• 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.

**********NEW GRAW 1.10 With & Without physX TEST**********

Goksly said:
say what?
graphic cards will never have spare horse power; there will always be higher resolutions, there will always be increasing draw distances and there will always be a cutting edge feature that will cripple any gfx config. At the moment thats HDR + AA + AF.
The moment graphic cards can run the cutting edge games with full eye candy and steam to spare is the moment pc gaming stops being cutting edge; a sad day indeed.

I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on that mate and re-visit this issue in around a years time when dual-core DX10 cards are the norm...

Resolutions don't rise that quick, most people (ie: majority of PC gamers) will be running 1600*1200 or lower for the next couple of years years and with dual GPU's of an advanced nature that is enough spare horsepower to do the job. :)
 
I'm with Goksly I think on this point, technology won't outpace the uses we have for it, I don't think we'll ever find ourselves with GPU power to spare for very long, games will always make use of what hardware offers. Graphical improvements seem to follow a rule of deminishing returns, take HDR for example, its nice but not spectacular (I find it kind of annoying some of the time), yet the amount of GPU power it takes is significant, and as we see more complex rendering techniques come into play I assume this will only put more and more demand on GPUs. Oblivion is a good example of how a current game can make even an SLI/Crossfire setup of two top of the range cards have to work hard.

Complicated physics engines are also going to add to GPU load, with more items populating in game worlds, there's more to be rendered. Running physics on your primary GPU will not only steal GPU time, it'll also increase the work needed to be done by the GPU.

Thats not to say physics on GPU isn't interesting, I think its real benefit is when you can have a decent GFX card handling its normal duties and a second, passively cooled card for physics duty. While a GPU based solution may not be as powerful as a PPU, it has the definate benefit of being cheap, readily available and supported by a world class manufacturer.
 
Last edited:
Game developers will always utilise full computing power, either through makign them work more on creating fancy graphics or just by not optimising their code ;)
GPUs should be able to calculate physics almost as good as the PPU, as they are both specialised in number crunching... but im not sure the gfx solution will be any cheaper....

But er yeah there is still plenty of scope. For HDR and AA to be done "properly" apparently will require around 2GB onboard and then no doubt you will have even more accurate, yet taxing, versions of AA and AF to make sure the graphics are as crisp as possible. Also with the introduction of DX10 removing what I believe is a number of limits on items that can be rendered at once -> well couple that with the whole physics idea and you can create some hefty work loads for a gfx card. Imagine, instead of a house (read: single box) being rendered like they are at the moment, the house will be made up of bricks... each having to be rendered either as a solid house or individually when you drive your tank through it :p

Plenty of scope left :}
 
Final8y said:
Again its not about giving more FPS, thats the gfx cards job, its about giveing more FX for the same FPS.

But still not worth £200 just yet.


That's a positive IMO, as it proves they can turn the device on without affecting in game frame rates, now we need a title that has better effects and implementation to do the same..
 
By the time they become useful then the cards will have a tech (and thus a power draw / heat output) drop. Also, you may find that you can underclock the PPU cards so they just have a dinky heatsink. I'd be surprised if calculating physics is as intensive as drawing a whole frame.... could b wrong though i guess :}
 
The thought had occurred to me, however, the Nvidia cards have already undergone a die shrink, the power supply requiremnts have improved, but they are still high. I'd expect 2X 15 amp rails and a 10amp rail will be required.
 
The requirements are still high because they shrink the die and then add more transistors and clock it to a higher frequency... My point is that I'd expect physics calculations to be less intense than that of drawing the screen, so if it used the same tech as the graphics card, they could underclock the physics card quite a lot resulting in less power etc etc.

It all balances on my assumption that ppu calculations are less intense (or there will be less off) than gfx related ones... but we all know about assumptions :E
 
well atm a 1900xtx needs 15 amps to be on the safe side in intense graphics, knock off 5 for your assumptions about ppu calcs requiring less power and we get to 10. I can't see any of the newer gfx cards that will be doing the rendering requiring less than 12 amps or so each meaning 3 seperate rails would be required, I can't see any way around this. Even at idle a 1900 pulls around 130 watts.

Big time psu designs..
 
I'm afraid I will need to see a physics demo from ATI before I spend that much on a their solution...

The Physx cards will come down in price eventually, I doubt the same could be said for ATIs entire range...
 
I think the marketing ploy here is, keep your current 1XXX series ATI card (if you have one), later use it for physics when you upgrade to your new ATI cards.

What a mess this whole pc gaming is becoming. Too many hardware variables, not enough quality implementation. With companies slow to adopt/get to grips with Ageia Physx, what's gonna happen when they have to program various effects for no less than four different configurations, without physics, Ageia Physx, Nvidia physics and finally Ati physics?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom