digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

GeForce 8 cards to gain PhysX support via software dowload

techreport.com — Nvidia completed its acquisition of Ageia yesterday, and it has revealed that it will soon introduce PhysX physics processing support into all of its GeForce 8-series graphics cards through a simple software download. PhysX support will allow the cards to accelerate physics effects in games.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • usacomp2k3, on 02/15/2008, -4/+108Well that'll definitely help it be enjoyed by the masses.
    • RadonPL, on 02/15/2008, -5/+28And people who use Linux!
      • davidrools, on 02/15/2008, -4/+2maybe not if it runs on the driver/software side rather than the firmware, right? we'll probably be a few months behind on the newest technologies again. *sigh* i'm still looking forward to the day when I can do without a windows partition = (current windows-only needs: sebelius scorch, protools, adobe premiere/cs3/lightroom, reason, ableton live, solidworks, surfcam, netflix on demand, gaming...but for the day to day browsing/messaging/music/media i'm on linux.)
        • norman619, on 02/15/2008, -2/+4You may be too old to care if/when that day comes.
    • sponeil, on 02/15/2008, -6/+7So I guess this means "Suck it, ATI users!"? Oh well, I hope they only make it work for OpenGL. Releasing it for DirectX would probably require a new version of DirectX, which of course will only run on Vista.
      • norman619, on 02/15/2008, -3/+15I thought the ATI drivers said that pretty well on their own...
      • poracious, on 02/15/2008, -0/+4Well, seeing as the PhysX software for the standalone cards already works with DX9/10 and OpenGL, I somehow doubt they'd make the 8-series not support them.

        This isn't to discount the fact they could still make an immensely stupid move and do so, though.
      • buuch, on 02/15/2008, -8/+2ATI cards in crossfire mode already do physics. (i thought?)
        • Raptor007, on 02/15/2008, -0/+6Negative. Crossfire, like SLI, is purely a means of dividing the graphics rendering workload.
    • themastersb, on 02/15/2008, -1/+22Sweet. My 8 series card just got better.
      • kronix2, on 02/16/2008, -2/+16"8 series card"? Sounds like somebody doesn't want to admit they have an 8300 GS...
      • thebusdriver, on 02/16/2008, -1/+7itll make my 8800 gts 640mb purchase a little more justified now.
        • gameforge, on 02/16/2008, -0/+1It'll make my 8600GTS purchase more justified. Not the one I already have - the second one.
      • TheTaoOfBill, on 02/16/2008, -3/+2I got the 8800GTX :)

        I bought a new computer so I figured I'd go all out on the video card so I wouldn't have to wind up buying a new one in a year. This definitely kicks ass though.
        • Giga, on 02/16/2008, -3/+4We don't really care why you bought the hardware you did...
          • TheTaoOfBill, on 02/16/2008, -2/+1Aw is somebody jealous? :(

            Seriously all I did was join in on a conversation. What's your problem?
          • dr3minem, on 02/16/2008, -1/+0It's because you didn't really have anything to contribute to the 'conversation'.
            You just tried to increase the size of your ewang with a graphics card thats not even the best under the GeForce 8800 cards
            And no, no jealousy here and I'm just gonna go ahead and guess that Giga isnt either.
          • TheTaoOfBill, on 02/16/2008, -1/+1As if you aren't trying to increase the size of your ewang by acting like a total douche bag to a stranger. I said nothing rude at all and yet both you and Giga just decided to act like a couple of assholes for no apparent reason.

            I'll bet you feel cool now.
    • Spuy767, on 02/15/2008, -4/+8"Two for physics, one for graphics" How ***** complicated does this guy think that Physics computation is? What they should really do it work on making the physics work on one of the unused cores in today's multi-core machines.
      • AzraeI, on 02/15/2008, -2/+13GPUs are better at physics calculations than CPUs
        • Spuy767, on 02/17/2008, -0/+1Agreed, the 100+ stream processors in some of the higher end 8k cards would eat through physics computations, but for the sake of argument, why is my machine at 25% CPU utilization when running crysis?
      • m0tbaillie, on 02/15/2008, -6/+3And you have a degree in physics, I'm sure...
        • gameforge, on 02/16/2008, -0/+1Do you think that a physics major's ability to optimize/parallelize computational physics is anything but coincidental?
      • xxpor, on 02/16/2008, -0/+2very ***** complicated actually. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navier-Stokes_equatio ...
        Prove or give a counter-example of the following statement:

        In three dimensions, given an initial velocity there exist a velocity vector and a scalar pressure, which are smooth and globally defined, that solve the Navier-Stokes equations.
        If you can do this, you win $1,000,000. It has been that elusive of a solution. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navier-Stokes_existen ... )
        • slowbo, on 02/16/2008, -0/+2Please get off your high horse xxpor. No printed circuit is going to solve N-S equations, at least not any time soon. That's why the bouncing boobs are just a loose mesh of nodes held together by 'springs', and not a fluid continuum.

          Still good for a wank though.
      • olliholliday, on 02/16/2008, -0/+4mod him down but he's right, dual core is standard and quad core's gonna be standard pretty soon yet the vast majority of PC games use 1 core and thats it, there IS a lot of spare cpu power lying around for ***** like this. admittedly a gpu's gonna be a hell of a lot faster but it's only getting priority because the library writers (ie. nvidia) want to sell you more gfx cards.
  • cgjamj, on 02/15/2008, -1/+146This is pretty cool. I'm all for added features via software updates free of charge. I would have expected them to release updated versions of the 8800 series cards that feature this, so hats off to them for taking this route. Although, I'm not sure how much it would help with current games. I read a pretty good review of the Ageia phyisx card a while back and it showed that the benefits did not justify the $200 cost of the card - even with a game that was described as being enhanced for Ageia PhysX support. But if it's free, no loss. Hopefully developer support will increase once nVidia makes this happen.
    • iofthestorm, on 02/15/2008, -8/+5Yeah, this is pretty great for people with an 8-series card, but I'm wondering whether it'll require SLI to function since I don't think a GPU could do both graphics and physics at the same time and do them both well. It might be something like allowing a weaker 8-series GPU (like 8600) function as a PPU while the main card does the heavy lifting GPU work. It kind of sucks for people with older cards, and people on the ATI side like me, although ATI was doing a lot of GPGPU stuff before it seems like nothing ever came of it.
      I do hope AMD comes up with something killer to come back, perhaps something along the lines of Fusion.
      • Scynet, on 02/15/2008, -5/+2Well, if it's going to require SLi, most games won't implement it that way to begin with. Money speaks. What we could have is a temporary decrease in the amount of stuff the GPU has to process in exchange of PhysX -driven content, which is allright with me.

        What I'm left wondering is what exactly is the role of a high-end processor now? Running scripts and background data? It would certainly free some crunching power for, say, a very advanced A.I, but they'd better not put our modern processors' powers to waste.
        • combatchuck, on 02/15/2008, -0/+6There is a lot more involved in a game than just the graphics.
          • Giga, on 02/16/2008, -0/+0I wish this was true... but with the current games these days, the only thing they have going for them is graphics.
        • stargatesteve, on 02/15/2008, -1/+3graphics actually contribute to a very small part of the game. before you post like that again, I would recommend that you pull your head out, RTFA, and google it.
      • stargatesteve, on 02/15/2008, -2/+9FYI, your CPU can't do more than one thing at a time, but you can mutitask. how does that work? google it.
        • GliTCH82, on 02/15/2008, -4/+2It can if you have 4 cores.
        • iofthestorm, on 02/15/2008, -5/+1Reading comprehension idiot. I never said it couldn't be done but it would be a tradeoff for graphics performance. Your CPU may only do one thing at a time (well, not multicores) but the switching between threads hinders performance. Also, if you read the article the CEO of nVidia said that he hoped it would spur people to buy two or even three graphics cards.
        • ermau, on 02/15/2008, -0/+2Unless the CPU has more than one hardware thread.
    • CrackyJSquirrel, on 02/15/2008, -2/+12I have always been an nVidia fan. To me they have always seemed more customer friendly and willing to appease their fans. EVGA, is my favorite manufacturer of nVidia products, best upgrade/return policies out there.
    • Ravenlock, on 02/15/2008, -0/+3Yeah, the way I see it, everybody wins here - the few games that actually get a shot in the arm from PhysX currently will run better for those who have GeForce Series 8 cards, and more developers will be enticed to add PhysX to their games, knowing that a huge segment of the gaming population will now have the hardware to use it.
    • LordVance, on 02/15/2008, -0/+2Unreal Tournament III has PhysX support; the "demo" maps showing it off are pretty terrible, but now there will be an incentive for map-makers to try using it in a better way (the demo maps have no visual difference between walls and floors that could be destroyed or not, and often times have those destructables in retarded places that ruin the flow of the map... but they really just serve as a tech demo anyway. I'm sure we will find some interesting uses for destructables in the editor now that we don't have to pop in a physx card).
      • h4mx0r, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1Those demo maps still show that the phsx does make a sizable difference (despite the fact that it's still not up to par... for now.)
  • childprey, on 02/15/2008, -2/+34What's AMD's options look like in response?
    • digiwand, on 02/15/2008, -1/+90It's causing all kinds of Havoc! ;)
      • iofthestorm, on 02/15/2008, -5/+24Too bad Intel bought Havok, but maybe this will lead to some sort of Intel-AMD unholy alliance to take down nVigia.
        • wTheOnew, on 02/15/2008, -0/+6With Larabee showing up in the foreseeable future, I wouldn't hold my breath for an Intel-AMD alliance, but rather in if nVidia can come up with it's own processor line that can compete.
          • GliTCH82, on 02/15/2008, -1/+6The 8800 has more transistors than a Core 2 Quad processor. NVidia has the technology and resources to create an x86/64 processor, all they need now is a design.
          • Raptor007, on 02/15/2008, -0/+3I wouldn't mind having yet another Nvidia part in my rig. They already made my motherboard chipset and graphics chipset, which both perform beautifully. :¬)
        • shredswithpiks, on 02/15/2008, -0/+27I'd rather not see nVidia taken down :(

          they've been releasing very solid product and I'm very happy with them at the moment.
          • norman619, on 02/15/2008, -8/+4No shot. I'd rather see ATI taken down. ATI is notorious for crappy drivers and applications. nVidia on the other hand has a strong track record of releasing reliable hardware. With the exception of the initial release of the 8800 cards. That whole thing of turning those of us who bought the 8800 when it came out into beta testers did kinda suck ass.
          • GliTCH82, on 02/15/2008, -0/+29I'd rather see both of them still competing with each other, because if one of them is taken down the other will slack off for a few years and milk the market (translation: us).
          • LordVance, on 02/15/2008, -0/+12I'm with Glitch on this one, it sucks enough that we only have 2 major graphics card producers competing, and 2 major cpu producers. Knock out any one of the four and it sucks balls for the consumer :(
          • digitalunit, on 02/15/2008, -8/+1As solid as diarrhea...
          • MasterRex, on 02/15/2008, -0/+9How soon you (norman619) forget that the ATi 9xxx series that pretty much kicked off the age of modern PC gaming with much more impressive drivers and benchmarks than anything nVidia could throw its way (at the time).
          • shmittay84, on 02/15/2008, -0/+5I have no idea how to reply to MasterRex but the 9800 PRO was AMAZING.
          • GhostCow, on 02/16/2008, -0/+1I'd rather see Matrox make a comeback! :D
        • volacide, on 02/15/2008, -5/+2Nvidia has a great track record of going in spurts of making a solid product to then making a less than average product that performs on the surface pretty well but behind the scenes is cutting corners and "cheating" resulting in worse image quality. That's why I've always been an ATi man. Consistently great image quality that was better than Nvidia's cards at some points even though the performance was lower.

