Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

NVIDIA Launches New SLI Physics Technology

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Mon Mar 20, 2006 03:07 PM
from the volunteer-rendering dept.
Thomas Hines writes "NVIDIA just launched a new SLI Physics technology. It offloads the physics processing from the CPU to the graphics card. According to the benchmark, it improves the frame rate by more than 10x. Certainly worth investing in SLI if it works."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] NVIDIA nForce 4 SLI Intel Edition Launched 133 comments
Spinnerbait writes "NVIDIA took the wraps off their nForce 4 SLI chipset platform for Intel Processors today and there's a full review and showcase with benchmarks up at HotHardware. As with NVIDIA's AMD version of this chipset, motherboards based on the technology will support dual PCI Express graphics cards for load sharing in 3D Gaming applications. What's perhaps even more interesting is how the new NVIDIA memory controller actually allows the platform to out-pace Intel's own i925XE in virtually all of the benchmarks."
[+] NVIDIA and Dell Display Quad-SLI System 306 comments
Ryan @ CES writes "Today at the Consumer Electronics Show, Dell and NVIDIA announced a new XPS system coming later this year that will sport not one, not two, but FOUR GeForce 7800 GTX 512 GPUs running in a quad-SLI configuration. There are two physical graphics cards in the system still, but each has two seperate PCBs with a GPU and 512 MB of memory on each. PC Perspective has some information including pictures of the cards and Dell system as well as specs and details on how NVIDIA handles the new SLI data configurations. No word yet on power consumption and heat levels, of course."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Sounds like an ATI-killer to me! What ever happened to the hype about dedicated physics chips?

    • What ever happened to the hype about dedicated physics chips?

      The original article appears to be slashdotted.

      So could somebody tell me how wide the floats are in this "SLI" engine? [I don't even know what "SLI" stands for.]

      AFAIK, nVidia [like IBM/Sony "cell"] uses only 32-bit single-precision floats [and, as bad as that is, ATi uses only 24-bit "three-quarters"-precision floats].

      What math/physics/chemistry/engineering types need is as much precision as possible - preferably 128 bits.

      Why? Because t

          • Fortunately for you, the errors at this scale will be less than 6E-8 of the most significant digit. An HL/HL2 map is usually scaled in units between -4000 and 4000, so your error might be about 0.00024. The player model is less precise than this. The hit box is even less precise. You will incur more error simply due to the fact that your mouse cursor only moves by a single pixel increment at a time which could be significant at a low resolution. In short, you missed because you can't aim, or because you lag
      • "A monopoly is always bad for the consumer... this is one of the reasons socalism doesn't work."

        You can have a socialist government, and market competition.
        The USSR's "implementation" of socialism was flawed. Don't get that confused with actual socialism.
        • by Rei (128717) on Monday March 20 2006, @04:24PM (#14959928) Homepage
          Your comment reminds me a bit of this article [uncyclopedia.org]. Concerning the reasons for the lack of success of the American Institute of Communist Studies' program for granting certificates certifying something that someone said is "communist":

          "And lastly, for reasons unknown, the AICS decided that half of the advisory board would consist of Communists and half of Libertarians. Since Communists believe that practically no one is a Communist including each other; and Libertarians believe that just about everything is indicative of Communism including most extant forms of Capitalism, the board reached an impasse in about half a second. "
          • Re:You know what... (Score:4, Informative)

            by BewireNomali (618969) on Monday March 20 2006, @03:41PM (#14959598)
            Soviet Russia was very technically progressive. While being bad for the consumer, as it were, communism or socialism isn't necessarily bad for innovation.
              • by BewireNomali (618969) on Monday March 20 2006, @06:49PM (#14960935)
                I agree with you. But the same goes for the US. In the cold war - we went from scratch to repeat moon landings in ten years. Not so now. My point is that democracy doesn't have an inherent monopoly on innovation.
                • Actually, the US is Linus's home, as it is for most Linux-based industry as well (think Novell, RedHat, and that little cash register company with a blue logo). I would also hardly say that Nokia makes Finland comparable with the Korea, Japan, and the US when it comes to technology.

                  Don't worry about it though, I'm just spouting off American propaganda.

                  Who needs Ford, GM, IBM, Apple, HP, Microsoft, Intel, etc? Finland has Nokia!
                  Samsung, LG, and Hyundai? They are no Nokia!
                  Sony, Panasonic, Toyota, and Honda do
                  • Wrong, Finland is democratic republic, and has always been one.
                    There is a socialist party but that doesn't make the country socialistic.

