Actually i hope not. GFX & phiysix in one yes but sound card no. It will be like on-board audio.The#1Spot wrote:
That would actually be niceMek-Izzle wrote:
That'll mean the 9/10 Series will probably have its own dedicated PPU somewhere next to the GPU or someshit. Not bad.
What next?
They already do HDMI.
Soon enough we'll be calling them multimedia-cards. Sound + Video + Physics all in one.
if you haven't noticed, modern gfx cards already have 'sound card' in them.Sup wrote:
Actually i hope not. GFX & phiysix in one yes but sound card no. It will be like on-board audio.The#1Spot wrote:
That would actually be niceMek-Izzle wrote:
That'll mean the 9/10 Series will probably have its own dedicated PPU somewhere next to the GPU or someshit. Not bad.
What next?
They already do HDMI.
Soon enough we'll be calling them multimedia-cards. Sound + Video + Physics all in one.
All games need good FPS to be playable, meaning they need GPU cycles. A separate pipeline CPU core (one core of a quad-core) running software, a physics engine (like Havok or Physx) is a better solution than doing physics on a GPU. All Intel and AMD CPUs have FPUs built into them. Using GPUs to do physics takes processing cycles away from the render pipeline. This might be an enhancement for older game titles (and not tax the GPU much) if someone goes back and adds physics support to an older title. But, for new games; for next gen games; this is a gimmicky idea, a sales pitch, it is not a good solution to the physics engine in-game problem.Bell wrote:
Isnt physics done on the CPU anyway? If anything its just going to take a tad of strain off the CPU, that is about it. Even then, only in certain games, like UT
Martyn
Last edited by topal63 (2008-02-16 09:44:49)
I don't think that you're seeing the full perspective here. PhysX has, and will always be a product that enables more spectacular physics. The key word here is "more". Cell Factor is one game that comes to mind. That game would be impossible to play without the PhysX, not because of the demand on the video card, but because of the demand on the CPU. The GPU is infinitely better at handling physics calculation, so allowing these to run on the video card is meant to offload CPU strain, and if you need to offload CPU strain, chances are that your video card isn't what's bottlenecking in the first place.topal63 wrote:
All games need good FPS to be playable, meaning they need GPU cycles. A separate pipeline CPU core (one core of a quad-core) running software, a physics engine (like Havok or Physx) is a better solution than doing physics on a GPU. All Intel and AMD CPUs have FPUs built into them. Using GPUs to do physics takes processing cycles away from the render pipeline. This might be an enhancement for older game titles (and not tax the GPU much) if someone goes back and adds physics support to an older title. But, for new games; for next gen games; this is a gimmicky idea, a sales pitch, it is not a good solution to the physics engine in-game problem.Bell wrote:
Isnt physics done on the CPU anyway? If anything its just going to take a tad of strain off the CPU, that is about it. Even then, only in certain games, like UT
Martyn
Forget about OLD games or games that you're playing, think about next gen games. They will always be pushing the GPU beyond it's ability to render a frame. There is always higher resolution, more Ansio-filtering, AA-edge smoothing, high resolution textures, HDR shaders, normal maps, shadows (<-- one of the biggest FPS killers when shadows become sharper, more correct, more defined), etc.
They last thing I need is physics on a GPU. I want better graphics; and I don't want any physics calcs wasting rendering time/GPU processing cycles. And right now I almost always have to make a compromise on image quality to up the FPS count. Having GPU physics would mean to me an option I would probably have to set to LOW or OFF if it interfered with Image quality. That is a sucky idea (IMO).