          It looks like the 9 series GeForce isn't going to be anything more than a faster 8 series really, no retooling or anything. ATi just needs to get on the ball with their drivers. They used to be putting out amazing drivers, especially in the X1K series.
    • combatchuck, on 02/15/2008, -0/+20I honestly think AMD bought ATI to compete with Intel in the embedded arena. I'm not too sure they even care about this.
    • Tapewormz, on 02/15/2008, -4/+10AMD has a sad future prospect wtih it's current offering of CPU and GPU. I'm glad I migrated away from AMD and ATI in favor of more stable technology. Intel owns Havoc, and nVidia owns Physx...Those are the two biggies in physics for in game applications that I know of. I know there are several other physics engines out there, maybe they'll pick one of those up.
      • Raptor007, on 02/15/2008, -1/+2To be fair, I'm still sporting Athon64 X2 2.4 here (well, technically Opteron, but same thing). I know it can't touch a Core 2, but it's still a very nice processor and by no means the bottleneck of my system.

        I've avoided ATI's GPUs for a while now, mainly due to terrible drivers.
    • davidrools, on 02/15/2008, -0/+10a) license physX technology from nVidia
      b) develop their own physics engine that is compatible without infringing on any IP
      c) ignore physics processing and have their marketing tell people they don't need it
      I'm guessing they'll do (c), but it'll be funny if they eventually do offer physics acceleration after saying it was unnecessary!
      • LordVance, on 02/15/2008, -0/+2I'm sure they will go c) for now, but they probably won't even tell people it isn't necessary. I've yet to see any game take advantage of physx in a meaningful way; then again, that could just be because such a small percentage of the customers have a physx card - maybe someone will have a few bright ideas now that it's adoption will be fairly widespread.
    • Baryn, on 02/15/2008, -3/+3The Titanic.
    • nizzy1115, on 02/15/2008, -1/+5To curl up in the fetal position.
    • cougar618, on 02/15/2008, -0/+6AMD's official stance is that physics processing won't be necessary until DirectX 11.
      But *****, w/ quad cores, why not have one core do the processing? After all, if you can afford a 8000 series, you probably can afford a $180 processor.
      • Raptor007, on 02/15/2008, -0/+4That can be (and sometimes is) accomplished with multi-threading, and has nothing to do with the PhysX card. In fact, I think this makes a lot more sense than offloading physics to the GPU, which has enough on its mind already.
    • themastersb, on 02/15/2008, -10/+4All you losers who have ATI cards stop whining. You're just upset that AMD/ATI have been doing a crap job and that you regret siding with them.
    • Lane, on 02/15/2008, -0/+3I'm upset and I own an 8800, Look at how long it's taking to get the next gen out... Nvidia will basically milk it for all it's worth so long as theres no competition.
      • s1mph0ny, on 02/16/2008, -0/+3I own a 7800, which I've owned since it was new. It is odd having a card that is just one generation off for 3 years now.
  • doubleshot, on 02/15/2008, -0/+64Looks like Nvidia might be reaping returns on this acquisition sooner than I thought.
  • dotspot, on 02/15/2008, -0/+28Clients happiness just raised
  • DFENS, on 02/15/2008, -0/+91I'm just happy that PhysX might finally get the developer support it's sorely needed since it's inception.
    • jecruzs, on 02/16/2008, -0/+2The grammar NAZI inside me just died a little.
  • rebotfc, on 02/15/2008, -12/+13Im confused as to how a software update could activate a hardware solution.
    • pastaq, on 02/15/2008, -0/+48FTA:

      "Huang revealed that Nvidia's strategy is to take the PhysX engine and port it onto CUDA. For those not in the know, CUDA stands for Compute Unified Device Architecture, and it's a C-like application programming interface Nvidia developed to let programmers write general-purpose applications that can run on GPUs. All of Nvidia's existing GeForce 8 graphics processors already support CUDA, and Huang confirmed that the cards will be able to run PhysX."

      Its just math.
    • ours, on 02/15/2008, -0/+39Aegia = stream processor
      Geforce 8 = stream processor
      Easy as changing their SDK to compile to something GeForce 8 understands and make the drivers to work with it. Voilà!
      • TheSnuffster, on 02/15/2008, -1/+11Dugg up for being the first person i've seen on teh interwebz to write voila correctly (and not say wah-la.)
    • jcsoc, on 02/16/2008, -2/+5because the physx card was always *****, it's basically a software switch the games have to be able to do fancier things if they see a physx card.
  • logicalnoise, on 02/15/2008, -2/+16I only have a 8600 but hell yeah that's pretty cool.
    • dshPls, on 02/15/2008, -0/+9Same here, but my 8600 dies on Crysis already, I doubt this will make anything look cooler...
      • stargatesteve, on 02/15/2008, -6/+1It will help with the physics. of course it will look better.
        • cgruber, on 02/15/2008, -0/+4Not positive about that. If the GPU is already the bottle neck offloading more calculations onto it doesn't seem like it will necessarily improve anything.
          • LordVance, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1What's your CPU that your GPU is the major bottleneck? I run a pentium 4 930d dual core processor and an 8800GTS - my CPU is a maaaajjoooor bottleneck for my GPU at the moment in most games, so it will be nice to have a way to use a bit more of my G's power :-D
          • dshPls, on 02/15/2008, -0/+3I have a q6600 quad-core. I know, four cores suck for gaming... but I built my machine for 3d modelling, multimedia(photoshop, flash) and porn. That's why I went with the 8600, I knew it'd be a bottleneck, but it still plays most games decently.
          • Raptor007, on 02/15/2008, -0/+2@LordVance:

            The 8600 is WAY below the 8800. I'm absolutely not surprised that his 8600 is his bottleneck, as even my old 7800 could run circles around it. (And yet, even when I had two 7800s in SLI though, they were my bottleneck; my framerates improved when I moved to an 8800.)

            In your case, by contrast, you have an awesome GPU... but I can't believe you opted for Intel back in the Pentium 4 days! So naturally that is your bottleneck.
          • s1mph0ny, on 02/16/2008, -0/+1@Raptor007

            The P4 D was the least expensive dual core system you could buy for a while. I ended up going for a socket939 system, but AMD ended support for it fairly shortly.
        • JacktheRipper14, on 02/15/2008, -0/+6Wrong, Crysis doesn't support PhysX
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 02/16/2008, -2/+1Bought an 8800 last week LOL!!!
  • MusicalGenius, on 02/15/2008, -7/+10I have an 8600 and I'm getting my 8800 soon. I'm excited
    • webcrumb, on 02/15/2008, -0/+16And you just can't hide it?
      • Dylson, on 02/15/2008, -0/+9I see what you did there.
        • Icetype, on 02/15/2008, -1/+3I need one of those ASCII art pictures of the "I see what you did there" cats.
  • ScornForSega, on 02/15/2008, -2/+70I wonder what the performance hit is going to look like when PhysX is enabled.
    • nonymous666, on 02/15/2008, -7/+1Agreed. I don't see this helping much until maybe the next generation or two of cards when they can then put on some small PPU unit or something to do the pysics processing.
      • stargatesteve, on 02/15/2008, -3/+5and what tdo you think that massive, power-sucking, absurdly huge, bigass GPU is for?
        • nonymous666, on 02/15/2008, -0/+7Graphics. Do you think it can put out the same FPS if it has to now do physics, too?
        • SpeedSteamBoat, on 02/15/2008, -4/+1RTFA nonymous, It clealry explains that it is expected people will buy a second or third card to run the physics.
      • Zlorp, on 02/15/2008, -0/+5the stream processors in the 8 series are pretty much the exact same thing as a ppu.
    • XxbladesfirexX, on 02/15/2008, -10/+3There are few games today that use all of an 8800's resources. Notice that most games (excluding crysis) run fine completely maxed out?
      • ChuckIT, on 02/15/2008, -5/+5welp we all know now: you dont know *****.
        • jordanisj, on 02/15/2008, -0/+4It'd depend on your resolution. If you have a 30" monitor, no one 8800 will not cut it. But I have to agree that most games work fine maxed out on my hardware, which is a 20" monitor. UT3 maxes out fine, Supreme Commander maxes out even with both of my monitors, TF2, NWN2, Oblivion... Crysis was the first game I played that finally started making my 8800 GTX choke.
        • XxbladesfirexX, on 02/15/2008, -1/+1Name a single game out right now, that using 100% of the recourses of any 8800. Can you name one?
        • Zlorp, on 02/15/2008, -0/+3xxblade, you nub, the 8800's choke hardcore in crysis on very high settings. there is also this thing called fsaa, that if you crank at high resolutions (like some of us like to do) it WILL slow it down. every game out can potentially push the 8800's boundries, it all depends on settings, sounds like your some noob who has never even touched the video options in a game before.
        • stklaw, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1Some games. Not every.
          If you can challenge 8800 with Liero, I'll give you a good clap.
          • Zlorp, on 02/16/2008, -0/+1any game made in the last 2 years can push the boundries of an 8800 if you use the right settings and are shooting for 60fps
      • DPyro, on 02/16/2008, -0/+1But not all of us can own a 8800. I have a 15.4" laptop I use for both work and play (I'm a college student). There is no way a 8800 is going to fit in there; even if it did it will just melt the thing. Instead I get a 8600GT which is still a stripped-down version of the desktop edition. The fastest card now for 15.4" laptops is IIRC the 8700GT, just an OC'd version of 8600GT. Even this comes with just DDR2 memory (on most models). So, at least for us laptop users, we still get shiny Core 2 Duo's but still get bottlenecked by graphics.
    • GliTCH82, on 02/15/2008, -1/+8This will probably work great for games where the CPU is the bottleneck more so than the GPU. I guess maybe in some games that support PhysX you might get a better experience if you turn down your resolution and enable the PhysX engine on the 8800, that way you get more realistic looking physical effects in-game.

