backtop


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

By Trisped on 6/12/2006 2:42:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
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.

Yes, Graphics processors are designed for graphics, but they are basic processors and physics is a basic processes. Their hardware environment is so similar that it really isn’t worth the time worrying about the distinctions at this point in the game.
If you look at the GPU usage charts per frame there is a large amount of unused processor time due to the fact that it must have enough power to render complex scenes in about the same amount of time as a simple one and the fact that some problems require the results of the previous computations, which means you can pipeline in a few different jobs at the same time without losing performance. Besides, having an extra graphics card just for physics means lots of power just sitting there.

As for “Boundless Gaming” I wouldn’t call anything that reduces games to unplayable frame rates “Boundless.” Yes, game makers are going to push the graphics as far as they can, but they also have to make them run on old computers, computers without physic processors, and 30inch monitors. For that reason you can manually adjust things like AA, AF, texture sizes, field of view, and resolution. Some will max their visual display while others will max their physics and limit the visuals.

As far as availability, sure ATI’s isn’t out yet and no games are said to support it, but there are not games that support the PhysX at a playable frame rate.

They are just talking out of their but because they realize how crappy their product is and how many people think/want/hope ATI’s will be better. I really wanted Ageia to do well, but the facts just don’t line up.




By crazymike on 6/22/2006 3:56:37 PM , Rating: 2
At this moment it is clear that 300$ are a waste of money for a PPU and even a drop of 100-150$ dollars would not do much to change things specialy when a X1600 costs less tham $150.

Even in future I dont see this changing specily with quad core cpu's.

This triple play offer from ATI did make me think in one thing why not adding the possibility of Crossfire with different GPU's ? That way we could add a 1600XT to a 1800XT to get extra perfomance because 1800xt would probably be overkill for most of the people.


"We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs
Related Articles













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