Why do people hate the PhysX?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for da1on2
#1 Posted by da1on2 (4885 posts) -

topic, every time I ask people say nothing but bad about it, why?

I just bought a new rig and I got a PhysX, but I only got my monitor, my physX, and the casing. All the other stuff will come tomorrow.

Ill probably post what I think about it tomorrow, Since the tech demo game CellFactor is included with the PhysX, and GRAW2, which also uses the PhysX, comes with the Q6660 from newegg

Avatar image for 76ers
#2 Posted by 76ers (4747 posts) -
Some of us don't find it worth the extra money... The physics are perfectly fine without the card IMO... If you didn't buy a PPU, then you could have spent that extra cash on a better GPU...
Avatar image for kodex1717
#3 Posted by kodex1717 (5925 posts) -
There's nothing wrong with them. It's just that not enough games support it to justify the price.
Avatar image for _SKatEDiRt_
#4 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (3117 posts) -
I like the idea of the PhysX actually. I was considering buying one.
Avatar image for da1on2
#5 Posted by da1on2 (4885 posts) -

There's nothing wrong with them. It's just that not enough games support it to justify the price.kodex1717

If people buy it more games will support it, it's absolutely free to licence the middleware


Avatar image for da1on2
#6 Posted by da1on2 (4885 posts) -

Some of us don't find it worth the extra money... The physics are perfectly fine without the card IMO... If you didn't buy a PPU, then you could have spent that extra cash on a better GPU...76ers
Watch a physics demonstration, they often make a game look more realistic than things like better textures

Also if PPU's take off the price of GPU's might go down because they can take out the physics accelerators their starting to put in the GPU

Also building entire physics engines is hard work on the devs, the middleware would help development. Plus their arent many self developed physics engines that can even match the PhysX physics, nevermind besting it. PhysX also has better Physics than Havok from what I've seen so far

Avatar image for _SKatEDiRt_
#7 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (3117 posts) -

[QUOTE="76ers"]Some of us don't find it worth the extra money... The physics are perfectly fine without the card IMO... If you didn't buy a PPU, then you could have spent that extra cash on a better GPU...da1on2

Watch a physics demonstration, they often make a game look more realistic than things like better textures

Also if PPU's take off the price of GPU's might go down because they can take out the physics accelerators their starting to put in the GPU

Also building entire physics engines is hard work on the devs, the middleware would help development. Plus their arent many self developed physics engines that can even match the PhysX physics, nevermind besting it. PhysX also has better Physics than Havok from what I've seen so far

what is havok physics?

Avatar image for LordEC911
#8 Posted by LordEC911 (9972 posts) -

PhysX also has better Physics than Havok from what I've seen so far da1on2

Haven't looked too hard or too close have you?

It is a great idea and all but it is just too hard for them to succeed. They will never be able to reach the majority of gamers and until they do that devs will never whole heartily develope a game around it.
The support isn't there, the games aren't there, it could just as easily be done on a multicore CPU and more importantly the games out now that do support it have no pros.

Avatar image for 76ers
#9 Posted by 76ers (4747 posts) -

[QUOTE="76ers"]Some of us don't find it worth the extra money... The physics are perfectly fine without the card IMO... If you didn't buy a PPU, then you could have spent that extra cash on a better GPU...da1on2

Watch a physics demonstration, they often make a game look more realistic than things like better textures

Also if PPU's take off the price of GPU's might go down because they can take out the physics accelerators their starting to put in the GPU

Also building entire physics engines is hard work on the devs, the middleware would help development. Plus their arent many self developed physics engines that can even match the PhysX physics, nevermind besting it. PhysX also has better Physics than Havok from what I've seen so far

I have watched many demonstrations and I think that they look great. But, the only time I would buy one is after I spend on the more important things first like an up-to-date video card or cpu...

