Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Dark Physics & Dark A.I. & Dark Dynamix / Who owns a Physics Card?

Author
Message
Kenjar
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 17th Jun 2005
Location: TGC
Posted: 29th Sep 2006 12:56
Hi, I'm just wondering how many people have actually gone out and purchased Ageia's physics card.

I lay upon my bed one bright clear night, and gazed upon the distant stars far above, then I thought... where the hell is my roof?
david w
13
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Dec 2005
Location: U.S.A. Michigan
Posted: 29th Sep 2006 13:11
I bought the bfg card.
Chenak
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 13th Sep 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 29th Sep 2006 14:05
I got one
dark coder
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Oct 2002
Location: Japan
Posted: 29th Sep 2006 15:04
I too was suckered into tgc`s latest irresistable sceme.

Hallowed are the ori.
AVC
12
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 15th Aug 2006
Location:
Posted: 29th Sep 2006 20:08
I bouthgt mine from ASUS, and love it.
FROGGIE!
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Oct 2003
Location: in front of my computer
Posted: 29th Sep 2006 20:48
Im only going to be buying one if this idea catches on and lots of mainstream companies start using them.
Syncaidius
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Mar 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 2nd Oct 2006 10:20
I bought My ASUS PhysiX card from http://www.overclockers.co.uk/

They are reasonably priced too!

Lucka
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Oct 2004
Location:
Posted: 2nd Oct 2006 13:23
I got one Asus Physix, and I' really love it!!

Lucka - gawteam coder - www.gawgames.com
Tapewormz
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 15th Sep 2002
Location: Winnipeg, Mantoba, Canada
Posted: 12th Oct 2006 04:09 Edited at: 12th Oct 2006 04:12
From the reviews I've read on several hardware sites, these cards don't do anything except give you a terrible framerate and alot of annoying particles that just get in the way of your gaming. I don't think I'll be shelling out +$300 on one of these things in the future.

Quote: "
After the initial review period on the AGEIA PhysX PPU, the fact that enabling the PPU accelerated parts of Ghost Recon lowered performance became widely criticized. AGEIA promptly released this statement:

"We appreciate feedback from the gamer community and based partly on comments like the one above, we have identified an area in our driver where fine tuning positively impacts frame rate. We made an adjustment quickly and delivered it in a new driver (2.4.3) which is available for download at ageia.com today."

Unfortunately, after testing both the BFG and Asus cards with the 2.4.3 driver, as well as a newer 2.4.4 released on June 20th, no performance changes were seen.
"


*LAUGH*... What a waste of money. I was originally, very excited about PPU's, but after seeing the results I am very dissapointed. Unless there's a significant breakthrough in the technology in the next 2 years, I don't see these taking off with gamers.

spooky
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Aug 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 13th Oct 2006 00:39
Same here. Read too many bad things about them and the technology is too new. Maybe in time they will take off but from what I've read recently though DirectX 10 will have it's own support for physics and will use Havok and use the power of graphics cards to do all the donkey work, making Ageia obsolete. ATI and Nvidia are also bulding physics chips into their future graphics cards. Can't see Ageia lasting too much longer.

Boo!
Tapewormz
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 15th Sep 2002
Location: Winnipeg, Mantoba, Canada
Posted: 13th Oct 2006 07:10
That's what I was thinking. Who knows, maybe there will be a crazy breakthrough in the tech. They're goign to have to lower the cost of the hardware significantly. There's no way that a PPU card is worth anything more than 100$. For the money they're asking, I can get a dual core cpu for 1/4 of the price. It's an accessory more than a necessity.

dark coder
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Oct 2002
Location: Japan
Posted: 13th Oct 2006 07:49
Who cares? you can win 1k$ that cost to benefit ratio is pretty darn good, aslong as I win that is...

Hallowed are the ori.
BatVink
Moderator
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Apr 2003
Location: Gods own County, UK
Posted: 13th Oct 2006 17:05
Am I missing something here? Of course adding stacks of physics, particles and fluids will lower the framerate. Remove the physics hardware and test the game again, with the same number of effects, and see what framerate you get. Probably < 1.

