What must AGEIA do for YOU to buy a PPU?

What must happen before you will buy a PPU?

  • Total voters
    288
H

HOCP4ME

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 1, 2005
Messages
2,959
Which of the above would have to happen to convince you to buy a PPU?

I said that I would buy one if a few killer apps were released and the price was lowered to $100.

Oh, and if you wouldn't buy a PPU no matter what, just don't vote. I forgot to put that option in the poll.
 
Maybe open source the driver? Let other apps make use of it. I dunno it could work.
 
Cheaper, significant and good gaming support, and perhaps a PCI-E interface would be nice.

No matter what though, I'm going to see what the other companies do with their solutions before I make a decision.
 
I'm with the sub $100 group. Heck I cant afford to fill every damn PCI slot with $300 card is ludacris. Makes me want to take up knitting. LOL yes I know the cards are now under $250
the open source idea is cool, folding with a PPU?
 
I don't have enough pci slots for all my stuff as it is. Pcie, cheaper, and more than 1 or 2 games and I'd buy one for sure. As it is, I see no reason to.
 
100$ is pretty low for the card.. 150$ would be more likely..

But Killer App + Price drop will probbably win... There is no category for adoption from video card companies tho... One question tho... Instead of slot based, what about ideas like a USB card or something to that effect?


-Evil Juggalo
 
I voted killer apps, but it isn't really possible since a killer app(for me) must have serious multiplayer via the 'Net... and you're not going to be doing that with gameplay physics any time soon.
 
I miss the PPU2 option. With it a lot more games would be out. :)
I bought already two PPU1 for Graw and CF:CT.
 
SuperGee said:
I miss the PPU2 option. With it a lot more games would be out. :)
I bought already two PPU1 for Graw and CF:CT.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "PPU2".

Whats the diff between killer app and game?
Click to expand...

I said "a few killer apps" and "many games". Basically the two choices are 1. a few good games must be released for it and 2. a lot of good games must be released for it.

Oh yeah, I also left out the "I already own a PPU" option. Sorry about that.
 
A lot of good games have to be out and using it in a manner that betters gameplay significantly. Also, the price would have to drop to around $200. Even if this happened I'd probably wait until I did a complete system overhaul.
 
Evil Juggalo said:
100$ is pretty low for the card.. 150$ would be more likely..

But Killer App + Price drop will probbably win... There is no category for adoption from video card companies tho... One question tho... Instead of slot based, what about ideas like a USB card or something to that effect?

-Evil Juggalo
Click to expand...

Interesting idea about the USB suggestion.

$150 is still too expensive in my book considering it's not a mandatory device for gaming or any other applications. If these cards were suddenly $144 at newegg I still wouldn't purchase them.

I believe these cards have a great chance of being part of our future systems however the current technology is still too young and the price is too expensive for these current PPUs.
 
How about an option for a Folding client, I'd buy one the second a client was released if it performed half way decently.
 
Needs to be supported by just about every AAA game that comes out.

Once that happens it needs to cost around $80-$100.
 
ND40oz said:
How about an option for a Folding client, I'd buy one the second a client was released if it performed half way decently.
Click to expand...
I second that. If the PPU is as powerful as it claims, it may well accelerate F@H significantly.
 
Hey, if Intel is readying their Quadro chips, who needs a PPU? Just have one of four cores be a physics core. No extra cost.

Yes, I realize that this would be telling AEGIA to beat it, but its just not worth it in its current form. Maybe shove it on video cards or drop the price to something realistic (like $50).
 
HOCP4ME said:
What must AGEIA do for YOU to buy a PPU? .
Click to expand...

Suck me and fuck me!





But in all reality.. I don't want to spend more on a physx card when I can't even buy the latest graphics cards.
 
The_NME said:
Hey, if Intel is readying their Quadro chips, who needs a PPU? Just have one of four cores be a physics core. No extra cost.

Yes, I realize that this would be telling AEGIA to beat it, but its just not worth it in its current form. Maybe shove it on video cards or drop the price to something realistic (like $50).
Click to expand...
I find it funny that we need a comment such as this in every thread on this subforum. Let me do the honors of writing a response:

"Hey guys, Intel is doing quad-core, we can dump GPUs, since we can just use one core to do the graphics calculations."
 
Definately cheaper and more games. Playing GRAW with it would be cool. But what if WoW or NWN2 supported it? Hmmm..
 
AzJose said:
Definately cheaper and more games. Playing GRAW with it would be cool. But what if WoW or NWN2 supported it? Hmmm..
Click to expand...
If NWN2 supports it, then it would be a single step closer to upping my interest in it. I think it's a shame that poeple are out there being all omfgtheppuistheshiznit still. Don't get me wrong, I think it's important to embrace new technological advances, but when one is nothing but a fancy, well-advertised, and limited-use calculator with limited support, I think consumers should be raising an eyebrow over this.

The PPU is a joke right now and here's why I believe so:
1. Very little game support.
2. No use for older/existing games.
3. Future game support is unknown (outlook is bleak, imo).
4. PCI only. Needs to be PCI-e
5. Price is outrageous for a calculator.

Now in a year or so, I could be composing a very different list citing why a PPU is a must and how awesome it is. But until a $250 piece of hardware is utilized in a manner to make the purchase more of a sure thing than a gamble, I'm keeping my money in my pocket.
 
Quad processors,Quad SLI, Quad PPUs?????

There is no end in sight.
We need more games to support the price.
Gee, if I use the PPU where will I put my KillerNic????? HARrrrrrrrr! :eek:
 
For me, it would have to be a bit cheaper and there have to be more games around to take advantage of it.
I really don't play games anymore so I can use the money for a faster processor or more ram, or more storage.
So, to get me to buy one, is going to be almost impossible.
 
The_NME said:
Hey, if Intel is readying their Quadro chips, who needs a PPU? Just have one of four cores be a physics core. No extra cost.

Yes, I realize that this would be telling AEGIA to beat it, but its just not worth it in its current form. Maybe shove it on video cards or drop the price to something realistic (like $50).
Click to expand...
Well do you think the first Quadcore CPU of iNtel would be $50 and free. It will be more a extreem edition of $1000. till the time it's afordable we are a year or 2 further. And if Ageia is still on track there could be PPU2 on the horizon.
Plus. One day Quadcore will be a midrange requierment and thus not for free but standard. Games grow with the hardware scaling. Because with every dieshrink iNTel but also every chip maker can do more transistors in it. instead of mo cache or more out off order pipes. They put more cores in it with the 90 and 65nm. That not extra, that a result of larger transister count and what can be done with it with each dieshrink for a Desktop chip. Now they went for more Cores. But ageia can do there nextgen PPU on a better more competive dieschrink. Wich means the next one will be a coople times more powerfull. Well CPU PPU GPU have ther produkt cycle. CPU aren't the only thing that scales in time with performance.

$50 buck is low budged. like celleron X1300.
Well Ageia would be in a better position wenn they reach a complete productline for your $50 lowbudged to $500 for a High-end PPU produck line. That takes time.
 
eastvillager said:
I voted killer apps, but it isn't really possible since a killer app(for me) must have serious multiplayer via the 'Net... and you're not going to be doing that with gameplay physics any time soon.
Click to expand...


QFT.
 
drizzt81 said:
I find it funny that we need a comment such as this in every thread on this subforum. Let me do the honors of writing a response:

"Hey guys, Intel is doing quad-core, we can dump GPUs, since we can just use one core to do the graphics calculations."
Click to expand...

QFT!!!

Let's analyze this:

Fact: A GPU can do PPU calculations because they are simillar to each other.

Fact: An extra CPU core cannot do GPU calculations.

Conclusion: Because a CPU cannot do GPU calculations, and GPU calculations are simillar to PPU calculations, a CPU cannot do PPU calculations.

You may now proceed to ignore this post or rebutt it with "but a CPU core can make some difference, even if it isn't as much as a PPU". Well, that may be true, but let me tell you, it is MUCH less than a PPU. EVEN WITH QUAD-CORE!
 
A GPU can do physics calculations, but probably not as well as a PPU. A CPU can do both, but VERY SLOW.

Having a separate processor dedicated for physics will prevent physics from taking away from your video performance. Eventually they may merge in functionality (I mean "gameplay physics" not the "effects physics" stuff which doesn't impress me much at all).

Also on a side note, aren't the AMD K10 CPU's supposed to have support for a vector co-processor which would essentially eliminate the need for PPU card?

For now though, I think a combination of killer apps + much lower in price (comparable price to Creative X-FI?) would help them out. PCI-E only makes sense since all of the new boards coming out have lots of PCI-E X1 slots which most people aren't using.
 
Pyromaneyakk said:
A GPU can do physics calculations, but probably not as well as a PPU. A CPU can do both, but VERY SLOW.

Having a separate processor dedicated for physics will prevent physics from taking away from your video performance. Eventually they may merge in functionality (I mean "gameplay physics" not the "effects physics" stuff which doesn't impress me much at all).

Also on a side note, aren't the AMD K10 CPU's supposed to have support for a vector co-processor which would essentially eliminate the need for PPU card?

For now though, I think a combination of killer apps + much lower in price (comparable price to Creative X-FI?) would help them out. PCI-E only makes sense since all of the new boards coming out have lots of PCI-E X1 slots which most people aren't using.
Click to expand...

AMD K10? That will not be here for a very long time. By that time CPUs might have 16 cores. And at that point, you might be able to get reasonably close to the power of a PPU. Unless, of course, the PPU gets faster too.
 
I want better performance with better visuals and a better overall experience in many many games if they want my money any time soon.
 
Games, games, games, games. We buy hardware to play games, not games to play with hardware in a half-assed fasion. Dedicated stuff like this needs good software to go with it. Look at the GPU: it was a new concept, but it had QUAKE to launch it off. The PPU so very desparately needs a large-scale game to help it. Something big like Crysis, Quake Wars, Unreal, etc.
 
I'd buy one if one, there was a killer app, something like GL Quake with the original Voodoo. Two, they made PCIe x1 or x4 versions. Three, the price could come down a bit. I'd pay $200 for one if the above criteria were met.
 
HOCP4ME said:
Fact: An extra CPU core cannot do GPU calculations.
Click to expand...
Would you mind explaining to me, what calculations cannot be done on a (current generation) CPU? For you must know of at least one example in order to make sure a statement.
 
drizzt81 said:
Would you mind explaining to me, what calculations cannot be done on a (current generation) CPU? For you must know of at least one example in order to make sure a statement.
Click to expand...

The issue is that physics needs to be done in parallel. GPUs are already setup this way, which is why it's a natural progression moving these kinds of calculations to the GPU. The CPU however only handles one thread at a time, which poses an issue when many objects are moving at once (an explosion for example). it's not that the CPU can't do it, it's that it's incredibly inefficient at doing it.
 
Well look at parralelisation between a quad core and R600.
4 cores vs 64 SM4.0 shaders.
It's CPU are getting a bit parralel. But GPU are massive parralel beast. there task is well suited for parralelisation. A PPU to if you look at the Patent droppings off ageia.
Look at Cell. CPU are heading that way to.
Cell have 1 PPE and 7 active SPE.

Well one day far in the future CPU will have like 4 to 8 cores like PPE. for the general stuff. But a array of 16 to 64 Copro cores SPE things.
By then there are more powerfull Cell CPU and ofcourse if ageia made it a PPU4 solution
And direct Physics to support it all. GPU have SM6.0 wich incorporates a
Unified shader with Pixel vertext geometry and Physics support.
256 of those unit's or so :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top