gpu physics is ALL talk and no action.... gimme a real gpu doing real physics calculations in real time and we will talk... ya that's what i thought... atleast ageia DID what they did, they proved it could be done, and could be done reasonably well and cheaply.....
what do you think 3 way sli is build for? 2 cards are handling the graphics and the third is handling the physics. with a total of 2,3 gigs of ram, if we are talking for 8800gtx and ultra and 3gigs of ram if it's a 9800gx2, your ram and about 8/10th of your cpu are useless.
first off, my comment was months ago before nvidia announced its plans... second if you knew a single thing about SLI is the fact that the memory is imaged (or mapped) to all four cards and thus is only allowable to use maximum memory of the first card.
and all the cards have to be doing exactly the same thing (aka alternat-frame-rendering). which means one cannot be doing physics while the others render video
actually, my comment was wrong. physx technology being implemented on nvidia cards will allow different gpu's to allow diff things. ati's own physics tech is still in the making. just search physx ageia on wikipedia and check out ati's version.
No it is possible for them to do different things which is exactly what Nvidia are trying to do with Ageia in their drivers. On the other hand ATI have already accomplished this in Crossfire where one card can run a small but graphics heavy part of the screen and the other card runs a maybe 3 times larger area which is less graphics heavy. Wait a year and what routhoula says will probably come true but he has no idea how SLI works memory-wise :P
Wow, the situation you are talking about is TOTALLY hypothetical. This doesn't exist in the real world, in tri-sli or threeway crossfire all the cards are doing regular scene rendering. Nvidia is just now preparing to launch their PhysX driver support. Also, you actually only get a usable frame buffer of 512mb since the ram on the cards doesn't add together. Each chip can only access a 512mb frame buffer or whatever amount is tied to each card. You are just really off base here.
the guy who posted the initial comment that he cant wait for physics processor to be incorporated onto a graphics card.. was merely stating what we all hope for and that is a GPU with hardware based physics.
Havok is a software solution which takes advantage of the pixel shaders... CTM and CUDA are hardware based solutions.
Your right its not a seperate PPU but it doesnt need to be.. no more than a FPU needs to be seperate from a CPU..
Anyone who has seen the performance statistics for these physics knows CPUs are not up to task yet, quad core install base would have to be as common as todays dual core to change that. That is why the PPU exists; people hate it and will damn the thing to hell, but it still does the job it was created for.
Developers actually tapping that available performance however is another thing. Like dual core it is here now, but there is nothing available that demonstrates its full potential.
I am afraid you have made a common mistake, they are not making GPUs with physics processors built into in them. What you are thinking of is GPU computing, GPUs used to run code. In this case it is called Havok FX which runs physics code on GPUs.
There is no dedicated physics chip built into GPUs, but rather they use the GPU computing technique to accelerate physics on the GPU. It limits physics run completely on the GPU to visual effects and comes at the cost of graphics performance.
AMD will be incorporating Physics into their Fusion Processors.
ATI have for some time been working on a technique which can make use of a GPU that is sitting idle for physics. (in cases where it cant be used for frame rendering / crossfire etc)
This same technique will be used in the fusion CPU which will have a Core specifically dedicated to GPU OR Physics depending on the need.
You are presuming I made a mistake, everything I said on GPU physics is correct. What you said on unified processors is a completely different subject, one which frankly won't be making an impact for years after its release.
Processors with integrated GPU cores do not have 'incorporated physics', like the mistake people make regarding GPU physics it doesn't need special hardware to utilize its processing power for physics acceleration.
although the specs haven't been completely released there are many reports that it has a dedicated Physics processing unit. I think your really misunderstanding what the big boys have in mind. Havoc is just the bridge to a later hardware based implementation.
You are referring to ATI's "Boundless Gaming" and Nvidia's "Quantum Physics" which is just each companies name for referring to GPU computing being utilised for physics acceleration. While more modern cards list these 'features', older cards can be just as easily used for the same technique.
The method Havok uses for GPU physics acceleration only requires a GPU that supports shader model 3, nothing special.
So I emphasise again, there is no GPU with a dedicated physics processor built into it.
What you call a physics processor is just the shader units built into your GPU, they use their number crunching power combined with software code to accelerate physics simulation. This is why GPU physics comes at the cost of visual quality, the greater the simulation the more shader units are required.
"they are not making GPUs with physics processors built into in them. "
you might want to read up on stream processing, and then have a look at some white papers on AMD/ATI CTM and Nvidias CUDA. Both architectures allow for direct interfacing with the GPU to perform Physics processing.. and no its not just another name for Havoc which uses Shader model 3.
The theoreticical advantage of using a GPU or even a CPU core for Physics processing is that when your not using that device for physics you can use it for something else.
The PS3 uses one of its SPUs to do physics processing using the AGEIA PhysX sdk and it does quite well.
Another viable example might be when you upgrade your video card you simply leave both of them in the pc and use the slower one for physics processing.
I knew it, why else would you be so defensive about GPUs having built in physics processors? What better why to rationalise there is no point in a PPU? For the record I was not defending Ageia's technology with my talk with you, I was only trying to get across that 'there is no physics processor built into GPUs' and you are making the common mistake of confusing a built in physics processor with GPU computing assisted acceleration.
I know the difference between Havok FX and GPU computing and stream processing does not equal built in dedicated processor; what this seems to be about is you favour GPU physics over the PPU and think I'm saying all of this as a attack against GPU physics, a attack you must defend against. I'll put it this way, hopefully it will get cross this time.
Stream processing on GPUs = GPGPU, not a CPU built into the GPU.
with stream processing you dont need a dedicated PPU... because any portion or the entire stream of processing eliments can be dedicated to physics processing.
its like when they put floating point into the CPU back in the 90s.. you dont need a maths co processor because there is an FPU incorporated on the cpu..
"with stream processing you don't need a dedicated PPU"
As I said above I am not arguing the worth and need of the PPU. What I am saying, and this is really getting repetitive now, is there is not a physics processor built into GPUs. Even the modifications made in today's GPUs for better GPU computing; are not dedicated physics processors, they just make it easier to do phyiscs on the GPU.
Seeing how your posts suggest you know this, hopefully we can stop now.
Why suddenly decide to continue a 3 month old debate? Since then Intel has purchased Havok, put Havok FX to sleep, and pushed back GPU effect physics by years. GPGPU is the only GPU physics solution now and that hasn't even reached full incorporation into GPUs yet, even ATI is noted as saying GPU physics will not appear again until Microsoft's physics API standard.
There is nothing left to debate; it is all about CPU vs PPU for now, GPU physics isn't in the picture anymore.
Maybe because you responded to a old comment yesterday? While criticising PhysX support, I hope you also recall that GPU physics has a released game list of... nil, with no drivers and Havok FX has been taken down from Havok's website shortly before the Intel buy out.
HDCP isn't in its infancy, it isn't even finished, just a partial incorporation into the 8 series for developers to play with. Face it, there is no comparison, small as it is the PPU has done much better than GPU physics.
consider this, the Hardware Stream processors are already available in shops just look at the 3850 its only $200 USD and its both a GPU and a stream processor.. so when AMD/ATI finally get off their asses and incorporate the PhysX SDK into the ATI Catalyst Drivers OR when Havok Integrates better into these stream processors then its GAME OVER.
A 3850 would shit all over a PhysX card doing the exact same calculations.
Sorry but I don't pay much attention to guesswork...
AMD/ATI have publicly admitted to leaving GPU physics until Microsoft makes the effect physics standardisation in DirectX; and seeing how Havok FX 'mysteriously' disappeared after Intel purchased Havok, a company pushing software physics, I feel safe to say they are out of the game.
GPU physics is no longer a threat to the PPU, at least for a few years; no amount of caps lock and swearing is going to convince me otherwise.
Honestly though I don't know why you think it is a good idea, there are so many things wrong with GPU physics.
It can only do visual effect physics and has no impact on game play, games are too graphically demanding to leave enough resources for physics and a second GPU is too expensive for the mainstream market, high end physics itself is graphically demanding so adding both that and the calculations onto the GPU is a bad idea...
