PhysX: PS3 can handle it; 360 features limited
- Thread starter aldo
- Start date
Dave Baumann said:
Hence the Fluid Reality thing from Xenos E3 revelation, I supose.
BTW AGEIA Acquires Meqon Research AB
xbdestroya said:I don't disagree with your logic concerning the whole PhysX debate Acert, but at the same time let's not shortchange the SPE's using the 'common knowledge' of their weaknesses, when indeed we don't know what they'll be capable of working on five years down the line either.
Yeah, no offense Acert but you're kind of scolding Titanio for speculating with bias and then turning around and basically doing the same exact same thing.
I don't really think general processing power is really important when it comes to console design...Xenon is really built with strong FP in mind but apparently have more general integer performance thanks to it being tri-core unlike cell's 1 core 7 spe design....it gave Microsoft some bragging rights but I think strong general processing power wasn't really important design direction.
Not really, its just that I think you will see graphics processors get increasingly used for physics processing the as they get more ALU capable - Fluid Dynamics has had a lot of input into it on the graphics front as well and ATI already has a demopc999 said:
Curiously I was sitting on a table at the Develop Awards last night with Mark Ollila and ATI's Richard Huddy - Mark happens to be the Chairman for Megon and Richard mentioned that they should get together and discuss physics acceleration via the graphics processor; I wonder if that discussion will still take place given todays announcement.
Funny this was, I asked him last night what he thought of AGEIA and when he asked me I said "I'm still not sure the hardware is going to take off"...
If Ageia isn't intresting in GPU acceleration because of their PhysX chip, the people at Havok might be open to it.
Overall Ageia is looking like a company to watch. They continue to make aggressive moves to gain a position of dominance. If they fail to take off, they can't be faulted for not trying hard enough: They buy up the competion when they get the chance, and they've gotten their software on the next-gen consoles, Unreal Engine 3.0 support, good game support (Ghost Recon, Duke Nukem, and Unreal Tournament 2007).
Overall Ageia is looking like a company to watch. They continue to make aggressive moves to gain a position of dominance. If they fail to take off, they can't be faulted for not trying hard enough: They buy up the competion when they get the chance, and they've gotten their software on the next-gen consoles, Unreal Engine 3.0 support, good game support (Ghost Recon, Duke Nukem, and Unreal Tournament 2007).
seismologist
Regular
We'll see physics on the GPU as soon as AGEIA gets bought out by one of the graphics chip makers
Xbox-Destroyer said:
Are you saying the SPEs wont be severly handicapped in a number of typical situations? Why can we admit a PPE has sever handicap in certain types of processing, yet not the SPEs? How have I short changed them when I readily admitt they will excell in certain situations, but not others?
Please note the part in bold. Flip flop the situation with the Xbox 360 and FD physics and you will see *exactly* what I am commenting on.
What I have said is that wild speculation about performance based on make believe numbers--when the issue is an architectural conflict--is unfair. Or to put it in your words, "when indeed we don't know what they'll be capable of working on five years down the line either".
Now I don't totally agree with that, but what is good for the goose is good for the gander, correct? If you request slack be cut for the SPEs based on what they might do 5 years down the road, should not the same apply here?
Now the reason I don't totally agree is
1. CELL should do better in physics. It is a bigger chip and has excellent floating point performance. Like Shifty said, if CELL cannot excell in these areas then there is something REALLY wrong.
2. SPEs have limitations. Period. There are going to be a lot of things the PPE cores in CELL and Xenon can do that the SPEs are going to choke on. This is not "short changing" them at all, just noting the fact.
3. My comment, clearly in context, was how such barbs in such a debate don't provide any meaningful communication... but reading between the lines you may see the paradigm I forsee:
Xbox 360 will be slower at some things, faster at others.
PS3 will be faster at some thing, faster at others.
Whereas certain members wait for the drop to beat their chest, it seems to me that the two designs are tradeoffs and frequently will nullify eachother. So the comparison of relegating the Xenon to the PC CPU end of things (maybe 2x the PC) and sticking CELL on the end with PhysX (which is saif to hve 8x the framerate) is really arbirtrary. Especially when the same poster in the past has posted negatively about the GP performance. And all of this without any really factual information!
4. The spin from Titiano contained words like "gap" and "cutting" in relation to performance and extrapolated the FD issue as a full physics issue. The fact is one SDK provider has issues with FD on Xenon. That feature was culled. That does not tell us if the rest of the physics library had similar performance issues. Based on what Epic has stated, they grouped the 360 in with the PS3 and PhysX in the past.
I think for this discussion focusing on A) what we know as facts, like performance in specific situations and B) what we know about Novodex and C) what Xenon architectural designs could be the problem for FD. I think some very good points came up about the PhysX chip and the direction of the Novodex API. And no doubt there is some good points about Xenon and how it may not be the best design to have ten thousand physics bodied water bodies on screen. I would actually be surprised if it did excell here!
