Tuesday, July 24th 2007
Ageia's Answer To John Carmack
John Carmack's statement last week that he is "not a believer in dedicated PPUs" and that "multiple CPU cores will be much more useful in general" was the reason for Ageia's Dan Forster answer in a recent Bit-tech article. Forster was quoted saying:
Source:
Bit-Tech
When it comes to the CPU side, dual-core, quad-core, whatever then the main problem is threading. How are you ever going to thread the two things together? It's all about timing, when the physic effect hits then how is the second core going to time it and cooperate? At the moment, there's not a single game that supports multi-threading even at a basic level. I reckon we're years out with that and it's already been about for two years. The games that are being developed now only use it a bit, for A.I. and so on where they don't need extreme threading.
36 Comments on Ageia's Answer To John Carmack
It is clear that Carmack is out of touch with true game realism. Ageia is the bridge to truly make games "spine tingling". Check out the demo videos at www.ageia.com. Game developers have enough challenges without thinking we all have supercomputers. PhysX makes all the old outdated P3 & P4 machines capable of great realism - Carmack needs to "GET REAL". The majority gaming population is not running the latest Core 2 Duo whatever!!
Regards,
jtleon
the average computer user spends less on a graphics card than a physx costs, hell you could get 2 hd2600's in crossfire for less than these things
So, the manufacturer(s) need to either improve their marketing, or improve the product or lower the price or a combination of all. I fear time has perhaps already run out for them because without any improvements as I have just mentioned, those that have not already bought one probably won't and with the early evlovement (albeit slow at present)of the 3rd graphics (or perhaps even 2nd in a non SLi syatem) aimed at taking over some physics functions mefinks if Ageia dont do something soon their product will be firmly placed in history's "Hall of little fame".
Edit: Just had a thought......I am assuming that Ageia Physics cards support/will support/are supported in DX10?
Regards,
jtleon
P.S. Lets try to add value to this commentary - rather than smoke and mirrors!!!
www.scan.co.uk/Products/ProductInfo.asp?WebProductID=619501 (x2)
errm right??
just found them here cheaper, but with good reason too, the things a red herring
Hands up how many PC gamers have a dedicated PPU in their rig.....what! No hands!
A new motherboard, ram, processor, etc. is required to install those 2 HD2600's, which is a tiny bit more $$$$ than 150....
But that same P4 with AGP will run the PhysX PCI card with NO PROBLEMS!
And by the way, there are plenty of AGP single video cards that can handle the load.
Regards,
jtleon
Check out Ageia website - pay attention to the fluid flows - flame throwers - particle counts - I don't think you are paying attention. In real life, if you shoot a glass window, you don't just get 3 broken pieces flying through the air - Hell if its a car side window - you get thousands of glass pieces.
Regards,
jtleon
Regards,
jtleon
You support Ageia. Do you own one of the cards? How many games do you own that use the Physx engine?
I have seen the vids. on Ageia's site. They look good, no question there. But in reality, there really is no amount of games to justify the $150 for a card.
It's been 2 years and they have like 2 decent games for Physx. If that doesn't change, then you would have to agree that they are dead in the water.
I don't think ATi and nVidia will sit idlely by on the side lines and let Ageia take a monopoly on the Physx effects. Ageia had a big hype, but they need(ed) more then they offer now to convince me. A cpu or gpu is outdated in 2 years. It's been 2 years for Ageia and no improvements or upgrades. It is clearly in a rut.
Those lame effects you refer to actually have far more effects than a physics card, start thinking SM3 and SM4.....high dynamic range, now in SM4 particle effects as well, the physics card adds about 30% to the realism....the GPU is putting the other 70% although I understand what you are saying about the speed only increase but the GPU dont need the physics card, the physics card needs the GPU! Have you not heard about the proposed upcoming support for a 2nd (in a non SLi) and 3rd (in SLi) technology for adding both FPS and physics effects? Something that current Physics cards cannot do (the extra FPS that is).
I hear what you are saying about older AGP systems but IMO the extra money would be better spent on updating the system rather than buying a physics card, at the end of the day the faster updated system will bring more gaming benefits than a physics card, it seems a little pointless to me in having a graphics card that is struggling to display any AA/AF/HDR at decent resolutions in modewrn shader intensive games by giving it a Physics card to work with which more than often slightly slows it's performance, just my thoughts.
Edit: If it is that good why has it not sold better?
Do YOU have 1? If so post some screen shots while it is in use and describe to us the advantages it gives you while you play.. I followed these things from the start and was seriously thinking of buying 1 BUT the overall performance and graphical boost just is NOT worth the extra $.. I AM an AGP user and will be for quite a while yet but still I see no need for this when you can just buy a better video card and turn the eye candy up.. BTW with the advancement of games today I can't see how you could call the effects lame hell just play FEAR for a while and turn the ingame physics on, even with my outdated rig it looks great and when I shoot a wall or whatever I see chunks flying in all directions.. Is a dedicated PPU going to make it look all that much better? I don't think so, will it make my machine run that much better to make it worth the cost? again I don't think so not for the extra cost..
Think about it for a minute while your playing a game like GRAW which would you rather be doing killing the bastards shooting at you or looking at a million chunks of flying glass while your laying dead on the ground?
The theory behind a dedicated PPU is great and to some maybe even appealing but to someone like me who is an avid gamer but on a tight budget (the reason for my outdated rig) it makes ALOT more sense to buy a better graphics card and turn the ingame eyecandy up than it does to spend $150 on a physics card and live with poor video quality..
Just my 2 cents from a guy that WAS a supporter of this card.. If they cut the price again in half and more games support it then maybe it would be worth it but at this time its just wasted money and wattage that could go towards better graphics..
Now....it looks like this debate is finally heating up.
I can name two games that rock with PhysX - GRAW and GRAW 2 (PC versions)
I've played these games twice over and they still raise the hair on my neck! That alone is worth the piddly $150.00 - Hell the games themselves are $50 when they came out!
If you cannot pony up the new price, buy a used one on EBAY.
Both of these titles put FEAR to shame. There is no max graphic setting that matches the realism that the PhysX card adds to the game.
The reason the price is so high now is simple - NO COMPETITION!!! Ageia doesn't have to "win" your allegiance, because you can't go anywhere else.
Casper, there are plenty of sites comparing with and without PhysX - just do a search.
With my current AGP card, all eye candy is maxed, and I will never go back to no PhysX - it is too bland and disappointing. I'm sure you will have the same reaction - once you invest!
If Ageia was not selling their product - they would no longer exist - lets again face the facts.
Why spend 20-40 hours of your life playing a game without all the realism and detail possible - are you not worth the experience? We waste money on so many things in our lives - what is the big deal about $150.00???
Where as more effects as previously mentioned actually makes the world seem more real. This will add more realisim, but only when the extra processing power is there. The last thing to mention is that a multi-core system is better for physics processing as the latentcy for a PCI based device murderously slow compared to the latentcy for a PCI-Express to CPU transfer. Plus there is alot of unharnessed power right there. My X2 3800+ with Test Drive Unlimited uses 60-70% of the CPU time, all settings maxed. So you could add more debris with better physics and still have a bit left over.
Or wait for the DX10 implementation of ATIs physics.
Even at £50 it's far too expensive for the vast majority of people to even bother, nevermind the £100+ they currently sell for!