Physix aegia comparisons. check this out

by **Evan** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 6:42 pm

Originally posted by cavalierlwt
But currently, CPU do things like physics processing (rag doll effects and such), how much of a hit does the CPU take doing these physics calcs? In other words, how much of load would take off a CPU to have it only doing AI and such? I haven't seen any data. It would be nice to see something like BF2 get optimized for it, then compare the two versions on the same computer.

When you play BF2, CS:Source, HL2 or any new game with real/rag-doll physics, most of the CPU usage IS the physics calculations - especially in the middle of a firefight where your PC has to calculate everything around you and how it reacts to you.

by **Major SONAR** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 8:01 pm

Umm, you guys DO realize this isn't a video card related processor, right? It's a PHYSICS Processing Unit, not a GPU. What you see graphic wise is just the GPU using the abilities of the PPU. Normally it's your CPU doing all the physics calculations, etc.

Yeah, Like I said... It's just a chip (or several chips). Okay maybe I was a bit hasty when I said they would be on all the video cards. I think the PPU chip will probably end up on the motherboard. Why? More room and will work with whatever CPU you put in. I don't know if you guys are old enough to remember the Intel 486 SX... I think that was the chip number (I'm too lazy to look it up). This chip did not have a match coprocessor. You could buy the coprocesor separately to make your CPU run math calcualtions faster. (Used primarily for CAD). Same thing here. Just another chip releiving the CPU of one of it's many chores. I feel pretty confident the PPU will be added to the motherboard.

After viewing the demo, it's clear to me PPU's are here to stay. I don't know where they will end up, but they will be used.

by **cavalierlwt** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 10:25 pm

Originally posted by Evan
When you play BF2, CS:Source, HL2 or any new game with real/rag-doll physics, most of the CPU usage IS the physics calculations - especially in the middle of a firefight where your PC has to calculate everything around you and how it reacts to you.

Well then, sounds like this physics chip could really have a big impact.

by **cartboy519** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 10:39 pm

After reading all of your comments I myself can't say much more. However the one thing I want to say is that looks pretty sweet. I mean i have HL2 and the physics are great, now if you could get a seperate card to render all the great physics for all other games that will be sweet. Also I hope the price drops reletivly quickly, so i can get one.

by **PraiseA||ah** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 1:42 am

http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/03/22/ageia_physx/

http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/03/20/nvidia_sli_forphysics/

The second link has a chart showing the fps difference with and without a ppu.

by **=ender=** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 8:03 am

One of the articles that PA just posted said, "Pricing has not been announced yet, but sources indicated that several version of PhysX board will be available with prices ranging from $100 to $400."

I wonder what the differences amongst the price ranges will be? Higher cost performs more physics calculations? How is that benchmarked (i.e. is there a number that you can compare between cards to understand how much one is an improvement over another like it's PPU speed or amount of memory it has on it)? Do my questions make sense? Does anyone know? What's the average airspeed of an unladen... ahh, forget it.

by **Darknut** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 8:26 am

For those of you who said that it might "eliminate the need for SLI and Crossfire" this is where you are mistaken. From information given about developing games that utilize the Ageia card, most of the time they referred to having more interactive objects and more complex animations amongst more subtle interactivity such as interactive grass. With more going on in the screen the harder it becomes to render. So, it is said that you are more likely to need an SLI or Crossfire set up using the Ageia card.

Basically, due to the direction they are going with utilizing the Ageia card, which is more complex physics and more interactivity, it will drop your frames thus requiring you to have a high-end video card and/or SLI/Crossfire setup. It will take the load off your CPU but it will also stress your video card more.

by **Darknut** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 8:34 am

Originally posted by PraiseA||ah
http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/03/22/ageia_physx/

http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/03/20/nvidia_sli_forphysics/

The second link has a chart showing the fps difference with and without a ppu.

Ah, there they show nVidia's version of the Ageia card. To my understanding it's going to be something that is SLI only to where on card is used for physics.

by **Bromsin** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 9:48 am

Originally posted by Evan
Umm, you guys DO realize this isn't a video card related processor, right? It's a PHYSICS Processing Unit, not a GPU. What you see graphic wise is just the GPU using the abilities of the PPU. Normally it's your CPU doing all the physics calculations, etc. See below:

Isn’t physics just juiced up graphics?

No, graphics is all about how things look. And today’s general purpose GPUs do a great job of rendering and displaying beautiful 3D imagery. But 3D graphics is just that: Graphics. Physics is an entirely different beast. It’s not about how objects look, but about how objects in your game move and react.

Edit: I love the pricetag:

How much does AGEIA PhysX cost?

PhysX accelerators are very affordable with an MSRP of $299

Yes I do realise this. The point is with that kind of processing you can take a lot off the CPU, which will return better gameplay. I wouldnt need SLI or Crossfire, because my frames should be fine due to the CPU being freed from physics calcs..

by **Major SONAR** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 5:23 pm

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/03/29/asus_to_offer_ageia_physx/

It seems Asus is coming out with a 256 Mb card. Another manufacturer has a 128 Mb card priced at $275. Even though Asus did not disclose pricing, one would assume $300 or so. (MSRB = $250 - $300)

IMHO that's too much money. Let's see how much it is in a year from now. (and how many games support it).

by **MoDyna** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 11:21 am

Here is another link that explains the differences between the hardware physics acceleration efforts being developed by Nvida, ATI and Ageia... Good read, explains pretty well what each has to offer and their short comings. If I read the article correctly, it looks like Ageia is the best solution for games, but the extra cost of buying another add in board is going to turn some people off.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1943831,00.asp

by **PraiseA||ah** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 12:08 pm

That was a good read Modyna.

To sum it up... Don't bother with this hyped thing for at least another year. There are several solutions and no clear leader yet. No games are yet supporting hardware physics beside the one made especially for Aegia. There is a lot of work to be done and many improvements in hardware and drivers coming in the next year alone.

by **MoDyna** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 5:52 pm

Originally posted by Major SONAR
I don't know if you guys are old enough to remember the Intel 486 SX... I think that was the chip number (I'm too lazy to look it up).

Sheeesh...... am I old or what, my first computer was a 386SX.... What a dog that was. Total waste of time, but sure was neat for a couple days anyway.... :lol:

by **Darknut** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 9:25 pm

I used a 486SX/25 until 2002 when I upgraded to a Pentium 4. Now I have custom built rig.

Physix aegia comparisons. check this out

Who is online