Cell may very well be a magnitude or two greater in performance in this area. I never once denied the possibility. What I am not doing is making up bogus numbers.
liverkick said:
I think all you saw was "negative comment" when indeed I was pointing at this "tit for tat" and extrapolating is exactly what is not useful.
It was an example of that very thing. A well considered one, but it was what I was talking about.
As for the bias and speculating on such it has already been stated by devs that there are certain limitations that the SPEs have. Use the search feature. SPEs have certain types of processing in mind, at which they will excell. Other things they will be adapted and made to work. And then there will be areas where the SPEs are very poor performers (relative to the PPE).
So that is not speculation or bias.
And the point us very true: Each of the consoles will have games designed with their strengths in mind. Assuming the 360 cannot do FD (which it can, so that is overstating the issue), while a PS3 game will be using FD physics Xenon will have other games doing stuff; or more likely, whereas it may take the 360 two or three times as long to FD type work, it will take the SPEs two or three times as long to do other tasks--which was the point.
I do find it ironic that such a small statement can be picked out of its context when I do not deny the architectural issues (though I think the leap of logic on performance is totally out of place... architecture and a specific feature do not tell us about other features or overall performance as was directly implied) and actually I think the PS3 will have better performance in physics.
So I am biased toward the PS3 in this case, yet if I say something negative or disagreeable it gets turned into me being "biased" and "speculating". Sheesh!
Acert I have a BIG problem with the whole Xbox-Destroyer thing, but I won't go there right now. I have to say it's the dirtiest sort of debate tactic to argue not the point made, but the maker of the point. I have nothing against the Xbox. The name was chosen for reasons, and those reasons have been explained on this forum several times. I could turn your name into several interesting flavors as well, yet I refrain.
Why do I say it's too early to say that the SPE's are inherently limited? Because as time goes on they may be coded for in such a way that goals one would have thought to be readily achievable only on 'fuller' cores might indeed be achievable on the SPE's as well. Even if not to the same extent, the plurality of cores and the increasing familiarity and maturity of the whole multi-core concept will give them an edge in terms of their numbers alone, should these workarounds prove achievable.
Wasn't it you that pointed out the normal mapping achieved on PS2 through, essentially, developer ingenuity in the face of something most thought impossible?
So yes - it's too early to say that the SPE's are inherently crippled. They are crippled in terms of today's code - but we know nothing of tomorrows as it applies to PS3 games.
I agree they are seemingly not as 'general-purpose,' but my post wasn't in defense of the SPE's so much as addressing what I felt was a little bit of double-standard inherent in your last post.
And seriously - I post enough here that you know my handle. Stop with the XBox-Destroyer stuff. Xbd is easier to type anyway, so I please ask you go with that.
I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your use of my name, but I can't help but feel as if whenever someone writes it out that way, it's to indicate that: 'look, here's a biased individual.' Certainly I would like the Cell to be as great as possible, but I'm not going to defend it blindly either. Like I said, the SPE's was just an example I used - I could care less whether they end up useful for anything more than sound or physics or not (in the context of this debate).
Why do I say it's too early to say that the SPE's are inherently limited? Because as time goes on they may be coded for in such a way that goals one would have thought to be readily achievable only on 'fuller' cores might indeed be achievable on the SPE's as well. Even if not to the same extent, the plurality of cores and the increasing familiarity and maturity of the whole multi-core concept will give them an edge in terms of their numbers alone, should these workarounds prove achievable.
Wasn't it you that pointed out the normal mapping achieved on PS2 through, essentially, developer ingenuity in the face of something most thought impossible?
So yes - it's too early to say that the SPE's are inherently crippled. They are crippled in terms of today's code - but we know nothing of tomorrows as it applies to PS3 games.
I agree they are seemingly not as 'general-purpose,' but my post wasn't in defense of the SPE's so much as addressing what I felt was a little bit of double-standard inherent in your last post.
And seriously - I post enough here that you know my handle. Stop with the XBox-Destroyer stuff. Xbd is easier to type anyway, so I please ask you go with that.
I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your use of my name, but I can't help but feel as if whenever someone writes it out that way, it's to indicate that: 'look, here's a biased individual.' Certainly I would like the Cell to be as great as possible, but I'm not going to defend it blindly either. Like I said, the SPE's was just an example I used - I could care less whether they end up useful for anything more than sound or physics or not (in the context of this debate).
Last edited by a moderator:
Acert93 said:
No you're not biased in that case, but thats not what I had issue with. It was for scolding Titanio for merely speculating in favor of one particular scenario when I see it done on this forum all the time, even by you yourself.
