Ageia PhysX card makes explosions look pretty
by Conrad Quilty-Harper 
{ Mar 25th 2006 at 2:00PM }
In the video without the PhysX card the screen doesn't shake and a nearby soldier is unaffected by the blast. In the video with the PhysX card the screen shakes relatively violently and the soldier dies (although he's slightly closer to the blast). Of course its possible that the second video could have been tweaked to further differentiate the two machines' explosions, but if simple effects like a screen shake requires $250-300 worth of hardware it's not hard to envision a lot of pissed off gamers.
[Update: fixed grammar error (moved over an apostrophe, added an "s")]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
boots @ Mar 25th 2006 2:21PM
lol
First just a CPU, then a GPU, and now you need a PPU... what's next, an AIPU?
The IT Monkey @ Mar 25th 2006 2:23PM
If the company expects me to shell out $300 for this item they better get on the ball and give us some REAL data. To me this smells of "tweaking". I want TRUE side by side comparisons. I want the scenes to be identical, the video cards to be set to the same exact settings and I want to trust that they didn't do anything "postproduction" wise to make their case look more atractive.
Just my 23.5 cents.
blankoboy @ Mar 25th 2006 2:24PM
So for multiplayer games, what happens when your opponent /teammate does not have a PhysX card? Does he simply not see the eye candy physics you do? Is that all it becomes is eye candy or is there an actual effect on the gameplay?
If there is an actual effect on the gameplay would it then not be possible for PhysX card owners to play against non-PhysX card owners?
Either way, I'm going to wait a good long while before picking up a physics hardware accelator. I believe it will all be migrated to the GPU eventually. We can only hope that Nvidia and ATI follow a common standard and not split the market! ..ugh.
mike @ Mar 25th 2006 2:28PM
watch the video everyone the non phsx vid pales in comparason to the xbox 360 version of this game, the explosions look excellent on the 360 version not work the cost of another for a few extra flying barrels
boots @ Mar 25th 2006 2:33PM
Maybe some hardware companies will compete making their PPUs, and other companies will do the same with AIPUs. Eventually they will be deluged by ATI and nVidia, selling their "extreme gaming packages" more expensive than just the actual GPU. They'll make their way through consoles eventually.
Wouldn't a multi-core multi-purpose (not general purpose) CPU alleviate this?
vectorelement @ Mar 25th 2006 2:33PM
Just as a word of warning, you might want to turn your volume down to 20% before you click on either video. The webpage fails to warn you that the sound is LOUD!
Stu L Tissimus @ Mar 25th 2006 2:41PM
Note, of course, that the PPU will never gain market acceptance. Especially since nVidia and ATi are finally putting their Shader Model 3.0 capabilities to good use. nVidia showed off some tech the other day where they can use a video card by itself or a secondary video card in SLi to process physics.
Sagan @ Mar 25th 2006 2:46PM
Is it just me or does the framerate drop during the explosion on the PhysX system?
A PPU would have been useful years ago, but now we don't need it anymore because most CPUs will soon be able to do all the calculations.
jon @ Mar 25th 2006 2:58PM
The video on the left the truck doesnt blow up at all its still in tact. The video on the right the truck blows up completly so it looks better. the videos are not equal at all. dont spend over 300 for something that isnt proven yet and will take at least 5 years to become a requirement if it is required at all.
blewis @ Mar 25th 2006 3:00PM
In case no one here reads Digg (which I doubt), ATI has finally fought back against this PhysX crap: http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=1414 . Supposedly their new GPUs can do physics better than NVIDIA with a Havok partnership and Ageia with their "PPU."
Uy Tran @ Mar 25th 2006 3:33PM
Why do we even need a PPU when most games have barely even utilized duo core processors? Realistically, what's going to handle physics better: a PPU or a 2.6Ghz athlon chip? Developers need to get their priorities straight, and this PPU thing isn't helping.
MosquitoControl @ Mar 25th 2006 3:41PM
"Supposedly their new GPUs can do physics better than NVIDIA with a Havok partnership and Ageia with their "PPU.""
Of course they said that! They're not going to announce a new product and say "We do physics, but not as well as they other guys!"
Marketing BS, pure and simple. They simply threw their hat into the ring. They're a long way from a product, as are NVidia, so to say theirs is better (or worse) is asinine.
I don't think Ageia has a chance, unless they go under $100 or get bought out. Graphics cards became must-haves because everyone bought computer magazines and saw transparent water in VQuake or GLQuake. You can't get physics across in a screenshot.
Meanwhile Nvidia and ATI can just throw physics into their products, maybe not as well yet, but make them OEM and build up a consumer base, giving developers huge incentive to support their products, incentive they don't yet have with ageia.
Oh, and some company already announced an AIPU.
MosquitoControl @ Mar 25th 2006 3:43PM
Realistically, what's going to handle physics better: a PPU or a 2.6Ghz athlon chip?
A PPU. It's more geared towards those kinds of operations, as is a GPU, actually.
I mean, by your logic, why bother having a GPU if we can just put the graphics on a second processor?
It's all in the kind of operations the processor is built for.
Steve @ Mar 25th 2006 3:52PM
Am I the only one that has no idea what this thing is? What is PPU? Why do I need it? Isn't that what video cards are for? Where does this thing go? Very confused.
RageOverdose @ Mar 25th 2006 4:47PM
$300 does seem a bit much for a PPU, but it's future applications make it actually seem worthwhile. With the PPU taking most of the physics stuff (object reaction, collision detection, etc.), that means the other to processors don't take as much of it, and may increase performance. Well, at least, that's my theory. I dunno much else.
Oh, Steve. A PPU is a Physics Processing Unit, much like a GPU, which is a Graphics Processing Unit. It does calculations for the physics in the games, and is optimized for it, unlike CPU's or GPU's. Instead of those running the physics calculations, the PPU can take the burden, and possibly perform better.
It's some cool stuff really, but I don't know if I'm willing to shell out $300 yet. Maybe $150 or $200, but not $300.
boots @ Mar 25th 2006 5:08PM
"I mean, by your logic, why bother having a GPU if we can just put the graphics on a second processor?"
What I meant was that why not make a processor with multiple yet different cores. A graphics core, an AI core, a Physics core, an Audio Core, etcetera; you know, each specialized part would do its job. It was something hypothetical, just for the sake of making it cheaper for all of us. A CPU, GPU, AIPU, PPU, SPU, FAPU, etcetera all in one chip solution (Not a general purpose CPU, a multiple-purpose multi-core CPU). This is probably where consoles and gaming rigs will be going towards (disregarding new input methods).
boots @ Mar 25th 2006 5:10PM
Oh, and could you tell me which company is developing the AIPU? Thanks.
thomas_h @ Mar 25th 2006 5:20PM
if i had a desktop pc i i really wouldnt want to shell out 300$ in addition to the gfx card, cpu and all the other crap.. i hope they can make the cpu and gpu handle this themselves.. soon we'll have quad core cpus and probably dual core gpus, they should be strong enough to handle this themselves without the need for an external physics card..
Goobers @ Mar 25th 2006 6:43PM
you guys talking about multiple cores are forgetting one thing... they aren't available to the consumer yet.
how soon would it be until you get dual core GPUs? actually, that's already been done... 3dfx. but that was a bad implementation... so ignoring that, by the time we get a GOOD implementation of a dual core GFX card, it would cost quite a bit, and the PPU would've been out a LONG time... meaning by getting the PPU card, you could get much of that benefit NOW, and on older systems. because you know, by the time the dual cor GPUs come out, so will a new bus interface... meaning it would be best for those doing complete overhauls... and the PPU would still be around for those that don't want to upgrade too many parts. and even then, the PPU would still benefit those that did complete overhauls.
and it holds true for the "multi-core/multi-purpose" CPUs.
this is how i see it... the PPU is a road next to a 2-4 lane highway during rush hour. until they expand the highway to 6-8 lanes or more... and even then, the side road would still be useful, if it's already there. it's a LOT of work and money to expand a highway... multi-core CPUs (beyond dual core) and multi-core GPUs are the same thing.... a LOT of work and money.
the video is flawed. it could be the programming. in the "non-physx" video, the truck never detonates... so of course you won't get the violent shaking and the soldier won't die.
making real use of the PhysX card wouldn't just be a little more fluff (which is what you should really see)... but better AI, and more resources for collision detection, etc.
the premise of the PPU is to lighten the load on the CPU for it to do other things. ignoring the GFX card for a moment, and just assume it has more than enough power to handle any graphics load... the PPU would allow you to have MORE shrapnel, more detailed explosions, ability to move away from "scripted" explosions (ie certain "chain-reactions" aren't always the same each time you play). and of course more objects that can be manipulated. because the CPU would have more processing power to do so.
wiithout the PPU you should still have the shrapnel, but it'll be more of a graphical effect than a physical effect on other objects. in current games, if you "suffer" from an explosion, it's almost ALWAYS only because of concussive (ie. invisible) force... none from the debris coming from the explosion.
and i think this comment about ATI doing better than Ageia is silly... why? because why is a video card, handling physics? it's sole purpose in life is to be a VIDEO card, is it not? if ATI choses to create a "multi-purpose" card as opposed to a video card, fine. however, the physics data must ALL be transmitted BACK to the CPU. because the CPU must handle the effect of all that physics, is so & so player dead/wounded? are ojectives complete/hampered? etc. so then, ATI is in effect INCORPORATING the a PPU... so they're just being competitive with Ageia. i thought the graphics card had a dedicated interface to the CPU (i mean even in PCIe)... wouldn't adding physics to the card mean it has less bandwidth for graphics?
Nathn @ Mar 25th 2006 7:58PM
With $300 -> :D
w/o $300 -> :(
Waste of money. This is a doomed tech. The PC market is dwindling... has been for years. With muticore processors becoming mainstream this is even more obsolete.
tomato @ Mar 25th 2006 8:03PM
I'm sorry, but the effect without the PPU looks so incredibly halfassed. This is a next generation game, and the best they could do without the all powerful PPU was a couple puffs of smoke? Seems like such a waste of a PPU too. The enhanced physics of the PPU don't even affect the gameplay (as stated by the head of GRIN). I'm extremely disappointed with how GRAW for the PC has been turning out graphically although I still have hope for it's tactical gameplay.
epobirs @ Mar 25th 2006 9:00PM
Ageia exists solely for the purpose of being acquired by ATI or Nvidia (there are other possible buyers but those two would get the most immediate value) for their patent portfolio. Ageia's task is to make themselves a better value that reproducing their work independently.
The chip indeed does what they claim and is a marvelous thing but not $300 worth of marvelous. Users understand that eventually the systems will achieve that level of throughput without the dedicated silicon. The solution is to make the Ageia silicon a subsystem of a larger die, such as a high-end GPU. In that approach the cost is greatly reduced since many functions can be shared with those already present. Likewise, it makes more sense to put more RAM on a video card with part of it allocated to physics operations than to have a separate block of RAM dedicated tot he PPU and be useless at times the systems isn't using the PPU functions. Under Mac OS X and Windows Vista the system takes full advantage of video card with large amounts of RAM onboard.
You can always achieve the greatest throughput with optimized implementations of an algorithm in hardware. The trick is to find those algorithms that merit the cost. If the Ageia function set added $50 to a high end video card it would be a no brainer but at $300 for a discrete card it requires a great deal of thought, not to mention wealth, to justify.
epobirs @ Mar 25th 2006 9:23PM
An AIPU isn't entirely unlikely. It's just a matter of identifying algorithms that can be applied to the heavy lifting portions of programs using behavorial simualtions. So far the subject remains too nebulous to nail that down but some researchers have already used FPGAs to accelerate their AI work. That is far too costly for the consumer PC market but it shows how such a product could occur if a particular approach to AI became a standard. Shaders were done in software in apps like Renderman for many years before Nvidia said it was time to do a highly simplified version in consumer hardware. The shader hardware has grown immensely since then but the value was proven in software first.
A similar process leads to SIMD commands like the MMX and SSE functions in x86 CPUs. Intel runs popular apps on their test systems, looking for groups of instructions that are performed with high repetition. An operation that must be performed on a large group of pixels, for instance. When you find that same string of instructions popping up in many popular programs it becomes obvious there is a opportunity to accelerate that operation at little added cost to chip production. Turn the string of instructions into a single instruction and make it easily applied to multiple chunks of date with a single line of code.
Insomnia Bob @ Mar 25th 2006 9:24PM
Weighing in with my two cents...
Although this current generation of PPUs probably won't do a whole hell of a lot for gamers, (what games even support this kind of thing? GRAW, I guess. Any other takers?) I think we can all agree that it might be worth looking into in the future. At least, Sony thinks so. After all, the idea behind the Cell system the PS3 has is to split up the work between (seven?) different processors, the same basic theory behind having a GPU, and now, I suppose, a PPU. From the screens I've seen, and what I've read, it's working out pretty well for PS3.
But, at least, I'd say we have a few years yet before we see an appreciable difference in performance. Mind you, I'm no software engineer, but I just don't see this thing making a difference on a game that isn't already built to have a up-scalable physics model. The most complex option I can recall seeing thus far in a game was "rag-dolls On/Off". So, until the code catches up with this neat tech, I'll reserve judgement. But I sure as hell won't plunk down $300 until I see some solid evidence.
Francesco Simi @ Mar 25th 2006 11:38PM
Came on guys, give this Ageia boys a break.
I' will buy this 300$ card for sure, because I know that supporting physics acceleration is going to make games better and better. Just see what HL2 had done with a very little cpu physics. Just imagine the possibilities... it's not about the graphics explosions, it's about the interactions that developers will came up when the PhysX cards will be spread. Think about it... gaming will never be the same if we give those guys a possibility.
P.S.
And no, I don't want my GPU cycles to be used for physics.. they are better spent for graphics, thanks...
Kwipper @ Mar 26th 2006 10:11AM
I'd rather just wait for Nvidia or ATI to integrate the PPU technology into their existing video cards.... if they haven't already. This in turn would defeat the purpose of needing a seperate PPU card taking up a PCI slot.
MooNKnighT @ Mar 26th 2006 10:20AM
Good discussion, it reminds me of when we still had a seprate 2D and 3D card, most people could not imagine a future where there would be one gpu doing all the grfx or even b4 that when grfx cards like 3dfx came out :)
You know what I mean:Evryone said it would fail (Xerox and the mouse anybody?;) or how about when people said the ipod is to much money for digital audio player.
My opinion:
This piece of tech should've been out two years ago then maybe we wouldn't be having this dicussion.
Epic supports these cards and ageia's sdk and look how many games are going to use Epics engine;sony loves these guys and microsoft ain't to far behind either, xbox360(software accelaration) ps3(software) and the pc(software and hardware) are all getting their springkling of these games using unreal (maybe even nintendo).
Can we for a moment imagine a game where instead of 20-30 inteactive objects on screen we can have 20-30000,how about when you blow up something in the game you go walking around can find every piece of it, the CPU can't handel that by its self and I know these guys are new but it looks to me like they have done their home work and they are lining up with the right people: the game engine builders and game makers.
Let the cpu do the thinking(game AI) the ppu do physx the gpu do grafx.
If these guys came out 2-2.5 years ago I think they might have made there way into atleast one nextgen console wich would have cause a quicker acceptance of the ppu .Havok is just going to be eye candy, very high quality beautiful eye candy that will compliment not copete with ageia. The same way GPU's shouldn't compete with CPU's is the same way GPU shouldn't compete with PPU's.
Back in the day 3D cards were the under dog today its the PPU that most are saying is a passing fad. And I know that hardcore gamers and tech junkies (just like with 3D cards) are going to help sell these cards and the games that support theem.
Well what do I know I was one of the quite few who thought Infinium Labs Phantom would rule their niche market by Q2 2007.And look where they are,makin keyboard and mice LOL
pross @ Mar 26th 2006 12:49PM
The choice is fairly straightforward - some people still love to play Pacman genre games even today and are satisfied. It is easy for them to rationalize what exists is good - they don't like to rock the boat. And then there are those who want to experience realism of the highest kind - real world interactions and fidelity. They like real motion, interaction and realism - what Ageia's PhysX provides. I am there.. I was there at GDC and very impressed. This hasn't happened in the last five years. It takes you to to a different level. That is what you get with Ageia PhysX. The choice for me is what platform. I am still deciding between Alienware (which is now Dell) and Dell 600 - eagerly waiting for GRAW PC.
ringo @ Mar 26th 2006 1:08PM
I agree with the comment from pross. I am not yet buying a new system, wish I could. But will be one of the earliest to buy the Ageia hardware from BFG or other manufacturers when they come in. I know a bunch of gamers that are thinking alike. I too was there at the GDC. NVDIA was making a feeble attempt to convince with a "tweaked Physics demo", asking people to buy their $650 graphics card for doing "Physics?" come on... It will take them at least couple of years to catch up with what Ageia offers. They have their battle cut out with ATI which is kicking their butt with their graphics cards. By that time I expect Ageia to go the next gen solution. I am not falling for the prima donna nvidia nonsense. Go Ageia,go PhysX. Innovation brings more reality.
dazik @ Mar 26th 2006 3:12PM
If anyone wants to see a good demo of what PhysX is capable of, watch the clip from Cell Factor.
http://www.gametrailers.com/gamepage.php?fs=1&id=2510
Nickel @ Apr 17th 2006 3:15AM
Hooray, people that leap before doing any research. A "PPU" is simply designed to process physics. Physics are getting more and more demanding. A few years ago "ragdoll" didn't even exist. This is the same kind of crap that people gave dedicated graphics cards when they were developed. A CPU is not designed for a specific gaming purpose all it does is communicate instructions from other parts of the computer. If it had to do all the processing from everything games would chug along at a steady 1 FPS. Most parts of a computer evolved from need that devoloped as applications got more demanding. An L1 or L2 cache used to be all the RAM a computer had. So, making a dedicated physics chip for gaming is no more stupid than a graphics card. I will agree though 300$ is pricey but hell, supply and demand.
chris @ May 31st 2006 10:00PM
LISTEN,AND LISTEN WELL.Ghost recon 3 is not the best example of the physx's full potential as it is designed to run on pc's without phys-x.thus making it possible to use for a side by side demonstration;however this limits how much phys-x impacts the gameplay(ubisoft wants to keep it fair for gamers without phys-x).Other games such as cell factor are actually designed exclusively for use with phys-x and take full advantage of the different types of physics interactions such as HARD BODY PHYSICS,CLOTH(with REAL TIME TEARING calculation),VOLUMETRIC FLUIDS,LIQUIDS,and SOFT BODY PHYSICS.Such games also allow you to use physics as a weapon,like halflife-2,except were talking about a much larger scale;gathering up hundreds of crates using this gravity defying godpower and hurling the whole load at your opponents or simply throwing a net over them,whatever you feel like doing.The reason you cant do a side by side coparison with a game like cell factor is that a cpu has no additional intruction sets built in for physics which means you would have use a software algorithm and hell by the time you do all that thing will only run at 1 frame every 9 or 10 seconds,for smooth gameplay you need it to run at 30 frames a second so youre not paying $300 for pretty explosions in ghost recon3,youre paying for an uncanny level of physical realism in other titles that actually put the phys-x hardware to good use.
chris @ May 31st 2006 10:08PM
blankoboy also raised a good question asking if its possible for phys-x owners to play against non phys-x owners in such games where phys-x would impact actual gameplay,no its not,you would HAVE to seperate the two for multiplayer,the only way i could think of is if the the server was fitted with a phys-x card that handled the calculation for the whole server but this would more thatn cause conflicts with people that do have phys-x and i do think one hys-x card would be enough to cary the load for an entire server full of players.
chris @ May 31st 2006 10:21PM
I know this i smy third comment but most of the people who say phys-x is bs dont even seem to know the difference physics and graphics(how stupid can one be)or general game mechanics,and therefore dont appreciate it.So i beleive these people can be safely ignored,and as far as nvidia saying you can use a second gpu to calculate physics is pretty stupid.most highend gpu's are over 300 bucks anyway and if im gonna get a second graphics card by god im using the damn thing for graphics.besides i think it would be unstable anyway as graphics cards are normally designed via physical hardware for graphics and are therefore simply not made for physics calcutions.PLEASE BEFORE YOU POST ANY ADDITIONAl COMMENTS AGAINST PHYS-X.DO SOME RESEARCH!
chris @ May 31st 2006 10:46PM
oh god i need to stop making posts,last one i swear,but having a ppu lightening the cpus load would indirectly make it possible for much more advanced ai.so with that i dont think theyle ever make a aipu cause then the cpu would be reduced to a little weak chip that serves as a hub exchanging data between all the other components,but hell that may actually be the future of gaming pc's,not likely but its a thought.