where one card does physics calc's and one does the image, and people go out and buy their new product. And yes, the early adopters usually end up paying more for the bleeding edge kit - the industry wouldn't work without those people. Forgive me for stating the obvious here, but if everyone waited for the few months down the line for the price-drop, the price-drop wouldn't happen!

Ohhh - do you reckon? If no-one bought the product at the release price, I think they'd be forced to drop their price. By the same token, if consumers simply declined to purchase an extra card for physics then they'd be forced to find an alternative, more cost effective, solution.

It's the early adopters that give the producers the initial impetus to continue releasing hardware that should never have left the labs. The PhysX card, IMO, was released in a Beta stage of dev and as a result produced some shockingly bad opinion for Ageia. Again, IMO, an item like the PhysX card, and whatever ATI dreams up, should never leave the dev labs and should only ever be a testbed for a more effective piece of hardware, i.e. an integrated GPU/PPU.

From a fairly uneducated point of view, the GPU/PPU scenario makes me think of a CPU analogy. Rather than producing machines with two CPU sockets, Intel and AMD are working to put multiple cores into one package, so comparitively creating multiple cards to do what can effectively be done by one integrated solution seems like a step backwards.

I am aware that the first iterations of a muliple CPU solution had several sockets, but I thought we'd be past that?

 

[Azza]

ATI Goes for the Triple Play with Physics

The world is definatly going crazy

'Two's company, three's a crowd -- that is a saying around these parts. ATI is looking to make "three" the magic number when it comes to physics on desktop PCs. ATI today announced at Computex an asymmetric CrossFire configuration that allows gamers to pair two graphics cards in a traditional CrossFire mult-GPU setup with a third graphics card dedicated solely to handling physics. This would also explain why ATI has been winking and nodding for manufacturers to include three physical 16x slots on their new motherboards according to our well-placed sources.'

How big are motherboards going to be? Where the hell is my sound card going to go?


Linky
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2716

 

[SteveOBHave]

The world is definatly going crazy

'Two's company, three's a crowd -- that is a saying around these parts. ATI is looking to make "three" the magic number when it comes to physics on desktop PCs. ATI today announced at Computex an asymmetric CrossFire configuration that allows gamers to pair two graphics cards in a traditional CrossFire mult-GPU setup with a third graphics card dedicated solely to handling physics. This would also explain why ATI has been winking and nodding for manufacturers to include three physical 16x slots on their new motherboards according to our well-placed sources.'

How big are motherboards going to be? Where the hell is my sound card going to go?


Linky
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2716

LOL - didn't even think about the space required for 3 cards... esp 2 x1900xtxs which take up 2 slots of space each with their coolers and then another for the suggested X1600, plus your audio card and possibly a USB/Firewire expansion slot... Thats gonna be a big PC...

 

[Goksly]

What I am bothered by is one of the major players perpetuating the solution that Ageia created. I'm calling the PPU market artificial because (as in a previous post) high end PCs are capable of reproducing the same effects that the PhysX card currently produces.

At present you can still buy systems that dont need graphics or sound cards (ie come with on board solutions). This tells me that games for many many years will have PPU cards on the recommended list but not compulsary... So you dont have to buy into this new technology - just dont expect either the performance or realism that they will bring.

Also dont judge PPUs on the performance of the first set of games etc. GRAW for example doesnt have it included from the foundations up and neither will games that add it with patch support. Lets see what comes out before we start judging them

LOL - didn't even think about the space required for 3 cards... esp 2 x1900xtxs which take up 2 slots of space each with their coolers and then another for the suggested X1600, plus your audio card and possibly a USB/Firewire expansion slot... Thats gonna be a big PC...

I still think your putting things in to try and make ** argument more valid I dont know anyone thats needed a usb/firewire expansion card. I think most machines will have room for 3 graphic cards (only 2 dual slot) and a sound card. Problems might come for those who like tv video capture cards or some other specialised cards (ie music input) - but most will fit those in a normal sized machine. SFFs would struggle though admittedly....

Onboard mobo solutions could be a potential solutions... didnt they used to have some math coprocessors on board? Or maybe thats something that could be bolted on to CPUs? quad cores and a ppu?

