PhysX: XBOX360 estara limitada, mietras que PS3 no tendra problemas

tzare escribió:Hay k estar colgao para mandar un mail a Ageia por esto, pero muuuuuuuy colgao.
K mal esta el mundo d los frikis.

Johny27 escribió:Respuesta de un representante de AGEIA:




Vamos, que se echan para atras y se retractan.

this was a statement taken out of context from a presentation at GDC Europe.

...

We will be getting in contact with the presenter in Europe to get further clarification tomorrow when everyone is up and about.

RubénGM escribió:Nop, más bien dicen que esa noticia es una manipulación de sus declaraciones:

The Xbox 360 currently processes our SDK, and therefore supports the simulation of fluids.

tzare escribió:No es d un tal Hasan ya lo he visto, lo d friki va por ese, no para el Johny27.
Ahhhhhhh y no me pico.
De haber leido lo mismo de un mail pidendo explicaciones a Nvidia por lo de el articulo sobre la potencia de rsx vs 7800 por ejemplo diria lo mismo.
Una cosa es tener preferencias por A y por B (y postear discutiendo k reconozko k me mola la polemica ) y otra es mandar un mail de ese tipo.
Me parece de tarado mental.

Scalabilities for Advanced Hardwares

Xbox 360
+ Just like dual-core PC, but uses 3 PPC cores with HT
+ Shared L2 cache
+ Probably shares the cores with other Xbox 360 libraries

PS3
+ PPC processor
+ Multiple "Synergistic Processing Elements" (SPE)
+ Greater simulation potential than PC or Xbox 360
+ All simulation classes are available

+ Multiple "Synergistic Processing Elements" (SPE)
+ Greater simulation potential than PC or Xbox 360

Hasan,

Here is the information that I have gathered and edited together.



My cell phone is *removed*. Please don’t hesitate to call me for clarification or, if possible, more details.



Thanks, Andy



The summary of the information below is that AGEIA would like to go on record that we do not have data to support performance comparisons for the PS3 or Xbox360 that would impact any of our physics features. Specifically, statements that the Xbox360 cannot run fluid simulations are not correct. In addition, conclusions about relative performance should not have been stated or implied in our presentations.



Our recent presentations created confusion and debate. Please allow us to clarify the statements we made and correct inferences in things we did not say.



Tom Lassanske is one of the lead AGEIA technical people working with developers. The presentation that caused this issue was given at several conferences, including Microsoft GameFest. The presentation at GDC Europe was presented by one of the European staff, not Tom.



The summary of the section of the presentation is below.



The middle section of the 58-slide presentation is all about how platforms with different processor configurations can map to physics simulation, ranging from single core PC to platforms with more processors. A developer requires at minimum “game-play” physics, but must anticipate that different hardware will have different levels of capability for more advanced simulation. Physics has a different characteristic for level of detail in that the game must handle a wide range of capabilities directly. There is no intrinsic knob that can be turned to reduce the level of detail such as screen resolution in graphics.



The presentation uses implied assumptions on the relative power of the platforms from single core, dual core, console and PC-with-PhysX platforms, based on publicly-available information. The only platforms for which there is actual comparison data at AGEIA are the single core PC, dual core PC and PhysX platforms. There is no current data on the PS3 or Xbox360 on relative performance. The implied difference in performance was from assumptions about the number of compute elements and memory architectures, and how well these might fit to various simulation algorithms as enabled by typical game developers. The difficulty in predicting performance across platforms is that physics is inside a game loop where many other game-related processing is taking place. Again, we don’t have a simple metric like fill-rate that is greatly dependent on the capabilities of the graphics chip and less dependent on what is going on in the game.



The statement has been made that there is a problem with fluid simulations on the Xbox360. There is no data to support this statement nor was this meant to be implied. The Xbox360 obviously has a great deal of compute power and the PowerPC processor is a very capable processor for physics simulation. Our SDK already runs on the Xbox360 and that SDK includes fluid simulation. This is the same SDK that operates on the single core PC and dual core PC. Again, we have not experienced any problems operating any type of simulation on any platform.



The goal of a cross platform SDK is to expose the same features so we enable developers to target that same level of physics features, although, as I stated earlier, the physics effect might have to be scaled across different platforms. Our sources of game titles for our PhysX product are the console and PC title developers that need the highest performance out of their chosen platform. We will do our utmost to get the highest performance from any platform or a competitor will do it instead.



The last point is to correct a factual error in the last paragraph of the ExtremeTech article. The physics computations of the boulder demonstration were running in software in the first case (typically between 4-6 fps on high-end PC processors), consuming almost all of the CPU cycles; and on the PhysX processor in the second case (typically between 40-50 fps), consuming around 20% of one processor (mostly for graphics, with some small overhead for PhysX synchronization). In the past we have hesitated to quote these numbers because of the difficulties in interpreting their meaning. In the case with the PhysX processor on our boulder demonstration, the CPU is doing very little work and thus has idle cycles that could be used for other purposes (making the game more fun), so the differences in frame rate are not meaningful. A more meaningful comparison is one where the software-only demonstration gives the physics a fraction (10%) of the CPU time, as is typical in all games, compared with a PhysX processor example where the same game is running and the PhysX processor offloads the physics calculations. The same comparison can be made between a software-only demonstration on a dual core PC with the appropriate loading and a PhysX plus dual core system. In both comparisons, you would see a much greater difference in capability.

MegaPs2 escribió:Creo que este año sony va a vender muy pocas cosolas....
salu2
No creo que la x360 estara limitada la cosa es que significa en español?

RubénGM escribió:Yo diria más, no venderá ni una PS3.

Musice escribió:no os acordais que vendian la version sunchine?

Diskun escribió:No me hacen falta "specs" ni nada por el estilo para ver que lo que ofrece ese motor se puede ver en juegos actuales como Half-Life 2, sin hardware adicional de precio desorbitado y sin ultra-requerimientos.

No se si has visto el vídeo demostrativo de PhysX pero te recomiendo que le eches un vistazo y despues me digas si pueden permitirse esos comentarios que hacen acerca de la potencia de XBOX360. Vamos, es que están pidiendo algo así como un Pentium4 para emular una NES... no me jodas.

Ah, y yo simplemente me he limitado a considerar los posibles motivos que hayan movido a estos señores a decir eso, no he dicho que Sony les haya pagado para hacerlo. Pero la verdad, huele mucho.

evilquake escribió:un hilo más de discusión sobre quien tiene esto o quien tiene lo otro, para mi lo claro es que los juegos son los que van a ganar, no el montón de caca que se habla... sony no es nintendo, lógicamente no va a fracasar y por qué? simplemente por su Slogan: "es un sony" xbox 360 tampoco fracasará porque papi bill tiene para pagar los pampers de la xbox 360... nintendo de seguro saca un churro como el de nintendo dogs y termina fornicandose al mercado japones... asi que quien se lleve o no el pastel vale gorro... aunque ya imagino el montón que sufriran porque su caratula no dice "only for"