Well of course, that's evident, just adding that it also looked good. But I doubt many people saw how those yellow balls were interacting with the surves of the car and such, so well I guess I just found it unecessary.
lol because they don't want to accept the fact that their computers are ops elite without them, they want to be able to say they have an awesome computer without spending the extra money
You can't move Cell Factor with the same effects, it's impossible, it goes to 3fps near big flags for example. Also no fluids... let alone CellFactor revolutions at launch with all the effects on...
The title of the video, is the title of the review, here you can only see the demo running on Ageia, and the results of it versus CPU Physics in the review linked. Carwash can be run just installing it and installing Ageia API.
How can I run these tech demos without a Physx card? I know it's possible because I did it with Cell Factor and it ran great, plus benchmarks have proven that the Physx card is a piece of crap.
First the balls are simple but the physics to move them are not. To vendetta73 is a video to show to peaple that a CPU e6600 can´t calculate fast the same physics as the Ageia PhysX card (PPU).
i don;t get this demo the title says Physx vs e6600, but see thoseare two totally different things, the core 2 dup is a central processing unit, and a the physx is a physics card used for gaming, who are these comparable.
soglasen s kjulssfl
Zekanosmoke16 2 years ago
i can compare ur mom to a bacon >=(
ilhadosmacacos 2 years ago
На самом деле все эти тесты показывают не столько приемущества чипа PhysX, сколько ущербность Ageia.
kjulssfl 2 years ago
it wuld be cools if car melted
Paxadzor 3 years ago 4
why are u throwing yellow ballls!?!?!
ganzta94 3 years ago 3
Because it goes good with the red car! HAVE YOU EVER SEEN IRON MAN!?!?!
Raijin88 3 years ago 4
lol
thizda 2 years ago 2
So true.
00Kirby0 3 years ago
One of the liquids looked like semen.
kiikasi 3 years ago 15
you liked that.
cafeconpizza 2 years ago 2
PWNED lol!
masterchris280 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
PEN1S WAnG
lemonlaw95 3 years ago
So... which is which?
mygaffer 3 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Ageia PhysX = obsolete or not?
Discussion on
ultimate-gamer *dot* org/forum/viewtopic *dot *php?f=72&t=49
Graylord88 3 years ago
but in wich gpu? 9800gx2 9800gtx??
Davastus 3 years ago
nice
yackemflamber 4 years ago
I read somewhere that Nvidia have now purchased Ageia, and will be incorporating the ageia physics engine into their GPUs...
lespaulzrule 4 years ago 2
it called AN ageia ..
not A ageia.....
looool.... great english
SibirianHusky 4 years ago
stuttering ftw! :D
EikC 4 years ago
happy for you! your english is perfect!
slon1443 4 years ago
Wow, you truly are the master of learning how not to spell ageia D:
turbis 3 years ago
i have a ageia card but not in my comp. anymore
it s crap!!!
nelsonica2007 4 years ago
get some better games
nessbelicious 4 years ago
gpu physics is ALL talk and no action.... gimme a real gpu doing real physics calculations in real time and we will talk... ya that's what i thought... atleast ageia DID what they did, they proved it could be done, and could be done reasonably well and cheaply.....
coolxboxgamer 4 years ago
what do you think 3 way sli is build for? 2 cards are handling the graphics and the third is handling the physics. with a total of 2,3 gigs of ram, if we are talking for 8800gtx and ultra and 3gigs of ram if it's a 9800gx2, your ram and about 8/10th of your cpu are useless.
routhoula 3 years ago
first off, my comment was months ago before nvidia announced its plans... second if you knew a single thing about SLI is the fact that the memory is imaged (or mapped) to all four cards and thus is only allowable to use maximum memory of the first card.
bleedblue12345 3 years ago
thats true.
and all the cards have to be doing exactly the same thing (aka alternat-frame-rendering). which means one cannot be doing physics while the others render video
JahjaMan 3 years ago
and crosfire do the same thing?? thanks for the information
Davastus 3 years ago
actually, my comment was wrong. physx technology being implemented on nvidia cards will allow different gpu's to allow diff things. ati's own physics tech is still in the making. just search physx ageia on wikipedia and check out ati's version.
