A Closer Look At PhysX: Our Take On The PPU

by Derek Wilson on 3/11/2005 12:08 PM EST
Comments Locked

70 Comments

Back to Article

  • azcn2503 - Saturday, April 8, 2006 - link

    Hello all, please get yourself over to http://www.overclockers.co.uk/acatalog/PhysX_Accel...">Overclockers UK to see a list of Ageia PhysX Accelerator cards avilable for preorder in the UK. Scan.co.uk are also listing this item, but they do not have any pricing, specification or availability details. I hope this gets you all very excited; this sort of thing gets me creaming, I tell you.
  • AlphaNex - Monday, May 16, 2005 - link

    I have no problem buying something for my PC thats only used for gaminmg. Im a computer technician for a living and my home PC is used 99% for games, my radeon 9800 does nothing that a 30 dollar ati Rage or something like that cant do.... except for playing games and i paid alot more for it then granny did her intergrated board on her dell. Id buy something like this in a heartbeat if it delivered on its promises. Just imagine true, realisitc physics in a game. This could literally be the Next Big Thing for gaming. Im excited thinking about the possibilities.
  • blackarc - Sunday, March 27, 2005 - link

    I am SOOOO F'ing excited!

    I'm always at least one generation behind on the GPUs simply because pretty doesn't do everything for me... But physics? HuuuHaa!
  • Disorganise - Friday, March 18, 2005 - link

    #53 I've yet to use my steering wheel in anything else other than games - and even then only a very small percentage of games.

    Personally I think this thing is very promising. Imagine being able to map the oil, petrol, brake fluid etc, inside all the relevant machanical bits for the race car you're driving....and then up that for all the guys you're racing against and even the proposed card is looking like it'll struggle.
    Add precise tire wear, roads which are made of little stones and tar etc etc. The level of detail 'missing' from todays games is huge.
    Imagine a game where minor flaws are possible in the hardware - an engine or gearbox blows and spews oil and water everywhere, perhaps igniting into realistic flames. or the knife you keep hacking with in half-life becomes blunt and useless, or snaps off the tip. With FPS, damage caused by shooting at walls etc becomes genuine dents and holes accoring to realistic physics and the composition of the bullet and wall.

    The possibilities are incredible. And here's a thought regarding the cost....spend a bit less on the CPU - it won't be working as hard....

    Cheers
    Disorganise
  • virtualgames0 - Friday, March 18, 2005 - link

    While physics have gone far in today's games, there is still a LONG WAY to go until it's really realistic.

    You can't blow up walls now. You can't terraform. Most of the stuff in the game world is static and cannot be changed.
    This physX PPU will change that, and will finally allow the gamer to truly interact with the world.
    Sure it'll cost money for these features, but it's still your choice if you want to buy it or not. Saying it sucks, and should fail is ridiculously dumb.
  • jediknight - Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - link

    Hmm..
    /me imagines a "MEGA" cell processor..

    CPU as the main hub, connected to GPU, SPU (sound processing unit), PPU, etc. cells..

    all on ONE chip. That's the holy grail, folks..
  • patrick0 - Monday, March 14, 2005 - link

    #52, since when you don't need physics for some effects?
  • fitten - Monday, March 14, 2005 - link

    ...and think just how much faster F@H, SETI@HOME, and many of those other distributed computing apps will be if they can get their hands on this :)
  • DerekWilson - Sunday, March 13, 2005 - link

    For science and engineering, we've again got the problem of needing a more direct interface. The functions implimented in hardware via the NovodeX SDK will still be "game physics" ... kinda like "game graphics" ...

    You would never want to use the Unreal Engine as the realtime 3d part of something like ProE or Solidworks.

    Just the same, very acurate physics simulations will want to use different (more precise and slower) algorithms.

    This is why we're calling for a lower level API rahter than an SDK -- note that both games and high end workstation apps can build their realtime 3d engines with the same API (opengl or directx).
  • stephenbrooks - Sunday, March 13, 2005 - link

    I think the molecular dynamics people will start to seriously like this technology once the physical equivalent of Shaders come out. I.e. sub-programs defining how each object reacts to ones in proximity to it, while the PPU does the collision detection and kinematics.
  • GoHack - Sunday, March 13, 2005 - link

    "From lordanubis:
    From GoHack: "as well as in the fields of science and engineering."

    THANK YOU! I can't believe it took until page 3 before someone mentioned this. PPU will be as "game-only" as graphics cards are. ATI's Fire stuff, nVidia's quadro stuff, none of them are meant for playing games despite the fact that they are 3D graphics accelerators.

    Physical simulation demands a lot of processing power, think of all the rivets in a bridge, wind's effect on large buildings, or accurate computer simulations of car crashes. So much interaction of different pieces, each with their own properties.

    I'm not claiming this PPU will turn a workstation into a $1,000,000 Cray but added functionality is always welcomed."

    I'm an engineer who uses FEA (finite element analysis)(ANSYS), as well as CAD (computer aided design)(Solid Works) all the time. Any improvements are more than welcome.
  • lordanubis - Sunday, March 13, 2005 - link

    From GoHack: "as well as in the fields of science and engineering."

    THANK YOU! I can't believe it took until page 3 before someone mentioned this. PPU will be as "game-only" as graphics cards are. ATI's Fire stuff, nVidia's quadro stuff, none of them are meant for playing games despite the fact that they are 3D graphics accelerators.

    Physical simulation demands a lot of processing power, think of all the rivets in a bridge, wind's effect on large buildings, or accurate computer simulations of car crashes. So much interaction of different pieces, each with their own properties.

    I'm not claiming this PPU will turn a workstation into a $1,000,000 Cray but added functionality is always welcomed.
  • archcommus - Sunday, March 13, 2005 - link

    #55, if you buy a high-end video card, even though you only need it for intensive apps, you're still using it for everything, even basic 2D stuff. Plus, the high-end features of it can be used for gaming, rendering, and a number of other things.

    With this, it's JUST gaming. I haven't seen proof of another definite use of it yet.

    A device in your computer that is needed for gaming and nothing else = THUMBS DOWN!
  • GoHack - Sunday, March 13, 2005 - link

    It's not just games that could benefit, but computer animated movies, flight simulators, as well as in the fields of science and engineering.

    Until you see the comparison of a game running with and without a PPU, don't write off.

    When talking about cpu's, wait until you start to see games written in 64 bit, but that's another story.
  • sandorski - Sunday, March 13, 2005 - link

    #18 Yup, this could be the next big thing. It's been awhile since 3D Graphics was introduced revolutionizing Gaming. Though many great advances have occurred and many more ae yet to be realized, Game Physics is becoming Hardware intensive and will only continue to push the limits of Hardware Tech. Not only will this Free up CPU and other Hardware resources, it will greatly increase Physics capabilities of current computers more than (likely) a few new generations of CPUs.

    Bring it on!
  • linkgoron - Sunday, March 13, 2005 - link

    #53 a 6800ultra(or any high-end/midrange card) is almost completly usless to most people. Your friends and people here don't see it, but an intel "extreme" is enough for most people.
  • linkgoron - Sunday, March 13, 2005 - link

  • archcommus - Saturday, March 12, 2005 - link

    #52, that is exactly why I said it would only be used for games, which is one of the problems I have with this. A device in your computer that is completely useless unless you're gaming. That can't be said for any other device we have today. They ALL have other uses.
  • Jeff7181 - Saturday, March 12, 2005 - link

    #50... this isn't a CPU... it's a PPU... it's a processor dedicated to calculating physics. It's specifically designed for that, so you shouldn't expect it to do anything else very well at all. That's what allows it to perform so well with physics, it's design is VERY specific... that's why it's so efficient at what it's intended to do.
  • DerekWilson - Saturday, March 12, 2005 - link

    At the outset, using the PPU for something other than game physics won't be feasible. As far as we know, they are currently only making the hardware accessible through software physics SDK(s).

    Without a lower level direct hardware API or a straight assembly interface, nothing other the NovodeX functionality can be accelerated.

    They should be cautious in letting out enough details to program straight to the metal (as others could copy them), and generating something as complex as an API at a low enough level for this thing to be more general would be very difficult.
  • patrick0 - Saturday, March 12, 2005 - link

    Only usefull for games?
    Can someone explain this one to me please.

    I can imagine so many programs the PPU could be usefull for. Sound Effects?! Does anyone here have any idea about the power you need to do a lot of SFX at the same time? With a PPU you could easilly build a cheap sound-studio at home. (if someone tells Steinberg how to use them of course).

    I guess they will sell them sub $150 (maybe sub $200 the first month).
    I'm willing to spend $300-$350 if it's really capable of doing what they say it does.
  • patrick0 - Saturday, March 12, 2005 - link

    a PPU is a need. No CPU not even quad-core one is capable of processing the amount of data this PPU seems to be able to.
    It seems to take a long time untill we'll have 256-bit memory interface on a mobo, simply because of cost.

    Personal, I'ld love to be able to buy an add-in card with a PPU.
    Probably the PPU will seed up gaming more than SLI. Many games are CPU dependent (all games with SLI). A PPU takes of processing from both the CPU and the GPU.

    They say they will make them as PCI an PCIe x4, just hope the PCIe will be compatible with PCIe x1 or the SLI slot, because you'll need a lot of bandwidth!
  • Regs - Saturday, March 12, 2005 - link

    A more interesting thought is to see if Nvidia can some how create their own PPU and connect it via a SLI set up. One gpu connect to a ppu unit on SLI. Now that's a reason to get a PCI-x nvidia motherboard!

    Like Anand stated in his web-blog, I don't imagine ATi or Nvidia will be sitting on the side line for this one much more longer. Like all successful businesses, it all starts with a good idea and a educated risk.
  • archcommus - Saturday, March 12, 2005 - link

    Well when 3D hardware acceleration was new, it was an option you turned on and off. If you had a card, you turned it on and got better graphics and speed. If you left it off, things looked a little worse and were a bit slower. Fast forward to now and you need 3D hardware acceleration for everything. I imagine the same will occur with PPU cards. At first it'll be an option that, when turned on, creates better phsyics and better speed. But of course, you could turn it off, to get slightly lesser physics and probably slower speed.

    I am excited about the possibilities of this, too, but damn, I really don't like thinking that another card will be necessary in our future. And like I said before, this is a game that will ONLY come in handy for games, and nothing else, unlike video cards and sound cards and everything else in your computer. So if you buy a PPU card for the next big game, play it and love it, and then don't really play much for a few months, you might be thinking "Damn, why'd I drop 200 bucks for that dumb thing, it's not even being used now!"

    Anyone else with this line of thought?
  • jrussel316 - Saturday, March 12, 2005 - link

    dang it sorry double post - anyone know how to edit previous posts?
  • jrussel316 - Saturday, March 12, 2005 - link

    coming from the standpoint of someone who has some experience writing physics engines, this is some of the best news ive heard in a while. It would be downright awesome to have a hardware accellerated sdk that would allow me to code the sort of realism iv'e been dreaming about coding for years. Iv'e made several attempts at an accurate physical world, but every time i try the performance of my cpu just can't keep up with the huge number of calculations. I know im excited about this kind of performance - i cant imagine what the physics engine developers over at ubisoft and epic are dreaming up. exciting times are ahead
  • jrussel316 - Saturday, March 12, 2005 - link

    coming from the standpoint of someone who has some experience writing physics engines, this is some of the best news ive heard in a while. It would be downright awesome to have a hardware accellerated sdk that would allow me to code the sort of realism iv'e been dreaming about coding for years. Iv'e made several attempts at an accurate physical world, but every time i try the performance of my cpu just can't keep up with the huge number of calculations. I know im excited about this kind of performance - i cant imagine what the physics engine developers over at ubisoft and epic are dreaming up. exciting times are ahead
  • Regs - Saturday, March 12, 2005 - link

    I think this is a great idea and it will take off. Anand's article mentioned that these cards will scale like video cards. Meaning there will be intro based, main-stream based, and hardcore based cards ranging from price. Hell, even adding a intro based card to your system with the upcoming Unreal Engine will help improve framerates and add more reality to your gameplay. Ubisoft and Epic are two huge producers of next generation software as well. Far Cry 2 and Unreal 3 anyone? I could only imagine! Valve and Carmack are likely craving over this as well. With dual cores and PPU's coming out, this would be exactly the right type of motivation big-time developers such as these to start writing yet even more advanced gaming engines. I wouldn't be surprised if they all ready started programming the next big thing. Even D3 and HL2 were years in development before we even heard about them. Far Cry we didn't even hear about it before just a few months before its release. Exciting times are ahead!
  • Jeff7181 - Saturday, March 12, 2005 - link

    #20... no dual core will NOT make this PPU worthless. You didn't read ANYTHING did you? Current CPU's can work with 30 to 40 solid body objects at one time... this PPU can handle 30 to 40 THOUSAND solid body objects at one time. Double the CPU's capability to 60 to 80 still doesn't compare to the PPU's capabilities.
  • Jeff7181 - Saturday, March 12, 2005 - link

    #34... they don't have to code specifically for this PPU. All they hvae to do is use the NovodeX physics engine like Epic is doing right now with the Unreal 3 engine.
  • REMF - Saturday, March 12, 2005 - link

    if ageiaieiai are sensible they will license this tech to ATI/nVidia as quickly as they can.

    they will have about 12 months lead time after which if the big GPU makers consider physics acceleration a 'go'er' then they will integrate it into their GPU's at mafginal cost.

    .13u = 225m transistors
    .09u = 350m+ transistors
    .065u = 550m+ transistors

    there is easily room to squeeze 120m trannies of PPU onto a GPU die created in 2006.

    remember that 3d started off as a separate product, but economies of scale and efficiency of operation eventually demanded that 2d and 3d become one. i don't see any reason why physics acceleration should be any different.
  • hoppa - Saturday, March 12, 2005 - link

    Wow this is the most exciting thing I've seen in a really, really long time.

    "But like plasma television (which has been around for decades), just because good technology exists doesn’t mean vendors and consumers will adopt it."

    Whoa, wait, how many thousands of dollars do plasma TVs cost? That is a very different thing! Especially since there is a very suitable replacement for about 1/10th the price (a good ol' CRT).
  • RockHydra11 - Saturday, March 12, 2005 - link

    Just one more thing to make platforms more expensive, create fanboys of band X and Y and shove hype and BS down our throats.
  • Poser - Friday, March 11, 2005 - link

    Sounds great for a console, where the developers can expect 100% of systems to have it. The PC? Eh...

    I've got to wonder how well something like this could be pitched to animation studios. Are the physics calculations taking up any significant manpower/processor time, or does the image rendering dwarf everything else?

    One hypothetical add-in card I'd love to see instead of physics is hardware dedicated to speech recognition. Not a clue what sort of hardware would be required to improve the current state of the or even if dedicated hardware would be *able* to help.
  • archcommus - Friday, March 11, 2005 - link

    The idea is great, it has the same advantage as the GPU has for graphics, but honestly, who the hell is going to want to have to have a PHYSICS card? A sound card is fine, as you can use it for a number of things. A graphics card is fine, because it powers the graphics for everything, not just games. But a physics card would be something that you must add to your computer JUST for gaming, and it would not benefit anything else at all.

    Great theory, but sorry, I don't want to plunk down ANOTHER $200 for every system I build just so I can play the latest games decently.
  • Kensei - Friday, March 11, 2005 - link

    On an overall editorial note, could the AnandTech staff please define key acronyms (particularly ones in the title of the article) at the beginning of each article. What the hell is a PPU?
  • Gunbuster - Friday, March 11, 2005 - link

    Devs. wont even code dual screen into games, and you expect them to support a esoteric board 0.1% of users will have?

    The only chance is if they strike a deal with one of the next gen consoles
  • AnnihilatorX - Friday, March 11, 2005 - link

    Re REMF #28 >
    Well new products are always expensive even they can be cheaply made. There's just no competition when you offer a brand new product. I doublt it though would be too expensive. Let's see.
    <

    hmm modelling clothings that can be torn apart... <- been thinking this for 5 min now. Hmm I need to clean my mind for a bit.
  • SDA - Friday, March 11, 2005 - link

    regarding plasma: Plasma screens are inherently hideously expensive. That's actually a design issue. (Okay, so it's an issue with LCDs too, but refined manufacturing techniques and sufficiently wide-scale manufacturing can mostly solve that problem.) The fact that plasma screens remain expensive to manufacture after being around for so long is evidence of this-- most old tech still in use is relatively cheap simply because of all the manufacturing and design experience we have.

    A better comparison, IMHO, would be SCSI. Good technology, lots of potential, but it was never adopted by a wide consumer base (although it's always been popular in systems that absolutely need disk performance, for obvious reasons), so prices on SCSI controllers and drives never dropped enough, so it wasn't adopted widely, so prices didn't drop, and so on.

    But enough nitpicking. I do think PPUs have incredible potential... honestly, I believe that accurate physics simulation is the single biggest obstacle on the Path Towards Game Realism(tm) right now. It's pretty easy for the brain to work around the fact that a character model isn't a real live person (especially if you can't tell the difference when you squint), but objects not acting in a manner consistent with physical reality, well...
  • Denial - Friday, March 11, 2005 - link

    I bet Virtual Valerie 12 will FVCKIN ROCK with this new physics chip! Just imaging poking her so damn hard you can see it pokin at her belly.

    I can see the ads now.

    "Virtual chicks on trampolines never looked so real."
  • DerekWilson - Friday, March 11, 2005 - link

    The PPU will use GDDR3 at very high speeds. It needs the bandwidth and this adds cost. Also, since AGEIA will be starting at lower volume than NVIDIA and ATI, they will likely have a higher cost per part. Risk to OEMs and vendors will mean more pad in the price.

    #21: I was using the fact that plasma has been around since before I was born and wasn't adopted for actual use until a few years ago. I was illustrating the idea and technology existed but wasn't used.
  • Zan Lynx - Friday, March 11, 2005 - link

    I think this PPU is a good idea. I would probably get one for Unreal 3 if the price is less than $200.

    I hope that this company releases hardware programming information. That way this card could be used by things other than games and physics. When you aren't playing games, imagine it being used to boost your Folding@Home scores or building Fyre screensaver animations.

    Scientists could buy one for every node in their university cluster and get crazy with the fluid dynamics simulations.
  • REMF - Friday, March 11, 2005 - link

    why should it cost so much?

    a 160m transistor 6600GT with 128MB of high speed GDD2 ram costs less than £120 these days.

    a 120m transistor PPU with 128MB of moderately high speed ram should cost less than £100 today.

    when you consider the cost of 2x 6800GT's for an SLI rig (£500), £100 is a drop in the ocean.

  • Shinei - Friday, March 11, 2005 - link

    I like the idea, but I think the price is going to hurt it, not to mention the idea of a standalone device that only works in video games. I DO think that Cell will be a worthy competitor to this, so long as someone takes the time to turn one of the SPU subcomponents into a hardcore physics processor.
  • bersl2 - Friday, March 11, 2005 - link

    #6: STFU. 3dfx used Glide, a derivative API of OpenGL. Things happen independently of MS in computer technology, although that apparently is beyond the comprehension of some people.

    I wonder how complicated a model it will be capable of. I would hope that they would implement electro-magnetism and maybe thermodynamics to some degree for consumer models, but could this have great scientific value for at least the subset of physics that we are absolutely confident about (i.e., not quantum mechanics or astrophysics)? I could see this being very useful for fluid dynamics.
  • gibhunter - Friday, March 11, 2005 - link

    You know, in some countries PPU might be confused with PUPU or in English, shit. I wish they came up with a different acronym. How about a GPPU for a Geometric Physics Processing Unit or something like that. PPU just smells...pun intended:-D
  • bupkus - Friday, March 11, 2005 - link

    After Longhorn M$ may want to target a UI which uses a PPU, then every motherboard will have one. BTW, only the first chip is really expensive.
  • Warder45 - Friday, March 11, 2005 - link

    $$$ Equal to a video card? Thats pretty vague. Equal to a sub-$150 video cards? That I could handle, equal to $300+ video cards, now your asking too much.

    I like the idea, and with support from Unreal 3 and all licenceing deals with the Unreal 3 engine they have a good start. Now just price them right.
  • Quanticles - Friday, March 11, 2005 - link

    This is definitely going to happen. Everyone loves the game physics and they're required to make things realistic.

    It's too expensive to incorporate into a graphics card, not to mention it would be stealing bandwidth from them.

    I'd imagine these chips would be built into high end motherboards as well as being sold as stand alone PCIe cards. Not every motherboard would want to add this chip as it's really expensive, so it'd also have to be available as a stand-alone card.

    You cannot integrate your graphics card and sound card into a single board because there wont be enough room on the PCB. Only Apple uses graphics cards with large enough PCB's.
  • MadAd - Friday, March 11, 2005 - link

    like a plasma television..(blah blah)???

    Its not like we cant get television without a plasma, there are many television devices but if the best a CPU can do is a few hundred bones a time (and a PPU will radicaly improve it) then its not really a fair measure is it?

    sorry to bitch but that was a poor comparison
  • HorseFly - Friday, March 11, 2005 - link

    Wonder why don't they just build mobo without agp, pci-e slot, just adding on mobo with duel core then you'll be a happy camper :)That way it'll be cheaper. right :)
  • AnnihilatorX - Friday, March 11, 2005 - link

    CPU can do everything. But not everything effciently. GPU are decided with a sort of architecture that suits what it suppose to do, and take the load off CPU.

    Same here for a PPU. A dual core might do the job, but would it be as efficient as a specially decided chip? Why not move the load to a PPU while the dual core can do more AI calculations in games?

