Originally Posted by DarkSynergy
This, I hope, just wont be the case with the PhysX PPU. The approach that nVidia and ATi are taking at the moment is completely different from the direction Ageia is leaning. They want to offload the physics load onto one of the GPUs but as stated earlier, I spoke with some game designers at the GDC and they were not to keen to the idea of giving up GPU performance to code for physics but rather liked the way that Ageia is going with a stand alone card. I, as a gamer and end users, don't really want to sacrifice any of my SLi performance to incorporate physics. Now I can understand how nVidia and ATi are justifying this to themselves because not everyone will be able to afford a PPU when they first ship so the idea of being able to have a lot of the performance without dropping another 300 on the PhysX card will be appealing. That just isnít the case for me and it sounds like you. We are tech heads and want whatís new while it's still new...
Thanks for your input and feel free to stick around.
I certainly agree with you that a dedicated PPU is the only thing that makes any sense. I would also be opposed to giving up one clock cycle of my expensive SLI up to another process. But as you also know, its often not the best hardware that prevails. Remeber Aureal A3D? I also bought into that technology, because it was (and still is) far superior to EAX in almost every way. A3D was, in a sense, the audio equivalent to a dedicated PPU that provided unique capabilities for superior sound placement, reflections and muffling effects through walls. Unfortunately, Creative put them out of business before they could transition much of the calculations to a dedicated sound processor.
In my opinion, its clear that the future of PC gaming is in the implementation of dedicated multiprocessors. So I hope you are right and the PhysX PPU (or similar dedicated hardware) prevails against the big two graphics manufacturers.