View Single Post
Old 04-16-2006, 04:03 PM   #14
Buck-O's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 153

Wow, some of the replys in this thread boggle my mind.

Heres my thoughts, and im sure there will be plenty of backlash from them...but thats kinda the idea anyway.

So, does the world ned a PPU? If this where 1999, the answer would be a resounding YES.

But becuase this is 2006, the answer is a definate NO. And heres why.

The current processor technology is moving away fromt eh idea of a single core architexture, and will eventually move exclusively to a dual core architexture at minimum. Eventually we will see quads, and perhaps even a six pack on die processor layout for the enterprise folks.

So what does that have to do with a PPU?
Well, the whole purpose of a PPU is negated by a dual core. If you program a game properly, you can have one core doing the games standard calculations (i.e. all that a single processor bears now), and set a secondary thread of code to the sister processor to do nothing but physics. Not only would it be faster then the PhysX PPU, but it would also cost a heck of alot less for the consumer, and be much easier to program for, and be less of a cost hit for the developers having to pay licencing for Agias PhysX engine. And with Vista on the horizon, with full support for SMP, and 64bit processing, there will be no excuse not to do this.

Plain and simple, Agia is selling snake oil in my oppinion. ANd is attempting to market a technology that would have best been suited to gamers needs YEARS ago. Currently, the technology offers nothing in the way of a direct performance increase that couldent easily be recreated on dual core CPU.

Think about it for a while, and ask yourself the question, "Is it really worth that extra $300?"

The answer may suprise you.
Buck-O is offline   Reply With Quote