1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

NVIDIA CUDA PhysX Engine Almost Complete

Discussion in 'News' started by malware, Apr 15, 2008.

  1. malware New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,476 (1.55/day)
    Thanks Received:
    956
    Location:
    Bulgaria
    Although NVIDIA bought AGEIA Technologies only two months ago (on February 13, 2008), the GeForce creator informed recently that the conversion of AGEIA's PhysX API engine to CUDA programming language that interfaces with the GPUs is almost complete. Upong completeion of CUDA, owners of GeForce 8 and 9 series graphics cards will be able to play PhysX-enabled games without the need of an additional AGEIA PhysX PCI card. The big question here is, how much will this PhysX addition worse the frame rate in games. Well for now we only know that NVIDIA showed off a particle demo at its recent analysts day that was apparently similar to Intel’s Nehalem physics demo from IDF 2008. For the record, the Nehalem demo managed 50,000 - 60,000 particles at 15-20 fps (without a GPU), while NVIDIA’s demo on a GeForce 9800 card achieved the same level of particles at an amazing 300 fps, quite a boost. NVIDIA's next-gen parts (G100: GT100/200) in theory can double this score to top 600 fps. Manju Hegde, co-founder and former CEO of AGEIA added that in-game physics will be the "second biggest thing" in 2008.

    Source: TG Daily
  2. mab1376

    mab1376

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    Messages:
    946 (0.33/day)
    Thanks Received:
    46
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
    my next video card will be a GT200 based card
  3. Weer New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,417 (0.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    94
    Location:
    New York / Israel
    Suuure it will. And mine an R700 based. :cool:
  4. jbunch07

    jbunch07 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2008
    Messages:
    5,261 (2.25/day)
    Thanks Received:
    614
    Location:
    Chattanooga,TN
    like wise

    i hope Ati is making note of this!
  5. alexp999

    alexp999 Staff

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2007
    Messages:
    8,045 (3.16/day)
    Thanks Received:
    862
    Location:
    Dorset, UK
    :roll: I know its a typo but Upong just sounds so funny! :roll:

    Anyway, on a more serious note :p

    I thought AGEIA ran on computers without an Ageia PCI card anyway??
    And I'm sure we will all have something similar be it through CPU or GPU, once game developers start needing something more than a quad core to do their physics calculations...
  6. Thompson5439

    Thompson5439 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2008
    Messages:
    10 (0.00/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1
    Location:
    up sate New York
    So my questions is what about those of us (fools) who own a physic card. Are our cards obsolete or will they work with CUDA.
  7. choppy

    choppy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2007
    Messages:
    1,173 (0.46/day)
    Thanks Received:
    150
    Location:
    UK
    LOL!! boy do i feel sorry for you guys who forked out on such items...and those that bought into hd-dvd too :p
  8. DanTheBanjoman Señor Moderator

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    Messages:
    10,553 (2.85/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,383
    So, considering this news item is about Cuda and has nothing to do with ATI, care to give us your insight in why we should go for ATI instead?
  9. Necrofire

    Necrofire New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2007
    Messages:
    586 (0.24/day)
    Thanks Received:
    45
    AGEIA runs in software mode when used without the card. I remember playing one of the demo games, and it ran fine until I saw a large cloth object, after which I couldn't play anymore do to slowdown. A gpu would be much more efficient at handling the software. I can't wait to get it and try and find the differences in UT3.

    Software mode uses cpu cycles, and isn't as powerful as using the dedicated card.
  10. lemonadesoda

    lemonadesoda

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    6,242 (2.17/day)
    Thanks Received:
    963
    If PhysX + GPU = slowdown due to extra rendering, then:

    PhsyX card replaced by PhysX on GPU + GPU = one less processor designed for this kind of stuff = even bigger slowdown.

    eek. I dont like that.

    So go SLI/crossfire? Well guess what, a second GPU is more expensive than a physx card. And it should be too... all that extra hardware for driving a VDU out, large RAM requirements for texture and frame buffers, etc. No need for that on a plain FPU/PhysX solution.

    I'll be interested to see the benchmarks on this. At this point I'm not convinced. Better for nvidia to have designed a chipset/mainboard with an open socket that would allow a PLCC drop-in with the Physx engine on it, just like the FPU's (387, 487) of yesteryear. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_leaded_chip_carrier
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_80387

    I'll probably get one of these :D FTW :D = the power of PhysX acceleration ;)
  11. Necrofire

    Necrofire New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2007
    Messages:
    586 (0.24/day)
    Thanks Received:
    45
    But then whatever game you're playing will, hopefully, see the CUDA Ageia as a real card, and then those with a card that can handle UT3 at 1600 x 1200 with everything up can take a small frame drop and not have to purchase a completely seperate card with limited use just to see the goodies in UT3 or whatever other game.
  12. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,664 (6.23/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5,837
    My question is, do I have to use the same card for the physx as I do for the graphics rendering? Or can I have an 8800GTS 512MB running the graphics and put an 8600GT or even 8500GT in there to run the physx?
    Crunching for Team TPU
  13. mab1376

    mab1376

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    Messages:
    946 (0.33/day)
    Thanks Received:
    46
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
    i don't think they are ever gonna do that, i'm pretty sure a second shader unit will be for physics calculations along with the gpu or a second gpu on the same card.
  14. Solaris17

    Solaris17 Creator Solaris Utility DVD

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Messages:
    17,065 (5.25/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,501
    Location:
    Florida
    i still cant wait to get my physx card i just think it will be cool to have but i cant wait till cuda is out so i can use my 9600 too!!! obviously i wont be able to use them at the same time but doing a performance comparison would be cool....hmmm i wonder if cuda is beta..


    damn just checked it seems you can get the cuida drivers/sdk for XP but no vista i cant wait
  15. mab1376

    mab1376

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    Messages:
    946 (0.33/day)
    Thanks Received:
    46
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
    seems the physics card is way less powerful compared to the estimated 600fps from a gt200 card.
  16. Morgoth

    Morgoth

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2007
    Messages:
    3,795 (1.50/day)
    Thanks Received:
    250
    Location:
    Netherlands
  17. eidairaman1

    eidairaman1

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2007
    Messages:
    11,941 (4.65/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,335
    be surprised if its using Geometry Instancing (every particle being the same)
  18. Solaris17

    Solaris17 Creator Solaris Utility DVD

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Messages:
    17,065 (5.25/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,501
    Location:
    Florida
    isnt the reason to use physics is that it makes the game more real? saying their is no point in physx is like saying theirs no point in making the graphics better. We want better graphics to have a better "feelable" visual experiance....physx is the exact same..sure physx vrings the fps down but doesnt improving the graphics do the same thing? saying physx is useless is also saying better graphics are its like why have better graphics or physx if we have a good storyline? wait nvm lets not even have that most ppl beyond the age of 35 think video games are mindless time traps so lets scratch it all physx graphics and story line if we want the kids to rot away on somthing mindless lets make pong 23 the next big hit

    riddle me this.
  19. Morgoth

    Morgoth

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2007
    Messages:
    3,795 (1.50/day)
    Thanks Received:
    250
    Location:
    Netherlands
    yea why use PysisX when we have Havoc?
  20. Solaris17

    Solaris17 Creator Solaris Utility DVD

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Messages:
    17,065 (5.25/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,501
    Location:
    Florida
    to off load from the cpu?....because ppl who arent rich boys cant afford a Nehalem or any other 4-8 core rig that can do it for us
  21. imperialreign

    imperialreign New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    7,043 (2.76/day)
    Thanks Received:
    909
    Location:
    Sector ZZ₉ Plural Z Alpha
    TBH - I really hope ATI stays out of this right now. Physics is a great idea and all - and we're seeing growing engines in games and more enhanced realism every year . . .

    but, with nVidia spearheading their own project, and backed with their TWIMTBP campaign, ATI would get their ass handed to them currently in the physics arena.



    Although, I think ATI GPUs are much better suited for physics processing than nVidia's are. ATI has even demonstrated in the past a dominance when they were showcasing their 2+1 and 1+1 Crossfire GPU/PPU implimentations. I still think they would demonstrate that same dominance today - except, nVidia now has their own physics engine, and can rally support for it quicker in games through their campaign than ATI could. Unless we see both manufacturer's designing around a 3rd party physics engine (i.e. Havok), competition will be severelly one-sided.

    And on top of that - further development of physics in game like this is still iffy. Sure, having a GPU manufacturer like nVidia supporting and pushing game devs to further implimentation is great for the whole - what if there are major game devs who refuse to fall prey to nVidia and instead go with someone elses engine?



    If ATI does jump aboard this market upon wind of this from the nVidia camp - it wouldn't surprise me to see ATI partner with Intel and their physics engine.
  22. mab1376

    mab1376

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    Messages:
    946 (0.33/day)
    Thanks Received:
    46
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
    for the next set of games coming out people would need a skulltrail system to keep their framerates up with advanced physics without a PPU, whether it be a propritariey PPU or a GPU acting as one. personally i would like to use a tri-sli motherboard for SLI and a physics dedicated GPU like and 8600GT or something.
  23. imperialreign

    imperialreign New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    7,043 (2.76/day)
    Thanks Received:
    909
    Location:
    Sector ZZ₉ Plural Z Alpha
    exactly - which is why I'm hoping that ATI will stay out of it; unless they decide to partner with Intel so they can impliment physics capability in with their GPUs. Still a possibility, considering ATI and Intel are major competitors of nVidia. We'll just have to see how this will unfold. ATI has proven themselves capable of excelling with physics processing (IIRC, even besting Aegia's PPUs when they were indepedent), so they can hang in there - just without a campaign to push their technology (if they were to go into physics processing), they'll get raped by nVidia in the market.


    It could also go over like it did last time and just dead end all together.
  24. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,324 (8.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,777
    nVidia is keeping the Aegia physics API open. ATI is free to use it on their cards as well.
    BumbRush says thanks.
  25. [I.R.A]_FBi

    [I.R.A]_FBi New Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    7,664 (2.93/day)
    Thanks Received:
    540
    Location:
    c:\programs\kitteh.exe
    wh00tles!

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page