coltde420
11-01-2005, 15:43
There's been some recent rumblings in the PC hardware industry which states the GPUs should be adequate enough to handle the physic chores of tomorrow's games. Is that the real deal or a bunch of fluff? Manju HegdGamespot interviewe, CEO of Ageia, is here to help shed light on the situation.
GD: In a recent Gamespot interview, Havoc has gone on the record of saying that their primary focus is getting physics onto the GPU with "no appreciable impact on the graphics" (performance) - what's your response to that ideaology?
Manju: If that were true, it would be the case that GPUs are currently underutilized! Knowing how game developers feel about GPUs this is hardly the case. That is, in effect the same thing that was said when 3Dfx came out with a 3D-only card. Nay sayers said there was enough headroom on the CPUs. And look at the ever-improving quality and performance of 3D graphics in the past few years. Clearly, there is great deal of performance required for physics and the necessary power needed will require dedicated hardware.
GD: GDHardware.com started covering the upcoming PhysX(NOTE SPELL: PhysX) PPU in the spring of this year - since that time, how much has AGEIA seen in responses from any potential competitors?
Manju: In general, we’ve seen an outpouring of positive response from developers looking to leverage the technology to develop interactive, stunning games. More than 60 developers are leveraging the features of the PhysX SDK.
It is great that there’s now an acknowledgement that you need hardware to do truly compelling physics. We’ve not seen another provider offer the necessary dedicated hardware for physics or the scale of physics that can be achieved by AGEIA’s PhysX processor. It takes time to design that and it requires world-class physics simulation expertise that is in short supply.
GD: What sort of quantifiable difference do you believe there will be between running game physics on a GPU/CPU vs. your PhysX PPU?
Manju: We have demos which already show in a game setting how much more physics there is with GPU + CPU + PhysX processor versus only GPU (dual) + CPU (dual core). We will be making these available shortly and believe me you will be pleased.
The first thing we expect gamers would notice is their graphics get worse in the former scenario. The GPU is sacrificing graphics cycles for physics, and we don’t believe graphics cards are sitting idle during games today or will be in the foreseeable future. Running a PhysX card along with one of those high-end cards will obviously give you the best physics AND graphics experience, which is the dream of developers and gamers alike.
GD: Undoubtedly, there are many games AGEIA will be incorporated into that aren't announced yet - what games, if any, can you tell us may eventually be "retrofitted" to exploit the PPU?
Manju: In general, game developers are choosing to use the PhysX features in new games coming to market. We are looking at a couple of titles that we are working on to “retrofit” but are not at liberty to discuss that yet.
GD: CPU manufacturers are churning out Dual-Core CPUs faster than Michael Jackson on his way to "Visit" an orphanage. How will this rise in dual-core install base help elevate gaming and ultimately compliment the PhysX PPU?
Manju: As we have always stated, the surge in physics that is imminent with the availability of the PhysX processor will push high end GPUs to make the graphics consistent with the dynamics as well as push dual-cores to improve the AI and for more sophisticated game logic and scripting. All games will benefit from all three.
GD: Explain some of the unique benefits of game play we'll see using a hardware solution like PhsyX vs. a somewhat pseudo hardware solution like Havoc.
Manju: Game developers may continue to use to software physics until there is a wider installed base of dedicated physics hardware, but just as in the case of 3D graphics, ultimately the content will take over and impactful games will need to use hardware physics.
GD: We have no doubts that Havoc will really ramp up its aggressiveness in getting its technology into games - and to its credit has really done a good job of getting gamers and the industry thinking about how important physics are - and to that point, what hurdles do you foresee attacking this from a two-prong approach (hardware to buy and developers to win over) vs. Havoc's way of basically giving the gamers free physics?
Manju: At AGEIA our goal is to dramatically improve game effects as well as game play physics that will ultimately allow developers let their imaginations run wild and design fully interactive worlds. This is something that is just not possible on a GPGPU and CPU combination. We are breaking those boundaries, and developing a new category of hardware to bring gaming to the next level of realism.
GD: AGEIA has been saying that it will not release hardware until the content is ready - sorta like the "we will sell no wine before it's time" a certain California Winery used in the 80's - well, give it to us Manju, when will be the time of ripeness for the grapes of PhysX invade our hearts, minds and most importantly games?
Manju: We fully intend to ship the PhysX processor to consumers when the content is “ripe”. At this time, we are evaluating the titles in development and are assessing our launch schedule accordingly.
GD: Do you feel any sort of threat from ATI's recently discussed physics on their new GPUs?
Manju: There is a possibility that the GPU can supply limited snippets of “physics” effects. The GPGPU community has been trying to encourage the use of this functionality for years with limited success. As we’ve seen with 3D, there is nothing like dedicated hardware to allow interactive physics to be fully exploited in tomorrow’s games.
Thanks Manju for answering these! :)
PC gaming in the future is going to be expensive. Seems like your going to need a high-end gfx card, dual core processor, and a physics card to get the most out of games.
GD: In a recent Gamespot interview, Havoc has gone on the record of saying that their primary focus is getting physics onto the GPU with "no appreciable impact on the graphics" (performance) - what's your response to that ideaology?
Manju: If that were true, it would be the case that GPUs are currently underutilized! Knowing how game developers feel about GPUs this is hardly the case. That is, in effect the same thing that was said when 3Dfx came out with a 3D-only card. Nay sayers said there was enough headroom on the CPUs. And look at the ever-improving quality and performance of 3D graphics in the past few years. Clearly, there is great deal of performance required for physics and the necessary power needed will require dedicated hardware.
GD: GDHardware.com started covering the upcoming PhysX(NOTE SPELL: PhysX) PPU in the spring of this year - since that time, how much has AGEIA seen in responses from any potential competitors?
Manju: In general, we’ve seen an outpouring of positive response from developers looking to leverage the technology to develop interactive, stunning games. More than 60 developers are leveraging the features of the PhysX SDK.
It is great that there’s now an acknowledgement that you need hardware to do truly compelling physics. We’ve not seen another provider offer the necessary dedicated hardware for physics or the scale of physics that can be achieved by AGEIA’s PhysX processor. It takes time to design that and it requires world-class physics simulation expertise that is in short supply.
GD: What sort of quantifiable difference do you believe there will be between running game physics on a GPU/CPU vs. your PhysX PPU?
Manju: We have demos which already show in a game setting how much more physics there is with GPU + CPU + PhysX processor versus only GPU (dual) + CPU (dual core). We will be making these available shortly and believe me you will be pleased.
The first thing we expect gamers would notice is their graphics get worse in the former scenario. The GPU is sacrificing graphics cycles for physics, and we don’t believe graphics cards are sitting idle during games today or will be in the foreseeable future. Running a PhysX card along with one of those high-end cards will obviously give you the best physics AND graphics experience, which is the dream of developers and gamers alike.
GD: Undoubtedly, there are many games AGEIA will be incorporated into that aren't announced yet - what games, if any, can you tell us may eventually be "retrofitted" to exploit the PPU?
Manju: In general, game developers are choosing to use the PhysX features in new games coming to market. We are looking at a couple of titles that we are working on to “retrofit” but are not at liberty to discuss that yet.
GD: CPU manufacturers are churning out Dual-Core CPUs faster than Michael Jackson on his way to "Visit" an orphanage. How will this rise in dual-core install base help elevate gaming and ultimately compliment the PhysX PPU?
Manju: As we have always stated, the surge in physics that is imminent with the availability of the PhysX processor will push high end GPUs to make the graphics consistent with the dynamics as well as push dual-cores to improve the AI and for more sophisticated game logic and scripting. All games will benefit from all three.
GD: Explain some of the unique benefits of game play we'll see using a hardware solution like PhsyX vs. a somewhat pseudo hardware solution like Havoc.
Manju: Game developers may continue to use to software physics until there is a wider installed base of dedicated physics hardware, but just as in the case of 3D graphics, ultimately the content will take over and impactful games will need to use hardware physics.
GD: We have no doubts that Havoc will really ramp up its aggressiveness in getting its technology into games - and to its credit has really done a good job of getting gamers and the industry thinking about how important physics are - and to that point, what hurdles do you foresee attacking this from a two-prong approach (hardware to buy and developers to win over) vs. Havoc's way of basically giving the gamers free physics?
Manju: At AGEIA our goal is to dramatically improve game effects as well as game play physics that will ultimately allow developers let their imaginations run wild and design fully interactive worlds. This is something that is just not possible on a GPGPU and CPU combination. We are breaking those boundaries, and developing a new category of hardware to bring gaming to the next level of realism.
GD: AGEIA has been saying that it will not release hardware until the content is ready - sorta like the "we will sell no wine before it's time" a certain California Winery used in the 80's - well, give it to us Manju, when will be the time of ripeness for the grapes of PhysX invade our hearts, minds and most importantly games?
Manju: We fully intend to ship the PhysX processor to consumers when the content is “ripe”. At this time, we are evaluating the titles in development and are assessing our launch schedule accordingly.
GD: Do you feel any sort of threat from ATI's recently discussed physics on their new GPUs?
Manju: There is a possibility that the GPU can supply limited snippets of “physics” effects. The GPGPU community has been trying to encourage the use of this functionality for years with limited success. As we’ve seen with 3D, there is nothing like dedicated hardware to allow interactive physics to be fully exploited in tomorrow’s games.
Thanks Manju for answering these! :)
PC gaming in the future is going to be expensive. Seems like your going to need a high-end gfx card, dual core processor, and a physics card to get the most out of games.