backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 50 comment(s) - last by Builder15.. on Nov 29 at 3:48 PM

AMD execs talk purchase considerations for physics acceleration hardware maker AGEIA

Few would claim the AMD/ATI merger this point has gone well. John Peddie Research claims ATI only commands a 17.5% share of the graphics market currently, representing a loss in market share. This comes at the same time that NVIDIA, ATI’s largest rival, is posting record profits with its first billion dollar quarter.

AMD’s Richard Huddy said last week that GPU physics is dead for now after the Intel acquisition of Havok. AMD may consider the purchase of physics hardware manufacturer AGEIA; a topic that comes up every three months apparently.

A purchase of AGEIA would allow direct competition between AMD and Intel in the physics world and could open up the ability for hardware based physics acceleration on ATI graphics cards and in AMD processors.

The biggest reason the purchase of AGEIA by AMD is not likely to happen is one of cash.

Huddy recently told Custom PC, “Our biggest problem is that Havok reputedly cost in excess of $100 million. If I'd been valuing Havok, I'd have valued it at probably something like 10 per cent of that because they were in so much trouble in the marketplace, but realistically they did have some valuable IP, and you really can capitalize on that if you're Intel in this situation."

"If AGEIA want to command a comparable price," said Huddy, "then that's a pretty significant problem for AMD. No one would think of us as cash rich at the moment, so splashing an extra $100 million just to get physics, which is a niche market, is quite an issue for us."

Few would consider AGEIA to be flourishing in the current market place with the adoption of their hardware physics accelerators waning. However, that could possibly change in the future with the mobile physics accelerator AGEIA announced in August of 2007.

AGEIA, which has minimal product support right now, might not be in that bad of shape.  Even competitor Havok agrees hardware-physics competition from GPU manufacturers (including AMD) may not take form until Microsoft releases its next-generation API layer


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

CPU
By Slaimus on 11/27/2007 2:45:07 PM , Rating: 2
Why doesn't AMD instead spend their money buying innovative CPU startups instead? I remember how they had a chance to buy Stexar, but Nvidia gobbled them up instead.

Aegia does not really help their core business.




RE: CPU
By porkpie on 11/27/2007 2:51:34 PM , Rating: 3
I think AEGIA could help them...but not for the price they'd have to pay. When you're swimming in debt, you don't go looking for things to spend money on.


RE: CPU
By mlau on 11/27/2007 3:55:12 PM , Rating: 2
I'm curious: How can ageia help amd?

Only an insanely tiny fraction of hardcore gamers buy this completely useless tech (pay 100$ just so that the demo particle fountain can render 500 particles more? And I doubt
anyone would notice a difference in the trajectory of a falling box in a game, or even care)

Floating point offload? That's what DSP's and vector cpus like NEC's SX-9 are for.
Ageia: a solution in search of a problem (and stupid people
with too much money, but they're mulitplying every day ;))


RE: CPU
By clovell on 11/27/2007 4:15:02 PM , Rating: 4
It could help with AMD's plans for Fusion - but there hasn't been much said about that lately.


RE: CPU
By theapparition on 11/28/2007 7:57:37 AM , Rating: 2
They should drop 100mil on the real future technology...Bigfoot's Killer NIC card. That would certainly solidify AMD's position......in the ground.

Seriously, if they get caught trying to go blow-for-blow with Intel, they are going to lose. Buying Agena puts them one step closer to where Intel want's them.


RE: CPU
By Clauzii on 11/27/2007 8:08:51 PM , Rating: 1
Considering the pure performance of the latest offerings from AMD/ATI they are obviously not the fastest out there, which saddens me a bit.

At the same time, I don't think AMD/ATI are totally nuts and lost the knowledge of doing things overnight, and that bying AGEIA is a smart move, especially considering the latest Havoc-buy by intel.

Competition rules upped :)

--

What the new company would have is a complete platform with CPU, GPU and PHYSICS (which will probably be the know-how regarding Physix but running on ATI hardware which will be a significant speedbump compared to current AGEIA GPUs.

Now I'm only waiting for the intel-nvidia merger to show up.

PS: I'll bet "AAA MicroSystems" could be considered a name for the company as a whole, or is it a mere coincidence that all three's name start with an "A".... :)


RE: CPU
By vignyan on 11/28/2007 7:03:04 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry to disappoint you but there is absolutely no reason why Intel has to even consider buying NVidia... probably will buy when their stock drops to $10 (dont think thats going to happen either!) or so when its cheaper to buy than invest in new product technologies! :)


RE: CPU
By Clauzii on 11/28/2007 4:23:09 PM , Rating: 2
So intels lineup of GPU-stuff and some Havoc physix will get them up to level with nVidia/ATI?

Or did intel buy Havoc, to earn money on the Havoc licensies?


RE: CPU
By subhajit on 11/27/2007 10:24:04 PM , Rating: 2
DirectX 11 supposed to have physics APIs. Having the knowledge of AGEA would help AMD/ATI with the implementation of that.
Besides, AMD can also use it with their Fusion technology or with R700 (which is supposed to have a multi core architecture).


RE: CPU
By mlau on 11/28/2007 7:53:57 AM , Rating: 2
That's nice for Microsoft, but really, does *anyone* besides
hardest-core gamers (which are an insignificantly small amount
of people who buy PC hardware) care about physics?

When I play a game, the LAST thing on my mind is whether the
enemies are going down physically correct when their head is
blown off. If you care about such things then go get help asap. Seriously.


RE: CPU
By CyborgTMT on 11/28/2007 12:28:11 AM , Rating: 2
One big advantage AMD would have is changing the hardware/software so it would could accelerate both Ageia's physics and Havok. Add it as a part of the GPU and they will have a card that would support all games that are out. IMO this is where Ageia went wrong to begin with, they should have had Havok support in their card. But with Ageia it would have cost them for the licence, with AMD in control a cross licencing deal with Intel between Havok IP and Ageia IP is possible. Then both companies can stick it to nVidia and make them pay to play along....


RE: CPU
By slickr on 11/28/07, Rating: 0
RE: CPU
By Polynikes on 11/27/2007 5:51:53 PM , Rating: 3
I don't think Aegeia can help.

A GPU-based or separate hardware-based physics solution is not going to work long-term, because in a couple years we'll have more CPU cores than we know what to do with, and no one will buy it. It would probably be easier for developers to simply offload the physics processing to a CPU core than to have to work with another completely different set of instructions for a piece of hardware not very many will have. Honestly, I'm surprised Aegeia has managed to get ANY developers to use their physics solution.

AMD customers won't be real inclined to pay more for a GPU with a physics chip on it when they can buy a cheaper Nvidia solution and let their CPU handle the physics.


RE: CPU
By Hydrofirex on 11/27/2007 10:53:54 PM , Rating: 2
A valid counter-point, but isn't there something to be said for specialization? At a certain level of complexity won't even a PPU 'accelerator' be a big help? General purpose CPU's are often many orders of magnitude slower at certain intensive operations than a specialized core.

I've said it here before, but I imagine a 10 core CPU in the future as follows: 1 GPU, 1 physics, 1 AI, and 1 OS/TCP-IP accelerator coupled with 6 general purpose CPU's. From there it really takes off - and this definitely won't have the power you'll be able to give to these specialized areas with a dedicated add-on card. However, I see this as an integrated solution and not 2 or 3 separate cards (Unless you're running a 'multi-GPU' configuration). Further, I would imagine (hope) AI acceleration to be more useful for use in the GUIs of the future than gaming.

HfX


RE: CPU
By kelmon on 11/28/2007 5:50:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
A valid counter-point, but isn't there something to be said for specialization?


Honestly, no. The last thing that we need is a load of specialised chips to keep upgrading when we're not even using the resources that we already have. Sure, a general purpose CPU will be slower but it's almost certain to be available in the future and it will be faster than the current solutions so it will be a benefit. Make use of what's already available before adding more.

The sooner this stupid idea is killed the better.


RE: CPU
By afkrotch on 11/28/2007 7:44:50 AM , Rating: 2
So why do we have GPUs? Specialized chips give you more performance. With tech nowadays, I'm sure they could easily jam a cpu, gpu, and ppu onto the same die. Would I want it? No. I'd end up having one proc that would cost a buttload to replace, as opposed to individual components. Not to mention, each with their own memory.

If you aren't using the resources that's available, that's your own problem. I have a C2D and I utilize the crap out of it. Am I going C2Q? No, cause I don't have a need for it. It's not Intel or AMD's fault that you bought a proc that you can't use. No one told you to buy it.


RE: CPU
By calyth on 11/28/2007 6:04:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Honestly, no. The last thing that we need is a load of specialised chips to keep upgrading when we're not even using the resources that we already have.


Unless you don't play 3D games, you do pay for a specialized chip that you hardly use all that often. Sure, Windows uses it to render 2D everyday, but you can probably power down 3/4 of that chip and still have standard 2D performance.

Also, when you make everything GP, you lose a lot of optimization. It's the reason why a 575MHz/1.35GHz 8800GTX can perform so much better in 3D than using your CPU at 2GHz+ rendering the same scene. If the PPU is sufficiently cheap, and not requiring constant upgrades like your GPU, what's the harm in having it to offload some of the more common calculations in an FPS?


RE: CPU
By semo on 11/27/2007 2:53:44 PM , Rating: 2
why should they buy anyone.

look at consoles. the big 3 don't own every company that makes parts or assemble their products.


RE: CPU
By mendocinosummit on 11/27/2007 4:00:14 PM , Rating: 2
No, but they sell a ready product such as Dell and HP, there is a big difference in why AMD would buy Ageia and why Sony would buy IBM.


RE: CPU
By Clauzii on 11/27/2007 8:15:14 PM , Rating: 1
Agree and also, what company would say no to producing 20+ million CPUs to ANYONE? - Not counting countries with restrictions on computer-speed being imported, of course.