Of course different architectures are going to have strengths and weaknesses, but a lot of those are still unknown at this point. Right now it looks like physics could be an important strength to Cell as predicted, we're starting to see hard evidence toward that fact. 360 will naturally do things better than PS3 and vice versa. Will certain strengths be more valuable than others overall? Time will certainly tell. But its mostly speculation at this point all around.
mckmas8808
Legend
I agree with liverkick. Its amazing that some people feel like they have to swoop and save the x360 and their CPU. It's starting to become obvious that the PS3 will have somewhat to some extent better physics. Some people are just going to have to live with it.
Not that anything is wrong with the x360, but did anybody expect it to be the opposite?
Not that anything is wrong with the x360, but did anybody expect it to be the opposite?
xbdestroya said:
Whoa. Stop right there. I am not going to even begin on the rest of your post.
If you were not aware, the new software does not nest multiple levels of quotes. I quoted liverkick and it knocks out his quote of you. So I have to manually copy and paste your quote.
Yet just doing that does not put your name tag in, so I have to either copy and paste your name or I can write it out. So I wrote your stupid name out how it sounds because frankly scrolling up and "copy paste" whatever is slower than just typing it out how your name sounds.
Accusing me of using dirty tactics and insinuate your could turn my name into serveral things that it is not is typical. If writing out the sound of your name--because the board wont nest it and writing it out is easiest!--incurrs this type of attacking behavior then YOU need to change your name. If you don't have a problem with being called "Xbox Destroyer" and choosing that name then don't whine when people call you that. I don't complain when people call me "Ace" "A Cert" "Acert" or whatever when infact my name is said "Ace Right Ninety-Three". How are we to say "NinBasha" or "PSkilla" ?? Obviously your name represents how I say it in my head. I did not make that up... yet NO WHERE in my post do I attach any significance to your name to your stance. I did not say "You Sony fan, Mr. Xbox Destroyer himself, of course your opinion is irrelevant". Heck, I agree with you all the time. This is a low blow from you and uncalled for.
And unlike your post attacking me I directly answer questions and deal with my pespective *of the information* and not once attack you or your name. No where in the post do I say anthing about you, I discussed the "ideas". The only person I see attacking anyone is you attacking ME!
Unreal.
Dave Baumann said:
1) wouldnt memoexport be also a big, big boost to phisycs (and GPGPU), if not essencial to that make it possible to go beyond the realm of investigation to games?
2)If that discussion do not hapen, it would be a possible big lost , as having a phisycs midleware that works in the GPU could give quite a nice advance to games use it.
hmmm check this out guys:
Hello Asand:
We appreciate your asking about this subject. From what we gather, being that it is 3am in Europe, is that this was a statement taken out of context from a presentation at GDC Europe.
The Xbox 360 currently processes our SDK, and therefore supports the simulation of fluids. We believe this statement was refering to a generic long term statement about types of architectures for handling certain types of fluids. I know of no detailed analysis regarding the advantages or disadvantages of the different architectures in physics processing. We will be getting in contact with the presenter in Europe to get further clarification tomorrow when everyone is up and about.
Does this clarify things for you?
Kim
From: Hasan Ahmad [mailtoxxxxx@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 5:18 PM
To: kim@kimstowe.com; general@ageia.com; bizdev@ageia.com
Subject: Clarification of Company Comments
Hello Asand:
We appreciate your asking about this subject. From what we gather, being that it is 3am in Europe, is that this was a statement taken out of context from a presentation at GDC Europe.
The Xbox 360 currently processes our SDK, and therefore supports the simulation of fluids. We believe this statement was refering to a generic long term statement about types of architectures for handling certain types of fluids. I know of no detailed analysis regarding the advantages or disadvantages of the different architectures in physics processing. We will be getting in contact with the presenter in Europe to get further clarification tomorrow when everyone is up and about.
Does this clarify things for you?
Kim
From: Hasan Ahmad [mailto
xxxxx@gmail.com]Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 5:18 PM
To: kim@kimstowe.com; general@ageia.com; bizdev@ageia.com
Subject: Clarification of Company Comments
Acert93 said:
Acert, that is definitely my bad there.
I know, we do agree all the time, which is why I was surprised at your 'attack' on me. But I know where you're coming from on the names/quotes/nesting thing. I've obviously become overly sensitive to the whole 'XBox-Destroyer' thing, and that's something I just need to deal with; it was wrong to lash out like that and obviously I know now you meant nothign by it. It's true, what would I even think my name to be mentally if I saw it as someone else's?
It's been a long day, I apologize for flying off the handle like that. I'm engaged in an evolution vs intelligent design debate on another forum and I'm at the limits of my sanity right now.
I really am sorry for freaking out on you like that.
mckmas8808
Legend
xbdestroya said:It's been a long day, I apologize for flying off the handle like that. I'm engaged in an evolution vs intelligent design debate on another forum and I'm at the limits of my sanity right now.
I really am sorry for freaking out on you like that.
If you don't mind me asking, what forum is that?