backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 73 comment(s) - last by Trisped.. on Mar 28 at 5:07 PM

The arms race for physics processing has begun

Hot on the heels of NVIDIA announcing its partnership with Havok for GPU-level physics implementations, ATI is saying it too is capable of performing heavy physics computations on its GPUs. There is currently a great deal of focus being placed on how to speed up and implement better physics in games and interestingly AGEIA has been preaching that physics processing belongs on a discrete processor designed to handle just physics and nothing else. This approach is very much similar to the way 3dfx designed its first few successful 3D processors, which didn't do anything except accelerate 3D.

Both ATI and NVIDIA are using the same method of computing physics on their GPUs -- load and process some physics calculations if there's just one GPU, or load and process all physics calculations onto one full GPU if there are two GPUs (Crossfire or SLI). In regards to both methods, the approach is monolithic, meaning that both ATI and NVIDIA prefer to load all things related to graphics onto the GPU. ATI claims that its latest X1900 family has more than enough processing power left sitting idle most of the time to take care of physics and 3D rendering. This is a strong indication that the current state of 3D graphics is far too concerned with frame rate when it should be looking into how best to utilize the chips that ATI and NVIDIA produce.

According to ATI, the ability to process physics exists on both R520 and R580 architectures. The functionality is enabled via software drivers and can be delivered in various ways. ATI says that it will implement a low-level proprietary API that developers can use to pass physics functions too. The proprietary API allows a game to bypass Direct3D or OpenGL completely and communicate with the hardware. However, a developer can still opt to use Direct3D or OpenGL if they choose to.

ATI is also saying that its method for processing physics on the GPU is superior to both AGEIA's and NVIDIA's. According to the company, those who have already purchased any one of the X1800 or X1900 series can rest assured that their investment will last. Using its propriety API, ATI is able to offload physics processing to any GPU in a dual-GPU setup, regardless of whether or not the cards are in Crossfire mode or that they are even from the same family. This way, those who upgrade later can use their existing X1800 or X1900 cards for discrete physics processing while using the newer card for 3D acceleration duties. As of right now, ATI's method appears to offer the best combined benefits of both AGEIA's discrete processing as well as being able to switch between Crossfire, Crossfire + Physics.

Physics processing has only been a hot topic recently, most notably after AGEIA went public with its announcement of the "first PPU." With both ATi and NVIDIA now announcing that they are strong players in physics processing, AGEIA's original intent of "complementing" existing graphics cards is under heavy fire.


Comments     Threshold


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

ATi is the best at physics?
By DarthPierce on 3/23/2006 6:46:07 PM , Rating: 2
They don't really seem to explain anything about their ability to make the physics processing use the information for anything other than graphical effects... which is the same problem nvidia's solution faces as opposed to aegia, where the physics can affect gameplay in addition to graphics.




RE: ATi is the best at physics?
By soydeedo on 3/23/2006 7:08:50 PM , Rating: 5
the link given here takes you to the last page of that article. go one or two pages forward to read more details.

personally i think the fact that you can pair up two cards from different families makes all the difference when compared to nvidia and finally i may regret not buying an sli mobo. i think this approach is probably how it will end up just for simplicity's sake.


RE: ATi is the best at physics?
By soydeedo on 3/23/2006 7:16:13 PM , Rating: 4
or you can check the second question down at this link:

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardwar e/ati_physics/pa...


RE: ATi is the best at physics?
By uop on 3/25/2006 1:40:24 AM , Rating: 2
ATI claim they can do better physics than ageia because they can handle more GFlops (375 for ATI vs. 100 for Ageia).

ATI claim they can do better physics than Nvida because their architecture is much more suitable for that - unified shader units and a 3:1 shader/pipeline ratio, which means they have more spare power left than nvidia.


By masher2 (blog) on 3/25/2006 2:29:28 AM , Rating: 2
> "ATI claim they can do better physics than ageia because they can handle more GFlops "

I'm sure ATI has more raw horsepower, but there's no way a they're going to beat Ageia in performance. A general-purpose processor wastes too much of its power compared to a custom ASIC.

Second of all, one large part of gaming physics is collision detection...an operation thats not floating point intensive, but requires massive memory bandwidth. Ageia is claiming 2 Tb/sec internal bandwidth for Physx, which is far and above what ATIs R580 can manage.






Memory Bandwidth?
By trabpukcip on 3/25/2006 11:55:35 AM , Rating: 3
Did someone not mention earlier that collision based physics (ie that affects gameplay) requires a ton of memory bandwidth? And that the Ageia PPU has about 2TB of memory bandwidth?

The current x1900s have about 50GB of memory bandwidth right
ie 1/40th of the PPU?

I know which one I would buy, it would last a decent ammount of video card generations.




RE: Memory Bandwidth?
By Clauzii on 3/25/2006 9:21:07 PM , Rating: 2
It´s actually 2 Terabit = 250GB/s - 5xGPUs - BUT for physics ALONE!!!


RE: Memory Bandwidth?
By dilz on 3/26/2006 3:01:13 AM , Rating: 2
If a PPU is as bandwidth-hungry as you claim, then yes, there's no reason I should wait on buying one, and I shouldn't expect GPUs to ever be up to the task either. Perhaps this why GPU-based physics processing is be suggested for SLI/Crossfire only? Your information makes the decision to purchasing a discrete PPU a "no-brainer." But this is mere conjecture. Bring on the graphs!