JahjaMan 3 years ago
No it is possible for them to do different things which is exactly what Nvidia are trying to do with Ageia in their drivers. On the other hand ATI have already accomplished this in Crossfire where one card can run a small but graphics heavy part of the screen and the other card runs a maybe 3 times larger area which is less graphics heavy. Wait a year and what routhoula says will probably come true but he has no idea how SLI works memory-wise :P
oscarstegland 3 years ago
Wow, the situation you are talking about is TOTALLY hypothetical. This doesn't exist in the real world, in tri-sli or threeway crossfire all the cards are doing regular scene rendering. Nvidia is just now preparing to launch their PhysX driver support. Also, you actually only get a usable frame buffer of 512mb since the ram on the cards doesn't add together. Each chip can only access a 512mb frame buffer or whatever amount is tied to each card. You are just really off base here.
mygaffer 3 years ago
i have e6550...is that good?
jakanddaxterlover15 4 years ago
i just don`t understand why Ageia V.s Core2duo E6600 ?
pedroreikdal 4 years ago
Thats amazing looking garbage,not impressed.
Curium244 4 years ago
WOW thats a verry strong card
lorenzo1234567891011 4 years ago
the guy who posted the initial comment that he cant wait for physics processor to be incorporated onto a graphics card.. was merely stating what we all hope for and that is a GPU with hardware based physics.
Havok is a software solution which takes advantage of the pixel shaders... CTM and CUDA are hardware based solutions.
Your right its not a seperate PPU but it doesnt need to be.. no more than a FPU needs to be seperate from a CPU..
2Shye 4 years ago
Great comment... and apparently reading Intel's mind at that. +1
lennyogarc 4 years ago
Man, stop shooting all theses gay balls. I cant see shit.
LKDesign 4 years ago
lol the water looks like cum with the core duo
marsback 4 years ago
lol
enisity 4 years ago
Ya. Make that car a 3D cutey's face and then you would *really* have something.
breebw 4 years ago
Anyone who has seen the performance statistics for these physics knows CPUs are not up to task yet, quad core install base would have to be as common as todays dual core to change that. That is why the PPU exists; people hate it and will damn the thing to hell, but it still does the job it was created for.
Developers actually tapping that available performance however is another thing. Like dual core it is here now, but there is nothing available that demonstrates its full potential.
AnnoyedDragon 4 years ago
They are starting to make graphics cards with physics processors on them... I'm not sure if it will catch on, but it certainly is an idea.
10thMeu 4 years ago
I am afraid you have made a common mistake, they are not making GPUs with physics processors built into in them. What you are thinking of is GPU computing, GPUs used to run code. In this case it is called Havok FX which runs physics code on GPUs.
There is no dedicated physics chip built into GPUs, but rather they use the GPU computing technique to accelerate physics on the GPU. It limits physics run completely on the GPU to visual effects and comes at the cost of graphics performance.
AnnoyedDragon 4 years ago
I'm afraid you have made a common mistake.
AMD will be incorporating Physics into their Fusion Processors.
ATI have for some time been working on a technique which can make use of a GPU that is sitting idle for physics. (in cases where it cant be used for frame rendering / crossfire etc)
This same technique will be used in the fusion CPU which will have a Core specifically dedicated to GPU OR Physics depending on the need.
2Shye 4 years ago
You are presuming I made a mistake, everything I said on GPU physics is correct. What you said on unified processors is a completely different subject, one which frankly won't be making an impact for years after its release.
Processors with integrated GPU cores do not have 'incorporated physics', like the mistake people make regarding GPU physics it doesn't need special hardware to utilize its processing power for physics acceleration.
AnnoyedDragon 4 years ago
Read up on the R600
although the specs haven't been completely released there are many reports that it has a dedicated Physics processing unit. I think your really misunderstanding what the big boys have in mind. Havoc is just the bridge to a later hardware based implementation.
2Shye 4 years ago
You are referring to ATI's "Boundless Gaming" and Nvidia's "Quantum Physics" which is just each companies name for referring to GPU computing being utilised for physics acceleration. While more modern cards list these 'features', older cards can be just as easily used for the same technique.
The method Havok uses for GPU physics acceleration only requires a GPU that supports shader model 3, nothing special.
So I emphasise again, there is no GPU with a dedicated physics processor built into it.
AnnoyedDragon 4 years ago
What you call a physics processor is just the shader units built into your GPU, they use their number crunching power combined with software code to accelerate physics simulation. This is why GPU physics comes at the cost of visual quality, the greater the simulation the more shader units are required.
AnnoyedDragon 4 years ago
Are you an ageia spokes person ?
"they are not making GPUs with physics processors built into in them. "
you might want to read up on stream processing, and then have a look at some white papers on AMD/ATI CTM and Nvidias CUDA. Both architectures allow for direct interfacing with the GPU to perform Physics processing.. and no its not just another name for Havoc which uses Shader model 3.
2Shye 4 years ago
The theoreticical advantage of using a GPU or even a CPU core for Physics processing is that when your not using that device for physics you can use it for something else.
The PS3 uses one of its SPUs to do physics processing using the AGEIA PhysX sdk and it does quite well.
Another viable example might be when you upgrade your video card you simply leave both of them in the pc and use the slower one for physics processing.
2Shye 4 years ago
I knew it, why else would you be so defensive about GPUs having built in physics processors? What better why to rationalise there is no point in a PPU? For the record I was not defending Ageia's technology with my talk with you, I was only trying to get across that 'there is no physics processor built into GPUs' and you are making the common mistake of confusing a built in physics processor with GPU computing assisted acceleration.
AnnoyedDragon 4 years ago
I know the difference between Havok FX and GPU computing and stream processing does not equal built in dedicated processor; what this seems to be about is you favour GPU physics over the PPU and think I'm saying all of this as a attack against GPU physics, a attack you must defend against. I'll put it this way, hopefully it will get cross this time.
Stream processing on GPUs = GPGPU, not a CPU built into the GPU.
AnnoyedDragon 4 years ago
your missing the point entirely...
with stream processing you dont need a dedicated PPU... because any portion or the entire stream of processing eliments can be dedicated to physics processing.
its like when they put floating point into the CPU back in the 90s.. you dont need a maths co processor because there is an FPU incorporated on the cpu..
thats the point comprende ?
2Shye 4 years ago
I'm missing the point?
"with stream processing you don't need a dedicated PPU"
As I said above I am not arguing the worth and need of the PPU. What I am saying, and this is really getting repetitive now, is there is not a physics processor built into GPUs. Even the modifications made in today's GPUs for better GPU computing; are not dedicated physics processors, they just make it easier to do phyiscs on the GPU.
Seeing how your posts suggest you know this, hopefully we can stop now.
AnnoyedDragon 4 years ago
and as I keep trying to explain to you..
you don't need a dedicated PHYSICS PROCESSOR.
stream processing and CELL both allow you to dedicate individual elements to Physics processing WHEN its required.
just look at the PhysX software implementation in the PS3.. it does alright and provides the same level of Physics WITHOUT a physx card.
so its a moot point really.
2Shye 4 years ago
Why suddenly decide to continue a 3 month old debate? Since then Intel has purchased Havok, put Havok FX to sleep, and pushed back GPU effect physics by years. GPGPU is the only GPU physics solution now and that hasn't even reached full incorporation into GPUs yet, even ATI is noted as saying GPU physics will not appear again until Microsoft's physics API standard.
There is nothing left to debate; it is all about CPU vs PPU for now, GPU physics isn't in the picture anymore.
AnnoyedDragon 4 years ago
Less than 1 in 10 games use PhysX..
I dont know why you responded after 3 months..
PhysX uptake is low.
GPU based REAL physics is in its infancy..
thats true..
However Neither is Mainstream..
2Shye 4 years ago
Maybe because you responded to a old comment yesterday? While criticising PhysX support, I hope you also recall that GPU physics has a released game list of... nil, with no drivers and Havok FX has been taken down from Havok's website shortly before the Intel buy out.
HDCP isn't in its infancy, it isn't even finished, just a partial incorporation into the 8 series for developers to play with. Face it, there is no comparison, small as it is the PPU has done much better than GPU physics.
