Thursday, February 14th 2008

All GeForce 8 Cards to Gain PhysX Engine Support Says NVIDIA

Video card giant NVIDIA, which completed the acquisition of AGEIA Technologies the day before, is now starting to port AGEIA's PhysX engine software to run on its GeForce 8 cards, according to The Tech Report. During a financial call, NVIDIA CEO Jen-Hseun Huang revealed that the ported engine will bring enhanced physics capabilities to all of the company's existing GeForce 8 cards.
We're working toward the physics-engine-to-CUDA port as we speak. And we intend to throw a lot of resources at it. You know, I wouldn't be surprised if it helps our GPU sales even in advance of [the port's completion]. The reason is, [it's] just gonna be a software download. Every single GPU that is CUDA-enabled will be able to run the physics engine when it comes... Every one of our GeForce 8-series GPUs runs CUDA.
Huang also added that the integration shall encourage people to spend more on graphics processing hardware, and maybe start to buy two or three graphics cards, where one of them will work for physics only.Source: The Tech Report
Add your own comment

64 Comments on All GeForce 8 Cards to Gain PhysX Engine Support Says NVIDIA

#1
Bundy
I'm waiting in anticipation because I am CPU limited. All I need is a Phys-x game now...

This point leads to another question - would this improve my 3Dmark06 score? Maybe all the Nividia cards will get better scores, besides people with high performing CPU's?
Posted on Reply
#2
Mussels
Moderprator
A lot of people are screwing this up.

The way this works with a single card, is some GPU and ram power is taken for use for Physx calcuations.

In SLI or tri SLI, you can dedicated one card to JUST physx.

This wont help 3dmark or any benchies at all, unless they support physx.
Posted on Reply
#3
bud951
Scrizz said:
lol free pci slot, not
you'll just be taking up another pcie slot and the slot adjacent to it, lol :laugh:
:shadedshu
yeah, I guess there will need to be space for the 2 slot cooling solutions.:mad:
Posted on Reply
#4
ChillyMyst
effmaster said:
I think I see what your on about EascoastHandle.

Im concerned as well how NVIDIA is going to change the AgeiA PhySX from a hardware unit to a software unit and what kind of repercussions that that could provide us. Personally I believe that if this does become just a piece of software that it may just end up being a rival to HAVOC physics
u dont get it, this is just converting the current PhySX instructions so they run thru the gf8 seirse of gpu's insted of on a detocated card, i saw this coming, now if nvidia where more like amd is we would probbly see this become avalable for other hardware vendors to support, such as intel and ati, giving nvidia the advantege since they are the ones who made it and leaving any other companys to play catchup, but meh, we will see a solution for this from AMDTI eventuly im sure.

see any x1k card or newer can be used as a PPU given the games engine is writen to support it, but because Havoc stoped dev on GPU Phsyix we are stuck without any wide range support for gpu as a ppu currently.

the only thing i can say is nvidia better offer pci-e 1x videocards cheap that can be used as a ppu, and if they are smart they will allow them to work along side amd/ati and intel videocards running as a pure ppu.
Posted on Reply
#5
Mussels
Moderprator
ChillyMyst said:

the only thing i can say is nvidia better offer pci-e 1x videocards cheap that can be used as a ppu, and if they are smart they will allow them to work along side amd/ati and intel videocards running as a pure ppu.
I like this idea. Essentially its purely a PPU card, but with a DVI port as well :P
Posted on Reply
#6
ChillyMyst
well when not being used for gaming it could be used for a 2nd display or 2 i guess,
Posted on Reply
#7
xfire
Why arent the 9x series being supported?
I guess people who have a 8x card with extra x16 slot who might buy the 9x card will keep this in the second slot and use it as PPU.
Posted on Reply
#8
ChillyMyst
xfire said:
Why arent the 9x series being supported?
I guess people who have a 8x card with extra x16 slot who might buy the 9x card will keep this in the second slot and use it as PPU.
*shakes head* :banghead::banghead::banghead:

any card gf8 and up will be supported learn to read/think/comprehind.

older chips didnt support their programability system needed to run as a ppu, its also why u couldnt run folding at home on them, they just didnt have the shader power to do the job.
Posted on Reply
#9
bud951
xfire said:
Why arent the 9x series being supported?
I guess people who have a 8x card with extra x16 slot who might buy the 9x card will keep this in the second slot and use it as PPU.
Dumb Ass
Posted on Reply
#10
ChillyMyst
exectly my thoughts bud951, this is the kinda person i deal with as a tech......
Posted on Reply
#11
Mussels
Moderprator
sigh. not another bashing of a failed mind...

people do come on here tired/drunk/etc.
Posted on Reply
#12
xfire
ChillyMyst said:
*shakes head* :banghead::banghead::banghead:

any card gf8 and up will be supported learn to read/think/comprehind.

older chips didnt support their programability system needed to run as a ppu, its also why u couldnt run folding at home on them, they just didnt have the shader power to do the job.
Since the 9x cards are close to release date don't you think they would have mentioned that.
If they really wanted to they could have made it a speciallity of the 9x series, so that people would consider upgrading to 9x series but instead they mentioned only about 8x series. Besides in the computing world one doesn't simply assume stuff like that.
Posted on Reply
#13
Mussels
Moderprator
anything that supports CUDA supports Physx. 9x00 series support Cuda. hell, some of them are still G92.

Its 8 series AND UP that supports this.
Posted on Reply
#14
ChillyMyst
xfire "you fail it" is all i have to say.....
Posted on Reply
#15
xfire
ChillyMyst said:
xfire "you fail it" is all i have to say.....
I dont think so. I'm here to learn stuff which I just did:toast:
Posted on Reply
#16
warhammer
Do we know when the DX11 cards are comingn ;-)
Posted on Reply
#17
bud951
xfire said:
I dont think so. I'm here to learn stuff which I just did:toast:
Its cool man.. sorry to call you a dumb ass. We all need to learn but that was a pretty dumb question though. Hey, this is a group and we need to help each other out. Where would we be otherwise? :toast:
Posted on Reply
#18
bud951
ChillyMyst said:
exectly my thoughts bud951, this is the kinda person i deal with as a tech......
Man.. you have my sympathy. I couldnt emagine being a tech. I did learn just about all I know about computers in the first year from Dell tech support back in '97. You tech guys really open the doors for newbs.
Posted on Reply
#19
xfire
No problem but next time don't just use slang, explain yourself.:toast:
Posted on Reply
#20
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
EastCoasthandle said:
I thought it was common knowledge that a 8500GT was more then $50? You may find a sale or 2 but that's the exception not the rule. Since this is software based, I really don't see it being faster then what the the PPU offered unless it really sucked to begin with. Cuda wont do any performance gain. It will allow more visual effects but the performance "hit" (If any) has yet to be seen.
Yep, because the 8500GT is the lowest end 8 series card there...oh wait...there are all those 8400 series cards aren't there...oh and of course there are $50 8500GTs. Do a little research before posting crap next time(a quick google product search isn't research).

I don't see why you seem to want to keep bringing up that the added physics lowers performance. It doesn't, it lowers framerate. It drastically improves physics performance, and the lowered framerate is because the extra physics objects need to be drawn by the GPU. More things to draw=lower framerate. To call it a performance hit you would have to show me that the same physics being calculated without the dedicated physics processor(be it PPU or GPU) was higher than with a dedicated physics processor.

What you are saying is the equivalant of saying 3Dmark06 run at 1900x1200 4AA 8AF shows a performance hit over 3Dmark06 run at 1024x768 no AA or AF. No, it doesn't show a performance hit, it shows the same performance, just applied to different areas.
Posted on Reply
#21
Mussels
Moderprator
warhammer said:
Do we know when the DX11 cards are comingn ;-)
since not even one program uses 10.1, i'd say at least a year.
Posted on Reply
#22
Morgoth
bundyrum&coke said:
I'm waiting in anticipation because I am CPU limited. All I need is a Phys-x game now...

This point leads to another question - would this improve my 3Dmark06 score? Maybe all the Nividia cards will get better scores, besides people with high performing CPU's?
no 3dmark06 is Software based pysicx not hardware and it uses havoc
CPU calulating the pysics
as for havoc pysics games CPU calulates the pysics and gpu draws it on screen
Posted on Reply
#24
ChillyMyst
surfsk8snow.jah said:
I sooo called this;

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpost.php?p=541130&postcount=6
really i been saying since this whole utterly useless "war" between ati and nvidia for gpu based phsyics started is that whats really needed is a unified phsyics standred, something like d3d and ogl where u can make your program call for what it needs then the drivers translates that to something the hardware can understand/deal with.

this at least going by past acctions of nvidia will endup with phsyx games runnin on their cards, intel will eventuly get cards out that run havoc gpu based phsyics, and amd/ati will endup with their own version.........yet another glide type mess........( i hate glide!!!!)
Posted on Reply
#25
AsRock
TPU addict
newtekie1 said:
Hopefully this means that you can stick a lower end video card in the machine and have that do physics. I don't see why an 8500GT or 8600GT couldn't be used to do physics.
More like you will need a better comp to deal with the extra..
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment