Slashdot Mirror


World's First Physics Processing Unit

Duane writes "Gamers Depot has an exclusive interview with the team behind Ageia - the maker of the world's first Physics Processing Unit (PPU) - which was just announced today. "Sure we've all heard about the CPU and GPU - that's old hat by now and as most hardware reviewers will tell you, it's about time we got something that's truly revolutionary. Yeah, Pixel shaders are cool, and can do a lot of really nice things; however, pale in comparison in scope to what the PhysX chip from Ageia has the potential to bring to gaming.""

79 of 494 comments (clear)

  1. Physics... in games? by stupidfoo · · Score: 5, Funny

    All I know is that I want to throw the dead hooker down the stairs and have her head split open... or whatever that anti-violent game ad says I can do.

    1. Re:Physics... in games? by rainman_bc · · Score: 3, Funny

      Naw. In the spirit of Postal 2, you shove the shotgun up her as while she's alive and shoot good guys with it....

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  2. In won't be news until... by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 3, Funny

    It won't be /. worthy news until the first Linux port is up and running on it!

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:In won't be news until... by ZephyrXero · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I wouldn't be surprised if the next Kernel revision supported it... might even be ready before Windows is :P

      what do you mean "port"? This is hardware...not software.

      --
      "A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
    2. Re:In won't be news until... by AviLazar · · Score: 5, Funny

      Actually, it won't be /. worthy news until it is posted, reposted, and reposted again - all in the same day.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
  3. Virutal reality sex, now a possibility. by imstanny · · Score: 5, Funny

    Nerds around the world rejoice!

  4. Alternative to realistic, lifelike gaming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Go outside.

    1. Re:Alternative to realistic, lifelike gaming by escher · · Score: 5, Funny

      Go outside.

      But with this new physics processing unit, I don't have to!

    2. Re:Alternative to realistic, lifelike gaming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Are you kidding? The physics are all wrong, like, totally unrealistic. And somebody screwed with the gamma, 'cos it's too damn bright and I get this awful lens flare when I look up. totally ghay. Whoever coded that engine should be crucified.

    3. Re:Alternative to realistic, lifelike gaming by MyLongNickName · · Score: 2, Funny

      Relax. This engine is still in beta betahttp://biblia.com/jesusbible/isaiah9.htm

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    4. Re:Alternative to realistic, lifelike gaming by peragrin · · Score: 4, Funny


      Maybe eventually games will become so realistic it will become different to tell the difference between them and RL! Then again... maybe that's already happened and I'm in one right now!

      Yea but you still can't get laid, without paying cash. This Game Sucks, I want a restart with cheats enabled for me.
      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    5. Re:Alternative to realistic, lifelike gaming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Relax. This engine is still in beta

      WTF? Who does God think he is? Here I am, spending my entire life testing his creation, and (according to Mark 13) he can't even give me a firm release date for the 1.0?!

      Now I see where Microsoft get it from...

    6. Re:Alternative to realistic, lifelike gaming by fyngyrz · · Score: 2, Funny

      Calm down. Rights come from the sysadmin.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  5. More Proof... by eno2001 · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...that my suspcions were correct. All this 3D stuff with pixels and texels and blah blah blah is just test runs before we create physical augmentation with nanotech replacing pixels and texels. (Wow that was one sentence!) Holodeck anyone? ;P

    --
    -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
    1. Re:More Proof... by nine-times · · Score: 5, Insightful
      More seriously, it does seem that the video game industry has been moving more and more towards complete world simulations rather than "games with rules". Maybe that's an obvious statement, but part of the reason I say that is that it's not a necessary motion in the industry, but a consumer-driven one. In other words, developers could keep trying to innovate on the Super-Mario-type games, but gamers and developers seem more focused on creating more realistic first-person-shooter war simulations. (Not that I'm criticizing)

      Anyway, what I'm getting at is that a holodeck-like experience does seem to be what both gamers and developers have set up in their minds as the "holy grail" of video games. I think in the near future, we're going to see real innovation in physics engines to use ray-tracing-like lighting affects and real particle collisions instead of the pre-programmed tricks used today. I think for the transition we're in for, it probably would be appropriate to compare the transition to the sort of change we saw between the fake 3D of Duke Nukem 3D to the [more] real 3D of Quake.

      However, what remains to be seen is whether those games will be more fun.

    2. Re:More Proof... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 4, Funny

      > Does this mean that DNF will finally be released?

      No, but it does mean that its release will be flawlessly simulated.

      Chris Mattern

    3. Re:More Proof... by edwdig · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In other words, developers could keep trying to innovate on the Super-Mario-type games, but gamers and developers seem more focused on creating more realistic first-person-shooter war simulations. (Not that I'm criticizing)

      Try playing console games and you'll see things shifted much more the other way. It just comes down to First Person Shooter games play much better with a keyboard and mouse than with a controller, whereas a classic Nintendo style game needs a fairly well defined controller to play well, and would absolutely suck with a keyboard or mouse.

      PC gaming is driven by the keyboard and mouse. Controllers are available, but not very common, and even more importantly, not at all standardized. So developers mainly stick to games that work well with the keyboard and mouse (FPS, RTS, RPG).

  6. There's a white paper on their web site... by tcopeland · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...right here. It doesn't really say anything, though - just a few pages that recap physics usage in games, and then a paragraph about how they're going to change all that, etc.

    Didn't white papers use to be heavy on technical content? Now it seems that "white paper" just means "nicely formatted eight page PDF advertisement"....

    1. Re:There's a white paper on their web site... by daVinci1980 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Try the whitepapers here.

      They have very good info, and little-to-no marketting BS.

      --
      I currently have no clever signature witicism to add here.
    2. Re:There's a white paper on their web site... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      From http://www.word-detective.com/032602.html

      Dear Word Detective: I work in the field of data processing and computers. Often I will come across new standards or proposed standards that have arisen from a company's latest "white paper." The term is also common in politics and government in referring to a formal declaration of policy or viewpoint. A friend at work tonight asked me if I knew the origin of the term. As a wild guess, I told him it might refer back to a time when paper was a relatively expensive commodity and rough drafts and notes were written down on odd scraps and cheaper, darker paper. When a final, formal version was to be drawn up, it was on the more costly bleached "white" paper. Am I even close? --

      Close? Well, let's just say, "No cigar for you, buckaroo." But that's actually not a bad guess, since paper was at one time very expensive. The actual origin of "white paper," however, is a bit less logical than that.

      Today, as you note, we use the term "white paper" to mean a formal statement of governmental or political policy that includes an extended explanation of that policy, usually accompanied by data and statistics compiled to make the case for whatever the policy is. The U.S. State Department, for instance, is fond of issuing "white papers" on various political "flashpoints" around the globe, usually shortly after the U.S embassy there has been torched.

      As tedious as I'm sure governmental "white papers" may be, the term originally arose in the context of something apparently even more snooze-worthy. "Blue Papers" in the 19th century (so-called because of their blue covers) were humongous policy or legislative statements delivered by the British government for consideration by Parliament. But if a report or statement was too brief to be rightly considered a "Blue Paper," it was issued with white covers, and, with uncommon logic, called a "White Paper." Probably because these pithy "White Papers" were more directly useful than the bloated "Blue Papers," Americans adopted the term and have been using "white paper" since World War II to mean "background report," whether in the governmental or business realm.

  7. Before you get all excited by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Note that no-where in the press release does it say that this is a shipping product. Before you get all excited about the promise of this product, realize that this chip may never see the light of day. A press release does not a product make, regardless of how cool the product might be.

    1. Re:Before you get all excited by slungsolow · · Score: 3, Funny

      You are obviously not a fan of the phantom.

    2. Re:Before you get all excited by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      GS: How will Epic's Unreal Engine 3 incorporate Ageia's technology?

      TS: We've been collaborating with Ageia since their inception and Unreal Engine 3 thoroughly exploits the Novodex physics API; when the first Unreal Engine 3 based games begin shipping in early 2006, they will really up gamers' expectations. The combination of next-generation graphics, next-generation physics, and content-rich games goes way beyond current games, both qualitatively and quantitatively.

      mmhmm. I guess epic 3 the v4p0rw4r3

  8. Gives a whole new meaning to... by GillBates0 · · Score: 5, Funny

    PPU: Pr0n Processing Unit.

    --
    An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
    1. Re:Gives a whole new meaning to... by hobbesx · · Score: 4, Funny

      PPU: Pr0n Processing Unit

      Here!
      Wait? Is this not roll call? Uh...

      --
      This rating is Unfair ( ) ( ) Fair (*) Funny
      Sigh... If only. Modding would be so much more fun.
  9. Wow! by cavemanf16 · · Score: 4, Funny

    And I thought Slashdot "editors" had poor grammar skills! Damn. I guess they're starting to farm the technical report writing and gaming reviews to India now too!

  10. Interesting idea by Dark+Paladin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I just finished reading the article, and this actually has some potential.

    The biggest problem they're going to have to deal with, and granted, I'm not a game developer so someone can feel free to fill in the details, is that I would believe that most developers have their own method for dealing with physics - from simple collision to ragdoll and the like. The idea is "How do I tell the computer these things are touching each other' (like bullets - these are "instant shot", so the developer just says "if there's a straight line between the direction the Player A is facing, and if that line would intersect Player B, then it's a hit. If not, then miss." And algorithms like that are done by matrixes, if I'm not mistaken. Other "hits" deal with actual objects (rockets moving, goops from the goop gun, etc).

    But the difference between Quake III and Unreal Tournament is more than just 'draw the graphics", it's also in how each engine deals with how those collisions are managed.

    So with a PPU, you have to decide on a common library of collisions. Good news: more objects you can play with and let the PPU decide what's getting hit. Bad news: everybody's game will react basically the same and they'll have to decide if that's a good idea.

    Either way, I'll wait a year or so and see what happens. Best of luck to the developers - looks like they're at least shooting for something unique.

    1. Re:Interesting idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
      I just finished reading the article, and ...
      You must be new here.
    2. Re:Interesting idea by IntellectualCritic · · Score: 2, Informative
      So with a PPU, you have to decide on a common library of collisions. Good news: more objects you can play with and let the PPU decide what's getting hit. Bad news: everybody's game will react basically the same and they'll have to decide if that's a good idea.

      It looks like we're heading there already. Havok has already developed a mature software physics engine which is used in many popular games. I think in this case, developers are willing to give up a little control on physics to have better looking effects. This PPU sounds like it's designed to hook right into Havok, and could really prove useful as Havok becomes more popular.

    3. Re:Interesting idea by RichardX · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not really.
      You could have said the exact same thing about graphics with the advent of hardware 3D accelerators, yet games certainly haven't all ended up looking the same. If anything they're able to look *more* varied now thanks to the extra power allowing neat tricks like cell shading and real time effects.

      In the same way GPUs (initially, at least) sped up all the graphics things that all 3D games have in common (triangles, texturing, lighting, etc), this will presumably speed up all the physics things all games have in common (collisions, velocities, etc)

      That doesn't necessarily mean they all have to act the same. As a programmer you still get to determine exactly what happens when something collides, or how it behaves when it's crushed. It's just that you have access to much more power, and in the same way that gets us neat tricks on GPUs I think we'd see the same with these PPUs.

      The important thing is that this takes care of all the low level stuff, giving the developers more time and power to spend on the higher level areas where they can really be creative.

      Incidentally, am I the only one here saying "about time" with this? I had this idea the moment I saw the first Voodoo card. I'd have done something with it, but I figured it was so damn obvious everyone else would've thought of it too. That, and I'm just plain lazy :)

      --
      Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.
    4. Re:Interesting idea by mikael · · Score: 3, Informative

      I would believe that most developers have their own method for dealing with physics - from simple collision to ragdoll and the like.

      Basic collision detection methods are bounding planes, spheres, capsules, and axis-aligned boxes, along with Binary Space Partitions, Quadtrees and Octrees combined with particle systems. It would be fairly straight forward design an instruction set to perform these operations between the simple primitives (spheres, planes). But BSP Trees, Quadtrees and Octrees would require a high level data format.

      If all the collision testing could be done within a single thread within the time limit of a single frame, it would be no different from the player-missile and sprite graphics implemented on early home PC's (Atari computers could do hardware base per-pixel collision detection). Although, it would probably seem easier to have additional vector processors like Sony's Cell processor.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    5. Re:Interesting idea by ThosLives · · Score: 2
      You're kind of hinting on something I've been wondering: what is the API for this? There's nothing currently out there like OpenPL (Open Physics Language); they apparently have this proprietary thing called Rocket and NovodeX, but unless there's a standard way to talk to cards (and have others make cards to really get innovation going), this will take some time to gain traction.

      I also have to say I'm a bit miffed because I've had a similar idea floating around in my brain for a while. I really need to start trying to get some of my ideas off the drawing board I guess.

      --
      "There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
    6. Re:Interesting idea by dillon_rinker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Physics processing boils down to one thing:

      INTERSECTIONS (sometimes known as collisions)

      If all solid objects are rendered as sets of triangles, it is conceptually simple to have the physics engine report back which triangles are intersecting each other. Ideally the engine is sophisticated enough to report when a triangle from set A intersects with a triangle from set B (where A and B might be the set of triangles that make up a player and the set of triangles that make up a rocket, respectively).

      Determining the effect of instant shot weapons is easy enough also; if all three vertexes of a "triangle" are on the same line, the "triangle" is a line. Instead of bullets, you "draw" an invisible "triangle" in the direction the gun is pointing and see if it intersects with anything interesting.

      If two sets of triangles intersect, the software can determine what should happen, but the hard part, computationally, is figuring out when those intersections occur.

    7. Re:Interesting idea by genneth · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, it wouldn't require the physics to be the same. Just like graphics are not the same between Doom 3 and an X server using GL for accelerated window drawing, they can both be sped up by OpenGL. For example, one of the biggest "sinks" for CPU power with physics simulation is collision detection. The algorithm for collision detection between (N-dimensional) polyhedral objects, optimised with interframe computation re-use, is already very well known -- it's the Lin-Canny algorithm, and manages amortized constant time checks (wrt to object polygon count). But the test still takes a huge part of the processing time needed for rigid body simulations, and the general algorithm and data structure could be offloaded to a co-processor. It's the sort of thing that every engine, whether 3d or side-scrolling or weird 5D plutonian steam hockey would need.

    8. Re:Interesting idea by Atzanteol · · Score: 4, Informative

      Mmmmm. Apparently there is an open source lib for physics.

      http://ode.org/

      But your point about a standard like OpenGL not existing is true. We'll probably have a rehash of the early graphics library incompatabilities again. ::shudder::

      You think people would learn. Open standards help a new technology to expand and to become accepted. It helps *everybody* in the industry.

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    9. Re:Interesting idea by BannedfrompostingAC · · Score: 5, Informative
      like bullets - these are "instant shot"
      Wrong. Have you ever fired a gun? It actually fires a gyroscopically-stabilized projectile that takes a discernable amount of time to reach its destination. Hitting a non-stationary object reliably at long range (800m-1000m) is next to impossible.

      This matters at the physics level. If you are going to fully implement the ballistics you are going to have implement the motion of the bullet, the atmospheric drag on the bullet, the gyroscopic stabilization, the effect of gravity on the bullet ("bullet drop") not to mention the effects of the individual specifications of the bullet itself, and perhaps some entirely random factors (the world isn't perfect).

      And if you are implementing a game where players can fire an assault rifle full-automatic (600-700 rounds a minute or more, depending on too many factors to list - which might need to be implemented and calcuated by the computer, of course...) you can see that the CPU is going to start needing some help to work it out.

      And that's just the bullets.

      The gun example is just an example of the sort of jobs a co-processor might be required to do in an FPS environment. To cut a long story short, if you are going to be simulating life, even a small approximation of life, accurately, you are going to need to be calculating an awful lot of physics.
    10. Re:Interesting idea by Have+Blue · · Score: 2, Informative
      Not really... Physics processing boils down to *2* things, which are themselves huge and complex fields:
      • Collision detection. You have some representations in the world- are any two of them intersecting? The answer to this depends on how they are represented and can be fast (boxes, cylinders, spheres) or expensive (polygon soup) or anything in between. The triangle algorithm you describe is indeed simple, but it's usually not feasible to run it on every triangle pair in the world in every frame- which is where the scene graph and various methods for trivial rejection come in.
      • Collision response. Once you have found an intersection, how do you correct the world state so that the objects are a) no longer colliding b) exhibit the correct behavior in response to the collision over the following state updates? A large part of this is quantifying the exact nature and magnitude of the overlap between objects, and for anything that isn't a primitive shape this can be complex.
      The complexity of physics in games is constantly increasing, which is why more and more companies are turning to providers like Havok who work on these problems full-time (instead of trying to solve them and make the rest of the game simultaneously, as an in-house solution would require).
  11. More than one use here... by TheNecromancer · · Score: 5, Funny

    This includes things such as Rigid Body Dynamics, Collision Detection, Fluid Simulation, Soft Bodies and Fracturing of objects.

    This will be useful for all those pr0n sites out there!

    --
    Attention all planets of the Solar Federation! We have assumed control! - Neil Peart
    1. Re:More than one use here... by AvantLegion · · Score: 3, Funny
      >> [..] and Fracturing of objects.

      This will be useful for all those pr0n sites out there!

      Fucking OW!

  12. First physics engine.... by ivan256 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...but coincidentally the 1,000,000,000th computer accessory that will be a complete failure in the market.

  13. What about homework? by markmcb · · Score: 5, Funny

    If this thing can do physics homework, I'm getting two.

    --
    Mark A. McBride -- OmniNerd.com
  14. Re:Oh great by stupidfoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Someone explain to me why I need to purchase a *slower* processor with less ram to do it for me? The money would always be better spent on a faster processor...

    Yeah, just look how a 3.7GHz P4 with an intergrated graphics chipset outperforms a 2.4GHz P4 with a high end $500 graphics card.

    Oh wait... it doesn't.

  15. Major drawback by wcrowe · · Score: 5, Funny

    Considering that most games routinely defy the laws of physics, I would think that such a processor would actually make the games more dull.

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
  16. Re:Oh great by addie · · Score: 4, Informative

    Someone explain to me why I need to purchase a *slower* processor with less ram to do it for me?

    For the same reason people purchase graphics cards with slower clock speeds and less RAM to compliment their blazing fast processors. As the article explains, the CPU is a general purpose chip. A PPU will be fully dedicated to physics, and therefore likely far more efficient. By your logic, all processes in the machine should be handled by a single chip, which while elegant, is probably not the most efficient solution. I predict we will see more specific-purpose chips being developed, not fewer.

  17. Here's why it matters by Deep+Fried+Geekboy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If you have a game like Unreal Tournament 2004, it is the physics processing that really kills your framerate, no matter how good your GPU. You can see this by simply swapping between the Deathmatch and Onslaught gametypes. The Onslaught world is filled with vehicles which run off the Karma physics engine, and they KILL your framerate, so that the game effectively becomes CPU-throttled, instead of GPU-throttled (which is what we are used to). A PPU is a genuinely brilliant idea, and relatively easy to implement. It will be interesting to see what the programming interface is... and whether the board runs an engine like Karma or something they've invented all for themselves. Prepare to be amazed, I think.

    --

    I'm not wrong. You haven't thought about it hard enough.

    1. Re:Here's why it matters by oliverthered · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What makes you think this isn't killing the graphics side of things?

      If you look at most games they have static worlds, so why don't they have move moving parts like doors, windows, fans, windmills, fixed physics holes blown in walls even if there's no physics attached to them?

      Because move able objects kill all you attempts to optimise the 3D objects, BSP doesn't work for deformables, QTrees can be done, but it's quite intensive and you have to use non-uniform QTrees which are a lot slower.

      So for a PPU to work it must be able to deal with space processing as well as just hard physics.
      Infact if the space processing was performed on fast off CPU processors then you'd be able to do a lot more physics on the CPU.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    2. Re:Here's why it matters by clutch110 · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Here is a link to an Epic developer talking about how the Unreal 3 engine will use this PPU.

      Very interesting technology, comes with its own SDK and should be able to handle many times the amount of physics based objects in a game than the CPU can handle now.

  18. I Wonder... by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I wonder which unannounced, next generation game console would jump on this.

    I also wonder how it compares to the Cell processor's dedicated units.

    For a console, sounds like someone could really steal a march on the rest of them...

    ...Or become the next Amiga.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  19. Re-release the Classics by Ghetto_D · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hopefully once these fall into common usage they'll re-release the "classics" such as Dead or Alive Beach Volleyball. You know, games that could really benefit from this technology.

  20. how bout in bots rather than games by _ph1ux_ · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I think it would be interesting to PPUs in use in robotics. Maybe these devices can give better balance sensors - or provide intrinsic abilities for robots to know/sense how to navigate and interact within the world.

    Shouldnt mechs use this to create highly mobile bipedal motion with a good ability to balance in chaotic environments (fast paced combat)

    ???

  21. Nice pictures, nice blurb by turgid · · Score: 4, Interesting
    but what the heck is it? Is it just a RISC processor with lots of FP SIMD units for doing lots of sums in a hurry? Is it VLIW? Is it related to any existing CPUs? Is it just the next evolutionary development of the current generation of GPUs?

    Pictures of boards are all well and good, and the martketing hype is fun, but we need to know.

  22. Excellent, fascinating, BUT.... by TomorrowPlusX · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm not a professional developer... that said I'm developing both a robotic simulation API/framework and a game, both in my free time, both *heavily* use the open dynamics engine for physics.

    The Open Dynamics Engine is free, & open source. It's not the best physics engine, by any margin. However, being open source I can afford it... and most importantly I can use it on my Mac ( hell, I actually provided some patches to get it to correctly use single-precision trig when OS X.3 came out ). Plus, I want to release my game and robot simulator under an open source license... can't expect people to *buy* novodex or havok just to build the apps.

    This PPU looks like a *wonderful* thing, but reading their site, and the interview, it sounds like to use it you've got to use Novodex. That said, Novodex is awesome -- and many games use Novodex already for physics.

    (Perhaps I missed something, maybe Novodex is just an API wrapper. Maybe they'll have a low-level API which you can bind to as you want. )

    But the thing is, I'd like to be able to buy one of these boards and *not* have to shell out for a developer license for an API which isn't even available on Mac ( maybe it is ). Also, both my simulator and game are intended to be released under an open source license at some point. So, no novodex for me. So, no PPU for me.

    Perhaps we're just a little short on data at the moment.

    --

    lorem ipsum, dolor sit amet
  23. For the same reason we have GPUs, of course by tepples · · Score: 5, Informative

    Your video card's GPU runs at a slower clock rate than the CPU, but because its pipelines are completely optimized for T&L and triangle filling, it can do those tasks faster than your CPU ever could. Likewise, a physics processor is optimized for simulating the dynamics of a mechanical system.

  24. Interesting thoughts... by ZeeExSixAre · · Score: 2, Funny

    Can I use it to do my quantum mechanics homework due in 30 minutes?

  25. lamphrey by achacha · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Unless they can make a deal with ATI or NVidia and have their PPU work with a GPU, it will be a very difficult thing to sell to people. They also need to get Direct X support and maybe have it work transparently with it (if that is possible). I can see this being a part of a video card, not a standalone PCI card unless the results are incredible and can be shown as a huge benefit to gaming, othewise only the hardcore framerate junkies will buy it.

  26. CPU, GPU, APU, PPU, and now I need a HPU?? by MatthewNewberg · · Score: 2, Funny

    Oh, Great.. Now I need to get the lastest and greating HPU for my computer. I want the most realistic Hookers, but I dont think I can afford the $500 for the Chip..

  27. And we will be getting this how? by Telvin_3d · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I would be far more excited if they had any information on how this great new chip was going to be distributed. Are they working with ATI or NVIDIA to integrate this new chip onto existing graphics cards? Might be the only way they will make use of the full bandwidth on the PCI-E slots ;) Or are they working on getting a new type of card out onto the market? And if so, have they talked to the motherboard manufacturers on the type of requirements that it might need? Nice announcement. And I hope that it pans out, but I would appreciate a little less "Look at our big announcement on how we will change everything" and a little more real information on how they plan to do it.

  28. Next up String Theory Processor by Perl-Pusher · · Score: 3, Funny

    Upgrades to continue as long as we continue to gain knowledge and make new discoveries. Can't guarantee a ship date though. With the Hiesenberg UP module the enemy can't do anything until sighted, detected or measured. Stand still, close your eyes, shoot, winner everytime.

    1. Re:Next up String Theory Processor by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 2, Funny

      Stand still, close your eyes, shoot, winner everytime.

      Sounds like me playing Counter Strike.
      erm well except for the winning part anyway.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
  29. Re:First Impression, This is stupid. by RichardX · · Score: 4, Interesting

    1) Games do not use Real Physics, they fake it. If they didn't fake it, you wouldn't want to play it.

    Games also do not use Real Graphics (whatever that would be. Raytracing, presumably) - instead they fake it. And yet they still benefit a hell of a lot from GPU cards.

    This card does not force physics to be realistic - there's nothing stopping a developer making cars that go at 600 MPH, or having characters leap a tall building in a single bound. It just enables things like that to be done much easier, and more convincingly.

    2) Processors are currently faster then what programs can use(If programmed correctly). It is going to take a few years before games keep up with Processors.

    Only because of your GPU. Go on, take that baby out of there and fire up Doom 3. Whoops! Where'd your framerate go?
    The reason most games fly on current hardware is because they offload most of the work to the GPU. The major tasks outside of graphics are physics and AI - and the physics are getting increasingly more complex as games become more realistic.
    Those lovely flying ragdoll bodies have to be calculated somewhere, y'know.

    3) Why not just have two general purpose processors. Multithreading is getting pretty common. What would the added advantage between having a seperate processor just for Physics,then having two general usage processors?

    Again, the same could be said about a GPU. This does bring up an interesting point, however. If this takes off it won't be long before you have a GPU, soundcard (with hardware 3D audio), PPU, probably some kind of AI hardware card...
    how long before someone goes "Hey! I know! Why don't we combine all these things into a generic processor.. I know.. we could call it a.. uh.. CPU!"

    --
    Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.
  30. How do they avoid bus reads? by Stiletto · · Score: 3, Insightful


    Reading the results of the "PPU" is going to be the stumbling block. Graphics accelerators work because you compose the geometry then send it off to the other processor, and from then on you don't worry about the data. You don't have to worry about reading anything back.

    I assume having a seperate "physics processor" will mean the app has to send the data off to be processed (say, a couple thousand points to collision-detect against a couple thousand planes), but then your app needs to read the results back across the bus! Is the time saved off-loading these computations going to be worth all this IO?

    1. Re:How do they avoid bus reads? by rbarreira · · Score: 2, Informative
      From this interview:

      GS: Do you see any limitations in what the PPU can accomplish due to overhead issues associated with offloading work and transferring it across the system bus?

      TS: The computations driving physics simulation and collision detection make use of a large amount of static data that needs to be uploaded to the hardware once, and a smaller amount of dynamic data that needs to be transferred per frame. This is the same usage pattern as a modern GPU, where huge textures and vertex buffers change infrequently, while the smaller rendering commands need to be sent each frame. The PPU or GPU then expends an enormous amount of parallel computing power in computing the result, but the result itself is fairly compact. A GPU's frame buffer is a few megabytes, and a PPU's result matrices will be similarly compact. So, the PCI Express or even PCI bus will be plenty fast to accommodate the required traffic.
      --

      The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
  31. Back in 1979 ... by Knx · · Score: 2, Interesting

    MVI $0018, R0
    ANDI #$2, R0
    BNEQ @@kaboom

    Back in 1979, that's how you would have 'asked' the STIC (Standard Television Interface Chip) of the Intellivision whether MOB (Moveable OBject) #0 collides with MOB #1. Typically, MOB #0 could be a cool 8x16 pixels character and MOB #1, say, a funky 2x2 pixels bullet.

    Yup: that's a hardware collision detection, commonly used to drive some important 'physics' of the game and save quite a lot of precious CPU cycles (remember that I'm talking about a 895Khz machine of the early 80's).

    And no: this thing is not the World's First Physics Processing Unit! It's just ... er ... slightly more sophisticated. :-)

    Just an example among others, of course.

    --
    The problem with Slashdot memes is that YOU INSENSITIVE CLOD!
  32. But most physics happens on the server ... by ANeufeld · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ... not the client, in MMORPG's.

    The reason is the client can be hacked to allow the player do violate the rules, like walking through walls, etc.

    A PPU on the server might help the server support more complex environments, more users per server, etc.

    For stand alone games, and scientific applications, this is a pretty neat idea. But I don't think the power-gamers are going to be purchasing extra hardware that just sits there, while the server does the physics.

  33. GUT by vivin · · Score: 4, Funny

    I can see it now:

    PPU Emulates Grand Unified Theory. Physicists surrender.

    --
    Vivin Suresh Paliath
    http://vivin.net

    I like
    1. Re:GUT by ultranova · · Score: 5, Funny

      PPU Emulates Grand Unified Theory. Physicists surrender.

      Never. We will never surrender. We will fight them at the CERN labs, we will fight them at the Black Mesa, we will fight them at the Gallium Neutrino Observatory, we will fight them and we will win !

      It's not over until the Higgs boson sings !

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    2. Re:GUT by Chrax · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There really should be a -1: Unfunny mod.

  34. Where does this fit? by joib · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Normal cpu's already have pretty good fpu units, which are very fast for scalar code. Also, we have things like SSE2/Altivec for vectorizable code. And then there's things like gpgpu.org looking at using the massively parallel fpu capacity of modern gpu's for general purpose physics calculations (linear algebra), i.e. vector processing on a budget.

    So where does this thing fit in? As expected, the "article" was nothing more than a thinly veiled marketing blurb, so no info there. Personally, I find it hard to believe that the PPU is competetive with FPU's and GPGPU for general purpose FP calculations. That leaves a chip optimized for certain operations, a bit like MDGRAPE. Or what am I missing?

    1. Re:Where does this fit? by trb · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'll echo this question. The PPU sounds like another form of coprocessor - vector processor, graphics processor, etc. I can understand why you'd want one in general, but if you were desigining one, I don't know why you'd limit it to (game) physics.

  35. PCI-E bandwidth by Anita+Coney · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Doesn't a PCI-E slot have enough bandwidth to include a PPU on the GPU?! If a PPU is a good idea, then it would seem that nVidia or ATI could simply slap a chip on their own cards and sell them for more money.

    BTW, never in my life did I ever think I'd say the phrase, "PPU on the GPU"!

    --
    If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
  36. Putting everything on seperate units by bonch · · Score: 3, Interesting

    We've already pushed off sound, graphics, and now physics onto seperate processors. Why not just craft an entire game console onto a single card and be done with it? Jeesh.

    1. Re:Putting everything on seperate units by Surt · · Score: 5, Interesting

      A game console doesn't have one of these (yet), nor are even the next generation likely to.

      What this is suggesting is rather that games are for the most part not general purpose tasks, and that as a result general purpose cpus can be grossly outperformed by special purpose cpus. Once you reach that notion, then you just have to decide what the set of special purpose cpus you need are. It's a repeating process where parallelizable areas of the codebase are identified, and special purpose cpus are crafted to handle them, so that the performance limiting area of code keeps moving to some task for which the special purpose chip hasn't yet been built.

      For quite some time the graphics capabilities of the GPUs has been the limiting factor in effectively conveying the game designer's intended experience. We're now reaching the point where the GPUs are so effective that what now looks 'wrong' has more to do with physics simulation than with graphic rendering. (Though I'll still say that there are 3 or 4 generations of graphics improvements yet to come that will still have a significant effect, it's just that now it has reached the point where it is no longer clear that more GPU improvements will have the _largest_ effect on perceived quality.)

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    2. Re:Putting everything on seperate units by AltaMannen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "A game console doesn't have one of these (yet), nor are even the next generation likely to."

      I don't get what is so different between a GPU and this PPU thing. A GPU is mainly multiplying vectors and matrices and dot products and division, physics simulation is not very different, although the result is handled differently. As far as current consoles, the PS2 VUs are able to handle a lot of physics related tasks, and with the CELL in PS3 I'm hoping for even more capable physics handling. I'd like to see more specs on this thing before I write it off completely though.

  37. Interesting idea, even if vaporware by graphicsguy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Having a dedicated physics processor seems like an interesting idea, even if the press release here is just some vaporware.

    For such a processor to succeed, we probably need some similar properties that have driven the success of the graphics processor.

    1. The problem should be embarrassingly parallel.
    2. We need to reduce the most common physics processing problems to a simple API and data flow model.
    3. The above data flow model should offer some advantage over just crunching the data on a second or third CPU.

    We can do various types of physics simulations on the CPU and the GPU today. In some cases, we can get significant speedup using the GPU, especially if we can minimize readback and redundant computation. To drive adoption of a separate PPU, it had better be possible for a more customized architecture to significantly outperform the GPU or cost much less (otherwise we could use a dual-GPU solution instead).

  38. Re:Useless by Gmonay · · Score: 2, Informative

    You have no idea what you're talking about. Will multithreading make GPU's useless? No. This chip will have over 100 Gflops of processing power, and will handle floating point calculations in a way that a PC processor with around 10 Gflops of processing power, mostly focused on integer calculations cannot.

  39. chicken and egg by Chooche · · Score: 2, Informative

    They came over to our office and did a demo a few months back.

    There's no hardware yet so it was more like a software showcase of what COULD be happening. You have your basic explosion and rag doll stuff. The ones that showed best are a corridor flooding with liquid fire, a dense system of cogs and gears that worked flawless, and a tall building that collapse with thousands of pieces of debris bouncing off each other. The physics can be turned on and off in real time and will in turn generate different outcome.

    We questioned the process of integrating the chip into the market. It will be the chicken and egg conundrum. The manufactures and developers will both wait for the other to create the demand for it.

    The most straight forward solution seems to be to convince a console developer to include it in their next gen console.

  40. Re:Tomorrow's kids just got much dumber by Kaenneth · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'd suggest you try Half-Life 2 then. The physics model is like your own little science lab.

    At one point you have to weigh down one end of a plank with cinder-blocks in order for the other end to support you.

    I used to hate trying to parrellell park (can't even spell it!) in reality, but after practicing with manuvering the dune buggy in Half-Life 2 my vehicle steering skills have improved so I can do it easily.

    you can also be creative in acheving the goals of the game. At one point you have to disable an electronic gate, instead of killing the guards, and fighting my way to the switch, I sniped a wooden block holding a generator trailer in place, so it rolled away, then drove at high speed through the gate without killing anyone.

    A better simulation of the real world means video game skills can translate into real skills.

  41. 411: GPU T&L 4 PPU PDQ by TiggertheMad · · Score: 2, Informative

    I don't get what is so different between a GPU and this PPU thing. A GPU is mainly multiplying vectors and matrices and dot products and division, physics simulation is not very different, although the result is handled differently.

    Quite differently. You are suggesting that one draws the matrix results and the other just stores the matrix results, but there is a more important factor than that. All the data that is pushed onto the grpahics card is essentially on a one-way trip. After going through the T&L pipeline, it guts pushed into a video buffer, drawn and then overwritten. I'm not even sure that there is capacity to write back data to general memory from the AGP cards, since this incurs a big performance hit. Any physics chip will need to be able to matrix math and then save the results for further useage, since you need to maintain things like mass, velocity, heading, etc.

    Using a GPU chip as the starting point for a PPU wouldn't be an entirely bad idea, though. Interestingly enough, I think the rendering community would love to have a 3d accelerator that could use specialized GPU rendering speeds and the ability to write the image generated to the hard drive, so it's not like you are the only person thinking along those lines.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  42. View from a physics engine expert by Animats · · Score: 2, Interesting
    As someone who's written a serious physics engine, I look forward to seeing this tomorrow at GDC.

    There's no one key item that bottlenecks a rigid-body physics engine, and it's not a simple pipelining problem like graphics, so the main thing special-purpose hardware can provide there is parallelism. And plenty of double-precision floating point power. (In a single-precision system, you have to take great care to never try to do physics far from the origin.)

    Collision detection is a minor CPU load if you do it right. If collision detection is using more than 10% of your physics time, you're doing it wrong. This may seem counterintutive, but the good algorithms are incredibly fast, even in complex environments. It's more of a data structure issue.

    Deformation, i.e. finite element analysis, is more of an inner loop crunch problem than rigid body physics. Finite element analysis has been parallelized for decades in engineering applications, and the problem is well understood. It's localized; you can divide the problem up into cells. So I'll bet that's what they are focusing on.