We have hardware sound, hardware graphics, hardware RAID, hardware LAN, hardware modems.
Why would you go for physics done on a non-specialised chip (part of a multi-core CPU), when it can have its own add-in board to do the specified tasks?
Originally posted by: MrControversial
Originally posted by: Duvie
Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
No way. Sounds like this is a very-high-throughput FPU, intended for physics-sim processing, which is mostly matrix-math and some other ops. (Similar to the things that the Cell processor is supposed to be good for as well, perhaps that is what prompted the release of this device now.) There was another chip, low-powered, insane FLOPs, was actually optical-based, I believe, announced last year. Not sure if that's the same company, don't think that it is. The problem with one of these is, although it could be used as a powerful hardware-accelerator alternative to software - the game engine itself, and the game's playability, are dependent somewhat on the physics engine. It's not quite as scalable as the mostly-output-only graphics sides of things, the physics engine is part of the core engine of the game. So what about those players that don't own one of these accelerators? My guess is that the devs would effectively have to re-code two different versions of the game engines, one designed to have this card "plug in", and one that used a normal software physics-engine codepath. Then again, they mention that it supports the same API as their software physics lib does, so perhaps it really is a drop-in replacement.Originally posted by: MrControversial
DOA. This is stupid. With multicore CPU's on the horizon, this thing is useless.
Just another stupid comment by him...a lot of talk and no brain power proceeding it....
You come across as a presumptuous know-it-all prick. How about dropping the ad hominem and attack my arguments instead. I'm waiting to hear your counter arguments...or something about how my mama is a fat b*tch. You lost the argument way before it began.
Can I interest you in tweezer for the beetle up your arse?
Originally posted by: DanDaMan315
This PPU seems like it would be a much better idea as a chip on the video card instead of its own card. Would make the video processing easier and would most likely keep the cost down. This could just be another feature like Pixel Shading and stuff like that, doesn't seem all too revolutionary IMHO.
It's on the horizon on the back of multi-core CPUs. As I said before, this technology would be best strapped on to an Intel or AMD CPU as a physics core.Originally posted by: Cat
Originally posted by: MrControversial
Single core processors will be dinosaurs until some revolutionary nanotech comes along. Industry and academia saw multiprocessing coming a long time ago. Five years ago, I would have been excited about this, because unloading hefty FP processing off of a single-threaded CPU would have been a godsend. However, with CPU's that process six, eight or more threads on the horizon it seems like it's a bit too late. With consoles like Xbox already ditching components (APU) to be handled by a powerful mult-core CPU and the PS3 using the multi-core Cell as a broadband/media processor as well what's stopping the next wave of desktop processors to implement something like the PPU on chip?Originally posted by: Cat
I've been using Novodex for about a year now. A single CPU cannot come close to what this chip is promising, so I don't think it's useless. It's very exciting, actually. I am concerned about reading back thousands of 4x4 or 3x4 single or double precision float matrices 60 times a second.
When I made my "useless" comment, I did not have a Pentium 4 and an Athlon64 in mind.
When do you see a general-purpose processor being capable of performing like this one supposedly does? I don't see it happening soon.
You're going in one direction and I'm going in another. In the near future, all of the things you mentioned will be possible on one chip. For example, in two previous posts, I mentioned how Microsoft is eliminating the APU in their next console for audio processing to be handled by their multi-core CPU and Sony is eliminating the media communication processor in favor of those tasks being handled by the Cell. It's obvious that everyone's going in the direction of having all of these tasks being handled in one location. It's the natural way to do things. Just look at the human brain. All processing is handled in that one large location. It seems as if the trend is moving toward larger CPUs with multiple cores doing multiple things.Originally posted by: Lonyo
Originally posted by: MrControversial
Originally posted by: Duvie
Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
No way. Sounds like this is a very-high-throughput FPU, intended for physics-sim processing, which is mostly matrix-math and some other ops. (Similar to the things that the Cell processor is supposed to be good for as well, perhaps that is what prompted the release of this device now.) There was another chip, low-powered, insane FLOPs, was actually optical-based, I believe, announced last year. Not sure if that's the same company, don't think that it is. The problem with one of these is, although it could be used as a powerful hardware-accelerator alternative to software - the game engine itself, and the game's playability, are dependent somewhat on the physics engine. It's not quite as scalable as the mostly-output-only graphics sides of things, the physics engine is part of the core engine of the game. So what about those players that don't own one of these accelerators? My guess is that the devs would effectively have to re-code two different versions of the game engines, one designed to have this card "plug in", and one that used a normal software physics-engine codepath. Then again, they mention that it supports the same API as their software physics lib does, so perhaps it really is a drop-in replacement.Originally posted by: MrControversial
DOA. This is stupid. With multicore CPU's on the horizon, this thing is useless.
Just another stupid comment by him...a lot of talk and no brain power proceeding it....
You come across as a presumptuous know-it-all prick. How about dropping the ad hominem and attack my arguments instead. I'm waiting to hear your counter arguments...or something about how my mama is a fat b*tch. You lost the argument way before it began.
Can I interest you in tweezer for the beetle up your arse?
We have hardware sound, hardware graphics, hardware RAID, hardware LAN, hardware modems.
Why would you go for physics done on a non-specialised chip (part of a multi-core CPU), when it can have its own add-in board to do the specified tasks?
Originally posted by: MrControversial
I can't wait for the "OMG!!! Check Out My Physics Mark '06 Scores!!!11one" Then on the back of the Doom 4 box under System Requirements it says I need a DirectX10b compatible 32MB physics card in order to play the game with full physics unless I'm stuck with pre-processed physics. Do we really want that? I splurge on a GeForce 7800 Ultra for bad-ass graphics only to see sh*t physics because I can't afford the $499 physics card. F*ck that. Throw that sh*t on a chip.
Like Punisher said, if we keep adding add-on cards, we wouldn't need a CPU. This is so counter productive. We want less components. Would you rather have a smaller CPU with a larger motherboard and larger case, or would you rather have a larger multi-cored CPU with memory/audio/video on chip, hard drives being replaced by multiple gigs of non-volitile RAM all in a case the size of a book. Sign me up for the latter.
I wasn't talking about now, but in the future the way things are trending. I'd like to see a central processing unit that has high-end graphics, audio and physics processing.Originally posted by: FishTankX
Originally posted by: MrControversial
I can't wait for the "OMG!!! Check Out My Physics Mark '06 Scores!!!11one" Then on the back of the Doom 4 box under System Requirements it says I need a DirectX10b compatible 32MB physics card in order to play the game with full physics unless I'm stuck with pre-processed physics. Do we really want that? I splurge on a GeForce 7800 Ultra for bad-ass graphics only to see sh*t physics because I can't afford the $499 physics card. F*ck that. Throw that sh*t on a chip.
Like Punisher said, if we keep adding add-on cards, we wouldn't need a CPU. This is so counter productive. We want less components. Would you rather have a smaller CPU with a larger motherboard and larger case, or would you rather have a larger multi-cored CPU with memory/audio/video on chip, hard drives being replaced by multiple gigs of non-volitile RAM all in a case the size of a book. Sign me up for the latter.
Would you really want a CPU with intel extreme integrated graphics?
How about multiple cores on the CPU more powerful than anything we have today. Again, I was talking about the future. This PPU is more like a stop-gap solution since current CPUs can't do what developers want.The larger you make the CPU, the more heat and power it produces/consumes. And CPU's will always be the jack of all trades, master of none. A CPU will never even begin to touch the processing power of any graphics card within 2 generations of it. What makes you think they would ever be able to touch the power of a dedicated physics processor?
I agree there is some wild and unwarranted speculation going on with no real basis for it. But I also caution not to believe everything you read, particularly when the source is the InqOriginally posted by: Murd0ck
"The PhysX chip is supported by a software development kit SDK from subsidiary Novodex and will enable game developers to capitalize on tomorrow?s multiprocessor PC?s and parallel architecture game consoles.
Game developers are already creating titles in anticipation of the PhysX chip, using AGEIA's NovodeX Physics SDK - the only middleware engine equipped for the future of hardware accelerated physics while meeting today's software requirements. NovodeX is also the only multi-threaded physics API that will unleash the power of multi-processor systems."
"Become a part of the most significant hardware advance for board manufacturers since the GPU: AGEIA?s PhysX chip. The first and only dedicated physics processing unit, PhysX combines extreme hardware acceleration of game physics with consumer-level affordability. Game developers are on board. Shouldn?t it be on your board?"
Looks interesting enough to me..
I just love some of the "expert" analysis that goes on here..."thats no good" "it's a stopgap measure" "in the future it won't be needed" bla bla bla.
Here's an idea!!! how about less writing and more reading...
Thank you Benmohr. Well said.
Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
Not everyone is going to need the powerful physics processing anytime soon, so it could just be added to graphics cards targeted at the particular market segments that want/need it I should think. It'll gets bought or licensed out by industry leaders and incorporated into their products is the senario I foresee playing out.
Also, it seems to make more sense to use specialized hardware for the processing of various computing tasks. This will give the manufacturers even more options to either integrate or leave out of particular products. That would likely result in being more cost effective, and better focusing on any given market sector needs.
What info we have so far suggests a CPU is the last place this will turn up. It will likely take the form of an expansion card, and perhaps end up integrated on futur graphics cards.Originally posted by: Grminalac
I can't see intel or AMD including a PPU in a processor and raising the price in a competitive market for something that only enthusiasts want.
The initial offering is likely to be a stand alone expansion card, much like DVD decoder cards used to be. Besides, you can get TV tuner cards that are internal, external, attached to a graphics card, and I hear no one complaining about it This will be no different, it can be used in various ways, and it will not be considered to have fragmented market/s but rather to have created greater focus on particular market segments.Originally posted by: MrControversial
Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
Not everyone is going to need the powerful physics processing anytime soon, so it could just be added to graphics cards targeted at the particular market segments that want/need it I should think. It'll gets bought or licensed out by industry leaders and incorporated into their products is the senario I foresee playing out.
Also, it seems to make more sense to use specialized hardware for the processing of various computing tasks. This will give the manufacturers even more options to either integrate or leave out of particular products. That would likely result in being more cost effective, and better focusing on any given market sector needs.
But the market will be more fragmented than it already is with the different range of graphics card capabilities. That means that developers will have to incorporate some kind of "if" code in each game that decides which physics the player gets based on their hardware.
I guess anyone who doesn't drink PR tit milk like the status quo gets called names. Ah, such is the life of those who delve into the whole tweeny bopper infested messageboard ecosystem. What a rediculous stawman you present here. Your comments don't reflect my thoughts at all. That says much about the level of reading comprehension (or the lack thereof) that government schooling has provided you. FYI, what 3dfx was doing was well within stride of common industry practice. Voodoo was merely the evolution of the technology before it. However with this physics engine, it seems to be going against the grain. The industry trend seems to be going in the direction where more powerful CPUs are taking on tasks that were once delegated to dedicated hardware. I provided two examples: Xenon and PS3. It can't be anymore clear than that? Does anyone have a logical counterpoint to my argument or will you continue to hurl insults and personal attacks.Originally posted by: Grminalac
Hmmm, well using Mr. Controversials logic 3dfx shouldn't have produced the Voodoo chip in the first place because nVidia would put them out of business in a few years, and onboard chipsets would be out in several years that would be faster. What an idiot.
You know that comment is ironic. Presenting a strawman and then arguing against it is essentially arguing with yourself. So I can see why you feel that you're arguing with a moron. My point is that this PPU concept seems to be going against the grain of more powerful CPU's handling more tasks and eliminating specialized hardware. However, since these CPUs haven't come out fast enough, this bolten on card seems like a stop gap. I'll be very suprised if PPU cards become the standard and this tech isn't put on a graphics card or delegated to a powerful mutli-core CPU.I can't see intel or AMD including a PPU in a processor and raising the price in a competitive market for something that only enthusiasts want.
Then again why should I bother... arguing with a mroron does not get you anywhere.
After reapeating the same thing over and over again, I get the impression that you'd rather participate in the zombie group-think bash Mr_C fest. I provided examples that proved the opposite. Multi-core CPU's like the Cell and Xenon CPU have actually delegated things like audio and broadband processing to the CPU since they are powerful enough to handle it. I expect to see this trend continue when the desktop CPU's are as advanced. Right now the Cell and Xbox Xenon CPU are the most powerful consumer level processors out and they are evidence that if the CPU is powerful enough, it will be used for tasks that were once handled by dedicated hardware.Originally posted by: Duvie
The fact is now most of our components are starting to be offloaded from the cpu....whether it be vid card graphics, video decoding and encoding, etc....sound processing units.....etc
I see things going in a different direction. The CPU will be the "engine" of a PC handling audio, video and data processing. I don't see a glut of components with a weak CPU acting as a "switchboard operator". This PPU is a stop gap. I don't see it catching on like sound cards and video cards.The CPU is basically going to become the "conductor" or "airtraffic controller" and become less and less of what we view as a Central Processing Unit....
i.e. stop-gap for the "I want to do it and I want to do it now" developers.This product is being tauted for todays use..not computers 5-10 years down the line....technology changes so fast, and this is just a speedbump in that evolution....