Print 64 comment(s) - last by crazymike.. on Jun 22 at 3:56 PM

No games are being announced that supports ATI's method, says AGEIA

Earlier this week at Computex, DailyTech reported that ATI officially announces its solution to physics processing. Called Triple Play, ATI's solution depends on three Radeon X1K series cards, two of which operate in CrossFire mode while a third card is configured for physics processing. The Triple Play solution, says ATI, uses the raw gigaflop performance of the Radeon X1K series to process physics, but users are concerned at the approach. The fact that customers are forced to buy three ATI boards ended up being questionable for many users as costs quickly escalate.  A system with two Radeons can still use one for physics calculations, but it is no longer dubbed Triple Play.

FiringSquad this week reported a response from AGEIA which attempts to explain the lack of value in ATI's solution. According to AGEIA, measuring the performance of physics processing by simply looking at the number of gigaflops in a GPU is analogous to saying that "the more wheels I have on my car, the faster I will go." AGEIA's vice president of marketing,  Michael Steele, said to FiringSquad:
  • Graphics processors are designed for graphics. Physics is an entirely different environment. Why would you sacrifice graphics performance for questionable physics? You’ll be hard pressed to find game developers who don’t want to use all the graphics power they can get, thus leaving very little for anything else in that chip.
  • “Boundless Gaming” is actually enabled by AGEIA’s Gaming Power Triangle in which the PhysX processor adds true physics to the mix instead of leaving it to a repurposed graphics processor.
AGEIA further says that developers are announcing more and more games that support its PhysX product, while no one is announcing support for ATI's method. Steele also mentioned that while he's glad that ATI has agreed that physics is important, ATI is delivering a "questionable" solution to physics processing.

Steele also emphasized that PhysX is available now while ATI's solution is not.

Comments     Threshold

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

RE: Dubious statement...
By AndreasM on 6/9/2006 11:32:24 AM , Rating: 3
1. And ? ATI NEVER said only Havok would be able to use their technology actually its the other way around, they say ANY game developer may use it... be it hobbyist or not

I was actually responding to the OP about why someone would choose PhysX over HavokFX. But as far as I know, the SDK Ati is planning on releasing (in addition to supporting HFX) will be restricted to Radeons, which would make it pretty much useless.

2. So is the case of the Ageia PPU... and the Ageia PPU still costs 299$ which is a lot more than the average graphics card.

While it's true that more physics objects will increase the GPU load by making it draw more stuff, with HFX the GPU needs to both draw the new physics objects and calculate their physics. Obviously this makes HFX a heavier burden. ATM the PPU is a bit expensive, but it's because of the new-tech premium. An average GPU doesn't have this, so with time the price difference will shrink.

P.S. If you're talking about Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter, don't. It has a shitty implementation where they use Havok for all the physics and PhysX for some extra effects.

3. ATI says that it's not that hard to make a game do some of the physics work with the help of the graphics, actually they even made some in lab tests with Counter Strike Source (if I'm not mistaken).

With access to the sourcecode of CS:S, porting it to PhysX would be a minor task (assuming Havok is as easy to use as PhysX is), and porting it from Havok->HavokFX would probably be even easier. OTOH, adding GPU-assisted physics acceleration to CS:S without the source code sounds surreal, lab or not. ;)

RE: Dubious statement...
By mendocinosummit on 6/9/2006 11:36:35 AM , Rating: 2
Don't foreget that a PPU is a very new tech and that adds $$$. I bet we will see a $75 to $100 drop in the next year and half and PEx4.

RE: Dubious statement...
By Strunf on 6/9/2006 1:22:18 PM , Rating: 2
If nVIDIA and ATI are both working with Havok, chances are that their SDK will be close, and Directx 10 will probably set some standards, ATI also showed up some benchs with nVIDIA cards so they have tested their solution on nVIDIA cards as well.

With H:FX one card takes cares of the physics the other of the graphics, soo the burden is close to exactly the same has using on graphics card + PPU.

Shitty implementation or not, the facts speak for themselves.

I can find where I've read that about CS:Source so forget what I said, however I’m pretty sure Valve is doing some homework when it comes to Physics, not just Valve but ID, Crytek and all the others that DIDN’T say they were going to support Ageia, and CryTek already showed up a new demo with some advanced physics without mentioning Ageia…

RE: Dubious statement...
By Trisped on 6/12/2006 2:59:51 PM , Rating: 2
Why do people keep saying ATI is working with Havok? I don't remember reading anything that even implied that. I have also searched ATI.COM and found that the ONLY mention of Havok on the whole site (including press releases) was for a piece of modeling software.

"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki