Upcoming PPU War. Who wins?
 

In the RED corner you have Ageia PhysX PPU
In the BLUE corner we have Havok's (kind of) PPU used in the highest end ATI and Nvidia graphics cards.

So who do you think will win?

For thoes who don't know PPUs (Physics Processing Unit) are an upcoming reality for the hardcore PC gamer. They are dedicated processing power for the sole job of crunching thoes physics calculations we all love to hate.

For more infor go here -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_processing_unit

Now each have their advantages. PhysX is a newcomer to the hardware industry, but they've come in with the full support of Ubisoft and EPIC's UE3. With games like GRAW 1 & 2, CellFactor, and the upcoming Gears of War and Unreal Tournament 3 on their way the PhysX card could prove to be an item of desire for many PC gamers

Havok on the other hand have become a huge trend in the world of software physics calculations in games. Yet with the new generation of graphics cards by ATI and Nvidia Havok have finally come out with their own PPU implemented into these new cards. While they may have the advantage of being bundled in with a gamer's already manditory piece of hardware. The software party is a bit lacking with the first game to use this hardware fully being Microsoft Studios' Crisis.

So I open the floor to our community's techies. FIGHT!

It makes me wonder how Ageia could not have seen it coming that if they tried to produce / launch a physics card, the graphics card manufacturers would just do their own implementation. Maybe they did see it but wanted to try their luck anyway.

It's like the Graphics card makers have basically given the big middle finger =D.

I support them too, is there any reason to have 2 seperate peices of hardware for it? It makes thorough sense to just include it on the GPU. And by it being included on the GPU, the mandatory part, as well as being on both ATI / nVidia's cards, it's bound to be more widely supported fast.

The only downside is that you wouldn't be able to upgrade your physics card seperately, but as new games with more advanced physics calculations arrive, their graphics will also be more advanced, so you'd need a new card anyway?

I vote "neither". IF PC gaming decided to go this route and require this additional increase in technology and cost, it would die, plain and simple. I've been a diehard PC gamer for life, but I'm nearly ready to dump it for consoles already (I place high hopes on Unreal Tournament 3), and if they added another few hundred in costs.....screw it. I'll stick to Linux on my PCs and my PS2 for gaming.

With all that said: Welcome to the club, my friend. :) PC gaming is becoming far too costly as software's hardware requirements force us to upgrade almost yearly. I'd be happy with a life cycle of computer hardware at a maximum of 2.5 years, half that of consoles.

And on topic: A physics card that's separate from the GPU is most likely going to fail with the rise of multi-GPU cards. (see 9xxx series nVidias) It could mean nothing to ATi or nVidia to simply include an extra CPU onboard that would handle 3D physics. Knowing those companies, they'd include such technology at little extra cost to squash Ageia's (and etc) products.

Haha, you gotta be kidding me. So now a PC gamer not only has to worry about the processor, RAM, sound card and video card, but also a fucking physics chip? I can't see anyone but the biggest nerds bothering with that. PC gaming is already dead, this is just raping its corpse.

No, of course the (average) PC gamer doesn't have to worry about a physics chip. All he needs to do is ask for the most expensive card.

Jesus some of you people are funny

YEAH PC GAMING IS DYING

I MEAN

WHO CAN AFFORD ALL THESE CONSTANT UPGRADES

NOW EXCUSE ME I HAVE YET ANOTHER PLAYSTATION TO INSTALL IN MY ENTERTAINMENT CENTER

You are guys that think buying dozens of shitty cars is somehow more efficient than buying one decent car and keeping it maintained because the shitty car costs less initially. The error people make is the idea that YOU ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO UPGRADE AS SOON AS CRAP IS RELEASED, which is just as stupid as buying a 360 on launch day was

I don't think the idea of a PPU is supposed to catch on with average PC gamers, hell, not even any kind of card on the 8800 line is required for the average gamer. I'm quite sure average gamers don't try to play games at bleedingly high resolutions like 1600x1200 and above. I personally play all my games at 1280x1024 for good performance, or 1024x768 for the newer ones. (Mind you, this is running on an old and decrepit 6600GT)

That being said, if there was a dedicated PPU chip that was relelased, I sure as hell wouldn't be the first one to jump on the bandwagon, if ever. Adding another $100 - $200 on the cost of my PC is just not worth it, not to mention taking up another slot in my PC and drawing more power. (Granted, I may be a special case, since I find fun in playing games up to 10 years old, but still, I'd never buy it.)

Well, that too, but that's not even the primary problem; the games are. There was a time when consoles were rightfully considered more primitive, while PC had amazing stuff like Planescape: Torment, Fallout, Grim Fandango, Jagged Alliance, etc. Some of my favourite games evar are on PC, but they're mostly old adventure games like Beneath a Steel Sky, Full Throttle, Leisure Suit Larry, and so on. Nowadays it seems that PC is all about graphics demos like Crysis, MMORPGs, and tons of bland shovelware, in which I'm sure you can find some eventual gems, but who has time to dig through all that crap?

If you're really into first person shooters and strategy games, then PC is still obviously the way to go, but I think that's about it.

I dunno, you can compare consoles with a shitty car (what, is PC supposed to be a luxury Ferrari then?), but as far as I'm concerned, some of the coolest and more original (and fun) games lately have been released on consoles, and I don't see that trend changing. Maybe I'm wrong; you're welcome to point me to some recent awesome PC games, since I haven't really been following PC gaming much for the last half a decade.

Interesting opinions here. However there's a couple things about a PPU that some of you haven't thought of yet.

First is that unlike a CPU or a GPU a single PPU card has a lot longer lifespan then that of the later two. They don't need to be upgraded as nearly as often. So as a couple of you pointed out that they could easily include the PPU in with the GPU, when you upgrade to your next GPU you've also just paid for a new PPU that you already had. So that makes the cost of a seperate PPU a little easier to swallow.

Secondly is that if you look at a lot of games now a days, even console ports or using PhysX in their upcoming games on the PC and Havok on the console. So that's got to make you worry a bit about what you're gonna need for when these games come out.

In hand with that, it sounds like the PS3's Cell Processor's design is similar to that of the PhysX card, meaning that if more games were to be ported from the PS3 to PC that more developers might use PhysX more simply for sake of ease. It's just a theory, but from the sounds of it and how lazy devs are these days, it's perfectly possible I think.

On the bright side of things, other then CellFactor neither a GPU/PPU or a stand-alone PPU are required to play games, it's just that the physics are toned down for software processing... for now.

Yeah, PC gaming has SUCKED ever since the PC platform stopped supporting adventure games. Now, the console manufacturers have never abandoned this major genre and we can expect 12-18 point-and-clickers in Q3 alone, WAIT NO

Meanwhile new Sam & Max episodes are released regularly for PC but hey :(

If the PC is "about" games like Crysis, I don't even want to think about what the current consoles are "about". Minigames, high-resolution drivin' around, and titties mostly

All gaming platforms suck: confirmed

I don't know about that. I think that all 4 forms of gaming have their strengths. Some which I like better then others, but still good.

-Best-
PS2/3 (Emmersive RPGs and innovative titles)
PC (High performance and customizability)
Xbox 360 (Strong community elements, competitive enviroment)
Wii (Easy going, good to kill small lumps of time)
-Alright-

I'm not trying to label these systems, these are just what they are to me. I know there's people here who have different orders or different lists entirely which is fine, point is that each thing has their use in certain situations.

Anyhow a little more on topic. Though I'm sure no one will really care all that much. I traded my old computer in yesterday and got some credit for the parts. I just upgraded the rest of my system with a slew of new parts so I didn't really need anything, so what did I do? I got a PhysX card. Something that I would never pay out of pocket for, but seeing how it's money I wasn't planning on having I figured why not.

If nothing else it'll be worth it for GRAW 2, UT3, Gears of War, and Rainbow Six: Vegas alone.

I'd say PC should have a little bit of everything. Granted, you won't an excessive amount of RPGs on the PC, but there are a significant number of gems in that pile. I also still think the community elements still rule on the PC over the other consoles too. And there are most definitely PC games that are easy going and also kill small lumps of time. I think PC should be more like an all-in-one machine.

As for the PPU, tell me how it works out for you. I'm curious, but I'd never buy one to find out myself. It's not worth much to spend another $100 just so you can see more realistic particles flying through the air more realistically.

Hahaha... you think it's $100, try more like $250, lol. *jk* (but it's true)

But yeah I'll let you know how well it works, I'll have 4 games that'll take advantage of it so it should be good enough to get a fair idea how well it works.

No matter, just adds insult to injury. :p But damn, for $250, it better be one hell of a difference.