      Resolution isn't everything, visual detail is important but it means nothing if the animation/effects are lacking.
      • Sogui, on 02/15/2008, -0/+2I wondering that about Supreme Commander, that game is a CPU whore but is pretty easy on the GPU.
      • SierraAlpha, on 02/16/2008, -0/+1Or you know... if the game sucks.
    • Qumahlin, on 02/16/2008, -0/+1Quite frankly I have yet to see any good use for PhysX...thier engine isn't even that great, which is another reason why developers don't bother with it. It's not so much "physics" as it is particle effects.
    • InorganicMatter, on 02/16/2008, -3/+1Honestly, I'd imagine not much. Physics, even very complicated dynamic systems like exploding buildings, is child's play compared to the amount of processing power it takes to computer modern computer graphics.
  • Rikushix, on 02/15/2008, -11/+6I'm starting my next build in May, and I'm just waiting for the next tier of cards to be released - particularily the 9800 - so when I begin, I can get great deals on maybe two 8800 GTX's and put them in SLI. Plus, Intel releasing the 45nm chips will hopefully drive prices down on motherboard/processor bundles as well. NVIDIA/Intel is the way to go, in my opinion. AMD was hot three or four years ago when they sprung up as the first big competitor to Intel in terms of processing, but they've fallen back again. Look at the Q6600, which isn't even Intel's top line of processors, just the entry-level upper-tier, and then look at AMD's quad core Phenoms. They don't compare. I used to be a ATI fan, but since AMD bought them out it's been NVIDIA and Intel all the way. This is great, because it means that people who want to get some PhysX content in their games don't have to buy a special video card anymore just to experience it.
    • TiMMY8765, on 02/15/2008, -2/+5this thread has nothing to do with amd or intel
      • Tapewormz, on 02/15/2008, -2/+2Well if you actually read what's in the thread instead of trolling, then you would have seen that people were discussing who owns what physics engine and what AMD/ATI's options are. Quit being an *****.
    • Psi57, on 02/15/2008, -4/+2Hahaha,
      Dug down for the sad truth about *****!
    • Mikhail101, on 02/16/2008, -0/+1nobody wants to know, do u want us to drool at your computer or something, fat chance!
  • MystDarkarma, on 02/15/2008, -9/+1Wasn't it AMD who recently, within this past year, released drivers allowing for a faster frame rate or some BS on AMD chipsets? This is just nVidia strategizing.
    • markperia, on 02/15/2008, -0/+5Of course it is. What else could they be doing? Businesses are run this way my friend.
    • DagMX, on 02/15/2008, -0/+2not really. driver updates usually are supposed to increase performance and stability, this is adding of new features on a large scale. It's not in response to AMD at all
  • TomK88, on 02/15/2008, -2/+5It should be interesting to see if this technology actually becomes useful when it's user-base is expanded. I think it could take 3-4 generations before it becomes relevant.
    • PleaseJustDie, on 02/15/2008, -0/+3I don't even think it'll be that much, I think that now that its widely available on nvidia chipsets and has nvidia's power driving it that the technology will be adopted fairly rapidly.
    • SpectralSounds, on 02/15/2008, -0/+2Of course it will be useful. Why else would nVidia buy them out?
    • Tapewormz, on 02/15/2008, -0/+2It's relevant now, there are games that already use physx. Some of which I currently own. The fact that I don't have to buy a standalone card, or even upgrade to a next gen GPU in order to benefit is great news. I just bought my 8800GT, I didn't want to have to go out and buy a new card right away.
      • LordVance, on 02/15/2008, -0/+2Name one game that uses it in a compelling manner though... Some games currently support it, but as far as actual gameplay is concerned I've only ever seen PhysX hurt the experience as opposed to helping it. Sure, this is very likely due to poor support from the developer end, but my point is that it will take some fairly widespread adoption before it is worth development resources to actually make a compelling PhysX based experience instead of just tacking it on at the end in an arbitrary (and often harmful) manner.
  • acatzr800, on 02/15/2008, -2/+6Anyone know if the 8xxxM lines will be supported? I'd love it if they were, unfortunately, there's no mention of it in the article and NVidia doesn't like supplying drivers and such for their mobile lines.
    • XxbladesfirexX, on 02/15/2008, -1/+1They may have basic support for it, however mobile chips tend to lack raw power as it is. I doubt if you will see any performance upgrade when this comes out.
    • Tapewormz, on 02/15/2008, -0/+7All of their 8 series GPU are supported. If you can download the nvidia driver from their site, I'm sure it your card will benefit. From what that article says, it looks like you fall under the umbrella of the 8 series.
      • TheDarkestOne, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1I have an Nvidia 8600M gt and I cannot even download current drivers from their site, so I suppose it's too much to hope that they will release new drivers for this particular card. As it is I have been getting drivers from http://www.laptopvideo2go.com/ because the latest ones from the manufacturer(Dell) wouldn't work properly for any games and there seem to be none on nvidia's site.
    • KMartSheriff, on 02/15/2008, -0/+3I wonder if this will include Macs as well (the MacBook Pro for example)?
      • Twee, on 02/16/2008, -0/+1I was wondering that as well, since I'm running a MacBook Pro (SR)
  • PawtucketPat, on 02/15/2008, -4/+4Intriguing, but I'll probably wait to see more PhysX games released and if there's any performance hit (I have an 8600 GT).
    • Tapewormz, on 02/15/2008, -2/+6Wait? What do you mean wait? It's a software download. It'll probably incorperated in their next driver. If you mean you'll wait to buy a game that supports it like Unreal Tournament III, then ok. It's not like you'll be upgrading from XP to Vista for crying out loud.
  • Dipsett, on 02/15/2008, -7/+2Thats great, for the two games per year that supports it.
    • chris9902, on 02/15/2008, -0/+12Unreal 3 supports it. Loads of games will use or are using that engine.

      I don't understand why you're being so negative. It's a good thing to have better physics support. Nobody wants another PCI card so having it on the GPU sounds like a great solution.
      • Tapewormz, on 02/15/2008, -0/+2Agreed! I sure do hope that this news means that I'll be able to download the Physx exclusive maps for UT3, and activate that radio button that says "Hardware Physics Support". :)
    • kent1146, on 02/15/2008, -0/+11Well, part of the reason that PhysX is so sparsely supported is because nobody had the hardware (the PhysX card), so developers didn't bother developing against it. Now that nvidia is taking over the PhysX technology, I'm sure that will change.

