backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 39 comment(s) - last by Clauzii.. on Mar 22 at 9:00 PM
Havok and NVIDIA team up to deliver hardware physics processing on GPUs through the use of SLI

At the Games Developer Conference (GDC) NVIDIA announced a strong partnership with Havok, to leap into the forefront of physics processing. However, despite the trend to offload physics processing to a dedicated processor (such as AGEIA's PPU), Havok and NVIDIA announced that using SLI, a second GPU can be used to perform physics computations. The feature is customizable and a user can set their SLI configuration in either graphics+physics or graphics+graphics (traditional SLI) modes.

Utilizing Havok FX and NVIDIA graphics technology, game developers can now implement sophisticated physical phenomenon such as debris, smoke, and fluids that add immense detail and believability to game environments. Game designers can include advanced physics effects without burdening the CPU and slowing game-play, since the effects are simulated and rendered on the GPU.

We previously talked about Havok and its HavokFX engine, which is a low level engine used in a host of games to accelerate physics and provide realistic looking animations. NVIDIA states that offloading physics to the GPU will bring greater value for both developers and gamers, since no extra hardware and extra development is required.

With extra processing power on tap through the use of an SLI configuration, users will have the ability to choose. Not all games will be physics heavy, but may be graphics effects heavy. In a case like this, the user would benefit greatly by having the ability to turn his second GPU into regular GPU mode. The cost is already spent on having an SLI configuration. The user would get the added bonus of being able to switch to physics SLI mode if the application demands so. Clearly the direction of physics that NVIDIA is taking is keeping users from having to go with a dedicated physics processor.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
price
By JoKeRr on 3/20/2006 11:50:21 PM , Rating: 2
I think ageia physX will be pretty darn successful if it comes cheap, say in the 100~150 bux range. Cause that will make SLI physix pretty darn expensive. But SLI does have the advantage of extra graphics power, so it's going to be a hard call to make.




RE: price
By Goty on 3/20/2006 11:55:31 PM , Rating: 3
But the thing is that you can't use both the physics processing and the graphics processing power at the same time, so you ultimately lose out on situations where you might need both.


RE: price
By Hypernova on 3/21/2006 2:19:33 AM , Rating: 2
Aegia takes up a PCI-E slot too so unless you got a Quad Royal it's pritty much the same.


RE: price
By Hypernova on 3/21/2006 2:23:59 AM , Rating: 2
Still very interested with how it comapres with Aegia in terms of preformance, doubt GPU's can beat a specialised PPU. But if nvedia comes close (say 80%) then Aegia could be in trouble, if it's something like 40% then Aegia still got a chance.


Quad SLI
By kalaap on 3/21/2006 9:31:47 AM , Rating: 2
I think the Quad SLI would probably give you the best of both worlds w/ gfx+phys.




RE: Quad SLI
By suryad on 3/21/2006 12:19:54 PM , Rating: 2
Technically it should and will. But we have to remember the benefits of physics on graphics chip is possible only because everything is so cpu limited right now. What happens when the cpu is able to overcome enough of its shortcomings that the complex physics can no longer be run on the graphics cards without a performance hit in fps?

Also it seems to me that the physics that the Nvidia cards are performing are not 'real' physics. It seems to me that the cards are actually just drawing the pixesl in such a way as it is supposedly simulating physics. Not the stuff Agiea's processor is doing.

For further read maybe these links would help:
http://www.techreport.com/oneartic le.x/9610
http://www.theinquirer.net/?articl e=30434

The authors are better at me than putting ideas into words.

As you may already know that Epic games has invested in Ageia. In fact Unreal 3.0 is going to support the Agiea PPU (physics processing unit) and right now the PPU library is given to game devs for free. I dont know if it is the same with the hardware and Havok charges game devs the price of a Ferrari to use their stuff. I really hope Agiea takes off and makes money in the long run. I think this GPU based physics is a hack personally. I would rather have my quad sli driving every game at 2560 x 1600 resolution on a 30 inch or larger monitor.


RE: Quad SLI
By masher2 (blog) on 3/21/2006 12:51:28 PM , Rating: 3
> "Also it seems to me that the physics that the Nvidia cards are performing are not 'real' physics. "

No, thats not a good way to put it. They're both doing "real" game physics, but the Nvidia approach cannot output data back to the CPU. So you can't use the results to influence future gameplay...meaning its not truly interactive.

Example. Main character shoots wall. It explodes, bricks and timbers fly everywhere, falling in natural, kinematically-accurate paths. (both solutions). One brick strikes main character, knocking him backwards (only the Ageia solution).

Main character walks through hole in wall (both solutions). Main character tries to walk through hole in wall, but gets stuck on one timber lodged partially in the way (Ageia solution).




RE: Quad SLI
By suryad on 3/21/2006 1:27:35 PM , Rating: 1
Great! Thanks for the input!


Aegia better
By DangerIsGo on 3/21/2006 11:39:02 AM , Rating: 2
I feel that aegia will prob get my vote. If I have a, lets say 7900GTX, I dont feel like spending another $500 for a gfx card which will act as a physics card. Way too expensive considering PPU's cost between $100 and $300. If its small enough, I can fit a PPU in PCIe between my SLI'd cards. Sure its a good idea but moneywise, its not.




RE: Aegia better
By jkostans on 3/21/2006 12:44:22 PM , Rating: 2
Off topic big time but with a seperate physics solution like aegia or a second gpu, will the graphics framerate and physics update rate be unrelated? Like if there is a huge explosion with lots of physics calculations so only 20 updates per second can be done, but the graphics card can maintain 60+ fps. Will the game still run at 60fps and the physics objects will just move and interact at 20fps?


RE: Aegia better
By masher2 (blog) on 3/21/2006 1:36:21 PM , Rating: 2
It all depends on how its coded. Lazy programmers will probably tie everything to a synchronous pipeline, and thus a slowdown in physics calculations would affect framerate...but it doesn't necessarily have to be true.


RE: Aegia better
By FearaFox on 3/21/2006 3:42:15 PM , Rating: 2
or just tone down the physics effects to match the graphics effects, / vice versa even


It should be seperate
By Cunthor01 on 3/21/2006 1:35:12 AM , Rating: 2
I would prefer to stick the physics card in a PCI slot seperatly, and not be bound to nvidias sli solution in order to get better performance. This should be an attractive solution to any single/sli mobo on the market, not a high-end gaming card/mobos combo




RE: It should be seperate
By FearaFox on 3/21/2006 3:38:17 PM , Rating: 2
i dont think there would be enough bandwidth for that :\


RE: It should be seperate
By beemercer on 3/21/2006 3:48:32 PM , Rating: 3
I believe ageia is launching a PCI PPU first, and then a higher performance PCI express version later.


Ah, the joys of a new technology....
By Targon on 3/21/2006 10:02:25 AM , Rating: 2
When 3Dfx came out with the Voodoo, it provided something not available through software. As a result, you saw a HUGE benefit in games with a Voodoo card. Software emulation while MUCH slower, SHOULD have been able to provide an equivilant image, but it was never done.

Now, we have dual core processors out there when the vast majority of games arn't written with a multi-threaded design. This means the second core is sitting there with very little use. A game could easily do the physics in software and come up with game play that is identical to what you would see WITH a physics co-processor. So, if a game developer decides to do it themselves, people without the physics processor won't see much of a difference. Most games arn't CPU limited as well, but instead are graphics card limited.

So, keep that in mind when you say how amazing a physics co-processor would be in games if the physics can be done well by the CPU without a major slow-down. Dual-core today, quad-core on the desktop in two years.




RE: Ah, the joys of a new technology....
By masher2 (blog) on 3/21/2006 10:06:53 AM , Rating: 1
> " game could easily do the physics in software and come up with game play that is identical to what you would see WITH a physics co-processor"

No. These coprocessors are considerably more powerful than a second cpu core. They're more powerful even than three free cores.

Second of all, that "spare" core is only semi-idle...and thats the current situation, only because most games are single-threaded. Now that dual-core systems are becoming common, expect to see that second core utilized much heavier.


RE: Ah, the joys of a new technology....
By saratoga on 3/21/2006 2:49:49 PM , Rating: 2
A CPU core is also much more flexible, has more memory with a lower latency, and is steadily getting faster. In the long run, coprocessors like this don't make much sense. They have to fight the high latency of the interconnect to the CPU as well as to the main memory. On top of that, they're just specialized processors with fast vector units. With vector performance increasing on x86 cores, and 2-4 cores likely over the next few years, theres not going to be much use for these cards.

Aegia seems to realize that. The marketing stuff on their site plugs their SDK as much as their hardware, and they show the SDK wrapping calls to an x86 core as well as to their own hardware.


By masher2 (blog) on 3/21/2006 4:08:18 PM , Rating: 2
> "In the long run, coprocessors like this don't make much sense"

I disagree totally. Yes CPUs are "getting faster"...but so are coprocessors. And a generalized design is ONLY useful when you're tring to press one piece of silicon into several different functions. You can never beat the performance of dedicated circuitry, however.

If you look at the history of the computer, coprocessors are becoming more and more prevalent. Most servers contain network coprocessors in the NICs, servers and desktops both may contain disk coprocessors, sound and video coprocessors, and many other forms of specialized silicon.

Even the old floating point coprocessor still exists...it simply got sucked directly onto the CPU die. A similar thing thing will happen with a physics coprocessor I believe. In ten years when your average CPU has a hundred cores, many of them will be specialized for certain tasks.


aegia
By DigitalDivine on 3/20/2006 11:32:46 PM , Rating: 1
i like the aegia solution better




RE: aegia
By PLaYaHaTeD on 3/20/2006 11:40:05 PM , Rating: 1
What an unbelievably elegant and well thought out response. You've definitely made me a believer in aegia's solution.


RE: aegia
By Xenoterranos on 3/20/2006 11:43:31 PM , Rating: 2
I like his response better.