AnnoyedDragon 4 years ago
consider this, the Hardware Stream processors are already available in shops just look at the 3850 its only $200 USD and its both a GPU and a stream processor.. so when AMD/ATI finally get off their asses and incorporate the PhysX SDK into the ATI Catalyst Drivers OR when Havok Integrates better into these stream processors then its GAME OVER.
A 3850 would shit all over a PhysX card doing the exact same calculations.
2Shye 4 years ago
Sorry but I don't pay much attention to guesswork...
AMD/ATI have publicly admitted to leaving GPU physics until Microsoft makes the effect physics standardisation in DirectX; and seeing how Havok FX 'mysteriously' disappeared after Intel purchased Havok, a company pushing software physics, I feel safe to say they are out of the game.
GPU physics is no longer a threat to the PPU, at least for a few years; no amount of caps lock and swearing is going to convince me otherwise.
AnnoyedDragon 4 years ago 2
Honestly though I don't know why you think it is a good idea, there are so many things wrong with GPU physics.
It can only do visual effect physics and has no impact on game play, games are too graphically demanding to leave enough resources for physics and a second GPU is too expensive for the mainstream market, high end physics itself is graphically demanding so adding both that and the calculations onto the GPU is a bad idea...
The PPU or CPU are much better solutions.
AnnoyedDragon 4 years ago 2
this physics isn't ready to be main stream
golem72002 4 years ago
the fluid 'physics' look completely unrealistic. im sure its doing a greatjob, but tbh i would hate that effect in any game.
henry7696 4 years ago
what the hell am I watching?
OCvato 4 years ago
a shit. a stupid test for physic-x
wtf is this ???
johngroleole 4 years ago
bad way to wash a car
vawriss3 4 years ago
Looks good but those yellow balls were starting to annoy the crap outta me, and what's the point letting those fly about?!
CamiloDelay 4 years ago
To show that the Ageia PhysX-card is able to calculate a lot of real-time physics simulations. This is a techdemo of physics, not graphics.
steelbloodrelic 4 years ago
Well of course, that's evident, just adding that it also looked good. But I doubt many people saw how those yellow balls were interacting with the surves of the car and such, so well I guess I just found it unecessary.
CamiloDelay 4 years ago
Why do people say Ageia Physx suck? Looking at the results, Physx owned Core 2 Duo e6600.
scullyy 4 years ago
lol because they don't want to accept the fact that their computers are ops elite without them, they want to be able to say they have an awesome computer without spending the extra money
18daniel 4 years ago
physics card isnt worth it. dont buy it unless you really want to.
Icecube88 5 years ago
I don't get it. Both tests performed at the same speed.
Tbird761 5 years ago
There is not both test, look at the review for that, the video is only using Ageia.
McArraD200 5 years ago
Pretty sure you shouldn't do that to a car.
spartan117halofreak 5 years ago
You can't move Cell Factor with the same effects, it's impossible, it goes to 3fps near big flags for example. Also no fluids... let alone CellFactor revolutions at launch with all the effects on...
The title of the video, is the title of the review, here you can only see the demo running on Ageia, and the results of it versus CPU Physics in the review linked. Carwash can be run just installing it and installing Ageia API.
McArraD200 5 years ago
How can I run these tech demos without a Physx card? I know it's possible because I did it with Cell Factor and it ran great, plus benchmarks have proven that the Physx card is a piece of crap.
nvpwns 5 years ago
First the balls are simple but the physics to move them are not. To vendetta73 is a video to show to peaple that a CPU e6600 can´t calculate fast the same physics as the Ageia PhysX card (PPU).
Argoon1981 5 years ago
i don;t get this demo the title says Physx vs e6600, but see thoseare two totally different things, the core 2 dup is a central processing unit, and a the physx is a physics card used for gaming, who are these comparable.
Vendetta73 5 years ago
sweet
tobyboat 5 years ago
why are the balls so simple? and which render is whi
ch?
dsgeek100 5 years ago
Because its a tech dome for a PhysX card, not a graphics card.
iunnox666 5 years ago
i cant wait for games that fully support this.
Claytrainor 5 years ago