AGEIA PhysX.. First Thoughts

[Rob Williams]

"Last week at the GDC, the buzz was all around us. At hardware and software booths alike. I was able to see the Ageia PhysX card in action as well as sample ATI and NVIDIA’s approach to physics and gaming."

After reading Greg's report here (http://techgage.com/review.php?id=4581), discuss it here!

[DarkSynergy]

Dude! That report was for teh win!

[Unregistered]

were are the movies you spoke of??

[DarkSynergy]

One is available for download at the end of the article and the other one should be there within the next hour or so.

[Jakal]

This chip looks like an excellent addition to aid performance. If it works well, it'll tremendously reduce cpu usage for physical interactions within the game. That'll mean higher framerates and better graphics. I love it!

[Rob Williams]

Added a few videos. Not sure how long they will last as they are huge.

[werty316]

Very interesting. I can't wait too see how this helps if at all reduce cpu usage.

[supramax]

This chip looks like an excellent addition to aid performance. If it works well, it'll tremendously reduce cpu usage for physical interactions within the game. That'll mean higher framerates and better graphics. I love it!

Its possible to use the graphic processor to do more then graphics. I saw an article on the net about some company that uses graphic processors to help with solving complex mathematical problems. They daisy chain hundreds of graphic processors in different machines, and use both the CPU + graphic CPU in combination to increase the amount of mathematical computations they do for solving what they are working on.

[Fr00zen]

This chip looks like an excellent addition to aid performance. If it works well, it'll tremendously reduce cpu usage for physical interactions within the game. That'll mean higher framerates and better graphics. I love it!

I am more interested in more special effects and higher quality graphcis. Frame rate is usually already high enough for most games. Besides the human eyes can not distinguish a difference between high frame rates.

[DarkSynergy]

Theoretically, the Ageia PPU will add to the GPU's workload. While taking a lot of load off of the CPU, there will be many more objects made available to interact with which means more objects that will have to be rendered. Collisions will be handled by the PPU but while in motion, the GPU will have to render all of the lighting and shadows relative to where the objects are on the screen.

[Unregistered]

Well, I'm also very excited about hardware PPU. But I'm old enough to have been one of the first adapters of the first 3DFx add-on GPU. As soon as the major graphics card producers got into that area, 3DFx quickly became obsolete and incompatable. Perhaps if they maintain DirectX compatability, this won't happen quite so fast with the PhysX chip, but I'll bet these first add-on PPU cards will be relatively short-lived.

My guess is that within a couple of years, no one will be writing games for the PhysX and we'll all be using Nvidia or ATI graphic cards with integrated PPU's.

However, I'll still buy an AGEIA card as soon as the apps are there to support it. But I'll do so, knowing that its probably a short-term solution.

Anode

[DarkSynergy]

Anode,

This, I hope, just wont be the case with the PhysX PPU. The approach that nVidia and ATi are taking at the moment is completely different from the direction Ageia is leaning. They want to offload the physics load onto one of the GPUs but as stated earlier, I spoke with some game designers at the GDC and they were not to keen to the idea of giving up GPU performance to code for physics but rather liked the way that Ageia is going with a stand alone card. I, as a gamer and end users, don't really want to sacrifice any of my SLi performance to incorporate physics. Now I can understand how nVidia and ATi are justifying this to themselves because not everyone will be able to afford a PPU when they first ship so the idea of being able to have a lot of the performance without dropping another 300 on the PhysX card will be appealing. That just isn’t the case for me and it sounds like you. We are tech heads and want what’s new while it's still new...

Thanks for your input and feel free to stick around.

[Unregistered]

Anode,

This, I hope, just wont be the case with the PhysX PPU. The approach that nVidia and ATi are taking at the moment is completely different from the direction Ageia is leaning. They want to offload the physics load onto one of the GPUs but as stated earlier, I spoke with some game designers at the GDC and they were not to keen to the idea of giving up GPU performance to code for physics but rather liked the way that Ageia is going with a stand alone card. I, as a gamer and end users, don't really want to sacrifice any of my SLi performance to incorporate physics. Now I can understand how nVidia and ATi are justifying this to themselves because not everyone will be able to afford a PPU when they first ship so the idea of being able to have a lot of the performance without dropping another 300 on the PhysX card will be appealing. That just isn’t the case for me and it sounds like you. We are tech heads and want what’s new while it's still new...

Thanks for your input and feel free to stick around.

I certainly agree with you that a dedicated PPU is the only thing that makes any sense. I would also be opposed to giving up one clock cycle of my expensive SLI up to another process. But as you also know, its often not the best hardware that prevails. Remeber Aureal A3D? I also bought into that technology, because it was (and still is) far superior to EAX in almost every way. A3D was, in a sense, the audio equivalent to a dedicated PPU that provided unique capabilities for superior sound placement, reflections and muffling effects through walls. Unfortunately, Creative put them out of business before they could transition much of the calculations to a dedicated sound processor.

In my opinion, its clear that the future of PC gaming is in the implementation of dedicated multiprocessors. So I hope you are right and the PhysX PPU (or similar dedicated hardware) prevails against the big two graphics manufacturers.

Anode

[Buck-O]

Wow, some of the replys in this thread boggle my mind.

Heres my thoughts, and im sure there will be plenty of backlash from them...but thats kinda the idea anyway. ;)


So, does the world ned a PPU? If this where 1999, the answer would be a resounding YES.

But becuase this is 2006, the answer is a definate NO. And heres why.

The current processor technology is moving away fromt eh idea of a single core architexture, and will eventually move exclusively to a dual core architexture at minimum. Eventually we will see quads, and perhaps even a six pack on die processor layout for the enterprise folks.

So what does that have to do with a PPU?
Well, the whole purpose of a PPU is negated by a dual core. If you program a game properly, you can have one core doing the games standard calculations (i.e. all that a single processor bears now), and set a secondary thread of code to the sister processor to do nothing but physics. Not only would it be faster then the PhysX PPU, but it would also cost a heck of alot less for the consumer, and be much easier to program for, and be less of a cost hit for the developers having to pay licencing for Agias PhysX engine. And with Vista on the horizon, with full support for SMP, and 64bit processing, there will be no excuse not to do this.

Plain and simple, Agia is selling snake oil in my oppinion. ANd is attempting to market a technology that would have best been suited to gamers needs YEARS ago. Currently, the technology offers nothing in the way of a direct performance increase that couldent easily be recreated on dual core CPU.

Think about it for a while, and ask yourself the question, "Is it really worth that extra $300?"

The answer may suprise you.

[Unregistered]

actually if i read the article right ageia is giving developers the license!! and making the money off the cards.

yes dual processors are becoming popular but games are getting much much more complex.

i have been jumping around the game forums and alot of people are complaining they want better ai and bigger maps and more players per map.

and if you go to the age 3 web forums there is a thread called ask sandy a developer and this was asked,

16) will there be much much much larger maps in the expansion pack
A – only if we find out suddenly that everyone’s computers are much much much more powerful. Unlike my answers, the map sizes were not chosen arbitrarily
http://forum.agecommunity.com/ibb/posts.aspx?postID=179228&postRepeater1-p=3

i will take a seperate card!!!!!

[Buck-O]

actually if i read the article right ageia is giving developers the license!! and making the money off the cards.

yes dual processors are becoming popular but games are getting much much more complex.

i have been jumping around the game forums and alot of people are complaining they want better ai and bigger maps and more players per map.

and if you go to the age 3 web forums there is a thread called ask sandy a developer and this was asked,

16) will there be much much much larger maps in the expansion pack
A – only if we find out suddenly that everyone’s computers are much much much more powerful. Unlike my answers, the map sizes were not chosen arbitrarily
http://forum.agecommunity.com/ibb/posts.aspx?postID=179228&postRepeater1-p=3

i will take a seperate card!!!!!

Good greif, do you work for Agia...or a advertising company that is contracted out for Agia? Im sorry, but i see very little relavence to this post, and even less actual information that refutes any of the claims ive made. All i see is happy play spin on a product that doesnt doesnt live up to the hype that marketing is bringing it. As i said in my initial post, 90% of the unregistered user posts in this thread sound fishy, WAY to positive, and i think are highly suspect for being plants. And i think Rob should do everything in his aibility to investigate those posts, becuase as far as im conscerned, they are bogus.

But, ill certaintly take on every point youve attempted to make.

Great, thats fantastic that they are handing over their physics engine for free. Its about the only way any developer would be stupid enough to code for it. But even to that end. Getting handed an SDK for free, probibly comes with alot of marketing dollars behind it. Becuase, again, the PhysX card does not make sence. Its like having a 4WD car. And being told that useing 4WD is pointless, but adding on a special bumper attatchment, with a wheezy engine, and two aditional drive wheels will make it a better performer. Huh? WHy not just use the 4WD int eh first place, and forget that little attatchment ever exsisted? Becuase marketing wants you to think otherwise.

Either way, by virture of handing out the SDK for free, and by making such a large public spectacle out of it, if a company where to produce a PROPER SMP bassed physics engine that could fully utilize a dual core, and make better use of resources then a PhysX card could (which again wouldent be difficult given the speed of the PCI bus), Agia would have a lawsuit all over their asses for patent infringment, and copying their intelectual property. So really, in the end, all Agia will turn out to be, is a marketing company with a few big patents for a technology that is outdated by current modern hardware standards, that could easily be coded around.

The best bit, was that you debunked your last point, in the answer you gave for why it was valid.

Adding a PhysX card to your computer, wont add any benefit to allow for larger levels, or more players or for wider expansiveness of the levels. His answer... only if we find out suddenly that everyone’s computers are much much much more powerful".

Simply ploping in a PhysX card, DOES NOTHING TO REMEDY THIS! All it could do is take advantage of some poorly coded eye candy, that your video card, may or may not be able to render on screen fully at a reasonable frame rate.

Becuase, as he said, the reasoning behind it is the power of the computer. Not the video card, not the PhysX card...the WHOLE COMPUTER. If youve only got 512 megs of RAM, a PhysX card wont make Battlefield 2 run any better on your system.

If you have an old Athlon XP 1800+, Quake4 will not run any faster or look any better with a PhysX card.

In fact, the only performance segment where a PhysX card would be worth its while, is in HIGH END systems. And most low level high end systems, employ dual-core CPUs. And which point, proper coding, would make the PhysX card completely worthless. Becuase the data could be calculated faster, sent to the video card quicker, and run will less overall system overhead (no crappy legacy PCI bus constraint to get in the way), by useing SMP to dedicate one of the cores to do nothing but physics calculation.

But even then, the game has to be coded around the lowest common denominator, with eye candy thrown onto it, for those with greater horspower behind them. This has been, and always will be the modus operandi of developers around the world. And the PhysX card will never change that. Reguardless of how much their marketing might try to make you believe otherwise.

Not like it makes any difference though, considering all of this is just falling on def ears anyway.

[DarkSynergy]

Yes!

As will I. There will have to be a great game, or 2-3, for the launch to take off but I feel that Ageia's separate slot approach is heading down the right path.

And also, you have read correct. The SDK is being given away for all to design games and the money will be made on the cards themselves. They are somehow at the mercy of how well the games are designed to take advantage of the PPU but they have some heavy hitters on board with them so I am not worried to much about that.

Give me my dedicated card and keep the GPU clock cycles to the games!

You can argue that dual core will be the untimely coup de gras of the PPU but I feel that the more game programmers learn to code with dual cores, the more they will take advantage of the fact that they can either code the game to use one core for gaming and one for physics or both for the game and none for physics. You can argue that you only need one core for in game physics but I can argue that with a dedicated PPU, the entire processing power of the CPU can be used to the full advantage of the gaming end user. We could both be wrong but only time will tell. Stay tuned as I have a PPU on the way for review and I will let you all know what is found out. If it sucks in real time, then I will let you know but if it rules, you will know that as well.

[DarkSynergy]

Good greif, go you work for Agia...or a advertising company that is contracted out for Agia? Im sorry, but i see very little relavence to this post, and even less actual information that refutes any of the claims ive made. All i see happy play spin on a product that doesnt doesnt live up to the hype that marketing is bringing it. As i said in my initial post, 90% of the unregistered post in this thread sound fishy, WAY to positive, and i think are highly suspect for being plants. And i think Rob should do everything in his aibility to investigate those posts, becuase as far as im conscerned, they are bogus.

But, ill certaintly take on every point youve attempted to make.

Great, thats fantastic that they are handing over their physics engine for free. Its about the only way any developer would be stupid enough to code for it. But even to that end. Getting handed an SDK for free, probibly comes with alot of marketing dollars behind it. Becuase, again, the PhysX card does not make sence.

Either way, by virture of handing out the SDK for free, and by making such a large public spectacle out of it, if a company where to produce a PROPER SMP bassed physics engine that could fully utilize a dual core, and make better use of resources then a PhysX card could (which again wouldent be difficult given the speed of the PCI bus), Agia would have a lawsuit all over their asses for patent infringment, and copying their intelectual property. So really, in the end, all Agia will turn out to be, is a marketing company with a few big patents for a technology that is outdated by current modern hardware standards, that could easily be coded around.

The best bit, was that you debunked your last point, in the answer you gave for why it was valid.

Adding a PhysX card to your computer, wont add any benefit to allow for larger levels, or more players or for wider expansiveness of the levels. His answer... only if we find out suddenly that everyone’s computers are much much much more powerful".

Simply ploping in a PhysX card, DOES NOTHING TO REMEDY THIS! All it could do is take advantage of some poorly coded eye candy, that your video card, may or may not be able to render on screen fully at a reasonable frame rate.

Becuase, as he said, the reasoning behind it is the power of the computer. Not the video card, not the PhysX card...the WHOLE COMPUTER. If youve only got 512 megs of RAM, a PhysX card wont make Battlefield 2 run any better on your system.

If you have an old Athlon XP 1800+, Quake4 will ot run any faster or look any better with a PhysX card.

In fact, the only performance segment where a PhysX card would be worth its while, is in HIGH END systems. And most lowe level high end systems, employ dual-core CPUs. And which point, proper coding, would make the PhysX card completely worthless. Becuase the data could be calculated faster, sent to the video card quicker, and run will less overall system overhead (no crappy legacy PCI bus constraint), by useing SMP to dedicate the dual core to nothing but physics calculation.

But even then, the game has to be coded around the lowest common denominator, with eye candy thrown onto it, for those with greater horspower behind them. This has been, and always will be the modus operandi of developers around the world. And the PhysX card will never change that. Reguardless of how much their marketing might try to make you believe otherwise.

Not like it makes any difference though, considering all of this is just falling on def ears anyway.

I agree with what you say. But I am also optimistic to see, with the right backing, what Ageia can accomplish. Also, to say that your words "fall on def ears" is a bit arrogant, dont you think? You make some valid points, I will admit that, but to write off an entirely new concept before it is even launched to the public at large is somewhat sceptical to me.

I can also admit that the PPU is geared to users with high end systems but then again, so is SLI and CrossFire and both of those concepts seem to be doing quite well.

I am more excited about the direction that Ageia is trying to take the industry, rather than where they might or might not actually take it.

No I do not work for them.

[Buck-O]

Yes!

As will I. There will have to be a great game, or 2-3, for the launch to take off but I feel that Ageia's separate slot approach is heading down the right path.

And also, you have read correct. The SDK is being given away for all to design games and the money will be made on the cards themselves. They are somehow at the mercy of how well the games are designed to take advantage of the PPU but they have some heavy hitters on board with them so I am not worried to much about that.

Give me my dedicated card and keep the GPU clock cycles to the games!

You can argue that dual core will be the untimely coup de gras of the PPU but I feel that the more game programmers learn to code with dual cores, the more they will take advantage of the fact that they can either code the game to use one core for gaming and one for physics or both for the game and none for physics. You can argue that you only need one core for in game physics but I can argue that with a dedicated PPU, the entire processing power of the CPU can be used to the full advantage of the gaming end user. We could both be wrong but only time will tell. Stay tuned as I have a PPU on the way for review and I will let you all know what is found out. If it sucks in real time, then I will let you know but if it rules, you will know that as well.

Well at least this is a post from a respected user...

But again, i fail to see the merit.

"I feel that Ageia's separate slot approach is heading down the right path."

How do you figure? Like i said, its like adding somthing extra that doesnt need to be there. And a technology that is two years late, and $200 short of being impressive.

"Give me my dedicated card and keep the GPU clock cycles to the games!"

Im assuming this is a freudian slip, and you actually mean CPU. The GPU does nothing in terms of physics rendering for the game. Thats all handled and loaded to teh CPU. However, the dirty little secret here, is that any and all data that is processed by the PhysX card, still has to be rendered by the GPU. If your GPU cant hack it, you still wont see any marked improvment in gameplay. All you will be is a frustrated consumer who just wasted $200 on somthing he cant get the full benefit of.

"You can argue that dual core will be the untimely coup de gras of the PPU but I feel that the more game programmers learn to code with dual cores, the more they will take advantage of the fact that they can either code the game to use one core for gaming and one for physics or both for the game and none for physics."

Again, they have to program to lowest common denominator. Making the effectivness of coding for dual core AND PhysX, very dubious at best. And as it stands right now, the ise of Dual core implimentation in games has been very poor. Becuase the dedicated offloading to an individual CPU has been very limited bassed on how the games kernel can support multiple threads. Considering that PhysX is essentially a seperate entity, offloading that to a secondary CPU would be very simple to impliment, even at a user level, withen windows. Infact, i wouldent at all be suprised if in the coming months as Agia supported games are released, we see hacks that allow the PhysX computations to be offloaded directly to a seconed core, in its own thread.

"Stay tuned as I have a PPU on the way for review and I will let you all know what is found out. If it sucks in real time, then I will let you know but if it rules, you will know that as well"

Believe me, im ripe with anticipation. However, i want to see results on real games, with real advantages, with no special demos to oooh and ahhh at. Cause right now, the marketing is about the only thing i see.

[DarkSynergy]

There was no slip, the nVidia and ATi approach is to let the GPU take care of the physics load. I talked to a few developers at the GDC about such an approach and they want all the GPU they can take.

You and I both agree on the requirements of the GPU. Every little item on the screen that the PPU allows the user to interact with, but be rendered by the GPU, thuse making the much heavier load on said GPU much greater. I was told by Ageia that there really are not any minumum requirements for using the PPU, but rather minimum requirements for the game itself. The bottleneck will be the GPU in such instances.

I am truly waiting with baited breath for this card but to discredit a concept before it has even launched is naive at best. These arent game "demos" that we have seen. I was actually able to play Cell Factor in real time and interact with all objects on the screen. The future is wide open for Ageia....it's just up to them to choose the right path.

They are marketing this like they should so again, you and I agree on this. One can argue against anything and make at least some valid points. I am not saying, by any streach of the imagination, that I am right, but I will not let you pick what I say apart and then concede that you have been right all along. I see you and I as the same voice, only on differant ends of the spectrum. I am for seeing the good and you, you are only for the bad. Debates like this though, will benefit the end users. End users who do not have the systems that you and I have. End users that want this card but do not know what it is all about. I will give my honest opinion of the PPU in my upcoming. An opinion that will be how I feel abou the card and not how I hope Ageia wants me to feel.

I love a good debate so keep it coming. I still think that you and I are only feeding off of each other. :D




Well at least this is a post from a respected user...

But again, i fail to see the merit.

"I feel that Ageia's separate slot approach is heading down the right path."

How do you figure? Like i said, its like adding somthing extra that doesnt need to be there. And a technology that is two years late, and $200 short of being impressive.

"Give me my dedicated card and keep the GPU clock cycles to the games!"

Im assuming this is a freudian slip, and you actually mean CPU. The GPU does nothing in terms of physics rendering for the game. Thats all handled and loaded to teh CPU. However, the dirty little secret here, is that any and all data that is processed by the PhysX card, still has to be rendered by the GPU. If your GPU cant hack it, you still wont see any marked improvment in gameplay. All you will be is a frustrated consumer who just wasted $200 on somthing he cant get the full benefit of.

"You can argue that dual core will be the untimely coup de gras of the PPU but I feel that the more game programmers learn to code with dual cores, the more they will take advantage of the fact that they can either code the game to use one core for gaming and one for physics or both for the game and none for physics."

Again, they have to program to lowest common denominator. Making the effectivness of coding for dual core AND PhysX, very dubious at best. And as it stands right now, the ise of Dual core implimentation in games has been very poor. Becuase the dedicated offloading to an individual CPU has been very limited bassed on how the games kernel can support multiple threads. Considering that PhysX is essentially a seperate entity, offloading that to a secondary CPU would be very simple to impliment, even at a user level, withen windows. Infact, i wouldent at all be suprised if in the coming months as Agia supported games are released, we see hacks that allow the PhysX computations to be offloaded directly to a seconed core, in its own thread.

"Stay tuned as I have a PPU on the way for review and I will let you all know what is found out. If it sucks in real time, then I will let you know but if it rules, you will know that as well"

Believe me, im ripe with anticipation. However, i want to see results on real games, with real advantages, with no special demos to oooh and ahhh at. Cause right now, the marketing is about the only thing i see.

[Buck-O]

I agree with what you say. But I am also optimistic to see, with the right backing, what Ageia can accomplish. Also, to say that your words "fall on def ears" is a bit arrogant, dont you think? You make some valid points, I will admit that, but to write off an entirely new concept before it is even launched to the public at large is somewhat sceptical to me.

I can also admit that the PPU is geared to users with high end systems but then again, so is SLI and CrossFire and both of those concepts seem to be doing quite well.

I am more excited about the direction that Ageia is trying to take the industry, rather than where they might or might not actually take it.

No I do not work for them.

Unfortunately, the only backing i see for them now is hype, and cheesy ohhh ahhh demos, and no real substance. There has been nothing that has really jumped out and impressed the sox off me.

And yes, i am one Arogant SOB. Consdiering that after my initial psot it took nearly a week for someone to respond, even somewhat, and it was yet antoher unregistered user, i dont assume to get any feedback from the post. Untill you showed up. So untill now...yes, i did assume it would fall on def ears.

As for writing it off...need i remind everyone of the hype of RD-RAM? Yeah, Rambus for the win...NOT! Or better yet...3dfx's "28bit psuedo color is good enough". Or "Daikatana will be the best game ever!" There are plenty of examples of overhyped technology focused tword gamers that has flopped miserably, with millions of marketing behind it. Im not saying its a guarentee that PhysX will turn out this way. Im just saying that i refuse to hold my breath for somthing amazing.

But, the thing you forget about SLi and Crossfire, is that both of these technologys are backwards compatibile with almost every legacy game, is nearly future proof (in a gaming sence, dont even get me started on HD content flags, ugh), and offer real world performance benefits that the user can see imidiately, and take full advantage of out of the box.PhysX has yet to proove its worth in that respect. It is a future speced piece of hardware, and that doesnt give you much but a pot to piss in, and no physics accelerated window to throw it out of.

See, i am NOT excited on where Agia wants to take the industry with PhysX...becuase i believe its a step BACKWARDS. We have jsut gotten away from the Glide enhanced games. The EAX exclusive games, and moved tword standardizing hardware specs to take full advantage of 90% of the hardware still out there. And now this...a dedicated Physics board. I mean come on...you are stepping back into the days of 1997 here, and the release of the 3dfx VooDoo g3d graphics accelerator. Not into the future of compartmentalized widely compatible hardware. I fail to see where on any level this is a "good direction" for the hardware industry to be headed. We;ve been down this road before, and the sign said "dead end".

No if Agia had worked up a deal with ATi and nVidia to put the PPU onboard with the GPU, then yeah, id be all for it. Or even better yet, as a sort of intergrated "East Bridge" on a motherboard. Even though eventually in either case the technology would probibly go exclusive to one of the major hardware vendorsm whomever that may be. But it would still be a step forward. Not a step back to the dark ages of add on boards, and every PCI slot full of a piece of acceleration hardware. This is the new age of PCI-Express, lets use it.

And dont worry, i know you dont work for them. ;)

[DarkSynergy]

Unfortunately, the only backing i see for them now is hype, and cheesy ohhh ahhh demos, and no real substance. There has been nothing that has really jumped out and impressed the sox off me.

And yes, i am one Arogant SOB. Consdiering that after my initial psot it took nearly a week for someone to respond, even somewhat, and it was yet antoher unregistered user, i dont assume to get any feedback from the post. Untill you showed up. So untill now...yes, i did assume it would fall on def ears.

As for writing it off...need i remind everyone of the hype of RD-RAM? Yeah, Rambus for the win...NOT! Or better yet...3dfx's "28bit psuedo color is good enough". Or "Daikatana will be the best game ever!" There are plenty of examples of overhyped technology focused tword gamers that has flopped miserably, with millions of marketing behind it. Im not saying its a guarentee that PhysX will turn out this way. Im just saying that i refuse to hold my breath for somthing amazing.

But, the thing you forget about SLi and Crossfire, is that both of these technologys are backwards compatibile with almost every legacy game, is nearly future proof (in a gaming sence, dont even get me started on HD content flags, ugh), and offer real world performance benefits that the user can see imidiately, and take full advantage of out of the box.PhysX has yet to proove its worth in that respect. It is a future speced piece of hardware, and that doesnt give you much but a pot to piss in, and no physics accelerated window to throw it out of.

See, i am NOT excited on where Agia wants to take the industry with PhysX...becuase i believe its a step BACKWARDS. We have jsut gotten away from the Glide enhanced games. The EAX exclusive games, and moved tword standardizing hardware specs to take full advantage of 90% of the hardware still out there. And now this...a dedicated Physics board. I mean come on...you are stepping back into the days of 1997 here, and the release of the 3dfx VooDoo g3d graphics accelerator. Not into the future of compartmentalized widely compatible hardware. I fail to see where on any level this is a "good direction" for the hardware industry to be headed. We;ve been down this road before, and the sign said "dead end".

No if Agia had worked up a deal with ATi and nVidia to put the PPU onboard with the GPU, then yeah, id be all for it. Or even better yet, as a sort of intergrated "East Bridge" on a motherboard. Even though eventually in either case the technology would probibly go exclusive to one of the major hardware vendorsm whomever that may be. But it would still be a step forward. Not a step back to the dark ages of add on boards, and every PCI slot full of a piece of acceleration hardware. This is the new age of PCI-Express, lets use it.

And dont worry, i know you dont work for them. ;)

Ahh, Quotefest 2K6 continues :D

See, SLi and CrossFire is backwards compatable but no one obviously coded their games to take advantage of this technology. Each game from here on out will, however, code for this tech and use it to their advantage. Me playing Red Alert 2 does little to nothing for my SLI system. We have to give the PhysX approach time to sink in before we say that it's a pointless direction and past games won't benefit from it at all.

To rebute your comment that there are plenty of gamer directed gimmicks, there are also plenty of innovations that have been designed with the gamers in mind that have taken off.

All if this is our personal opinion and in my own opinion, I dont see a long life to Ageia anyway. I think, and this is just my opinion, that they will do well initially and that they will get gobbled up by either Ati or nVidia and that will be decided by which company does worse in their approach to GPU physics.

I am one all in favor of the direction that Ageia is trying to take the industry. Is it a step back....by all means no. Will it work? Thats to be decided by you and me, the end users. I am all for deeper games and more lifelike physics. I want to completely destroy a building and have it fall on my enemies to kill them. Can this all be coded to take advantage of a second CPU core.....yes it can. Will it, that is also something that only time will tell. It's all about support and from the looks of it, Ageia has a lot of support...at least initially.

I am enjoying this "debate" so please, lets keep it up. I will however, have to bow out as I hvae to be to work in a few hours. Thank you for keeping it civil as some would resort to mindless put downs and similar comments. I am now a member of the Church of Buck-O! :D

[Buck-O]

Ahh, Quotefest 2K6 continues :D

See, SLi and CrossFire is backwards compatable but no one obviously coded their games to take advantage of this technology. Each game from here on out will, however, code for this tech and use it to their advantage. Me playing Red Alert 2 does little to nothing for my SLI system. We have to give the PhysX approach time to sink in before we say that it's a pointless direction and past games won't benefit from it at all.

To rebute your comment that there are plenty of gamer directed gimmicks, there are also plenty of innovations that have been designed with the gamers in mind that have taken off.

All if this is our personal opinion and in my own opinion, I dont see a long life to Ageia anyway. I think, and this is just my opinion, that they will do well initially and that they will get gobbled up by either Ati or nVidia and that will be decided by which company does worse in their approach to GPU physics.

I am one all in favor of the direction that Ageia is trying to take the industry. Is it a step back....by all means no. Will it work? Thats to be decided by you and me, the end users. I am all for deeper games and more lifelike physics. I want to completely destroy a building and have it fall on my enemies to kill them. Can this all be coded to take advantage of a second CPU core.....yes it can. Will it, that is also something that only time will tell. It's all about support and from the looks of it, Ageia has a lot of support...at least initially.

I am enjoying this "debate" so please, lets keep it up. I will however, have to bow out as I hvae to be to work in a few hours. Thank you for keeping it civil as some would resort to mindless put downs and similar comments. I am now a member of the Church of Buck-O! :D

Sorry for my late reply. been a busy 24 hours for me. Detail season is back in full swing, and as such, clients are calling. So im a busy man. :D

Anyway, the biggest reason why SLi, XFire work, is becuase, the game doesnt require any special coding, as the graphics load is split via quadrent to each video card. Simple software trick to get maximum possible performance out of the hardware. The game doesnt specificly need to be oded for it to work well. Though, not to its fullest extent. And reasonably speaking, there really arent any games out there that REQUIRE a dual GPU setup to be experienced to teh fullest extent of the graphical options (i am of course excluding Anti Aliasing, as i consider that to be a driver trick, and not an actual game graphics feature. Also along with certain filtering options, as they are driver dependant, not game dependant). You can hapily game with all of the particular engines eye candy turned on, with a single video card. Even the "lowly" 6800 GT is capable of providing this level of gameplay for most titles.

The problem with Agia in this sence, is that they are saying, "certain games wont be as good as they can, unless you ahve out PhysX card to open up all of the games avliable physics". I dont think that will make a particular game sell any better, or really make people want to rush out and buy a PhysX card.

The other sad part in all of this, is i see alot of the larger "money maker" developers (i.e. EA and Sierra to name 2) that are interested in profit over quality of content, pushing out games with bloated physics engines, and not bothering to properly code for them. Adding aditional unneccesary load on teh CPU. That can only be offloaded by a PhysX card. And naturally, the developers will not bother to properly code the game to take advantage of a dual core CPU to offload that physics data from the main CPU. Essentiallyputting you in a rock and a hard place. I think that is ultimately the posision many people will be in, and i think thats a real shame. Much for the same reason i stated above as a step backwards. We are, once again, moving tword required add on bloat control hardware, where proper coding would correct the issue head on.

With that in mind, i whole heartedly agree with you, that i dont feel agia will be around very long. And i think they whole heartedly expect that, and are infact, probibly setting themselfe up for a inevtible buyout in the future.

I think one of the bigger questions you need to ask yourself when thinking about the PhysX card is...will the developers want to code for a game that allows you to topple buildings bit by bit with physics reacting deconstructable material, that has proper load bearing, weighting, and physic effect? Im willing to bet not. As these things are no easier to program for with an add in card then they where before. Though the code can be alot crappyer, and much more resource intensive as a result of the add on card (as stated above).

I think that we will see some PhysX emulators from the mod comunity before to long, that will allow a dual core CPU to run all fo the calculations of a PhysX card. Much in the same way we had Glide wrappers, and emulators back in the good ole days. I very seriously doubt that a developer would take the heat for infringing on phycis offloading with all of the patents Agia holds. So i expect some good things from those in teh open source arena.

Discussion on a logical level is always welcome in my book. And i too appreciate it.:cool:

Services are held, every Friday, and the First Saturday of every month. ;)

[M3G@]

This is a huge deal for gamers and developers - I don't know if Ageia has the money to keep this rolling but if they can work it into games properly over the course of the next two to three years we could enjoy great advances that should have probably taken place already -

There was a point made earlier that you can just place physics onto the second core of a dual core cpu -

It would handle physics rather slowly actually

Developers and the big names in gaming have already decided to take physics off the cpu -

What about saving that core for better Ai ?
It would be much more efficient to give that core Ai responsibility -

Plus with new games & Direct X 10 API things are going to be much different in execution -

I would rather have my graphics card render - So if Nvidia and Ati expect me to buy a second video card for physics when I can get a ground-up developed card for physics at a cheaper price they've lost their marbles -

However it is likely that Nvidia and Ati will be successful in their physics efforts - I would like to see what the performance differences are -

[M3G@]

" As these things are no easier to program for with an add in card then they where before "

Actually one great advantage for game developers using the Ageia developers kit is the fact that they do not have to deal with what is currently a very complex drawn out process - The SDK is reducing the time it takes to do complex physics -

[Unregistered]

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2376&p=2

This is article by anandtech describes the PhyX card very well, and the reasons why the card can perform more effectivly than a dual core processor for physics processing. One thing I haven't seen mentioned is the fact that many multiplayer games will probably REQUIRE PhyX cards. I read an article earlier that said 70 game developers, and over 100 games are being designed that will make use of PhysX cards. While particle effects have little impact on gameplay, I'd be disappointed to see liquid weapons, or destructable environments removed from the impending multiplayer experiance. ATI boasts that it's current 19XX series cards have an onboard PPU that can be enabled with a drivers update.

In reply to Buck-o's last post, many measures are being taken to allow developers to rapidly code destructable environments, and other physics driven game elements without inducing a significant performance hit compared to "hand coded" effects of the same nature.

Many exciting technoligies are coming out this year and the next, it will be exciting to see how everything pans out.

[username]

buck-o i made that post. sorry i didn't register but i didn't figure i would not get a response and most people just start slandering and don't have a useful debate!

first off i am sorry, although it wasn't mentioned i am a horrible writer and bad at getting my point across but i will try.

ok you also agreed for bigger levels, more players, better ai, ect... you would need a much larger computernot just a ppu card. this was the point i was trying to make they could use both sides of the dual core for the ai and game engine ect... withought having to use it for physics.

i am sure it would evolve eventually maybe on the motherboard as you stated ( perhaps like nic cards seem to be doing)

my problem with it being on the video cards is how much more can you transfer between a video card and a mother board?

if they can do so much more on a video card why is sli + crossfire even considered why not just build it a double card? <-- worded bad i am trying to say put 2 gpu on 1 card

i don't belive there is any game out there currently that needs 2 video cards but it seems like it is getting closer, now if they put the ppu on there too would we then need 3 video cards? isn't there a limit on how much you can transfer between a card and a motherboard?

thanks you guys for keeping it civil !!!

[Buck-O]

buck-o i made that post. sorry i didn't register but i didn't figure i would not get a response and most people just start slandering and don't have a useful debate!

first off i am sorry, although it wasn't mentioned i am a horrible writer and bad at getting my point across but i will try.

ok you also agreed for bigger levels, more players, better ai, ect... you would need a much larger computernot just a ppu card. this was the point i was trying to make they could use both sides of the dual core for the ai and game engine ect... withought having to use it for physics.

i am sure it would evolve eventually maybe on the motherboard as you stated ( perhaps like nic cards seem to be doing)

my problem with it being on the video cards is how much more can you transfer between a video card and a mother board?

if they can do so much more on a video card why is sli + crossfire even considered why not just build it a double card? <-- worded bad i am trying to say put 2 gpu on 1 card

i don't belive there is any game out there currently that needs 2 video cards but it seems like it is getting closer, now if they put the ppu on there too would we then need 3 video cards? isn't there a limit on how much you can transfer between a card and a motherboard?

thanks you guys for keeping it civil !!!


Hey, thanks for replying back.

No worries, i understand what your saying just fine. :)
Its my dislexia getting the best of me that you've got to worry about. ;)


Anyway, yes i do imagine it will eventually become an enthousiast motherboard option, rahter then an onboard card. I think thats the next logical step. Though, i dont know how people will feel about paying $300+ for a motherboard with that feature on there. Who knows. Only time will tell. But i think if anyone would do it. It would be nVidia. As they already have a goot marketable motherboard base.

As for the two GPU's on one card, its been done. WAY back in the day 3dfx had a card that actually had 4 GPU's on one card. It was a monster. Absolutely hudge. I dont think it ever went into production. But i think a couple companies ctually built dual GPU setups with teh last series of VooDoo cards. I also know that (i think) MSI has a dual 6800GT signel card that works in their special SLi motherboard. And Ive seen prototypes of card that are running two lap top spec mobile GeForce GO cards on a special daughter board that you could attatch them to, that then fit into a PCI Express slot. The notion being, that with the GO cards, you could upgrade easily, and cheaply...or so they say.

Anyway, back to Agia.
Only time will tell with the PPU setup. And im sure that by the end of the year we will have a better idea of what exactly they have in mind, and how devlopers and hardware venders will accept it.

If youre enjoying the conversation...why dont you join the forums, and continue the discussion here, and in the other forums here at Techgage. :techgage:

[Unregistered]

Hey, thanks for replying back.

No worries, i understand what your saying just fine. :)
Its my dislexia getting the best of me that you've got to worry about. ;)


Anyway, yes i do imagine it will eventually become an enthousiast motherboard option, rahter then an onboard card. I think thats the next logical step. Though, i dont know how people will feel about paying $300+ for a motherboard with that feature on there. Who knows. Only time will tell. But i think if anyone would do it. It would be nVidia. As they already have a goot marketable motherboard base.

As for the two GPU's on one card, its been done. WAY back in the day 3dfx had a card that actually had 4 GPU's on one card. It was a monster. Absolutely hudge. I dont think it ever went into production. But i think a couple companies ctually built dual GPU setups with teh last series of VooDoo cards. I also know that (i think) MSI has a dual 6800GT signel card that works in their special SLi motherboard. And Ive seen prototypes of card that are running two lap top spec mobile GeForce GO cards on a special daughter board that you could attatch them to, that then fit into a PCI Express slot. The notion being, that with the GO cards, you could upgrade easily, and cheaply...or so they say.

Anyway, back to Agia.
Only time will tell with the PPU setup. And im sure that by the end of the year we will have a better idea of what exactly they have in mind, and how devlopers and hardware venders will accept it.

If youre enjoying the conversation...why dont you join the forums, and continue the discussion here, and in the other forums here at Techgage. :techgage:

i tried to register it said you will recieve an email on how to activate your name but i never got it?

buck-o you stated you were going to get one for review. just curiouse as to what game you intend on trying it on?

and it does not specify on this but i was wondering, it states look for games optimized for the physx card... if a game is not built for the card, the card would be useless wouldn't it?

and could you shed some light on something for me as i am a mechanic not a computer guru

what is the limit on pci-x for volume? like how much can you transfer between the video card and the motherboard at a time?

[Jakal]

what is the limit on pci-x for volume? like how much can you transfer between the video card and the motherboard at a time?
The newer cards can handle upwards of 40Gigabits/s bandwidth between it and the cpu. The Pci-x 16x slots can handle 80Gbps of encoded data, or 64Gbps unencoded. That's gigabits, not gigabytes. You're looking at 8GB unencoded and about 9GB of encoded data per second, for a 16x card, max. The 6600gt, for example, is about 4GB/s. Cpu's nowadays can do roughly 20GB/s data transfer, and better.

[Buck-O]

i tried to register it said you will recieve an email on how to activate your name but i never got it?

buck-o you stated you were going to get one for review. just curiouse as to what game you intend on trying it on?

and it does not specify on this but i was wondering, it states look for games optimized for the physx card... if a game is not built for the card, the card would be useless wouldn't it?

and could you shed some light on something for me as i am a mechanic not a computer guru

what is the limit on pci-x for volume? like how much can you transfer between the video card and the motherboard at a time?

Well thats a bummer on the registration. Maybe fire off an e-mail to Rob Williams, and see if he can get yoru account pushed through. :)

As for the review card. I am not getting one. I would like to. But im not. DarkSynergy, however, is getting one. So you should direct that question tword him. But im sure he will answer anyway.

And you nailed it. If the game isnt specificly written to take advantage of the Phys-X card...it wont even know its there. Which is one of the reason im not hip on it. Becuase it has no backward compatibility, unless the developers see fit to release a patch for the game to utilize it. And even then im sure the performance increase would be minimal.


As for your last question...its already been answered. :D

[twolf]

wow what service sent a letter to rob before i got back to the forums he resolved the problem and wrote back to me. thanks!!!!

jakal: thanks for the info that was exactly the info i was looking for !!

[DarkSynergy]

Concerning the games that are not built with a PPU in mind. You are right when you say that the PPU will be useless but in it's defense, it's early. Games will need to be programed to take advantage of the PPU and thats what Ageia is giving their SDK out for free to anyone who in interested in including the features that a PPU would bring to the game.


I recieved the PhysX card from Ageia and BFG today and have had about an hour to play around with it and see just what it could do. Alas, all that was included was the Cell Factor Demo that we saw at the GDC. It's nice to be able to play this on my own PC but I want more. I am supposed to be getting Ghost Recon: Advanced War Fighter from Ubisoft soon and that game takes advantage of the PhysX card so time will tell as to where this whole "PhysX revolution" is going.


I must say however that as much as I am all for the PPU, it's only a novalty untill there are games to take advantage of it's processing power.


This will be something to keep up on in the coming months when games are released that were built specifically to use the PPU. I am not holding my breath but it would be killer to be able to patch our current games such as BF2 and CS:S to be able to use this card with those games as well. That might just be a pipe dream though...

[Buck-O]

The two games id really like to see take full PPU support would be GF2, and FEAR, perhaps even Farcry. These three gaems seem to keep patching up for the altest in gaming tech. So im hoping the tred continues with the PPU.

A shame about GRAW though. I personally didnt like the game that much. Multiplayer was preaty rock solid though (and classic GR/R6, which i like).
[it should be noted that my experiences with GRAW are witht he 360 version]

[Unregistered]

I have read all your posts with great interest, I feel that some very good points are being made, so here's my 2 cents worth ;-)

I believe the 'IDEA' of having a dedicated PPU in your increasingly expensive monster rig is highly appealing, even intoxicating and I believe this 'IDEA' coupled with some clever marketing will ensure a good number of highly overpriced, or at least expensive, sales of this mystical technology in it's current (ineficient) form.

For some, the fact that it's expensive and also holds such high promises will ensure it's place as a 'Must have' component for the legions of early adopters. The brilliant idea of launching them through Alienware, Falcon Northwest and the top of the line Dell XPS600 systems was a stroke of marketing genius as this adds to the allure of owning one when they finally launch to the retail market...If it's good enough for a system most of us can never afford but covet none the less it's damn well good enough for my 'monster RIG'. This arrangement will allow the almost guaranteed sales of the first wave of cards on the market. I have noticed that some UK online retailers have already started taking pre-launch orders for the £218 OEM 128MB version I just have to woner how many of these pre-orders have actually been sold?

The concept of a dedicated PPU is quite simply phenominal, We spend plenty of money upgrading our GPU's, CPU's and quite recently Creative have brought us the first true APU (X-Fi series) that it makes sense for there to be a dedicated PPU and berhaps even an AiPU to follow.

The question is, will these products actually benefit us to the value of their cost?

I would say that a GPU, or in fact up to 4 GPU's running over PCIe x32 (2xPCIe x16 channels) become increasingly less value for money the more GPU's added to the equation. i.e. a 7900GTX 512MB at £440 is great bang for the buck compared to Quad SLI 7900GTX 512MB at over £1000. The framerates in the Quad machine are not 4x the single GPU. Perhaps this is where GPU's could trully be considered worthy of nVidia or ATI's Physics SLI load balancing concept. SLI GPU's are not working flat out 100% of the time...Due to the extremely high bandwidth of Dual PCIe x16 ports there should be a reasonable amount of bandwidth to spare on Physics calculations, perhaps more if Dual PCIe x32 (or even quad x16) Motherboards inevitably turn up. I am not saying that GPU's are more efficient than a DEDICATED and designed for PPU, just that if ATI and nVidia decided the market showed enough potential, they could simply 'design in' or add PPU functionality to their GPU cores or GFX cards. This would allow them to tap into the extra bandwidth PCIe x16 affords.

The Ageis PhysX PPU in it's current form runs over the PCI bus, a comparitively Narrow bandwicth bus, and MUST communicate with the GPU in order for it to render the extra particles and objects in any scene. This in my mind would create a Bottleneck as it would only be able to communicate at the bandwidth and speed afforded by the Narrow bandwidth and slower PCI bus. The slowest path governs the speed of even the fastest...This would mean that adding a dedicated PPU, even a very fast and efficient one, would be severely limited by the bus it was running over. This phenomenon is displayed in all the real world benchmarks I have seen of the Ageis PhysX PPU to date, The framerates actually DROP when the PPU is enabled.

To counter this, I believe, Ageis through ASUS, BFG and any other manufacturing partner they sign up with will have to release products designed for the PCIe bus. I believe this is what Ageis knows as the early manufacturing samples were able to be installed in the PCI bus as well as the PCIe bus (although not at the same time ;-) ). I believe the PCI bus was chosen for launch due to the very high installed user base of PCI motherboards, every standard PC I know of that would want a PPU in their system. I belive this is a mistake, as the users most likely to purchase this part in the 'Premium price' period would likely have PCIe in their system, or at least would be willing to shell out an extra £50-£140 for the privelage. Although I could be completely wrong in this as it may allow for some 'Double Selling' as when they release the new and improved PCIe version, the early adopters will be forced to buy into it again at a premium price.

This leads me neatly onto the price. I understand that Ageis, quite rightly, are handing out the PhysX SDK freely, this is to allow maximum compatibilty and support in the shortest period of time. This does however mean that the end user, who purchases the card in the beginning will have to pay the full price for the card...£218 for the 128MB OEM version. As time goes by and more units are sold, the installed userbase of the PPU will grow and the balance will shift, Ageis will be able to start charging the developers to use their 'must have' Hardware Physics support in their games/software and this will subsidise the cost of the card to the end user, therefore making them even more affordable to the masses and therefore making it a much more 'Must Have' for the developers. This will take several generations of the PPU before we feel the full impact of this I believe.

If ATI and nVidia are smart, they can capitalise on their high installed initial userbase and properly market the idea of Hardware physics for free with their SLI physics, they may be able to throw a spanner in the works for Agies while they attempt to attain market share. This may benefit the consumer, although it may also knock Agies out of the running depending on how effective ATI and nVidias driver based solution first appears. It could also prompt a swift buy out from either ATI or nVidia like nvidia did with 3DFX.

Using the CPU for Physics, even on a multicore CPU, in my opinion is not the way forward. The CPU is not designed for physics calculations, and from what I hear they are not (comparitively) very efficient at performing these calculations. A dedicated solution will always be better in the long run. This will free up the CPU to run the OS and also for Ai calculations and well as antivirus, firewall, background applications and generally keeping the entire system secure and stable. Multicore will be a blessing for PC's and consoles, but not for such a specific and difficult (for a CPU) task.

"Deep breath" ;-)

So there you have it, My thoughts on the PPU situation as it stands now and into the future. Right now I will not be buying into the dream, but simply keeping the dream alive by closely watching how it develops until such a time as I believe the 'Right Time' comes. £218 for an unproven, generally unsupported, and possibly seriously flawed incarnation of the PPU dream is not in my opinion The Right Time, Yet ;-)

JKay6969

[Buck-O]

Excelent post.
And it hink your are abs9olutely right on every count.

I think the timing is a double edged sword.
For one, they released it to late. If this had been releases back in the day of the GeForce4, and the Athlon XP, it would have sold like hot cakes. But, unfortuantely at this point in time, as we have all mentioned, the PCI bus is simply to old, and to legacy to work with a modern graphics card system. And any fluid charted benchmark run in FRAPS with and without PPU support, as you said, shows that plain as day. With significant (upwards of 30FPS in most cases) drops in framerate as the PPU is activated for a "physics enhanced" visual. WHich at this point is nothing but some particle effects. And really, as ive said before, all of those particle effects still have to be rendered on screen via the GPU, and if the GPU is an older GPU, your simply not going to be able to push those sort of visuals.

Now the other edge of that sword is that its released to early, becuase we are int eh era ov PCIe, and the faster direct busses of modern processor technology. THey should have waiting untill the PCIe support was broadened, and there was PCIe support for a card like the PPU. At present, i cant think of any motherboard worth its weight that will work properly with an SLI setup, and a PPU (or any card installed in a PCIe 1x slot for that matter).

So its really probibly the wort time to put a product like this to market. Plus add in all the other froo fraw coming with the release of Vista, and DX10, and the uncertaintly of the market surrounding it. Its really a bad move in my honest oppinion.


Truely, time will be the only real measure of what will become of Agia and their PPU. But i can almost guarentee, that before its over, and before we see a real implimentation of the device worth its while, will take ATi of Nvidia buying them up, and putting the PPU on card with the GPU. My guess would be the most likely cantidate for this would be ATi, and their xFire setup. And i say that soley becuase of their implimentation of the Master card. Which could easily, and seamlessly hold the PPU onboard, and simple use the slave card for graphics rendering only. I think this would be in ATi;s best interest, as it would likely vault them back into the lead in the GPU market.

Infact, i think i should patent that idea, before ATi buys it up. ROFL!

Thanks for contributing to the discussion.

[Unregistered]

Great thread guys. Love the back and forth debates. I'll probably be logging in and creating an account, but alas, I am at work and can't ;P

Just my two cents worth here: I believe that the physX card is a step in the right direction, and only that. Seems to me that it's only half a card...why only process the physics? Personally I think that they should create a card that fits into a PCIe slot, that works together with the cpu and gpu and contains the ENTIRE physics engine. That way any game built to take advantage of said engine would be able to nearly instantly get all the physics information from an outside source. Coding for games would be much easier and faster as well, allowing companies to focus more on AI and graphics... Then again, seems that everyone has a different idea as to what physics should be included in a game....so why not just make them all scalable? Gravity has an acceleration number to it - just make it selectable by the game itself...same with the friction of a given surface. Just link the object and/or texture to they physical properties wanted and voila!

Sorry if not much of that makes much sense, my mind keeps floating when I'm at work :P And with all that said, I'm probably going to pick up a physx card on my next pc build, which will hopefully be in about a month or so.

P.S. Out of curiosity, if it would be so great for games to take advantage of the second core of the CPU, why haven't they done so? multi core processors have been out for some time now, so i'm thinking there must be some reason why people aren't doing it....