NVIDIA Acquires AGEIA: Enlightenment and the Death of the PPU
by Derek Wilson on February 12, 2008 11:00 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
The Face of the Competition
The Enemy of My Enemy Is What Now?
Who is NVIDIA's competition when it comes to their burgeoning physics business? It's certainly not AMD now that Havok is owned by Intel, and with the removal of AGEIA, we've got one option left: Intel itself.
Sure, maybe a developer could write his/her own physics engine directly for AMD GPUs, but that isn't going to go very far very quickly. That kind of project takes time. The bottom line is that without the support of a physics engine, AMD's GPUs can't be realistically thought of as a viable alternative to CPU based physics. While their CPUs will certainly benefit from whatever agenda Intel has with Havok, AMD doesn't have the same luxury Intel does of ignoring (directing?) the impact of its actions on the graphics market.
With Intel's march down the multi-threaded path towards their proposed many core architectures, NVIDIA has to be feeling at least a little heat. They need to expand their own relevance to push out of the graphics box into the grey area between many single threaded cores and true parallel computing. There are plenty of ways to do this, and if they establish themselves now it will be easier to fight the battles they may be presented with when CPU and GPU eventually meet again somewhere in between many cores that handle single threaded dependent code well and true massively parallel computing.
A Cold Front Moving Through Hell
While not stating that anything is in the works and even noting that it would be hard to logistically organize, NVIDIA's Tony Tamasi stated that they are committed to working with any of their competitors in the GPU market to get PhysX running on their hardware. The major concern is to put more powerful physics options in the hands of developers, and having PhysX enable hardware accelerated physics on any GPU would set the stage for a physics revolution. We would see developers actually start to push the limits of the hardware because everyone would have access to it.
And, more importantly from NVIDIA's perspective, it would put advanced physics out of reach of current CPU architectures. Even though a GPU may not be as well suited to physics as dedicated hardware, a modern CPU is vastly inferior to both. Getting more developers to implement PhysX, selling them on the pervasiveness of hardware support, and bringing a more impactful user experience to gamers could help push PhysX past Havok in the physics market.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
32 Comments
View All Comments
Rezurecta - Tuesday, February 12, 2008 - link
I don't believe it has to be AMD to make this acquisition successful. The true golden apple is the software that integrates hardware with games. That must be Microsoft and DirectX. If they decide to implement physx technology with DirectX don't you believe that it will make the product and acquisition successful and force AMD to compete or integrate physx technology?BTW I am not an expert just making an observation.
SuperGee - Wednesday, February 20, 2008 - link
Well the key point with this take over is for nV a replacement for HavokFX. A populair middleware tool. Wich PhysX SDK takes over from.For the HArdware Dedicated Physics part.
There are a lot G-cards out there.
nV has a larger momentum to be able to push Dedicated Physics much harder.
AMDIT also on it would give a tad more push to it.
As if the whole PC market that 100% would be a PIE.
It might be that PPU piece would not be a very visible target market. 1% ?
While nV got already a large piece. So nV GPU alone has a much bigger target platform. Even the g80 and G92 parts alone.
Wich have some reserves to do render and PhysX on one GPU.
The unified shader aproach to balance VS PS GS and PhysX tasks over the +/- 100 shaders units.
Or a spare GPU to do it dedicated.
So in the long run for nV it's more sales for GPU for this new HArdware accelerated market. Started by ageia.
knitecrow - Tuesday, February 12, 2008 - link
The sales trends are clear, mass market belongs to consoles.Why would any developer support a solution if it cannot work across the board? For hardware physics to be successful it has to be support within the directX framework and by AMD. Ideally it should work on consoles as well and AMD hardware.
Going forward, developers are going to put more resources on consoles and less on pc.
tmouse - Tuesday, February 12, 2008 - link
I do not know what "trends" you are quoting. If you mean the botched up hardwareshack redirected article that was pointed to by dailytech you should go back and read my comments. In a nutshell the PC market for retail sales on game software was at least 46% NOT 18%. Probably it was over 50% since, in general software prices are higher for the consoles and the numbers were only given in dollars sold not units shipped. Just think about it: the console race is very much a 3 horse race, with the "lowest tech" player leading. The second place player’s development platform is trivial from a port aspect. As far as physics goes; it will not be a major player for the Wii, that leaves the 360 and PS3. The PS3 is a difficult platform to program for and while it probably will move up from last place, it simply will not be “THE” dominate gaming platform the PS2 was in its generation. The 360 is basically the PC platform which means development for it is developing for at least 75% of the gamers. Physics development will only help; NOT detract from PC gaming. Now I agree the developers want the PC platform to die because consoles protect their IP much better, but they have to eat, so to try to force the issue would be suicide for any gaming company. There will always be FAR more PCs than ANY gaming platform and that simply is not going to change. Add to this the severe changes that occur when the next generation of the platforms come, which almost always radically change the way developers have to program to account for the hardware changes. PC development is a good fall back until they can ramp up for the next platforms. It takes at least a year after the platforms are released to see volume and quality on platforms. While PCs do have rapid advances in graphics capabilities they have always had backwards compatibility so games are rarely developed for the newest PCs. I simply do not see it going away soon.SuperGee - Wednesday, February 20, 2008 - link
PhysX supports Consoles.But the PS3 is somthing special.
It's Cell has some what more equalness with the PPU architekture.
But misses the internal bandwith and some restrictions.
So PhysX would run well on a PS3 as if it had a second GPU.
I espected Exclusive PS3 game supporting PhysX to be more Physics rich games. The Dev's have this opertunity to differ PS3 version from the other consoles. With more Physics.
Mr Alpha - Tuesday, February 12, 2008 - link
Isn't PhysX already available on PS3?Besides, the PC gaming market has been a proving ground for new technologies before they end up in consoles. Except for when somebody convinced a certain console maker to stick a supercomputer processor in a console, but I shan't name any names. We might end up seeing some form of hardware physics acceleration on the next generation of consoles.
Cygni - Tuesday, February 12, 2008 - link
They said this when the PS1 came out. They were wrong then, and it is still wrong now.MadBoris - Tuesday, February 12, 2008 - link
"How is NVIDIA going to be successful where AGEIA failed? After all, not everyone has or will have NVIDIA graphics hardware. That's the interesting bit."My first thought was licensing the technology for GPU or even chipset could work. Then Tony made it clear they would share it. That's really what has to be done. But if AMD put's their nose up they can virtually stick Nvidia with an acquisition that will do them no bit of good. If AMD doesn't get onboard it will be chicken and the egg all over again and devs won't integrate physics into games, then Ageia will make NVIDIA a nice paper weight.
paydirt - Friday, February 15, 2008 - link
I disagree here. I _think_ one of the main reasons that games stink for Crysis is because Crysis is physics-intense...? If AMD doesn't come onboard, then their benchmarks will stink for all the pretty shooters out there that use lots of physics. Imagine if, after implementing physics the 8800 GT, it doubles Crysis framerates...? (Has anyone tested Crysis with an AGEIA card? I guess they have). That would be a huge boost over AMD if it made a big difference in frame rates for the "resource hog" games.paydirt - Friday, February 15, 2008 - link
From the Crysis FAQ:"11) Does Crysis support any specialty hardware such as Ageia PhysX?
Yes, however Crysis will not support the Ageia PhysX card due to the fact that Crytek have built their own proprietary physics engine which is not only more advanced than Ageia's, but performs very well on ordinary CPU's (especially multi-core platofmrs). Crysis will support various technologies out of the box including 64-bit operating systems, multi-core processors (as mentioned above), DX9 through to DX10 and many gaming devices such as gamepads. On top of that, the Sandbox editor that comes with Crysis supports the use of a webcam (or any other video capturing device or camera) to animate character expressions."
This is probably the reason why Crysis framerates suxxors.