It's like saying a Ford Galaxy is no good because it's slower than a Porsche, missing the fact that one carries significantly more people than the other!



Syncaidius
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Mar 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 14th Oct 2006 01:11 Edited at: 14th Oct 2006 01:42
I agree with BatVink.

I can say the PhysiX cards are definetly worth the money.

For one, I own Ghost Recon and I've play it at the hightest Graphics detail possible. I dont get any jerky, jumpy or lagging gameplay either. Two, I've played cell factor which has hundreds more objects on screen than the HAVOK physics engine could handle in a whole level and even that runs at full level of detail without any performance problems. I dont even have SLI or Crossfired graphics cards, just a plain single Radeon X1600 GPU.

Take that review you found Tapewormz and put it through a shredder, then flush the shredded remains down the toilet. Thats how accurate it is.

EDIT:
Oh and Tapewormz, If you can tell us where you said you can get a Dual core processor for around $30........ which is near impossible.

EDIT... AGAIN:
Oh... another thing about that review, The reason parts of ghost recon may run slow for some people is because Havok is built into the game, underneath PhysiX. The console version of Ghost Recon : AW never performed well and that only used Havok. Havok dont stand a chance, since they charge $50,000 fora licence and Ageia charge $0.

Lastly, if your a fan of Ureal Tournament but not of Ageia, u'll be stuck for playing UT 2007, since they support Ageia PhysiX and not Havok. Check it yourself at this site:
http://uk.gamespot.com/news/2005/03/08/news_6119896.html?sid=6119896

Like it says Havok can only support around 30 to 40 objects on screen, which you should know if you play Elder Scrolls 4, it lags when to many objects are together on teh screen. PhysiX can handle thousands of objects on screen, as proved by Cell Factor. check for screenshots, you'll see...

Tapewormz
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 15th Sep 2002
Location: Winnipeg, Mantoba, Canada
Posted: 14th Oct 2006 03:37 Edited at: 14th Oct 2006 04:06
Hey DBK, settledown fanboy.

@batvink
All I was getting at is that paying 320$ for particles isn't worth it (IF...it's going to decrease performance). If you took a poll of both amature and professional gamers and asked them what they'd rather have in a FPS (particles, or FPS) you'd get a resounding FPS.

If I was playing something like Oblivion, I'd like to have the extra particle effects. However, all the titles that Ageia is parading around are FPS games.

The reviews on the hardware are accurate DBK, I'll take the word of a bonified hardware magazine over a forum fanboy anyday. Your word carries no weight, HardOCP carries alot. They provided detailed benchmarks, you provided nothing except your word.

Bottom line, I'm still interested in this technology. There's alot of room for growth. Hopefully Ageia can address performance issues in the next year before the next gen hardware is available. If they wait around for NVIDIA or ATI to release their GPU/PPU combo cards, then I predict the end of a short lived and never realised era for Ageia and Physx.

Raven
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Mar 2005
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 14th Oct 2006 05:53
Quote: "Oh... another thing about that review, The reason parts of ghost recon may run slow for some people is because Havok is built into the game, underneath PhysiX. The console version of Ghost Recon : AW never performed well and that only used Havok."


That's sounds bizare to me, given GRAW when I last played it on the 360 and PS2 had the PhsyX not Havok logo appear.

Anyway. DirectX10 is just an enhanced version of DirectX9 designed to take advantage of Aero on Windows Vista. Although I know the rumours about 6months ago were that they were planning to add a Physics API to the DirectX range; whether DirectX9.1 and 10.1 have this is still yet to be seen. ATI have recent bought out AMD and have a partnership with Ageia, as well as NVIDIA partnering with Havok for adding PPUs as standard in graphics cards/chips.

It's likely that PPUs will become widely available in the future, but we're looking atleast the next generation; if not beyond before that *actually* happens. So I wouldn't hold you're breath on it happening before the end of 2007.

As far as the PPU hardware goes, it's a good toy. Just isn't really market viable yet. Although it might take 5years for proper market penetration (given only 1 out of 3 consoles have it) they are the next 'Shader' aspect for games development.

This said, I wouldn't pay £100 for a PPU card. Unfortunately that's the price you pay for having a new technology first... I'm personally going to wait until budget versions hit the shops. It'll just make far more sense imo

Especially given there are only a handful of games that utilise the technology presently. I own 1 of them (Bet on Soldier) but I'm not spending my money on a PPU to spruce that up as tbh it's not exactly an amazing game.

..

Those people who have hardware PPUs, you might be asked if you can run some demo versions of games to find out what sort of performance and such is going on in them.

Intel Pentium-D 2.8GHz, 512MB DDR2 433, Ati Radeon X1600 Pro 256MB PCI-E, Windows Vista RC1 / XP Professional SP2
Chris K
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Oct 2003
Location: Lake Hylia
Posted: 14th Oct 2006 11:20
Quote: "DirectX10 is just an enhanced version of DirectX9"


It's more of a difference than that.

It's not even backwards compatible!

dark coder
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Oct 2002
Location: Japan
Posted: 14th Oct 2006 11:30
@Tapewormz

The main feature of the PPU is that the physics calcs are done outside of the cpu/gpu thus giving the coders more room to add better ai etc, but the current problem is that gpu`s are the main bottleneck in games, and graw shows this, by adding alot more particles you get less fps due to the gpu not being able to calc the extra particles and such, however I do agree that the ppu price is way too high.

Hallowed are the ori.
Tapewormz
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 15th Sep 2002
Location: Winnipeg, Mantoba, Canada
Posted: 14th Oct 2006 22:03 Edited at: 14th Oct 2006 22:07
You don't need better AI in FPS games. All the games Ageia is showboating are FPS games. I'm going to wait a few years for a couple of things.
A) There to be a definative winner between BluRay and HDDVD
B) The United States to stop putting so much effort into finding 1 man
C) Better PPU cards


@Raven
Yeah, DX10 won't even be available for any OS other than Vista. It's not backwards compatable. All previous DX applications will run via a software layer in Vista (which means it's going to run an emulator to play current games, possibly reducing performance in those games). It also means, next gen hardware requires an OS upgrade in order to use the DX10 instructions on those chips, unless for some reason they'll include all of them on the card. I don't know how they're going to do it, all I know is all the XP users are going to have a tantrum. I have XP myself, but I'm upgrading to Vista in FEB. I actually enjoy the new features, so it doesn't annoy me asmuch to have to upgrade.

Medieval Coder
13
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 31st Dec 2005
Location:
Posted: 16th Oct 2006 02:18
Quote: "However, all the titles that Ageia is parading around are FPS games."


I believe one is a MMORPG...

Raven
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Mar 2005
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 16th Oct 2006 02:57
Would love to know how many people here have been developing with DirectX10 since release back in August 2005...
I mean Microsoft's guide in the DirectX9/10 help files on how to make your source compatible with both APIs at once without major rewrites must be a very useless technical document if what you say is even remotely true.

Man, now that I've heard from you guys that it's not compatible what-so-ever I'm going to have to change all of my working code that runs on both Windows XP (DirectX9.0c) and Vista RC1 (DirectX10) in to 2 seperate source projects, as well as the engine cause it'll never work!!

Not to mention that "Software Emulation Layer" that miraculously runs all DirectX9 applications at only a 2% performance difference.. and only contains pointer updates, well damn that's going to seriously affect how all the DirectX9 games I have on my other computer work; cause ya know it's totally going to screw up and crash on Half-Life 2 all the time now

Can't believe they've been running fine for the last 12months but now you've said that gonna obviously stop working today!!!

Thank you, you guys you've saved me so much time worring about that sort of thing cause it's not like I've been doing anything with these APIs or using both OSs for more than a year without any issues.

I mean obviously I'd overlooked the fact that DirectX10 forces the use of SM1.1 minimum, however will DirectX9.0c ever cope with that!?!

I mean it's like they changed everything... Direct3D9 became Direct3D10, and all the API Interfaces changed names with some bonus extras; but obviously this does make it an entirely different API and there's no plausable way it could ever support exactly what DirectX9 does still!!

Man, what's next? They'll update XACT from 1.0 to 2.0 without anyone noticing but most of the names and functionality changed, I mean the DX10 stuff is OBVIOUSLY far beyond that.

Sometimes I seriously wonder about the intelligence of users who prefer to believe what they read on Register, over what the actual APIs denote.

Intel Pentium-D 2.8GHz, 512MB DDR2 433, Ati Radeon X1600 Pro 256MB PCI-E, Windows Vista RC1 / XP Professional SP2
Argoon
12
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Oct 2006
Location:
Posted: 17th Oct 2006 01:39
I have one the Asus PhysX P1, and i must say that so far i like what i got.

Cheers
Kenjar
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 17th Jun 2005
Location: TGC
Posted: 18th Oct 2006 13:19 Edited at: 18th Oct 2006 13:20
Quote: "It's more of a difference than that.

It's not even backwards compatible!"


I highly doubt it given the companies history. Vista was supposed to have been built from ground up, and XP was supposed to be a major upgrade from Windows 2000. Neither claims are true. All microsoft did with Windows XP applications (that it made) was add an os detection subroutine so it wouldn't install on 2000. There's hacks out there for Age of Empires 3 for example, that just disable the routine and everything runs just dandy. Windows Vista uses massive portions of both Windows XP and Windows XP x64. They've intergrated alot of the downloadable technolgies such as .net into the system, and re-written the shell and graphics system. Direct X 10 is lit what is says, it's the next version of Direct X, and it will likely have portions of code going back all the way to the first ever version, it's likely to have much larger portions of 9.0c in it too. Again, all they are trying to do with this is force users to purchase their new operating systems by forcing game makers to develope games for Direct X 10, which of cause can only be run on Vista. Microsoft have been seeing if customers would accept XP only programs for a few years now, seeing if anyone would kick up a stink about it, it started with Windows Media Player 10, and other freebes, getting people used to the idea that XP and Win2000 where vastly different, then they started moving their commerical games and software to XP only, and people have accepted it. You are unlikely to find a single company other than microsoft that doesn't support windows 2000. Direct X 10 is merely a way of ensuring that game makers will have to exclusively support Direct X 10, and of cause customers will be forced to buy vista because microsoft refuse to make direct X 10, XP or 2000 installable. They originally tried to call it "graphics foundation", to help nullyfy the number of users who noticed their stratadgy, but the name Direct X is far too well established in game players minds, so to get people more excited about it, they had to return to the Direct X designation.

Quote: "The main feature of the PPU is that the physics calcs are done outside of the cpu/gpu thus giving the coders more room to add better ai etc, but the current problem is that gpu`s are the main bottleneck in games, and graw shows this, by adding alot more particles you get less fps due to the gpu not being able to calc the extra particles and such, however I do agree that the ppu price is way too high."


Duel core chips are pridicted for nVidia's next gen cards, I wonder if the duel cores will be specifically used for GPU calculations or if the second core will take care of your physics for you. If both ATI (AMD) and nVidia are investing in physics engines, they will likely back it up with some kind of hardware solution.

Quote: "I have XP myself, but I'm upgrading to Vista in FEB. "


Never, ever get a new microsoft operating system right off the bat! Windows 95, windows 98, Windows ME, and even Windows NT pre SP2 where unstable nightmares of systems. Wait until they at least get SP1 out, or you'll be seeing more crashes and glitches then 98 on a bad defrag.

Quote: "Sometimes I seriously wonder about the intelligence of users who prefer to believe what they read on Register, over what the actual APIs denote."




I lay upon my bed one bright clear night, and gazed upon the distant stars far above, then I thought... where the hell is my roof?

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2019-07-20 01:51:55
Your offset time is: 2019-07-20 01:51:55