    An small XDR processor on a RAID card can sherd 50% load of CPU.
  • stephenbrooks - Friday, March 11, 2005 - link

    While as a programmer I'd like to say that the CPU can do everything, the GPU market has completely disproved that theory. And I think the PPU is going to do the same thing. 32000 rigid bodies is a LOT. Think Matrix-like special effects, here.
  • Jeff7181 - Friday, March 11, 2005 - link

    I think this is a great idea. It's just not practical for a CPU or GPU to do this type of stuff, just like back in the 286 and 386 days when math co-processors were used. I think in time, CPU's may be able to handle this stuff more efficiently. But for now, with all the bandwidth PCI-Express provides, this sounds like a great solution to take some of the burden off the CPU for physics while increasing the quality of physics engines.

    In an article on GameSpot, they say any game that uses the NovodeX physics engine will be able to make use of this PPU. Guess what new up and coming game engine uses the NovodeX physics engine... Unreal 3! :D
  • alangeering - Friday, March 11, 2005 - link

    From article:
    "better than Intel’s approach: Cell."

    Confused. Was that meant to be IBM?

    Anyway, what will happen to your physics processor when you laod up a scifi game and jump to "lightspeed"?

    Will it:
    A: Increase your gaming enjoyment through the graphical simulation of the wonderful rippling effects of space time
    B: Nothing
    C: Cause a new breed of fatal error "Fatal Error: You have exceded the boundries of physics"
  • Cameraman - Friday, March 11, 2005 - link

    I like Kalessian's idea!
  • Kalessian - Friday, March 11, 2005 - link

    Another thought...

    If this doesn't make it to the already mature PC gaming market, why couldn't it be included in some kind of console?
  • ksherman - Friday, March 11, 2005 - link

    "Or if Intel decides that they need to go the extreme route,"

    Awesomse! I lov the pun in that sentence...
  • PeteRoy - Friday, March 11, 2005 - link

    Arghhh, another way to squeeze money from gamers.

    Hopefully it won't work, gaming computers cost high enough already.
  • jkostans - Friday, March 11, 2005 - link

    #7, thats like saying we don't need a video card because the second CPU will render the scene instead. The advantage of hardware designed specifically for one purpose is huge. Download the novodex rocket demo and see how the complex scenes bring your single core processor to its knees. (big bang is probably the best example) Now imagine that simulation running at full speed with 2x the objects and 95% of your CPU power left over for everything else. Those bricks could be anything in your game from gravel to explosion particles. And who doesn't want a realistic liquid simulation?
  • Kalessian - Friday, March 11, 2005 - link

    Just having another core won't create the kind of uber-physics a dedicated PPU could bring.

    When I think about it, physics IS just going to become more and more demanding. Imagine the limits to physics in a game today. I don't develope games, but I can see of a developer saying "Darn, I wish I could make our physics do this... that would be so awesome."

    Maybe that kind of thinking will make the PPU a reality. All it would really take, after a standard is established in the APIs, is one great game. Imagine if you saw some crazy physics in Quake 4. Everyone would want one.

    It's not hard to imagine, but it's wishful thinking.
  • Tarumam - Friday, March 11, 2005 - link

    #4 It would make sense to integrate it in video cards as an extra feature. But could it be integrated into the GPU? I think it would have to come as an extra chip onboard, with it's own memory subsystem, thus making the card very large, expensive and power hungry (as if the current crop of high end video cards were not already too big, too expensive and power guzzlers).
  • Tarumam - Friday, March 11, 2005 - link

    In Soviet Russia PPU stands for phisicaly process YOU! Sorry, bad one, but I couldn't help it.
  • Tarumam - Friday, March 11, 2005 - link

    Ops, sorry about that blank post.
    I doubt it will ever take off. Dual core processors are just around the corner and the second core could just be dedicated to the phisics entirely while the other would take care of the rest.Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's just not necessary.
  • knitecrow - Friday, March 11, 2005 - link

    I don't think PPU is going to be sucessful unless its intergrated into directX ... or standardised in some way that is supported by microsoft.

  • Tarumam - Friday, March 11, 2005 - link

  • Falloutboy - Friday, March 11, 2005 - link

    interesting concept I don't think it would fly as a standalone card. but I could see the technolgy being licenced to nividia and Ati to intergrate into future chips.
  • aurellie1 - Friday, March 11, 2005 - link

    First p...argh
  • bldckstark - Friday, March 11, 2005 - link

    Okay, for real. What we really need is a $1000 video card with sound and a PPU on board! That would be great. Then in order to be a gamer you will have to rob banks to afford the technology required to enjoy the experience. I can't wait for the $10,000,000,000 virtual reality card!
  • bldckstark - Friday, March 11, 2005 - link

    Pirst Fost! Yup, I'm a Jackass!

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now