Dave’s reply was that we won’t see physics in volume (i.e. hundreds of thousands of cards being used for physics) and therefore a material revenue stream from physics for 9-12 months (i.e. another 3-4 quarters) as that’s when there will be some substantial volume of ATI graphics cards being used for physics purposes.ATI GPU’s that support physics acceleration are already in retail (i.e. the X1900 and X1600 series of cards for example). All that’s required is a driver update that enables physics processing, and more importantly, game content which we expect around the holidays. We’re very likely to see revenue from physics before 9-12 months, but as Dave said it won’t be in volume, it will likely be early adopters.
quote: Reading the reviews of the Ageia PPU I start to think that quadcore processors, more cache, and better system performance overall might actually manage to make a PPU worth it! As it is now they're horribly bottlenecked by current systems.
quote: Pure Speculation: ATi is probably going to support Microsoft's DirectPhysics. Ageia is banking on their own PhysX engine. nVidia is supporting HavokFX. Havok 4.0 is apparently a winner with great use of dual/multi-core CPUs. ATi and DirectPhysics might be a winner.
Personally, I have this feeling that DirectPhysics will become the defacto standard and ATi is probably waiting to see how that works out. I just hope this doesn't inspire nVidia to deliver a rushed product to 'capitalize on the situation by launching a product that will serve no purpose'.
Then again, this whole PPU concept makes me mad. Isn't this what multi-core CPUs were gonna be used for (from a gaming perspective)? Are 10 times more flying crates/bouncing sparks really worth a dedicated processing unit? I seriously hope this whole concept fades away and developers decide to support multi-core CPUs.