Avatar image for Macolele
#10 Posted by Macolele (534 posts) -
Not all of games need PPU. I need only a quad core in 2008 with cheaper price.
Avatar image for da1on2
#11 Posted by da1on2 (4885 posts) -
[QUOTE="da1on2"]

[QUOTE="76ers"]Some of us don't find it worth the extra money... The physics are perfectly fine without the card IMO... If you didn't buy a PPU, then you could have spent that extra cash on a better GPU...76ers

Watch a physics demonstration, they often make a game look more realistic than things like better textures

Also if PPU's take off the price of GPU's might go down because they can take out the physics accelerators their starting to put in the GPU

Also building entire physics engines is hard work on the devs, the middleware would help development. Plus their arent many self developed physics engines that can even match the PhysX physics, nevermind besting it. PhysX also has better Physics than Havok from what I've seen so far

I have watched many demonstrations and I think that they look great. But, the only time I would buy one is after I spend on the more important things first like an up-to-date video card or cpu...

PPU's help graphics and gameplay
Avatar image for TrailorParkBoy
#12 Posted by TrailorParkBoy (2922 posts) -
Why I personally hate PhysX cards. 1. The last thing PC gaming imo needs is another thing we all have to spend money on and drive more and more people from pc gaming. 2. Its a joke how we all have dual core CPU's that haven't even started to break a sweat yet in gaming and we all ready need things dedicated to just run physics? Screw that. 3. Correct me if I am wrong but don't Physx cards only work when playing games? It would be a far better idea at least to me to just spend that $140 on a better CPU that can at least make your computer faster when your not gaming.
Avatar image for 76ers
#13 Posted by 76ers (4747 posts) -
[QUOTE="76ers"][QUOTE="da1on2"]

[QUOTE="76ers"]Some of us don't find it worth the extra money... The physics are perfectly fine without the card IMO... If you didn't buy a PPU, then you could have spent that extra cash on a better GPU...da1on2

Watch a physics demonstration, they often make a game look more realistic than things like better textures

Also if PPU's take off the price of GPU's might go down because they can take out the physics accelerators their starting to put in the GPU

Also building entire physics engines is hard work on the devs, the middleware would help development. Plus their arent many self developed physics engines that can even match the PhysX physics, nevermind besting it. PhysX also has better Physics than Havok from what I've seen so far

I have watched many demonstrations and I think that they look great. But, the only time I would buy one is after I spend on the more important things first like an up-to-date video card or cpu...

PPU's help graphics and gameplay

Okay?

But if I had to choose between an 8800GTS 640MB w/ a BFG Tech PhysX PPU and an 8800GTX, then I would choose the GTX simply because I don't find PPUs worth the money right now. Heck, I would just buy the 640MB without a PPU...

Avatar image for da1on2
#14 Posted by da1on2 (4885 posts) -

[QUOTE="da1on2"]PhysX also has better Physics than Havok from what I've seen so far LordEC911

Haven't looked too hard or too close have you?

It is a great idea and all but it is just too hard for them to succeed. They will never be able to reach the majority of gamers and until they do that devs will never whole heartily develope a game around it.
The support isn't there, the games aren't there, it could just as easily be done on a multicore CPU and more importantly the games out now that do support it have no pros.

PPU's help physics while the main processor can do the AI, when the physics reachsuch an extreme level, alot more will have to be put in AI to cope with the ever changing physical enviroments

Fun Fact Q6600+PhysX= $440

Q6700= $555

your saving money when it comes to quad

But to be fair, on a E6700 would cost you $70 more, buwhich do you think would give you better physics plus better AI

Avatar image for DGFreak
#15 Posted by DGFreak (2234 posts) -

A PPU is more or less rendered obsolete by multicore processors.

Additionally, if you go back and read the reviews for games like GRAW for the pc, the effects added by the PPU axtually put even more load on the graphics card; the PPU was useless.

Avatar image for da1on2
#16 Posted by da1on2 (4885 posts) -

Why I personally hate PhysX cards. 1. The last thing PC gaming imo needs is another thing we all have to spend money on and drive more and more people from pc gaming. 2. Its a joke how we all have dual core CPU's that haven't even started to break a sweat yet in gaming and we all ready need things dedicated to just run physics? Screw that. 3. Correct me if I am wrong but don't Physx cards only work when playing games? It would be a far better idea at least to me to just spend that $140 on a better CPU that can at least make your computer faster when your not gaming.TrailorParkBoy
1. It actually save you money, in the long run, as physics increase, the cost of making CPU's to cope with the physics and other things wiill start to cost more than dedicated Processors

2. Thats because not many games are the physics based to the level PhysX takes it. Look at Graw 2 Agiea Isand, it's a one map tech demo yet it can rival Crysis

3. So? A Processor that can do Agiea level physics would be over excessive for general purpose. Correct me if I['m wring but graphic cards w not used outside gaming at first also.

Avatar image for LordEC911
#17 Posted by LordEC911 (9972 posts) -

No it doesn't save you money...
No, that one tech demo level in GRAW does not rival Crysis.
Holy **** you are completly making stuff up to make PhysX look good/cost effective.
A Q6600 is perfectly fine, no need for a Q6700.

There is NO need for PhysX until it starts INCREASING FPS and actually does something Havok can't.

Avatar image for TrailorParkBoy
#18 Posted by TrailorParkBoy (2922 posts) -
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3048 "So what does all this mean for hardware physics acceleration overall? In spite of the original battle being between the PPU and the GPU, we're wondering just how much longer Ageia's PhysX software/hardware package can hold out before losing the war of attrition, at the risk of becoming marginalized before any decent software library even comes out. Barring a near-miracle, we're ready to write off the PPU as a piece of impressive hardware that provided a technological solution to a problem few people ended up concerned about. The battle that's shaping up looks to be between the GPU and the CPU, with both sides having the pockets and the manufacturing technology to play for keeps. The CPU is the safe bet for a developer, so it's largely up to NVIDIA to push the GPU as a viable physics solution (AMD has so far not taken a proactive approach with GPU physics outside of Havok FX). We know that the GPU can be a viable solution for second-order physics, but what we're really interested in is first-order physics. So far this remains unproven as far as gaming is concerned, as current GPGPU projects working with physics are all doing so as high performance computing applications that don't use simultaneous graphics rendering." That pretty much sums it up.
Avatar image for TrailorParkBoy
#19 Posted by TrailorParkBoy (2922 posts) -

No it doesn't save you money...
No, that one tech demo level in GRAW does not rival Crysis.
Holy **** you are completly making stuff up to make PhysX look good/cost effective.
A Q6600 is perfectly fine, no need for a Q6700.

There is NO need for PhysX until it starts INCREASING FPS and actually does something Havok can't.

LordEC911
I know, that post almost made me jump through the internet and strangle him with an Ethernet cord. lol
Avatar image for da1on2
#20 Posted by da1on2 (4885 posts) -

No it doesn't save you money...
No, that one tech demo level in GRAW does not rival Crysis.
Holy **** you are completly making stuff up to make PhysX look good/cost effective.
A Q6600 is perfectly fine, no need for a Q6700.

There is NO need for PhysX until it starts INCREASING FPS and actually does something Havok can't.

LordEC911

I'm saying it will in the longer run, I believe next gen will truely be the gen of physics

Why do people get like this every time new tech is revealed. They did it with sound cards, they did it with GPU's, they used to do it with HD. They do it now with Blu Ray and the PhysX.

Avatar image for kodex1717
#21 Posted by kodex1717 (5925 posts) -

Why do people get like this every time new tech is revealed. They did it with sound cards, they did it with GPU's, they used to do it with HD. They do it now with Blu Ray and the PhysX.

da1on2
They 'do it' to Blu-Ray because there's no market for a HD disk format. What with super high-speed internet connections becoming more widely avalible, I think HD digital downloads will be where the money is. Blu-Ray and HD-DVD may find a home as a storage medium, though.
Avatar image for da1on2
#22 Posted by da1on2 (4885 posts) -
[QUOTE="da1on2"]

Why do people get like this every time new tech is revealed. They did it with sound cards, they did it with GPU's, they used to do it with HD. They do it now with Blu Ray and the PhysX.

kodex1717

They 'do it' to Blu-Ray because there's no market for a HD disk format. What with super high-speed internet connections becoming more widely avalible, I think HD digital downloads will be where the money is. Blu-Ray and HD-DVD may find a home as a storage medium, though.

So what's the big reasoning against the PhysX?

BTW DD would be taking over the disc anytime soon.

Avatar image for kodex1717
#23 Posted by kodex1717 (5925 posts) -
da1on2
So what's the big reasoning against the PhysX?

Like I said, it's not prevalent enough to warrant a $150 purchase. Especially when it doesn't improve the FPS in the games that actually support it.
Avatar image for DGFreak
#24 Posted by DGFreak (2234 posts) -

[QUOTE="da1on2"]kodex1717
So what's the big reasoning against the PhysX?

Like I said, it's not prevalent enough to warrant a $150 purchase. Especially when it doesn't improve the FPS in the games that actually support it.

Did nobody read my post? The PhysX card HURTS performance and LOWERS framerates;it does not do anything more than unlock a few extra animations at this point.

Avatar image for da1on2
#25 Posted by da1on2 (4885 posts) -
[QUOTE="da1on2"]So what's the big reasoning against the PhysX?kodex1717
Like I said, it's not prevalent enough to warrant a $150 purchase. Especially when it doesn't improve the FPS in the games that actually support it.

Thats not a big reason at all. Support comes with time.
Avatar image for kodex1717
#26 Posted by kodex1717 (5925 posts) -
[QUOTE="kodex1717"][QUOTE="da1on2"]So what's the big reasoning against the PhysX?da1on2
Like I said, it's not prevalent enough to warrant a $150 purchase. Especially when it doesn't improve the FPS in the games that actually support it.

Thats not a big reason at all. Support comes with time.

$150 is a lot of money if I could get a nice graphics card instead.
Avatar image for imrlybord7
#27 Posted by imrlybord7 (5009 posts) -
Instead of getting a physx card you could get an x1950pro 512mb or 8600gts. WHY DID THEY STOP MAKING THE X1950XT?!!?
Avatar image for LordEC911
#28 Posted by LordEC911 (9972 posts) -

[QUOTE="kodex1717"][QUOTE="da1on2"]So what's the big reasoning against the PhysX?da1on2
Like I said, it's not prevalent enough to warrant a $150 purchase. Especially when it doesn't improve the FPS in the games that actually support it.

Thats not a big reason at all. Support comes with time.

Dude, it has been more then a year with absolutely nothing to show for it...
except a game or two that adds a few more particles and a couple more objects on screen at the expense of a handful of FPS.

Avatar image for harless
#29 Posted by harless (367 posts) -
I think alot of people have a problem with them because they only add a little eye candy with some extra debris during an explosion. They don't add physics realism really. Also to licensewould crush most smaller companies, as in licensing havok. They are excellent in concept, but nothing ground breaking is being done with them so far
Avatar image for wizoforb
#30 Posted by wizoforb (204 posts) -
[QUOTE="LordEC911"]

No it doesn't save you money...
No, that one tech demo level in GRAW does not rival Crysis.
Holy **** you are completly making stuff up to make PhysX look good/cost effective.
A Q6600 is perfectly fine, no need for a Q6700.

There is NO need for PhysX until it starts INCREASING FPS and actually does something Havok can't.

da1on2

I'm saying it will in the longer run, I believe next gen will truely be the gen of physics

Why do people get like this every time new tech is revealed. They did it with sound cards, they did it with GPU's, they used to do it with HD. They do it now with Blu Ray and the PhysX.

I'll have to agree with everyone else against a physx card. Why buy it now if it's not supported, and if you do...it will be out dated by the time it goes mainstream (if ever). For how many games are supported at this time...it's a waste of time/money. Unless you like to waste money, and find out things the hard way. haha

Avatar image for wizoforb
#31 Posted by wizoforb (204 posts) -
[QUOTE="LordEC911"]

[QUOTE="da1on2"]PhysX also has better Physics than Havok from what I've seen so far da1on2

Haven't looked too hard or too close have you?

It is a great idea and all but it is just too hard for them to succeed. They will never be able to reach the majority of gamers and until they do that devs will never whole heartily develope a game around it.
The support isn't there, the games aren't there, it could just as easily be done on a multicore CPU and more importantly the games out now that do support it have no pros.

