DH Review: Ageia PhysX Card

Zardon · Feb 6, 2008, 11:09 PM

Read The Review Here
__________________

If you take a look at the upcoming Force Unleashed trailers you will see that things are moving forward at blazing speeds and as a result only the fastest CPUs can be sure of handling the increased load.

The graphics industry faced a similar situation back in the days of 3dfx, when something had to be done to offload some of the work from the CPU and allow games to develop. Back then 3D acceleration was introduced and right now AGEIA is trying to do the same for the world of physics.
With Nvidia having just purchased Ageia we decided to take a look at their PhysX.

niceguyrichy · Feb 6, 2008, 11:29 PM

nice , thorough review Peter

I'm still not convinced by these things though (to say the least..)
even though I don't game too much, when I do, it's all about gameplay for me, with eye candy as a possible bonus. I'd suggest that with the huge popularity of the Wii, I'm not the only one.
personally I'd much rather spend 70£ extra on a cpu or mem.

BlueMak · Feb 7, 2008, 12:00 AM

While I don't have the card, I agree with the review 100%. There is simply not a good enough reason to get the card yet. I am very eager to see what Nvidia will do with them. With the access to developers that Nvidia has, if they plan on adding the physics hardware on a future generation of graphics cards, we might see many new games fully supporting "it".

Zardon · Feb 7, 2008, 12:01 AM

ET3D · Feb 7, 2008, 01:33 PM

I agree that it doesn't look like there's a convincing reason to buy this card.

Still, I'd be interested to know how it functions with slower CPUs. For someone like me, with an Athlon X2 3800+ and a system that'd need a full CPU/MB/RAM replacement to upgrade, does the PhysX card increase playability of any of its supported titles significantly?

(My guess is not, and it might not be worthwhile even if it did, but I'm still curious.)

WhO_KnOwS · Feb 7, 2008, 02:13 PM

I'd have to say you probably wouldn't notice much of a difference. The few games that support the PhysX chip would perhaps gain a fps or two, but thats about it.
Let's face it, right now not a single game out there does any major physics calculations. In the future things might be different, but right now the only games that actually put a strain on the CPU due to the physics are mostly tech demos (or in the case of UT3 AGEIA sponsored maps).

**Mousey** · Feb 7, 2008, 02:27 PM

I suppose since the introduction of physics processing on the GPU these PhysX cards lost what very little appeal they had in the first place.
And yeah as Who_Knows says, there's very little games that support MAJOR physics calculations like this card is supposed to process. I would've thought a game like Crysis would benefit from a PhysX card though?

WhO_KnOwS · Feb 7, 2008, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mousey

I would've thought a game like Crysis would benefit from a PhysX card though?

Crysis only does really CPU straining calculations on custom maps with thousands of objects interacting. In the singleplayer campaign the worst you come across is a hut collapsing, and even then we are talking about 20, maybe 30 uniform objects colliding. Hardly difficult.

mkk · Feb 7, 2008, 04:26 PM

Games in general still need much better physics programming rather than more raw calculating power. This is similar to the AI situation with the notable difference that physics code is much easier to apply onto different games. Now Ageia like for instance Havok that Intel bought surely has good physics code to offer to the game designers, but their tying it to a specific type of hardware was a tough bet and that didn't really work out too well. I assume that Nvidia didn't have to pay too much and can make good by incorporating what that they acquired into their own technology for products a bit into the future. Anyone considering a PhysX card should wait a bit for signs that Nvidia keeps supporting the existing products, which seems doubtful when looking into the past.

Al_Vampyre · Feb 7, 2008, 10:56 PM

Very interesting read guys (and Dugg for good measure) It's interesting that they have gone down the route of increasing complexity rather than just offloading effects from the CPU. Surely it would make more sense to keep the games as they are and offload the physics effects to the Physx card rather than increase the number of effects in the game.

I'm also wondering how many current games are actually CPU bound enough to make this necessary especially as we move towards dual and quad cores being the norm rather than the exception.

Judas · Feb 8, 2008, 09:57 PM

This is where PowerVR needs to jump back in the game ASAP.... They would wipe the floor again...

Due to the complexity of the way ati and nvidia do thier Z caculations and whatnot, and how games with high physics caculations and properties.... they aren't able to consider something static and ignore what's behind it... this is where powervr has it's moment, is that due to the design of the hardware, they could easily eliminate any need for having to worry about this kind of issue. Performance would be significantly more across the board.

i REALLY wish powervr would come up with something really soon.

Feb 6, 2008, 11:09 PM	#1
Zardon DriverHeaven Founder Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 32,480 Rep Power: 177	DH Review: Ageia PhysX Card Read The Review Here __________________ If you take a look at the upcoming Force Unleashed trailers you will see that things are moving forward at blazing speeds and as a result only the fastest CPUs can be sure of handling the increased load. The graphics industry faced a similar situation back in the days of 3dfx, when something had to be done to offload some of the work from the CPU and allow games to develop. Back then 3D acceleration was introduced and right now AGEIA is trying to do the same for the world of physics. With Nvidia having just purchased Ageia we decided to take a look at their PhysX.

Feb 7, 2008, 12:00 AM	#3
BlueMak HH's Asteroids' Dominator Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Hellas->Macedonia->Thessaloniki Posts: 13,247 Rep Power: 326 System Specs	While I don't have the card, I agree with the review 100%. There is simply not a good enough reason to get the card yet. I am very eager to see what Nvidia will do with them. With the access to developers that Nvidia has, if they plan on adding the physics hardware on a future generation of graphics cards, we might see many new games fully supporting "it". __________________ The people who are regarded as moral luminaries are those who forego ordinary pleasures themselves and find compensation in interfering with the pleasures of others(Bertrand Russell)"You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil,You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them." - Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis This is slavery, not to speak one's thought. [Euripides-The Phoenician Women (c.411-409 B.C.)] http://www.macedonia.info/FALLACIESANDFACTS.htm *Sic semper tyrannis.*

Feb 7, 2008, 12:01 AM	Thread Starter #4
Zardon DriverHeaven Founder Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 32,480 Rep Power: 177	Digg link

Feb 7, 2008, 02:13 PM	#6
WhO_KnOwS The Knows Mister Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Slovenia, Europe Posts: 409 Rep Power: 55	I'd have to say you probably wouldn't notice much of a difference. The few games that support the PhysX chip would perhaps gain a fps or two, but thats about it. Let's face it, right now not a single game out there does any major physics calculations. In the future things might be different, but right now the only games that actually put a strain on the CPU due to the physics are mostly tech demos (or in the case of UT3 AGEIA sponsored maps). __________________ How you can help DriverHeaven by using Digg!

Feb 7, 2008, 02:27 PM	#7
Mousey Synth's Long Lost Bro Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Web Design Hell Posts: 7,156 Rep Power: 243 System Specs	I suppose since the introduction of physics processing on the GPU these PhysX cards lost what very little appeal they had in the first place. And yeah as Who_Knows says, there's very little games that support MAJOR physics calculations like this card is supposed to process. I would've thought a game like Crysis would benefit from a PhysX card though? __________________

Feb 7, 2008, 01:33 PM	#5
ET3D Hopeless Dreamer Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Dreamland, near the pool of infinite graphics cards Posts: 3,055 Rep Power: 103 System Specs	I agree that it doesn't look like there's a convincing reason to buy this card. Still, I'd be interested to know how it functions with slower CPUs. For someone like me, with an Athlon X2 3800+ and a system that'd need a full CPU/MB/RAM replacement to upgrade, does the PhysX card increase playability of any of its supported titles significantly? (My guess is not, and it might not be worthwhile even if it did, but I'm still curious.)

Feb 7, 2008, 04:26 PM	#9
mkk Cthulhu/Dagon 2012 Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Gefle, Sweden Posts: 4,383 Rep Power: 120 System Specs	Games in general still need much better physics programming rather than more raw calculating power. This is similar to the AI situation with the notable difference that physics code is much easier to apply onto different games. Now Ageia like for instance Havok that Intel bought surely has good physics code to offer to the game designers, but their tying it to a specific type of hardware was a tough bet and that didn't really work out too well. I assume that Nvidia didn't have to pay too much and can make good by incorporating what that they acquired into their own technology for products a bit into the future. Anyone considering a PhysX card should wait a bit for signs that Nvidia keeps supporting the existing products, which seems doubtful when looking into the past.

Feb 7, 2008, 10:56 PM	#10
Al_Vampyre HardwareHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Scotland Posts: 1,532 Rep Power: 71 System Specs	Very interesting read guys (and Dugg for good measure) It's interesting that they have gone down the route of increasing complexity rather than just offloading effects from the CPU. Surely it would make more sense to keep the games as they are and offload the physics effects to the Physx card rather than increase the number of effects in the game. I'm also wondering how many current games are actually CPU bound enough to make this necessary especially as we move towards dual and quad cores being the norm rather than the exception. __________________ "Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit; wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad" - Brian O'Driscoll - Ireland Rugby Team 2009 Grand Slam winning Captain.