Octavean
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-31
New York, NY
edit:
February 14th, @03:40PM
| All GeForce 8 Cards to Gain PhysX Engine Support Says NVIDIA
quote:
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.
»www.techpowerup.com/52561/All_Ge···ml?52561
I’m totally blown away by this,……
I didn’t see it coming,…
Cant see the PhysX for the tree’s 
So I guess, soon nVidia 8 series cards will be able to run PhysX titles without a physX card fairly well (or as well as a system with a PhysX card). Like the PhysX maps for Unreal Tournament 3 and PhysX title “CellFactor: Revolution” and more!
I always said “I don’t want to buy a PhysX card” but it looks like I already did and didn’t know it!!! Three times in fact because I have three 8 series cards.
I wonder what this means for ATI video cards? They have to compete with this in some way but it could take some time before they have a viable PhysX competing solution. |
|
Pyrion
Liquid Metal Nanomorph
join:2001-12-01
Poway, CA
clubs: | Why bother though? PhysX wasn't that widely adopted in the first place. |
|
jouno53
McCain Palin 08
join:2006-03-04
United State | reply to Octavean
That's cool. Will my 8600GT be able to support it, or only cards being shipped as of right now, or in the future. |
|
Cabal
Premium
join:2007-01-21
Boston, MA
| reply to Pyrion
said by Pyrion  :Why bother though? PhysX wasn't that widely adopted in the first place. Right, because the hardware was never purchased in large numbers. Now the technology will be available to every 8-series owner, which will spur a lot more developer interest in leveraging it, especially going forward with new products.
--
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru? |
|
Pyrion
Liquid Metal Nanomorph
join:2001-12-01
Poway, CA
clubs:
 ·Cox HSI
| The hardware wasn't purchased in large numbers cuz there was no reason for it. Why? Cuz the PhysX SDK wasn't widely adopted in the first place.
--
"There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge." - Bertrand Russell |
|
TK421
Premium
join:2004-12-19
Kamino
| reply to Octavean
As I understand it, NVidia says Geforce 8 cards will emulate PhysX using a customized software port but it should be noted a single GPU will not handle both graphics and physics satisfactorily. Only SLI setups might benefit.
There is the interesting prospect of using a cheap secondary card as a physics processor but it remains to seen if or how well that will work. Not everyone has a SLI able mobo either.
»techreport.com/discussions.x/14147 |
|
BA
I built an HTPC for Diana Krall
Premium,MVM
join:2001-05-24
Vancouver, BC
clubs:
| reply to Octavean
The 800 lbs gorilla is still x86. In addition to quad- and multi-core processors, Intel will be finishing up their Larrabee project by 2009 or 2010. We'll be seeing graphics cards using 16 or 24 mini-x86 cores. There's no doubt it'll handle physics too. It's difficult to see PhysX or CUDA going far given Intel's roadmap. |
|
inteller
Sociopaths always win.
join:2003-12-08
Tulsa, OK | ah yes, because we all know that 32-bit x86 cores are so vastly superior to the 128-bit and 256-bit GPUs out there now  |
|
TSI Gabe
Network Kung Fu
Premium,VIP
join:2007-01-03
Chatham, ON
| said by inteller :ah yes, because we all know that 32-bit x86 cores are so vastly superior to the 128-bit and 256-bit GPUs out there now In fact the GPUs are SIMD processors. The 128-bit registers are actually split into 32-bits blocks.
CPUs happen to have something similar...it's called SSE. |
|
GCoop
join:2004-12-08
Charlottesville, VA
 ·Embarq
| reply to Pyrion
said by Pyrion :The hardware wasn't purchased in large numbers cuz there was no reason for it. Why? Cuz the PhysX SDK wasn't widely adopted in the first place. Which begs the question to which you partially alluded to....Why wasn't the SDK widely adpoted? Hmmm.. Could it be because the hardware base wasnt large enought to warrant the development time and $$ to invest?
You are caught in the chicken/egg round of circular logic my friend.. Let me break it down for ya:
Now that Nvidia has decided to implement the "hardware" solution for physx on the 8 series we have about 54 million (Number used for desciptive purposes only) chickens running around the barnyard. These chickens are free to lay eggs (physx SDK usage) at all the major development houses. Now that there is a "sufficient" hardware base to utilize the technology that has suddenly been injected into the market the prospects, feasibility, and ROI, not to metion product differentiation all start to look pretty good.
Whether physx is all that it is cracked up to be I dont know. The jury is still out for me on that front. Only time will tell. But I do know one thing for sure, now that I have the capabilities to use the technology I will be exposed to it whereas before I wouldn't even have bothered.
|
|
Octavean
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-31
New York, NY
| reply to Octavean
said by Michael_Steele_VP_of_Marketing :
There have been a lot of questions about the future of PhysX technology now that AGEIA is part of NVIDIA. We want to assure you that NVIDA remains committed to hardware-accelerated physics and will support AGEIA's current PhysX processor customer commitments as well as future business. With regards to PhysX software, NVIDIA will continue to support the current SDK across PC and next-gen consoles and will also begin the work to accelerate PhysX on the GPU. The PhysX binaries are still royalty-free and there is still a charge for source code. Both AGEIA and NVIDIA share the same commitment and passion for gaming and are looking forward to pushing PhysX technology much further.
»www.ageia.com/forum/viewtopic.ph···start=30
that’s not a direct link but,….. for what its worth,... |
|
LaZ3R
Premium
join:2003-01-17
Waterloo, ON
clubs: | reply to Octavean
Just read about this now on another site... Awesome!!  |
|
staggerbite
join:2006-07-30
Avilla, IN
edit:
February 16th, @12:41AM
| reply to Octavean
Last time I looked into PhysX, I read alot of bad reviews for it. Is that still true? |
|
Subaru
1-3-2-4
Premium
join:2001-05-31
Greenwich, CT
clubs: | reply to Octavean
shit.. now I know I've been under a rock..
When did Nvidia buy Ageia?!?!? |
|
anonanan
@shawcable.net | reply to Octavean
Im sure AMD would sooner support intels havoc engine then the others |
|
Gordo74
Premium
join:2003-10-28
Monroeville, PA
clubs:
| reply to Cabal
said by Cabal :said by Pyrion :Why bother though? PhysX wasn't that widely adopted in the first place. Right, because the hardware was never purchased in large numbers. Now the technology will be available to every 8-series owner, which will spur a lot more developer interest in leveraging it, especially going forward with new products. But at the same time, developers are NOT going to make it mainstream and eliminate half of their market (ATI cards) |
|
Octavean
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-31
New York, NY
| reply to anonanan
Quite right,….
Assuming Intel gives them that option but as I understand it both ATI (AMD) and nVidia recent hardware have support for Havoc (I think).
Its Intel’s intellectual property now though. A company like Intel would probably benefit more from Hovac’s acquisition if they tool it to exploit the use of multi-core rather then allow GPU calculations. Therefore Havoc could be used to justify multi-core and serve as a selling point of Quad and Oct core processing. Either that or receive large sums in licensing and royalty fees from competitors like ATI (AMD) and nVidia (not sure how that would actually work though).
It seems logical that commercial use of Intel’s intellectual property will require some form of licensing fees and it is likely that the use of PhysX technology from Ageia (nVidia) would also carry some fees down the line.
Since ATI (AMD) owns neither Hovoc or PhysX technology this may garner addition operational costs payable to the owners of said technology. Or perhaps not but they have much less control over the situation given the circumstances. |
|
Grief
join:2004-04-05
Chapleau, ON
| reply to Octavean
 the way I understand it is that a newer ATI videocard will be able to function as a ppu as easily as a G8 Nvidia card and used in a sli rig as a third videocard  To be used in a crossfire setup may require buying the porting software I'm sure Nvidia will get their cut somehow |
|
brianiscool
join:2000-08-16
Miami, FL | Who is ATI never heard of them :P |
|
Cabal
Premium
join:2007-01-21
Boston, MA
| said by brianiscool :Who is ATI never heard of them :P 2 month old thread resurrection for that? Really?
--
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru? |
|