PPU's help physics while the main processor can do the AI, when the physics reachsuch an extreme level, alot more will have to be put in AI to cope with the ever changing physical enviroments

Fun Fact Q6600+PhysX= $440

Q6700= $555

your saving money when it comes to quad

But to be fair, on a E6700 would cost you $70 more, buwhich do you think would give you better physics plus better AI

Just getting a quad alone will do the physics for you. Crysis for instance is using all cores of a quad to run its:

Phsyics

AI

Game Logic

Particles

So I don't see any reason to get it. I think most games will follow this lead...DGFreak has the right idea.

Avatar image for da1on2
#32 Posted by da1on2 (4885 posts) -

[QUOTE="da1on2"][QUOTE="kodex1717"][QUOTE="da1on2"]So what's the big reasoning against the PhysX?LordEC911

Like I said, it's not prevalent enough to warrant a $150 purchase. Especially when it doesn't improve the FPS in the games that actually support it.

Thats not a big reason at all. Support comes with time.

It has Unreal engine support and will be in UT3. Modders can take advantage of it.

Dude, it has been more then a year with absolutely nothing to show for it...
except a game or two that adds a few more particles and a couple more objects on screen at the expense of a handful of FPS.

Avatar image for da1on2
#33 Posted by da1on2 (4885 posts) -
I think alot of people have a problem with them because they only add a little eye candy with some extra debris during an explosion. They don't add physics realism really. Also to licensewould crush most smaller companies, as in licensing havok. They are excellent in concept, but nothing ground breaking is being done with them so farharless
Graphic cards add eye cand, thats why they are called graphic cards. physics adds alot of realism which also add to gameplay
Avatar image for G013M
#34 Posted by G013M (6424 posts) -

[QUOTE="harless"]I think alot of people have a problem with them because they only add a little eye candy with some extra debris during an explosion. They don't add physics realism really. Also to licensewould crush most smaller companies, as in licensing havok. They are excellent in concept, but nothing ground breaking is being done with them so farda1on2
Graphic cards add eye cand, thats why they are called graphic cards. physics adds alot of realism which also add to gameplay

But the majority of the time, the physics isn't used to enhance gameplay (in fact only Half-Life 2 comes to mind at the moment), but only to make things look more real.

Plus, like a couple of people have said, Quad (and even Dual) Core processors can easily take the burden of physics calculations by dedicating an entire core to it.

Avatar image for codezer0
#35 Posted by codezer0 (15898 posts) -

I don't hate the Ageia PhysX. In fact, I think it's a great idea in principle.

Problem is, it won't really do anything for the games that aren't specifically written for it in mind, or that use HavoK's physics engines (which are used in a lot of my favorite games, and as part of the engine for Source).

If HL2 were to have used Ageia's PhysX model, I would have been bending over backwards to get myself a PPU card, because I know I'd be using it extensively then. But as it is, none of the games I have right now would make use of it. And there aren't any games available yet which do use it, that I'd like enough to justify the cost.

So basically... great idea, great principle, but a lack of (useful) execution is why I can't justify getting one yet.

Avatar image for BounceDK
#36 Posted by BounceDK (7381 posts) -
Sli and Crossfire can do the same as a PhysX card... That's why. And if the game doesn't support that kind of thing, they'll still get superior performance due to the 2 graphics cards running..
Avatar image for virtualotaku
#37 Posted by virtualotaku (697 posts) -
Multi-core processors have rendered the PhysX card essentially useless. That, and PhysX cards are pretty much useless outside of games, while multi-core processors give you HUGE performance boosts while doing other things. (Web browsing, graphic design, background processes, etc.)
Avatar image for codezer0
#38 Posted by codezer0 (15898 posts) -

Actually, neither ATi nor nVidia have written in "GPU accelerated physics" support in their drivers. So none of them have that.

Further, all "GPU accelerated physics" will be able to handle is effects physics, not gameplay physics.

For example:

Say you're playing Counterstrike and you throw a grenade in a room. One set of physics that would happen is the way in which the grenade physically breaks apart from the explosive force, and different pieces of shrapnel flying everywhere. Optionally, it may also dent into the earth and throw dirt around, or move loose objects.

Effects physics would involve all the graphical stuff.

Gameplay physics would calculate the effective explosive force the grenade has, the kind of damage it does (in splash damage), the damage resulting shrapnel does, and whether it will penetrate through any objects or walls (or you), if the blast force can penetrate a door or wall, or cause some of it to crumble away.

