Physics Processor not the future

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
azrealhk

azrealhk

Distinguished
Apr 28, 2006
122
0
18,680
What is with Aegia, NVidia and ATi and this physics stuff. Physics is not really that important, and you can simulate physics with simple mathematics. I do not really care is my grenade sends a vehicle flying three feet with a PPU or two feet with a simulated calc (I will never see it in real life to say if it was realistic or not). Physics is not important enough for a dedicated processor.

Now, AI would be good, some processor which handles the AI standard algorithms, and branch predictions. That would make games better.

As with graphics, HDR and Bloom are going the right direction. I would like to see more of this, and also better material handling of textures (done on GPU), maybe material properties for texture maps, so a texture can have more than one material property. There is still a long way to go in the visuals department, and companies such as NVidia and ATi should be concerntarting on these instead.

What do you think? What ideas of improvements can you think of to make gaming a better experience.
 
ATI and Nvidia are both GPU makers, with a PPU via Ageia or a ATI/Nvidia GPU acting as a PPU, they'll be give consumers the option to crank out better graphics using their $500 GPU rather than have it waste precious power on physics and what not. Basically, it is a good step to improving graphics by giving the GPU one less task and letting it concentrate more on graphics.

AI is more up to the programmers, not the graphics card makers.

I'm all for a dedicated PPU unit, but I'd like one that actually works... not the disappointing crap Ageia just released, which has shown to be worthless.
 
Physics is for the programmers as well. I am saying if ATi are pushing for GPUs to handle Physics, why, why not AI. Why not someone work on an AI chip.

Many years ago when I studied computer science, I remeber there are some algorithms for standard AI, such as search possible outcomes, fastest way from A to B, etc. I am sure most FPS AI is pretty similar, and branch predictions can be used for RTS and games like CIV series.
 
I'm excited about multicores. In essence you can give each of these systems(ai, physics, graphics, etc…) its own processor. Physics cards are just going to saturate the bus.
 
Because, there is no need to take AI off the CPU yet, it isnt advanced or system straining enough to change anything.
 
I'm excited about multicores. In essence you can give each of these systems(ai, physics, graphics, etc…) its own processor. Physics cards are just going to saturate the bus.
Click to expand...

Totaly agree with this (besides I need my one PCI slot for my X-Fi lol) well if Agea could have gotten something out the door a little faster they may have had a market for a bit (asumeing the software would have been made to take advantage of it) Now with the dual core being standard and 4 cores seemingly right around the corner. Well 2 years but thats not that long a good game can take a year to make or longer !

Edit: You know MMM said that multicore was the way to go but at the time I was thinking that the Agea add in card was a good thing but after thinking about it more I agree with him ! Hmmm maybe the physics data could be hooked into the geometry calcs ? or do GPU's do there own geometry these days ? (I just install them and use them its been quite some time since I had to deal with anything more detailed lol)
 
I believe both physics and AI is more important than better graphics. It's always frustrating when you have a good looking game but things won't behave realistic.

Instead of add-on cards I think programmers should start and use a single dedicated CPU core for this kind of calculation. CPUs are becoming more and more useless in games, the video cards are what is important when it comes to gaming. So this could be a good way to make CPU upgrades useful for us gamers.
 
Instead of add-on cards I think programmers should start and use a single dedicated CPU core for this kind of calculation. CPUs are becoming more and more useless in games, the video cards are what is important when it comes to gaming. So this could be a good way to make CPU upgrades useful for us gamers.
Click to expand...

I completley agree. Let me quote something I said in the "what is a physics processor" thread:

Before I say anything further, let me sate that I 100% concurr that specialized hardware for a task (Specialized sound card for sound, specialized GPU for graphics) is the best thing since the invention of the mouse.

But, i've very sceptical on if we really will ever need a seperate card to do the job. If my mid-2004 AMD Athlon 3400+ processor can handle 25 objects flying in the air in FEAR doesn't cause a single hitch, freeze, or drop in performance (Depending on detail settings, w/e) then who's not to say my processor couldn't handle 100's of objects with maybe a little hike in CPU usage?

I love real-time physics in games... I take it personally offensive when a game (Like Call of duty 2) doesn't include it. But before we go off half-cocked bying and add-in card for it, why don't we see how well regular processors can handle it first? I haven't seen any studies on that...

Although paying $50 for an X1600 does make it pretty attractive :)
Click to expand...

Basically, i'm saying I believe that speacialized hardware is excellent for doing things, but i don't think we will ever need a seperate card to process pysics. No matter how many physics we have to process, I think any standard processor can handle it. I personally believe one of three things should happen

1) A PPU is built-in to all future high-end graphics cards
2) We leave things how they are and let CPU's handle them
3) or make a dedicated proccessor chip on motherboards for physics.

Unlike graphics that are always changing and evolving, physics are always a bunch of mathmatecal algorithims (Heh, i sound like a scientist saying that). It isn't going to need constant new hardware, and the more powerful CPU's get, the less we need an add-in card...
 
The cards are too expensive. Give it a year or two prices are sure to drop.
Also, nvidia is trying to have the physics processor on the graphic card itself instead of having it on a seperate PCI card.
 
i totally agree with you Cody, my second core doesnt do much work when gamming and giving it the phyics calculations wouldnt harm perofrmance. I do also agree about the points with AI, it basically sucks in all games sure fear was good but its just an extra for loop, i would love to see realistic AI, has anyone here played the new tomb raider? the ai really is desperatly bad at one point i was standing about 5 foot from a guy while he continuud to fire in the opposite direction to me, i was the only person in the room it was like he got stuck.

edit

i really need to go back to english lessons you wouldnt think i got a B in english at school would you lol.
 
i really need to go back to english lessons you wouldnt think i got a B in english at school would you lol.
Click to expand...

Nope. :lol:

I'm a fan of nVidia's approach to physics calculation, SLI physics. I currently have a 7900 GT, an Asus M2N-SLI Deluxe, and a currently unused SLI bridge. Next year, when DX10 cards become available, I'm going to purchase a card of roughly the same value as my 7900 GT, most likely ($200-300 range).

As I understand it, physics calculation is not a part of DirectX, but a different set of calculations to produce the desired effects - that's why the physics cards from Ageia don't use DirectX.

So...instead of selling the 7900 GT or giving it to my brother, I can shift the 7900 GT down to the second PCIe slot, slip in the new DX10 card, connect the bridges, boot, install the newer drivers (Windows and Linux), and voila! Gorgeous physics processing, all for the price of whatever I bought the 7900 GT for last month and the price of the newer card, which I'll need for the new DX10 effects anyway.

I see that as a much more useful system than a dedicated PhysX board. So what if the PhysX method is more pretty? It'll bog down the machine because the video card may not be able to render all the new stuff on the screen. With SLI phsyics, I have a hunch that performance will be better at initial release because there's two buses at work. The PCIe bus to take the info from the two cards to the rest of the system and back, and the bridge provides its own bandwidth between the two cards - more synchronization means more performance.

And since I can reuse parts, I save money. That and the specs of a PhysX card are equivalent to a cheaper GeForce FX card - at three times the price. Waste of Money.
 
I'm a fan of nVidia's approach to physics calculation, SLI physics. I currently have a 7900 GT, an Asus M2N-SLI Deluxe, and a currently unused SLI bridge.
Click to expand...

Well, actually, ATi announced that you can use a 2nd GPU (as cheap as the X1600, and performs better than Agiea's PhysX) several months before nVidia... If you look Here to see their info page about it. It's good that both companies have PhysX solutions; we know nVidia and ATi will blow Ageia right out of the water!

what? U mean u can't install DX10 on a 7900GT in the future?

The box is labelled 'Vista Ready' in other words, DX10 ready.
Click to expand...

Yes, of course you can use DX10 on a 7900GT! When it's officially released, it will work on any card that can run DX9 -- but of course, running games with DX10 are going to run alot slower than a card with DX9 becuase there's no direct hardware support. DX10 is completley changing the way DX10 cards render things (There's a smaller "overhead", i'm not really even sure what that means). Basically, DX10 will run really well on cards that support it when it's released. But that's a year or more in the future.
 
what? U mean u can't install DX10 on a 7900GT in the future?

The box is labelled 'Vista Ready' in other words, DX10 ready.
Click to expand...

Yes, of course you can use DX10 on a 7900GT! When it's officially released, it will work on any card that can run DX9 -- but of course, running games with DX10 are going to run alot slower than a card with DX9 becuase there's no direct hardware support. DX10 is completley changing the way DX10 cards render things (There's a smaller "overhead", i'm not really even sure what that means). Basically, DX10 will run really well on cards that support it when it's released. But that's a year or more in the future.

Vista will be using DirectX 9 for its effects, not DirectX 10. It will support it, but will not use it to create the Aero glassy interface. Windows XP supports DirectX 10, but doesn't use it. A card that says "Vista-Ready" does not mean that it supports DX10.

And Cody, well...you're sort of right. The architecture of the card must be designed around the renderers it will be using...in the case of the 7900 GT, DirectX 9x and OpenGL 2.x. You can install DirectX 10x and OpenGL 3.x on a current-gen card like you said, and it will run slower like you said, but you left out one piece of information.

DirectX 9 cards with DirectX 10 installed won't show any features of the new renderer that the old one doesn't. Example - I have an old Inspiron 2600 notebook with integrated Intel Extreme graphics. I installed DirectX 9.0c (latest version) and Halo. On the older machine that only has full support for DirectX 7, it doesn't show any features exclusive to DirectX 8 and 9.

Specular is disabled, many textures are shown at less than half their full appearance, no shinyness on metal surfaces, and colors aren't fully drawn (the master chief is gray, not green, and the red and blue Covanant are indistinguishable except by shape). On a fully-DirectX 9-compliant video card (e.g. my new 7900 GT), it shows Halo in its full glory, which by today's standards isn't really all that impressive. :?

Now, since DirectX 10 is a complete rewrite, not based on any previous version, just imagine the visual effects it will support, and what kind of hardware needs to support it!

And no hardware update, like a BIOS flash or driver update, can make that card DX10-compliant.
 
What is with Aegia, NVidia and ATi and this physics stuff. Physics is not really that important, and you can simulate physics with simple mathematics. I do not really care is my grenade sends a vehicle flying three feet with a PPU or two feet with a simulated calc (I will never see it in real life to say if it was realistic or not). Physics is not important enough for a dedicated processor.

Now, AI would be good, some processor which handles the AI standard algorithms, and branch predictions. That would make games better.

As with graphics, HDR and Bloom are going the right direction. I would like to see more of this, and also better material handling of textures (done on GPU), maybe material properties for texture maps, so a texture can have more than one material property. There is still a long way to go in the visuals department, and companies such as NVidia and ATi should be concerntarting on these instead.

What do you think? What ideas of improvements can you think of to make gaming a better experience.
Click to expand...

2 words: Destructible Terrain

From some articles I have read (sorry to pressed for time to google sources) when physics processors are in common use then we will begin to see destructible terrain in online games like BF2 (more like BF4), etc...


That is where the physics processors will come into their own.
 
Right on. Ageia, nVidia, or ATI, it doesn't really matter, in the grand scheme of things.

Say someone has a motherboard with only one PCIe, or even an AGP slot for that matter, but wants phsyics processing without a new motherboard to purchase. Go with Ageia's PCI slot solution.

More and more people are getting SLI/Crossfire motherboards, so they can take advantage of those solutions. It really doesn't matter all that much which is chosen, because those parts are just big, powerful calculators.

And physics processing is just taking whichever calculator you choose and telling it "Here, you do this problem and hand it over to this other calculator to put it on my screen." I feel that nVidia's solution is the least complicated and offers the most cost-effective way to calculate physics.

Now, some people are saying that nVidia's and ATI's methods aren't true physics. Supposedly, those systems won't be able to do all the physics calculations of a dedicated board.

I doubt that. It's the same math, the OS' driver just sends it to a different calculator. The physics math isn't the problem, it's the calculator.
 
Now, some people are saying that nVidia's and ATI's methods aren't true physics. Supposedly, those systems won't be able to do all the physics calculations of a dedicated board.

I doubt that. It's the same math, the OS' driver just sends it to a different calculator. The physics math isn't the problem, it's the calculator.
Click to expand...

I doubt that as well. I think the only difference is that ATi (I don't know about nVidia, sorry) will use a physics engine called "Havok" as opposed to Agiea using PhysX. All games up to this point have been using their own integrated physics engine -- and i personally think there's now going to be a standard for physics engines which is great. If it was up to MS and Apple, each would have there own version of the internet. Instead, some smart peole came along and said "Let's use HTML so we can all see it!" and it's getting that way for Physics, thank god.

@ your other post
Thanks for reminding me about that information I left out (I actully knew about it, just forgot to mention it). DX10 on DX9 will of course run slower (Like you said Vista currently is DX9 not X) but also if you're using a DX9 card, you won't get some new support features [which are still in developtment]. Kind of like if used a DX8 card for a DX9 game, you wouldn't get the effects like heat blur and bump-mapping, but it wouls still run it.

Don't forget that DX X (He he, kind of like Mac OSX) is still about a year away people.
 
What is with Aegia, NVidia and ATi and this physics stuff. Physics is not really that important, and you can simulate physics with simple mathematics. I do not really care is my grenade sends a vehicle flying three feet with a PPU or two feet with a simulated calc (I will never see it in real life to say if it was realistic or not). Physics is not important enough for a dedicated processor.

Now, AI would be good, some processor which handles the AI standard algorithms, and branch predictions. That would make games better.

As with graphics, HDR and Bloom are going the right direction. I would like to see more of this, and also better material handling of textures (done on GPU), maybe material properties for texture maps, so a texture can have more than one material property. There is still a long way to go in the visuals department, and companies such as NVidia and ATi should be concerntarting on these instead.

What do you think? What ideas of improvements can you think of to make gaming a better experience.
Click to expand...

2 words: Destructible Terrain

From some articles I have read (sorry to pressed for time to google sources) when physics processors are in common use then we will begin to see destructible terrain in online games like BF2 (more like BF4), etc...


That is where the physics processors will come into their own.

That would be sweet. I am sick of my rocket not blowing sh*t up.
 
In all honesty, i would think that the whole physics thing, that is the PPU anyways will likely be intigrated into future graphics cards, or maybe on mobo's.
Click to expand...

Well, nVidia's method does that without changing the hardware. SLI physics was only named to get people to buy another video card - and it works. A video card can compute gigaflops of information (a lot of information) much faster than a CPU. As such, there are a lot of unused clock cycles that could be put to use.

Supposedly, SLI physics will employ some of the unharnessed power of the video card to do both rendering and physics calculation on the same card. It won't be as fast as using one decdicated card to render and the other to do only physics, but if they can do that with one card that's pretty good.
 
I have mixed feelings about PPU's. I think it's an excellent idea on paper. And for someone to have thought about it, well kudos to them.
Click to expand...
I agree; I do have mixed feelings. It's a great idea to dedicate a chip for PPUs, but I think integrating it into all modern day video cards might be a better option. EDIT as Astronout said above.
yeah anyways, I also agree that physics isn't really an important factor in gaming at the moment. I mean with graphics the way they are now, although, good, aren't of the quality or realism to need the physics to back them up anyways.
Click to expand...
I disagree there totally. It's truly amzing to be running from a grenade in FEAR and knock over stools and chairs in the process and seeing bottles and weapons and even sometimes a hammer fly past you from the explosion. It's even cooler to knock someone out in Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory and throw them off a roof to see them flop on the ground

I have mixed feelings as well. My opinon is Physics are essential for realism (in many cases, not all) but it's not time to dedicate a whole graphics [seperate] card for it yet.
 
We have dual core cpus now, one out of 50 games actually use more than what one cpu can churn out.
In 2010 Intel promises to have 32 core cpus..
What in the hell will we ever need PPUs for, when we have plenty of processing power now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom