Asus makes PhysX boards

Xbit lab is reporting that theses cards will be close to 300 $. For that price i bet most people should upgrade their cpu than buy that. I very much doubt we see anytime soon a lot of games that need a top cpu a top gpu AND a PPU to run perfectly well

 

i'll get one just for bragging rights

 

$300 I was expecting around the £50 mark. Must come with tons of memory for that price. Shame it will never reach the mass market at that price.

Cheaper just buying a X-Box 360. More bang for your buck.

 

Where are they getting those numbers from?

Are those the intro or high end parts?

Do they account for this being the first entry products into the market that need to recover the costs of R&D etc.?

Anyway...

As I see it the PPU is about the only way PC's are going to be able to handle next gen console ports.

It will be years before AMD and Intel introduce chips that are on the level of the Cell or the X360's CPU. Barring these CPU's should hit the PC market or some similar offering from IBM (cost!?!...a lot!) there is no way next gen physics will retranslated back to the PC realm. Given how the PS3's Cell has got the X360's CPU licked the console could use a PPU to even the score or actually best it...unfortunately there simply aren't enough memory resources, bandwidth etc for all that without some significant reworking of the whole system. I wonder if they can and will beef up the CPU more before launch...but then Sony can do that too...

Sorry got OT for a bit. IMO if you want the same level of physics and AI to come over with console ports then a PPU is necessary to handle the physics load and free up our dual-cores to handle the AI. Our GPU's should be able to handle the raw graphics but even still the tessellation etc abilities the Cell has will mean that stuff won't make the crossover in any reality I feel.

OT does anyone feel that the PS3 with it's Collada and Linux love would give OpenGl and Linux a significant push in the PC world? I mean the PS3 is going to be successful and if ports are possible and a common thing of course. I don't mean to say that XNA won't keep directx and Windows in a dominant position but perhaps now the competition just got a more stronger than people realize...competition is a good thing.

 

Well just read here you will know as much I know

 

Why so? What gives you that idea? Cell maybe, but the XBox 360 CPU(s) don't sound all that far from what's already on the market for x86 (three-core rather than dual-core, and SMT which is of application-dependent benefit, and 3.2GHz which isn't exactly special as P4 has already shown).

Turn it around, it could be years before console programmers work out how to actually use the power of the CPU(s) in the consoles.

I'm interested to know how a pile of hype about PS3/XBox360 implies that the PC is for-sure dead in the water.

 

Thanks!

edit:

...hmm...that's kinda steep...$250 to $300...that's all and well fine for me, but for the average joe that price seems rather prohibitive...

...I also wonder if things are in this price range, how in the world could you begin to talk about integration into the mobos....

...I hope more is going on behind the scenes and that these parts are the price of admission where prices should fall quickly...

end edit:

 

What you say about know how to take advantage of multi-core processors is true...but it's true of all mulit-core processors. The problem being though one multi-core != another and Cell just has raw power and though less so the X360's CPU does as well.

You asked why I said what I said so I'll put out how I see things.

PowerPC processors are typically clocked much lower than what the Cell and X360 CPU are and still outperform or perform on par with x86 cores such as Intels. Point being a PowerPC core running at the same clock speed as an Intel x86 core would mean the PowerPC core is significantly more powerful in this matchup. Proof to point - we have a more direct example in the AMD x86 core. If AMD placed a 3GHz+ core in it's next FX and Intel simply stayed in the 3GHz range then Intel's CPUs would get creamed...badly I feel.

For now let's consider AMD's 2GHz offerings and Intels 3GHz offerings to be synonymous as they perform more or less on the same level with these respective clock speeds. The Rub here is that a core from one of these next gen consoles will more powerful due to raw speed alone. (note what I said about PowerPC clockspeed...it is much like how you would compare AMD's speeds to Intel's)

For the a good while into the future x86 isn't going to be sped up but instead going to leverage multi-core in the PC market for power. That is to say their multi-cores will be in the ranges I have already mentioned until probably moving to 65nm or some other next logical step.

This means that core for core there is a significant performance disadvantage for the x86 parts to the abnormally high clocked PowerPC cores in the Cell and X360 CPU.

The next layer is that these cores are more robust for gaming applications core for core than their x86 or even the PowerPC brethren. The VMX units in the X360's CPU are powerful and hella fast...there won't be an answer for them in the current form of SIMD instructions in the x86. I am being superficial here but the point I want to make is that these processors can be made to be "gaming" parts that perform general and non-specific tasks where as their PC counter-parts must be more generalistic and drag along legacy capabilities that slow them down or make them bigger and hotter or waste die space they could be using to make them more robust in similar areas.

Then there's the issue of simple numbers. Two cores vs. 3+ cores in console CPU's for a very good while I feel.

So this is how I see it.

PC CPU's are at a speed disadvantage (one that is not merely by numbers but by a measurable metric), optimization for gaming, and physical core count per chip.

PC CPU's will be at a significant disadvantage relative to being gaming beasts for a good while IMO. Remember...I am thinking in terms of gaming performance and I do note that it will take time to learn how the utilize these chips fully...the problem is that this learning disadvantage goes both ways leaving raw power as the point of inflection.

edit:

I never said PCs are dead in the water or PC gaming was dead in the water and I never will. I said PC's got some hard times coming and a PPU IMO would help to calm the storm.

If I thought PC gaming was dead (as is getting owned and nothing could be done about it) I wouldn't be here talking about it.

end edit:

 

The X360 cores arn't directly comparable to PC cores and they arn't the same as G5's. According to anadtech they are much simplified and would be significantly slower than a PC core.

This makes pefect sense given how much they cost to manufacture. Market forces are the same for all companies and Sony and IBM can't just sidestep them for consoles.

Think about it. Intel charges a huge premium for its EE edition almost exclusively for gamers. If these IMB cores were so great then for what they must cost to produce Intel could probably easily afford to whack 3 of them onto the P4 for the same cost as its extra cache.

 

Wow,

$250 to $300 was more than I was hoping for. I thought that they would have some different speeds. Before I will buy one, a game that I own has to support it. The problem is I don't buy $50 games very often. I just got HL2 and Far Cry but that is only because it came free with my motherboard cpu combo. City of Villains supports it and I am now playing City of Heroes, but I am not sure the villain appeals to me as much as the hero.

What would be nice is if AGEIA has enough capital to pay Valve, ID, and maybe Crytek to go back and put in a patch that supports the PhysX card. That would get me closer to buying it, the more games in my game library both new and old that support it. I don't think that would happen, but it would be nice.

 

I did say these CPUs were optimized for gaming and thus I had already taken into account they would be simpler parts. They need not carry around functionalities be they legacy or not that will not be put to use on the gaming platform they are meant to be used on.

I did not suggest these cores were comparable to G5 cores. I was speaking to the point made about raw clock speed but I did mention these cores were not like cores on the PC platform...or for that matter on the Mac. It actually part of why when it comes to gaming why I think PCs are at a disadvantage.

Intel charges out the bootie for EE chips because they can. It's not because they're the best out there. That would be the Athlon FX series. To reiterate if FX's were clocked to the speeds EE's were then Intel chips would not be the lesser option they are now but really a non-option for the die hard gamer that would buy an FX or EE in the first place. (ignoring price of course)

I really don't understand what you mean with the idea of Intel slapping IBM cores on the CPU or what I percieve the implication is...if IBM is so hot why hasn't Intel snatched up their goodies and started using it. For one the x86 and PowerPC ISAs are different, they IP is that of competitors in the same market and really I don't think they could ever get an efficient working part of any sort. I also see no good and widespread need for such a part.

If you mean why hasn't Intel just changed it's architecture to something like the PowerPC's then this won't happen because they would be breaking their promise of retaining software compatability indefenitely with the CPU line OR they would have to ensure their CPU still had x86 functionalities OR could emulate...

...were you just yanking my chain?

Grrrr!

 

This happens every time new consoles come out.

It's true that the pc game market isn't the overwhelming force it used to be, but it's also not quite as dire as most numbers show. For one thing, the reported sales figures don't include big items such as the massive piles of cash that go into mmo subscriptions or downloaded content such as Steam.

On topic, $300 for a physics card is out of my budget for the time being. It'd be better to have a less expensive but still decent option rather then a completely awesome but expensive board.

As it stands now, the board is facing a "chicken or the eggs" issue.

 

New Info:

Not so good too... =(

Good

Bad, if I am going to spend $250 I don't want t PCI card. I want a PCIe. I do not see myself upgrading a PhysX card as often as I do a video card or sound card, unless they give me new must have features.

ACK! So right now it doesn't work 100%. It is beta but it just scares me.

ACK ACK! Pay now, we will enable the PureVideo... er Other Cool Stuff(tm) later. This is very bad in my book!
www.extremetech.com

I want them to be successful, I want cooler physics in my games, but this is not good news. I know they still have time to fix things, but when I want something badly I get a bit skeptical even though I try to remain positive. =)


Good opinion at Arstechnica

 

Definitely not good news!

I say don't release if you're not ready...you're only going to get one shot to wow the world with this...that or hire a bunch of code monkeys pronto!

How do they expect someone to invest $250 plus if they can show what they have is ready for the big lights? Aegia seemed to be alot of the right moves, but if this is true they'll certainly prove they're capable of making some bad moves to.

As a likely early adopter I expect some problems but not to the tune of 50% performance and 50% features loss due to driver issue...that's a bit too much to swallow.

 

My goodness. These guys need a new marketing department. I suppose it's nice when companies come forward and state the good with the bad, but this is just plain stupid. Why even talk about these things and worry the consumer?

Oh well, it will be interesting to see how this device will fare if the first generation flops. Anyone think there will be enough support to keep pushing something like this unless there is immediate uptake?

As much as I like the idea of dedicated hardware and this concpet of a PPU is intriguing, I really don't see this working unless they have some killer app at launch and a pricepoint that makes gamers scramble for the device. Maybe they are rushing this a bit too much. Perhaps they would be better served to wait, work on a second revision, let PCIe mature, and make sure they have a launch title to bundle, or at least supply a demo of.

 

I read it's going to be $249-299, which is a little too much in my book. I also hope they get a LOT higher than 4200 objects, as they promise. Right now, I think I'll just skip the first PPU generation altogether; I doubt there will be many games making use of it/using it to its full potential for some time anyway; if only PS3/xbox360 also had a dedicated PPU...

As for PCI, I don't have a strong opinion either way. PCI is still present in PCI-e boards and I suspect it will continue to be that way for a while.

 

Everybody see the pic over at [H]? I have to wonder if that fan is for functional purposes or marketing ones. . .

Umm, somebody 'splain why PCI-only would be a problem? Are we getting many (uh, any?) mobos that have more pcie slots than those for the vid card(s)? AGP-user here, and not looking to upgrade anytime soon, so perhaps I just missed it. . .

 

Sounds like the xbox360 gpu will do lots of things that Agiea will do.

 

Yeah that's the point. You don't want the CPU to have to do it...you want it to be free to do other things like AI etc.

...err...you did mean CPU right?

 

Good point about the killer app (lack there of). Voodoo Graphics had GL Quake and MachWarrior 2. What does AGEIA have?