Edit:
To counter lazy boys comment below -> the new nvidia cards have 2 GPUs to one PCI-E slot.... soon it will be 2 cores to one PCB and that will ultimatly lead to quad GPUs which will mean the 3 PCI-E cards (crossfire / ppu) will be merged into one card. Time will solve most of the negative points people are throwing around

 

[lay-z-boy]

LOL - didn't even think about the space required for 3 cards... esp 2 x1900xtxs which take up 2 slots of space each with their coolers and then another for the suggested X1600, plus your audio card and possibly a USB/Firewire expansion slot... Thats gonna be a big PC...

in the future we have quad or octal cores, wtf are they gonig to be doing?!

so in the future we will have:

2/4*x1900xtx in xfire

1/2*x1900xtx for physics

1*x1900xtx for sound

1*x1900xtx for ai/emotions

2000 billion watt psu



i think we need more pci slots gov' seems 7 isnt enough anymore.

 

[BubbySoup]

From a fairly uneducated point of view, the GPU/PPU scenario makes me think of a CPU analogy. Rather than producing machines with two CPU sockets, Intel and AMD are working to put multiple cores into one package, so comparitively creating multiple cards to do what can effectively be done by one integrated solution seems like a step backwards.

I am aware that the first iterations of a muliple CPU solution had several sockets, but I thought we'd be past that?

Heat and physical space are the main problems.

 

[SteveOBHave]

At present you can still buy systems that dont need graphics or sound cards (ie come with on board solutions). This tells me that games for many many years will have PPU cards on the recommended list but not compulsary... So you dont have to buy into this new technology - just dont expect either the performance or realism that they will bring.

Also dont judge PPUs on the performance of the first set of games etc. GRAW for example doesnt have it included from the foundations up and neither will games that add it with patch support. Lets see what comes out before we start judging them


I still think your putting things in to try and make ** argument more valid I dont know anyone thats needed a usb/firewire expansion card. I think most machines will have room for 3 graphic cards (only 2 dual slot) and a sound card. Problems might come for those who like tv video capture cards or some other specialised cards (ie music input) - but most will fit those in a normal sized machine. SFFs would struggle though admittedly....

Onboard mobo solutions could be a potential solutions... didnt they used to have some math coprocessors on board? Or maybe thats something that could be bolted on to CPUs? quad cores and a ppu?

Yeah m8, I don't dissagree. The promise of the PPU is very exciting but the possible emptying of my pocket... not so much LOL

 

[SteveOBHave]

I still think your putting things in to try and make ** argument more valid I dont know anyone thats needed a usb/firewire expansion card. I think most machines will have room for 3 graphic cards (only 2 dual slot) and a sound card. Problems might come for those who like tv video capture cards or some other specialised cards (ie music input) - but most will fit those in a normal sized machine. SFFs would struggle though admittedly....

LOL yeah, to a certain extent I am, but as my mobo came with the expansion card, and I assure you that it gets more than its fair share of use, I figured that it is not too far fetched. As for a sound card... the really dedicated gamer tends to not rely on the onboard (altho the Gigabyte on my PC is pretty sweet) and purchase something like the Creative XFi.

Onboard mobo solutions could be a potential solutions... didnt they used to have some math coprocessors on board? Or maybe thats something that could be bolted on to CPUs? quad cores and a ppu?

Edit:
To counter lazy boys comment below -> the new nvidia cards have 2 GPUs to one PCI-E slot.... soon it will be 2 cores to one PCB and that will ultimatly lead to quad GPUs which will mean the 3 PCI-E cards (crossfire / ppu) will be merged into one card. Time will solve most of the negative points people are throwing around

Yeah, but IMO that time should be at the expense of the lab, not the consumer...

 

[Goksly]

price always gets pushed onto us... although i agree that it would be nice if newer graphic cards didnt shift so well (and thus keep the prices down). However, as I think we've seen with Intel and AMD; as soon as technology becomes harder to shrink, they seem to think about features rather than speed and it tends to give us more for our money.

I see where your coming from, but I also think physics is defo in need of a face lift. Hopefully they can do that without hitting our wallets hard. We shall see :E

 

[ihatelag]

Have they demonstrated the card today? Is there a link to where we can see it? Google is not my friend

 

[SteveOBHave]

Have they demonstrated the card today? Is there a link to where we can see it? Google is not my friend

nah m8, we're just having a pre-emptive moan/debate about the various pros & cons of the physics implimentations...

 

[Azza]

It may will be shown some time this week at Computex, which i think is 6th - 10th of June.


They (Ati) have just annonced it today, im not sure when we will see a demo of it.


Another Linky

http://ir.ati.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=105421&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=868986&www.dailytech.com