Physics: Quad Core vs Triple play

[Lazaredz]

So, I jsut got to thinking last night that recently the developers for Alan Wake mentioned supporting Quad Core CPUs and having 1 of them dedicated to physics in-game. Then we get a look at the 680 boards and see them have 3 PCI x16 lanes and talk of the SLI/Triple play graphics/physics solution from nVidia/ATI.

So, which would be a better solution? Are BOTH necessary? Is the CPU option just a "backup" if one doesn't have an extra GPU installed?

What do you all think?

[kam03]

So, I jsut got to thinking last night that recently the developers for Alan Wake mentioned supporting Quad Core CPUs and having 1 of them dedicated to physics in-game. Then we get a look at the 680 boards and see them have 3 PCI x16 lanes and talk of the SLI/Triple play graphics/physics solution from nVidia/ATI.

So, which would be a better solution? Are BOTH necessary? Is the CPU option just a "backup" if one doesn't have an extra GPU installed?

What do you all think?

the quad core will be a cheaper alternative for the people that don't have 3 pci-e slots.

[jolle]

Quad Core if you ask intel, they need a reason to push those to people who arent doing alot of rendering or other multithreaded tasks.
GPU if you ask NV/ATi/Havok..
PPU if you ask Ageia..

[Lazaredz]

Quad Core if you ask intel, they need a reason to push those to people who arent doing alot of rendering or other multithreaded tasks.
GPU if you ask NV/ATi/Havok..
PPU if you ask Ageia..

Well DUH Smithers! ;)

What I wanted was the unbiased opinions of some of the more informed (unlike myself) here on the boards.

[Redeemed]

Okay, ultimately, you won't need any of them.

But then you'd have normal physics in your games. :p

Look, each game currently touts support for different platforms. Crysis runs purely off the CPU, as does Alan Wake. Cell Factor, and UT2007 will make good use of the PhysX card.

Whether each game will allow acceleration via other means is anybody's guess. I'd love to play Crysis and have it make great use of the PhysX card or third video card that I'd have installed. But nobody knows if it will work that way.

[Zelda_fan]

Phyx would be the best solution performance-wise, but it will be VERY VERY difficult to adpot. If Physx is smart they'll make an efficent CPU & GPU renderer as well so game devs will have more motivation to implement it in the game.

[J-Mag]

As long as all solutions render effects physics, then we can only win. There are 4 competitors when it comes to hardware, which is great. Personally I can see the GPU solution winning out.

Both ATI and Nvidia are coming out with Three slot 16x PCI-E boards soon and if people can use their older 6600gt or whatever, then it may be a cost effective option.

@kam03: Quad Core cheaper? I dont see that. ~$1200 MSRP right?

If all you need to do is buy the mobo, then it will be significantly cheaper and even if you needed to buy a 7600gt, that plus the mobo is sitll far less than a quad core. In this case the Ageia solution will probably by the least expensive.

It will all come down to support though and if any game that takes off supports one option then that one will probably come out as the leader. However I can see room in the market for multipla competitors with enough good games (which I think requires not only good graphics, but ever increasingly dynamic gameplay). So far the only killer title coming out anytime soon to support any of these options seems to be Unreal. Alan Wake looks cool, but I doubt we will see it for a couple years maybe a year and a half. There are lots of Havok based games though so I would imagine support would easily be implimented for GPU solutions with a patch.

[Dazz]

Well one things for sure quad core takes a great deal less space in a case. And gives up more possibliltes of upgrading eg. sound card etc.

[jAkUp]

A GPU is definetely more suited for physics than a generalized CPU.

[SpiffMistroII]

My vote gose to GPU.

Aegiea will be cheaper at first, but once you make the switch to 3x PCIe, the GPU will be free. Just recycle your old Video card, and their you go. And we all know who will win out in game support.

ATI/NVIDIA/HAVOK.

[Zelda_fan]

A GPU is definetely more suited for physics than a generalized CPU.

yeah but I'd rather that GPU be used for graphics not physics.

[Redeemed]

yeah but I'd rather that GPU be used for graphics not physics.

I agree 100%.

[killahsin]

The solution that wins out is the first company AMD(ATI), Nvidia, or Intel, who buys the Physx company and intergrates their hardware into theirs.

Iff i had to make a guess it will probably be Nvidia.

[CaptNKILL]

I think I like the multithreading\mutlicore CPU idea the best to be honest. Having designated hardware for things is nice, but lets face it, we're running out of room in our systems, plus its hard enough for most people to keep up with hardware right now, and developers will have to program for yet another feature that possibly only a fraction of users will even be able to enable.

With CPU based physics processing, anyone would be able to see any physics effects, its just a matter of having enough power to run it smoothly.

The ideal solution would be a physics API that could be fully utilized by CPUs (utilizing many cores) OR dedicated physics cards (or the physics\graphics card thing).

I just dont like the idea of being forced to have yet another device to see all that there is to see in games. It isnt like it was with 3d accelerators back in the day either. Back then it was a matter of buying one to run the game with more eye candy than any CPU was even close to rendering (transparency, 16bit color, high quality texture filtering etc) at a smooth framerate. With a physics card (or additional graphics card), youre already running low on space for components if you can afford one, and your quad core CPU could have done the job just fine if it was "allowed". 2 Dual Slot video cards and a sound card are pretty much all anyone can fit onto an ATX board without ruining airflow to their bottom graphics card (in fact many cards probably wouldnt even fit). If you want a RAID card or any other type of PCI\PCI-E device, your screwed already. Imagine having to go back to integrated sound in your $4000 rig to get physics effects that your quad core CPU could have handled if the physics had been programmed to allow it.

This is the problem I have with developers programming advanced effects solely for a device that very few people are going to use. The price and the inconvenience of having to cram another device into their system (which sacrifices other components) is probably going to turn most people away from ever getting one.

Look at the new nForce board on the nVnews main page. You might be able to squeeze by with 2 high end video cards, a thin (and hopefully not too hot) PCI-E physics card or graphics card and a sound card. This is the best solution for this, but not only are there a lot of "ifs" there (thats a TON of heat being crammed into a tiny area), itd still alienate anyone who didnt have that exact setup to run an additional physics card.

Anyway, that was a big rant, but basically, I only support dedicated physics cards (either a real physics card or a graphics card) if they are meant to be "hardware accelerators" for physics effects that are fully capable of being run on a multicore CPU.

I just dont see the point in having such advanced physics being programmed and having so much money being put into it when its aimed at such a tiny market.

[Zelda_fan]

The thing is CaptKill, perfromance-wise, general purpose CPUs are not even close to function specific chips.

Try to run Crysis useing the DX10 software renderer, and see the quad-core Kentsfield run around 1/2 fps.

Same deal with physics. You know how slow a Conroe would run if made to do real-time fluid dynamics? Very slow. But ageia can pull it off quite nicely.

[CaptNKILL]

The thing is CaptKill, perfromance-wise, general purpose CPUs are not even close to function specific chips.

Try to run Crysis useing the DX10 software renderer, and see the quad-core Kentsfield run around 1/2 fps.

Same deal with physics. You know how slow a Conroe would run if made to do real-time fluid dynamics? Very slow. But ageia can pull it off quite nicely.
Are you sure its that big of a difference though? I thought CPUs (especially with mutliple cores) were more than capable of handling even the most complex physics calculations?

I was under the impression that graphics were a totaly different thing all together and CPUs inherantly are no good at it, where as they can do physics fine.

[SpiffMistroII]

yeah but I'd rather that GPU be used for graphics not physics.



?


Ok, so When I upgrade to R600, what am I going to do with my x1800gto? It can't be used for rendering along with R600, so what better way to further invest it by making it my phyics card?

I'm sorry, but I'm with Havok.:D

[Zelda_fan]

?


Ok, so When I upgrade to R600, what am I going to do with my x1800gto? It can't be used for rendering along with R600, so what better way to further invest it by making it my phyics card?

I'm sorry, but I'm with Havok.:D

you do realize that to date, NO game supports Havok FX. I mean, at least Ageia has SOMETHING out on the market.

And as what to do with your x1800? Sell it on the forums like I plan on doing with my 6800GT when the G80 comes out.

[killahsin]

Are you sure its that big of a difference though? I thought CPUs (especially with mutliple cores) were more than capable of handling even the most complex physics calculations?

I was under the impression that graphics were a totaly different thing all together and CPUs inherantly are no good at it, where as they can do physics fine.


It's a massive difference yes.

[Redeemed]

It's a massive difference yes.

A massive difference it is. I'll see if I can dig up some documentation that clearly explains why and how.

[JamesDax]

No single core, dual core or quad core CPU will ever outperform a PPU for physics.

[jolle]

No single core, dual core or quad core CPU will ever outperform a PPU for physics.
I sort of have that feeling aswell..
A GPU should be vastly superior to any CPU aswell due to its parallell construction.
The PPU specs seems rather secretive, but its supposed to be very parallell aswell, as its a great benefit with physics to calculate alot of collisions simultaniously.. eh, I assume anyway.
I saw some stats somewhere on how many collisions and what not it could handle, but by itself it doesnt really say much..
No idea what a 2ghz+ CPU core could do, or a mid end GPU for that matter..

Then there is ofcource the question on how MUCH better PPU or GPU assisted physics would be over say a Quadcore powered solution.
If the cost of a PPU board would warrant it, or for a third/second videocard (Provided you dont have one at hand, I will most likely not be able to use this AGP card for example)...
So even if one is better, it might not be that MUCH better to warrant any extra costs or whatever..

[SpiffMistroII]

you do realize that to date, NO game supports Havok FX. I mean, at least Ageia has SOMETHING out on the market.

And as what to do with your x1800? Sell it on the forums like I plan on doing with my 6800GT when the G80 comes out.


Age of Empires III
Armed and Dangerous
Auto Assault
Company of Heroes
Condemned: Criminal Origins
Deus Ex: Invisible War
Dungeons & Dragons Online: Stormreach
Ed, Edd n Eddy
Evil Dead Regeneration
F.E.A.R.
Freelancer
Full Spectrum Warrior
Full Spectrum Warrior: Ten Hammers
Half-Life 2
IHRA Drag Racing: Sportsman Edition
IHRA Professional Drag Racing 2005
Max Payne 2
Medal of Honor: Pacific Assault
Over the Hedge
Painkiller
Pariah
Pitfall: The Lost Expedition
Psi-Ops: The Mindgate Conspiracy
Second Life
Shrek SuperSlam
Splinter Cell 3
Starsky and Hutch
SWAT 4
The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion
The Godfather
The Matrix: Path of Neo
The Punisher
Thief: Deadly Shadows
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon 2 Summit Strike
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter
Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Lockdown
Tonka Monster Trucks
Tribes: Vengeance
URU: Ages Beyond Mist
Vampire: Masquerade Bloodlines

Edit: Added to list by user input:
Just Cause -added by aop
Halo 2 (upcoming) -added by Sound_Card


Add ATI and Nvidia influence on devs, and you can multiply that list 10x fold.

[CaptNKILL]

I think thats just a list of Havok physics games. That doesnt mean they support Havok FX hardware acceleration. And even if it is backwards compatible, none of those titles even need it. As soon as I upgraded to an Athlon 64 (3000+), the CPU bottleneck from physics was gone in every game I played. The only exception would be HL2 running Gary's Mod since excessive use of physics objects is the point of the game.