      And besides... it's a FREE upgrade. FREE features. And still you bitch sarcastically?
      • Dipsett, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1Not bitching, i think its great. Don't tell me its free though, its not. My point was that more games should support it, but as you said. That might change now. :)
  • tr0tsky, on 02/15/2008, -5/+6That's pretty sweet. I just bought an 8800 GT OC yesterday when my old ATI card died.
  • sHockz, on 02/15/2008, -28/+1omg omg omg omg omg omg omg omg omg!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This was talked about for soooo long and it finally happend!!! Good thing I already have my SLi 2x8800gtx (free of course, I aint spending no $1200 on gfx, gotta love sponsors though) woohoo! I wonder how this will affect framerate though...will it increase or decrease?
    • UtopiaInTheSky, on 02/15/2008, -11/+1Wow your sponsors blow.
      My sponsors hooked me up with Triple-SLi 8800GTS 512 MB.
      • kidcodea, on 02/15/2008, -11/+1both ya sponsors suck. my sponsors gave me the universe to live in.
    • GliTCH82, on 02/15/2008, -1/+2My sponsors hooked me up with your mom.
  • edborden, on 02/15/2008, -5/+3This is so freaking cool. PhysX for everyone, and now no one has to worry about all the nonsense about if they have an extra PCI slot or if they want to spend their money on a dedicated PhysX card. Now we're just buying graphics cards and we can pick what we want to do with them!

    A few things I wonder, though.. 1) Was Ageia's hardware any better at doing the PhysX calculations? Will going through a CUDA port onto nVidia's processor be as good? 2) How hard will it be to turn PhysX on or off on specific cards in your machine? Will ESA play any roll there? 3) WWHHEENN!!???
  • Quadrille, on 02/15/2008, -0/+18Well, free stuff. I'm not complaining.
  • Z_Man, on 02/15/2008, -11/+1So how will this help me with my 8600gt? What does it actually enhance in my games?
    • Scynet, on 02/15/2008, -0/+12Umm, physics?
    • stargatesteve, on 02/15/2008, -0/+7WTF do you think better physics are for? more realistically bouncing icons on the OSX doc?
    • Purin, on 02/15/2008, -3/+2Well, since you (unfortunately) have an 8600GT, I doubt it'll help much of anything...
    • Tapewormz, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1Yeah, did you even read the article? Have you been following physics engines for video games at all? I'll dumb it down for you.. * Enhanced gameplay for free*
  • rowlodge, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1just about to buy one of those things just for pure editing but playing games with it is beginning to come to mind also.
  • colonelpanic, on 02/15/2008, -1/+55thank you for not dicking me over, Nvidia.
    • KMartSheriff, on 02/15/2008, -0/+7Seriously. Nvidia = +10 points into awesomeness.
  • DeMoNX4187, on 02/15/2008, -7/+1It is in nVidia's best interest to tease gamers with a weakened version of PhysX for free. It should drive game developers to utilize the PhysX engine more freely and thus to create more demand for the hardware acceleration card for PhysX.
    • XxbladesfirexX, on 02/15/2008, -0/+2They had there chance, there biggest gun to push PhysX sales was with Unreal Tournament 3, and they didn't do too well. This is a smart move from a business standpoint.
      • melonade, on 02/15/2008, -1/+1Use the right "there, their, and they're"
        • EntangledPhysx, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1There's better stuff to talk about then stupid grammer BS. STFU.
  • i4mt3hwin, on 02/15/2008, -1/+11To answer some questions, dedicated PhysX hardware will always be faster than doing it on the GPU. Also, CUDA works by stealing some of the shaders from graphics processing, if the program is written for CUDA, you can expect a drop in graphics processing power in return for a boost in physics power. In most games, it's graphics that's the bottleneck, not physics, so doing this will lower your framerate by quite a bit.

    That being said, I'm sure nvidia will improve upon the technology for their next series, maybe even creating a dedicated processor on the GPU PCB specifically for physics.
    • Yazilliclick, on 02/15/2008, -9/+1They're not talking about doing this all on one card. They're talking about people owning a dedicated video card for physics and another for graphics. Which is fairly unrealistic in itself.
      • ryodoan, on 02/15/2008, -1/+3your behind the times Yazilliclick, they USED to be on two cards, now that nVidia has bought the PhysX company they are planning on making a single card.
        • chinadrum, on 02/15/2008, -1/+1FTA
          "Our expectation is that this is gonna encourage people to buy even better GPUs. It might—and probably will—encourage people to buy a second GPU for their SLI slot. And for the highest-end gamer, it will encourage them to buy three GPUs. Potentially two for graphics and one for physics, or one for graphics and two for physics.
          "
      • yabos, on 02/15/2008, -0/+2I don't see why you couldn't do it with SLI.
    • Tapewormz, on 02/15/2008, -0/+5The bandwidth of PCIE 2.0 is more than enough to handle GPU and PPU on the same card. So is it safe to assume that you probably think that having a CPU and an FPU as two separate chips on the motherboard is more efficient than having just a CPU with those instructions inherent? ...Because not too long ago, they used to be two separate processors on your motherboard.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 02/16/2008, -0/+1The 8800 hahas anywhere from 100-125 processors. Depending on if it's GS, GT, GX, Ultra
      • tomz17, on 02/16/2008, -0/+1That' "stream processors", which is really a misnomer IMHO. An 8800GTX has 16 (fairly) discrete processing units, each capable of performing an 8-way SIMD instruction. Nvidia multiplies those two numbers together, mostly for marketing purposes.

        Essentially, you can process 16 different instructions, on 128 pieces of data simultaneously. Still very impressive, especially for highly paralellizable problems, but not quite 128 processors.
        • MacSuxWindozSux, on 02/17/2008, -0/+1Yeah. My 8800GT has "112 Stream Processors" thats 14 x 8.
  • Rodex123, on 02/15/2008, -0/+16This has made my 8800 GTS one of the best purchases I've ever made, couldn't be any happier right now.
    • xkorbin, on 02/15/2008, -0/+5Hopefully a G92.
      • PizzaPops, on 02/15/2008, -0/+2And hopefully you are overclocking it.
        • BCModder1, on 02/26/2008, -0/+0overclocking in the 8800 series is nice, Ive clocked my 8800 GTS 640 up to basically slightly above standard GTX specs with a negligible heat increase which I was kind of surprised but very nice performance and I'm intrigued to see how this PhysX thing pans out for it.
  • cubedcompanies, on 02/15/2008, -4/+3wow that's awesome... i hope it applies to the 8800 in my Mac Pro that just arrived two days ago.

    You know, I love it when tech companies do this... instead of forcing upgrades to push product, if they just learn to treat their customer right the loyalty they'll be rewarded with will bring them far greater returns. I use to love ATI but after terrible customer support issues, my money belongs to nvidia... and this seals the deal (unless of course, they screw the pooch).
    • UtopiaInTheSky, on 02/15/2008, -6/+18Why do you need PhysX on a Mac, when there aren't even any games for you to play?
      • jbarket, on 02/15/2008, -5/+11Yeah, because Macs can't run Windows these days. It's just impossible to dual boot to game.

        What's your next one liner there Carrot Top, a one button mouse crack?
        • cubedcompanies, on 02/15/2008, -3/+5lmao jbarket... thank you.

          utopia, please don't be such a predictable internet cliche... it's really getting old.
      • KMartSheriff, on 02/15/2008, -2/+1Choo choo! All aboard the ignorance train!
    • kalphegor, on 02/15/2008, -0/+3or MacBook Pro with Windows, I hope they will release drivers for it too
    • blunden, on 02/16/2008, -0/+0Too bad Apple is the company that screws it's customers the most in that way.
  • Yazilliclick, on 02/15/2008, -1/+1I think they're expecting too much if they're thinking a good chunk of gamers are going to starting owning two or more good video cards in the near future. The only way that's going to happen is if they greatly reduce the prices on current generation video cards or the requirements for physics is so long that incredibly budget cards are more than enough.
  • lastrite, on 02/15/2008, -1/+2This is good, providing they don't start pushing for dedicating an entire card in sli for the highest level of physics :S
  • katorga, on 02/15/2008, -10/+0It is time for the "computer" to become just another card in the system. Modern game systems spend more board real estate and transistor counts on the graphics hardware than are used for the motherboard, CPU, memory and IO. That said, this trend has killed desktops at my house...2-4 Graphics cards require a 1 Kilowatt or better power supply, and I am just not going to deal with the heat, noise, cost and power consumption required. I'd rather just go spend $500 on a PS3 or XBOX.
    • Scynet, on 02/15/2008, -0/+8Or you could just use a single high-end graphics card like 99,7 % of players. Sure, the PC field offers the chance to buy a "bad-ass" rig for insane amount of cash unlike consoles, but it doesn't mean you have to, just like you don't have to own a Lamborghini to drive.

      If you can't help but feel inferior for not owning the best system out there, it's a problem with your mind, not the PC.
    • Tapewormz, on 02/15/2008, -0/+3The 45nm GPU and CPU that will be coming out this year will consume a lot less power, generate a lot less heat, and require a much smaller power-supply. It's called, progress... They're also making ram that use a lot less power and generate a lot less heat. Comparing PC gaming and Console gaming is stupid. I can do a lot more with my computer than just gaming. It can be used for entertainment purposes, educational purposes, financial purposes. On average, I only ever feel it necessary to upgrade my system components once every three years. It's usually an 800$ investment, as I don't buy the next-gen stuff until 6 months after it's arrived. I'm not an early adopter.
  • ubergeek09, on 02/15/2008, -5/+3Sweet makes me even happier with my recent purchase of a 8800GTS 512MB (G92) recently.
    • DigitalAddict2, on 02/16/2008, -4/+1I just read your recent comment recently.
  • widgetmaker, on 02/15/2008, -4/+1Will this include laptop cards that nvidia don't support?
  • Slybri, on 02/15/2008, -5/+4Great, the two games that use physX will be slightly better.

    Now Nividia just needs to release 3D stereo drivers for the 8800 series and I'll be happy.
    • Vindicoth, on 02/15/2008, -0/+8
      * Bet On Soldier: Blackout Saigon
      * Bet On Soldier: Blood Of Sahara
      * CellFactor
      * City Of Villains
      * Fallen Earth (due for release 2008)
      * Infernal
      * Medal of Honor: Airborne
      * Rail Simulator
      * Silverfall
      * Shadowgrounds Survivor
      * Stoked Rider: Alaska Alien
      * Switchball
      * Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter
      * Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2
      * Two Worlds
      * Unreal Tournament 3
      * Warmonger Operation: Downtown Destruction

      2 games.. yeah.

      The Unreal 3 Engine uses it so look forward to any game using the Unreal 3 Engine to take advantage of PhysX in some way. You don't have to have hardware support to take advantage of PhysX, but you do have to have hardware if you plan on viewing massive amounts of objects interacting, which is what the future holds.
    • KMartSheriff, on 02/15/2008, -0/+3You know, I actually dugg you up just so everyone could see how much of an idiot you are, as Vindicoth pointed out.
    • windwaker, on 02/16/2008, -0/+3there's like one game on that list that anyone cares about
  • Deejster, on 02/15/2008, -0/+33Congratulations to nvidia for working to offer this to *existing* customers! They could easily have used it as a way to encourage people to upgrade their 88xx cards to a newer model - but instead have admirably chosen the long term benefit of customer satisfaction.
    It's this approach that means I will choose nvidia next time, and keep recommending them to others.
    • Sevzi, on 02/15/2008, -1/+5Write them. Make this known. I agree. My 8800GT 512MiB agrees as well!
  • hadak, on 02/15/2008, -0/+22I'm SO glad I didn't buy a PhysX card like I was going to!
  • FuckXboxx, on 02/15/2008, -0/+3I'm glad to see PhysX didn't die before it ever had a chance show its full glory.