RE: Memory Bandwidth?
By masher2 (blog) on 3/26/2006 7:16:07 PM , Rating: 1
> "If a PPU is as bandwidth-hungry as you claim, then yes..."

I made the claim, not him. And to clarify, some aspects of gaming physics are highly bandwidth intensive (e.g. collision detection). Other tasks are not.


RE: Memory Bandwidth?
By lemonadesoda on 3/27/2006 10:23:00 AM , Rating: 2
The nice thing about the bandwidth issue, is that if ALL the objects are WITHING the ageis local memory, it isn't requiring bandwidth on the PCI bus.

You just need to load in the map, particple original coordinates and trajectory vectors, then let the PPU do the rest.

It like saying that the GPU requires incredible bandwidth... and it DOES... on its internal bus... but does not need so much on the AGP/PCIe16 bus.


RE: Memory Bandwidth?
By dilz on 3/27/2006 10:35:18 AM , Rating: 2
Thank you for clarifying my murky ideas... :P


RE: Memory Bandwidth?
By masher2 (blog) on 3/27/2006 10:41:48 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly so. The actual computation is bandwidth intensive, but the data transfer from CPU and PPU is not. PCI bus bandwidth is generally sufficient.


This is real trouble for Ageia
By hellcats on 3/24/2006 11:51:53 AM , Rating: 2
A few points:

1) Havok announced they will also support ATI. All they need is SM3.0.
2) Next gen consoles have SM3.0
3) GPUs have > 10x FPU performance than current CPUs
4) NVidia/ATI have much more experience making vector FPU hardware than Ageia
5) Ageia have yet to demonstrate any acceleration by their PPU over the CPU.
6) Havok FX works. Who cares if the GPU wasn't initially designed for physics, if it can do it then it can do it.
7) Ageia's PPU can only be used for physics. A spare or faster GPU can do both graphics and physics. Having additional discreet hardware reduces the chances for full utilization.
8) The installed base of SM3.0 GPUs is much greater than the number of PPUs (which is zero right now I would think). Game developers would rather support the more common platform.

Ageia has based their business on the assumption that you can't accelerate physics with the GPU and therefore there will be a big market for a dedicated "PPU". This assumption has just been shot to pieces. I'd hate to be Ageia's CEO when the VCs call to ask about this Havok FX thing.





RE: This is real trouble for Ageia
By masher2 (blog) on 3/24/2006 1:05:55 PM , Rating: 2
> "Physics and graphics processing is fundementally the same"

This really isn't true; there are major differences, even in the subset of "gaming physics" commonly used in most games.

The differences explain why a new, small company like Ageia can provide a PPU that outperforms-- for physics-- the mature GPUs from NVidia and ATI by 500% or more.


By masher2 (blog) on 3/24/2006 1:08:47 PM , Rating: 2
Sigh, I replied to the post BELOW this one...this forum software has serious issues...


RE: This is real trouble for Ageia
By Clauzii on 3/24/06, Rating: 0
RE: This is real trouble for Ageia
By masher2 (blog) on 3/24/2006 10:47:36 PM , Rating: 2
> "I'd hate to be Ageia's CEO when the VCs call to ask about this Havok FX thing."

All he needs to do is simply point out that Ageia's solution-- while not only being 5X or more faster-- is the only one which allows true physics interaction.

The NVidia/Havok approach is just more eye candy.


RE: This is real trouble for Ageia
By Clauzii on 3/25/2006 9:16:25 PM , Rating: 2
It will be funny to read the forums in the future: Realizm vs. Resolution :)


By lemonadesoda on 3/27/2006 10:17:41 AM , Rating: 2
I think your statement 7) Ageia's PPU can only be used for physics. A spare or faster GPU can do both graphics and physics. Having additional discreet hardware reduces the chances for full utilization. is rather a bold statement!

If ATi/NVidia were designed for GPU, but they can do other stuff through SDK, then I would bet the Ageia SDK is designed to do WHATEVER you want to do with multiple floating point co-processors.

It's basically a flipping huge multi-processor-array of FPAUs. (floating point arithmetic units).

With the right SDK you can:

1./ Do any math comp... stat's software packages move over
2./ Use it for encoding music... Frauenhofer move over
3./ Use it for encoding video... Take a look at ATi' recent effort at speeding up video encoding using their AVIVO (AT Theatre 550) chip. Encoding 5x faster. I'm sure ageia can match if not beat that
4./ Encription algorithms
5./ ZIP/UNzip compression algorithms
6./ Photoshop filters
... the list goes on

Try getting out of the box and thinking a little more creatively.


Same BS as Nvidia is claiming.
By the Chase on 3/23/2006 7:07:32 PM , Rating: 3
The timing is impecable. Both ATI and NVIDIA have been working on physics for a LONG time. Really. And they both thought this just seems to be a good time to come forward with their solutions. So you just need to buy that 2nd $450 video card and you will have the choice to have great graphics(2 cards running the graphics) or OK graphics and ho-hum watered down physics(1 card doing graphics and 1 doing the physics). Sounds like a great solution. (For ATI and NVIDIA's pocketbooks that is).




RE: Same BS as Nvidia is claiming.
By soydeedo on 3/23/2006 7:10:54 PM