PhysX actual in game footage!!!

[ajones]

Have never really played with SLI so just thinking out loud - Have always bought a card with the intention of buying a second later, then just upgraded to a single next generation gpu.

I just see the PPU option as being hellishly expensive for what you get, and can't believe that they really expect us to only expect future performance upgraded only through drivers with minimal hardware options... I don't think I can cope with trying to maintain decent gfx performance at the same time as physics.

My problem is that I absolutely love Ghost, and anything that could improve an already awesome game is worth the money in my book.....

[ajones]

Actually, I still don't get why you MUST have SLI for this to work o.O

If I'm understanding correctly, Using an SLI system with HavocFX (for example) means that you have the increased GPU power for games that don't support the physics engine. For games that do, you can sacrifice a GPU to run as a PPU.

You kinda get the best of both worlds - but not at the same time!

Unless you have SLI and a separate PPU... hmmmm.......

[sawyen]

But I suppose a dedicated PhysX will definitely be cheaper than a top of the line say a 8900 GTX as a GPU..

so say a GTX cost £400+, and a PhysX cost £300.. thats £700
But running SLI, will mean £800... then 6 months down the road.. say a G90 comes out.. and u want one.. But u cant run a G90 with a G80, at least in SLI u cant.. In the end u lose ur PPU as well.. But If u had a PhysX, u can choose to upgrade ur G80 to a G90 while still retaining a PPU.. perhaps may not be top of the line then, maybe Ageia came out with PhysX GTX or something.. but at least ur PPU will still work..

[kempez]

MSRP I've seen would be $299 so hopfully not £300

[sawyen]

Yea, probably gets to the region of £270ish online.. but still my point is that it makes more sense than SLI..

[TooNice]

Check ATI's take on physics

[schmunk]

The PhysX option only adds $249 to the price of a Dell box in the US, so hopefully they should retail at something like that figure too (so probably £199 in the UK... )

[sawyen]

if its around £200.. will be a good investment.... well, as long as the lifespan isnt as short as graphics cards..

[shaithis]

I hope someone comes out with a solution based on dual-core CPUs.

The cost overhead isn't nearly as much, plus you wouldn't be tied into a specific gfx card makers implementation.

Multi core CPUs are here and look to be the future, might as well take advantage of them......

[DanceswithUnix]

Multi core CPUs are here and look to be the future, might as well take advantage of them......

Multi core cpus are no more the future of physics processing than they are of graphics rendering, lighting and geometry processing. I don't see anyone with a dual core CPU giving up their GPU, and I don't see next year's quad cores changing that!

My only question is how long it will take this technology to be incorporated into a northbridge as a low end "integrated physics". As Nvidia are saying you need a 6800 minimum for their technology, I guess their 6150 chipsets won't count (which seems like a lost opportunity).

[Butcher]

Multi core CPUs are here and look to be the future, might as well take advantage of them......

Wow, didn't realise intel/AMD were planning to release 50GHz parts to make them a viable alternative.

[kempez]

I managed to get hold of ATI for some further comment on their take on PPU's: Clicky here

[shaithis]

Multi core cpus are no more the future of physics processing than they are of graphics rendering, lighting and geometry processing. I don't see anyone with a dual core CPU giving up their GPU, and I don't see next year's quad cores changing that!

I think you missed my point.....

Why buy an addition processor or gfx card when a lot of people have (and a HUGE amount more will in the next year) dual-core CPUs with the second core hardly doing anything?

Just how much difference would the effects look if you were limited to calculating them on a 2.5GHz CPU core instead of some dedicated physics card? I don't beleive it would be that great TBH and I personally think that if these things cost £100+ they will probably flop due to demand.

Someone like Microsoft could almost certainly kill it overnight by adding physics into DirectX if you have dual-core/SMP.

I have a habit of throwing money at gaming, yet this is really not whetting my appetite at all. Sounds to me like someone is selling me something that could be done (for the most part) by my system already.

[shaithis]

Wow, didn't realise intel/AMD were planning to release 50GHz parts to make them a viable alternative.

You really think a dust cloud or a box exploding is going to look much different to your eyes if the physics of it is generated by a dedicated add-in card, rather then a second core?

You must be the bionic man...

I really find it hard to beleive that current CPU cores would have a hard time calculating these things to a level of complexity that a human could differenciate between.

Now, if these things were for real-world modeling applications I could understand.....but for gaming???

[Butcher]

A simnple box explosion, probably not. But when you have 100 boxes exploding, with all the sharpnel interacting, and at the same time fluid simulations and such, it starts to add up. CPUs really aren't that good at this sort of thing compared to a dedicated chip.

The same sorts of arguments were used about GPUs you know, and yet a modern GPU is about 50 times faster than a CPU at what it does, despite them being clocked much lower.

[shaithis]

Aren't GPU very wasteful though? Doing the calculations for lots of things that aren't visable?