    I can't wait for this potential to be used in games :)
  • whyufail, on 02/15/2008, -2/+9This is better news than DX10 support, more useful as well sadly.
    • OroCHU, on 02/15/2008, -0/+3Ironically, it was the move to unified shaders that helped make this possible
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 02/16/2008, -2/+1DX10 has some good features if you saw the crysis comparison.
      • MacSuxWindozSux, on 02/16/2008, -1/+1Or you didn't and you just want to disagree anyway cause you wish you were right.
        • BCModder1, on 02/26/2008, -0/+0dugg up for truth, overall from what Ive seen comparing Crysis on DX9 with DX10 though there isn't enough of a difference for me to care, there wasn't any real notable improvement if any at all and before I get dugg down for this comment I would like to say that DX10 and vista were in my opinion more or less just another winME scheme to feed the wolves so to speak till they come out with their next OS which as far as Ive heard is to feature DX10 and the option of DX11 which is supposed to surpass it and hopefully it will deliver.

          again just my opinion so meh.
  • reconflux, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1Nice for who didn't adopt the cards but.... How about offering a small discounts on 8 series Nvidia video cards to people who were early investors in PhysX cards. I know, changes are they already have a 8 series card but thats why you have SLI. =)
  • cmelton924, on 02/15/2008, -1/+0This is actually a performance gain (depending on how PhysX works on the nVidia GPUs) While GPUs and the physics processor that ageia developed are very similar, the ageia processor was designed for much better parallel computing performance. If the PhysX software will run similarly as well, then the advantages that it provides can actually take a significant load off the normal graphics processing as things can be done by computing the physics of an action instead.

    check out he anandtech article

    http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3224
  • jabberwolf, on 02/15/2008, -9/+6Awesome, I'm sure glad I dont use OSX !!
    • Aberen, on 02/16/2008, -2/+3Your so cool
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 02/16/2008, -1/+6You're not allowed to remind Mac users of their obvious inferiority in gaming. They don't like it, they'll bury you.
      • BCModder1, on 02/26/2008, -0/+0yeah fanboyism sucks but what can ya do, you can be neutral and be pro have your own opinion that's great and show respect and they still spit in your face trying to argue with you despite the fact you won't take a stance on anything specific one way or another. lol
  • digitallysick, on 02/15/2008, -2/+3What about mac and *nix users?
    • SirZRX, on 02/15/2008, -3/+15who cares about mac users?
      • digitallysick, on 02/15/2008, -7/+4Apparently apple cares about mac users more than MS cares about windows users. Take vista for instance...
        • kentifer, on 02/16/2008, -0/+5Take leopard for instance...
          • digitallysick, on 02/16/2008, -1/+2yeah leopard far better than vista, you don't hear about people removing leopard and going back to tiger....
          • BCModder1, on 02/26/2008, -0/+0why would they wouldn't it be essentially going back to the same gaming impaired OS just without the new features and abilities added to panther, don't get me wrong vista in my opinion is a piece no doubt about that but if apple actually cared wouldn't they try to get better gaming support rather then promising to and or saying they will not delivering. my personal OS pref is linux but as I said in another comment I don't take a stance on anything cause it really doesn't matter due to the simple fact that no matter who you go with they're going to screw you one way or another in the end.
    • harajukukei, on 02/15/2008, -2/+19you dont need accelerated physics to play minesweeper.
      • adoggz, on 02/15/2008, -1/+5but it makes the minesweeping so much more realistic.
    • SuspicionVandit, on 02/15/2008, -8/+2someone just had to ask about the gay OS's
    • jabberwolf, on 02/16/2008, -0/+3OSX ?! They don't even support SLI, !!
      Linux I might be interested in,...at least they are attempting.
  • Vindicoth, on 02/15/2008, -1/+1Screwed I guess.
  • Triplesixer, on 02/15/2008, -1/+18800 GTX oc 2 here, glad I bought it when it came out it was worth the huge ass pricetag, id never buy a ppu though so this is good news, cant wait to spill some liquid blood woot !!
  • jonahan52, on 02/15/2008, -4/+6Hrm I wonder if they'll add this to Mac drivers so that I can rock it out on my 8600M GT on my MBP...
    • xkingADROCKx, on 02/15/2008, -0/+4Just use windows!
    • jabberwolf, on 02/16/2008, -0/+7Dream on. OSX can't even do crossfire or SLI.
      Apple has a habbit of pissing off developers so developers don't even bother.
  • mw113, on 02/15/2008, -3/+4how about fixing your existing drivers first, instead of adding more features.
  • Szat, on 02/15/2008, -1/+2***** Yes!
  • mCanada, on 02/15/2008, -1/+2Cool! But my 8500 is so dog ***** slow, I wonder if this will be of any use for those of us that were dumb enough to not do our research and just go for the 8600 :)
    • coheedcollapse, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1Yeah I picked up an 8600 myself. Hopefully it turns out well!
  • MasterRex, on 02/15/2008, -0/+4What games even use PhsyX processing? I don't know of any offhand.
    • BTime, on 02/15/2008, -1/+1I know that City of Heroes/Villains does
  • altidude, on 02/15/2008, -0/+3Mahjong should totally kick ass now!
  • repick3, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1The reason games don't use PhysX is because nobody had PhysX cards, now that PhysX is widely available in form of Geforce 8 cards, developers will start taking advantage of them. Perhaps now the Geforce 9000's will have new technology in them, optimized for PhysX, instead of just revamped 8000's tech.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 68 of 68 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.