The PhysX PPU is capable of handling both effects physics (which is pretty much all GRAW used it for), and gameplay physics. The problem for a developer is that in order to take advantage of its gameplay physics support, you'd have to write the game specifically in a manner that would make having the PPU a requirement.. which effectively screws over everything that doesn't have one, or has a way of accelerating those physics calculations. That is the catch-22 of the whole situation.

Sli and Crossfire can do the same as a PhysX card... That's why.And if the game doesn't support that kind of thing, they'll still get superior performance due to the 2 graphics cards running..BounceDK

Avatar image for yoyo462001
#39 Posted by yoyo462001 (7535 posts) -
it beens quite useless because devs havn't really taken it on board, if they all did all these people would probably have one right now.
Avatar image for TrailorParkBoy
#40 Posted by TrailorParkBoy (2922 posts) -
[QUOTE="kodex1717"][QUOTE="da1on2"]So what's the big reasoning against the PhysX?da1on2
Like I said, it's not prevalent enough to warrant a $150 purchase. Especially when it doesn't improve the FPS in the games that actually support it.

Thats not a big reason at all. Support comes with time.

Hasn't Physx been out for like a year already (year and a half?)? How long do you guys want to wait before you finally realize it has failed? and I thought after word got out that UT3 was only going to support physx through a mod that people would finally let it die but I guess I was wrong.
Avatar image for Darkfire6247
#41 Posted by Darkfire6247 (1308 posts) -
The problem with it is simple...no user base. A dev is not gonna spend time on using the phyx card when no one will see it. What Ageia needs to do is take a hit and sell it for like 50-75 bucks...not many at all will buy it for 150. Or they could strike a deal with motherboard manufacturers and get them to have them built into the board...because right now pci slots are kinda getting full on most peoples boards with the 2 slot gfx cards and a soundcard. All in all its just easier for devs to use the gpu and cpu to process physics...as much as id like the physx to catch on it probably wont.
Avatar image for codezer0
#42 Posted by codezer0 (15898 posts) -

The problem with it is simple...no user base. A dev is not gonna spend time on using the phyx card when no one will see it. What Ageia needs to do is take a hit and sell it for like 50-75 bucks...not many at all will buy it for 150. Or they could strike a deal with motherboard manufacturers and get them to have them built into the board...because right now pci slots are kinda getting full on most peoples boards with the 2 slot gfx cards and a soundcard. All in all its just easier for devs to use the gpu and cpu to process physics...as much as id like the physx to catch on it probably wont.Darkfire6247
I was thinking more along the lines of Ageia updating their PhysX software so that it has handlers to be able to accelerate not just their own PhysX engine, but others that normally would only run in software, like HavoK in particular.

Avatar image for Darkfire6247
#43 Posted by Darkfire6247 (1308 posts) -

[QUOTE="Darkfire6247"]The problem with it is simple...no user base. A dev is not gonna spend time on using the phyx card when no one will see it. What Ageia needs to do is take a hit and sell it for like 50-75 bucks...not many at all will buy it for 150. Or they could strike a deal with motherboard manufacturers and get them to have them built into the board...because right now pci slots are kinda getting full on most peoples boards with the 2 slot gfx cards and a soundcard. All in all its just easier for devs to use the gpu and cpu to process physics...as much as id like the physx to catch on it probably wont.codezer0

I was thinking more along the lines of Ageia updating their PhysX software so that it has handlers to be able to accelerate not just their own PhysX engine, but others that normally would only run in software, like HavoK in particular.

Agreed

Avatar image for Zaber123
#44 Posted by Zaber123 (1159 posts) -
While that is a good idea, wouldn't it make more sense just to spend the money on a better CPU that will do the same thing. If this is wrong please tell me, I'd like to know more about how the physics are handled.
Avatar image for codezer0
#45 Posted by codezer0 (15898 posts) -

While that is a good idea, wouldn't it make more sense just to spend the money on a better CPU that will do the same thing. If this is wrong please tell me, I'd like to know more about how the physics are handled.Zaber123
Having a better CPU can improve things, sure, but... it can only go so far.

A CPU is a general-purpose piece of silicon that in addition to running a given game/app at a time, is then managed by your Operating System to handle all the other extraneous stuff (processing driver/hardware interrupts, managing memory addresses for different apps, and somehow handling all the various software/hardware threads an actively used computer will generate without choking on its own data in the process).

A CPU is capable of a wide variety of math, from very simple (2+2=?) to exceedingly complex (matrix/discrete mathematics, linear algebra, etc.), and logic. It can handle the types of instructions to calculate various elements of physics, but it's not its forte, nor does it have undivided attention to it (unless the code is designed to be broken up into several threads and can be split among a lot of different cores, this is unlikely). And if you want the rest of the game to run efficiently and have the CPU process sound (with onboard audio), video elements (for GPU's that don't have the full level of hardware support for the app/game in question), and be able to reasonably respond to your input, there's only so many objects that it can calculate accurately regarding the physics of them at a time in a scene.

A PPU is very specialized logic for its main silicon, and its purpose is singularly focused on handling physics applications. And unlike GPU-accelerated physics, it can accurately calculate the physics behind the graphical effects (so that objects fly/move/behave as they would in reality), but the gameplay physics (as in how those objects affect each other, the player/characters, etc.). Where a common CPU may at most be able to (very accurately) calculate the physics of about 100 or so objects on screen without seeing performance hits for other elements of a game, a PPU-enabled game with the physics running off the PPU could then accurately (to within so many points of precision) handle thousands of objects within the game environment. Couple this with GPU-accelerated physics, and you can then effectively have thousands upon thousands of objects on screen that previously the CPU would have been far too burdened to handle to having negligible effect on the rest of the processes the CPU would have to do... and in turn allow the CPU to focus on its own strengths (such as the logic for A.I. and preparing data to be accelerated/processed for the next scene).

An ideal system in this regard could be a multi-core CPU, with SLi or CrossFire (more likely, like Tri-CF or Quad-SLI, so that you could enjoy the graphics acceleration and have a spare GPU or two for handling effects physics), a PPU for gameplay physics, and a dedicated sound card to handle the audio.

Issue with that is of course, the game engine has to be able to support all of these different ways in which stuff could be offloaded, but then still have a mode to be able to scale up/down features if a person doesn't have the physical hardware to accelerate this or that without making it impossible to play.

My one gripe with the PhysX PPU in this regard is that it does nothing for games that don't use their PhysX API. It does nothing for Source-engine games, nor games that use the HavoK physics effects or any other game engine or component that would handle the physics of what is going on on-screen. At least if there was some benefit for stuff that didn't readily use their own physics API, it would be much better justifiable. SLi and CrossFire are able to at least provide SOME benefit even on games that weren't designed when those technologies debuted.

So basically what you have to look at with the PhysX PPU is whether there's a game employing it that you like enough to want to spend the money for that dedicated hardware. According to Ageia, they intended on releasing the PhysX card at least another year later, but had to release it early because Ubisoft wanted it for GRAW. And well, we saw how well that turned out. :|

Avatar image for kruesader
#46 Posted by kruesader (6444 posts) -
it's a good idea in principal I rekon, but until anyone supports them they are a waste of money
Avatar image for Zaber123
#47 Posted by Zaber123 (1159 posts) -
Man thanks alot for all that info. More than I could ever ask for.
Avatar image for LordEC911
#48 Posted by LordEC911 (9972 posts) -

A PPU is very specialized logic for its main silicon, and its purpose is singularly focused on handling physics applications.codezer0

Is there a link that backs that up? Unless you are simply talking about the drivers/algorithims.
That is definitely NOT what I have been hearing about the card/chip.

Avatar image for Guiltfeeder566
#49 Posted by Guiltfeeder566 (10068 posts) -
How much things right now really have physics? Ragdolls, items, and weapons are the only things that really use them. Maybe when every brick, lampshade, and shard of glass and break off and stay for the remander of the game.
Avatar image for theshadowhunter
#50 Posted by theshadowhunter (2956 posts) -
because its not worth the money, and a cpu core can do the same thing, someone cracked G.R.A.W. 2 already so it works on a core thats unused on a quad core, so what makes it worth so much, what can it do that havok cant? and if it can do some better is it worth the extra cash, and why isnt every game using it?