                    Finland is be a democratic country with heavy socialist leanings. It used to have even stronger socialist tendencies, but has suffered from incompetent leadership for the past two decades (ever since Kekkonen came too old and sick to rule, IMHO), and that has lead to a tighter integration with the globalized ultra-capitalist economy, much to the detriment of both econo

  • "Physics" (Score:5, Funny)

    by 2.7182 (819680) on Monday March 20 2006, @03:10PM (#14959326)
    This is a little misleading. The hardware is really just fast at computing, not specifically designed for "physics". For example it doesn't have a build in ODE solver.
    • "Technology" (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The "technology" is specifically designed for physics. The hardware is not, but the driver, API, and havok engine enhancements are. This is therefore "physics technology".

      Besides, I rather think this is what nVidia had in mind when they first started making SLI boards. It was always obvious that the rendering benefit from SLI wasn't going to be cost-effective. Turning their boards into general purpose game accelerators has probably been in their thoughts for a while.
    • Re:"Physics" (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Quaoar (614366) on Monday March 20 2006, @03:26PM (#14959481)
      I dunno what company would release a game that needs to SOLVE ODE's on the fly...I imagine you'd solve the equations before-hand, and put them in a nice form where all you need to do is multiply/add terms. If a company wants a cloak to behave realistically in their game, I'm sure they just find the proper coefficients in development, and all the game has to do is crunch the numbers on the fly.
      • For a game, the best way to solve ODEs is numerically. Since you don't need the precision of the exact solution, the solutions are considerably simpler computationally once you've linearized them. Doing RK4 on the fly is precisely the best solution to the problem. Well, depending on the stiffness.. but you can always fall back on plain ol' trapezoid rule if you just wanna know, "what does the thing do until it hits the ground" to enough precision to be pretty.

        solving a linearized ODE is just plain ol' or
          • um.. 3+ body problem for an "asteroid" game comes to mind, realistic damping due to wind resistance, the same but weather, realistic looking vehicle suspension, stinger-missile simulation, aerodynamic simulation, realistic looking water/weather..

            Pretty much anywhere that the underlying equation is more complicated than a simple spherical potential.

            Sure you *could* hard code it in, but if the analytical result is a function like exp(-x^2)cos(x), you're going to have include quite a few higher order terms to
        • by Animats (122034) on Tuesday March 21 2006, @12:29AM (#14962090) Homepage
          We already have that patent. [animats.com] For some years, we were locked into a licensing and noncompete agreement, which is why we haven't done much in that area for a while except cash the checks. But that noncompete period is now over. Stay tuned for further developments.

          Our approach produces better-looking movement than the low-end physics packages. We don't have the "boink problem", where everything bounces as if it were very light. Heavy objects look heavy. Our physics has "ease in" and "ease out" in collisions, as animators put it, derived directly from the real physics. When we first did this, back in the 200MHz era, it was slow for real time (a two-player fighter was barely possible) but now, game physics can get better.

          Take a look at our videos. [animats.com] Few if any other physics systems can even do the spinning top correctly, let alone the hard cases shown.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20 2006, @03:11PM (#14959335)
    This physics system is used for visual physics (i.e., realistic graphical effects), not gameplay physics, which are still done on the CPU.

    Therefore you get a 10x framerate increase over running massively intensive effects on the CPU.

    This is good, because games will look nicer. But if you don't have the GPU grunt, you can simply disable (or cut them down) them in game - it won't affect the gameplay.
  • SLI? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by temojen (678985) on Monday March 20 2006, @03:11PM (#14959339) Journal
    Why does this require SLI? You can do stream processing on most relatively-modern accelerated 3d video cards.
  • Nice (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BWJones (18351) * on Monday March 20 2006, @03:12PM (#14959348) Homepage Journal
    This will be critically important as programs start to push particle and geometry modeling. I remember back when I had my Quadra 840av in 1993, I popped a couple of Wizard 3dfx Voodoo cards in it when they first started supporting SLI and the performance benefits were noticeable. Of course we were all hoping for the performance to continue to scale, but 3Dfx started getting interested in other markets including defense and then were bought by Nvidia making me wonder if SLI would ever really take off. It's nice to see that the technology is still around and flourishing.

        • late 1996 or early 1997 [...] Wow....it seems so long ago.

          It's because we're getting closer to Advanced Technology #1.

          Like in Civilization, the way olden times rush by quickly, but once you start getting closer and closer to modern times, it starts taking longer and longer and then it's 5:30 in the morning and you can only sleep a half hour before school?

          Yeah, that's what technology's doing to all of us. ;-)

  • co-processor (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ZachPruckowski (918562) <zachary.pruckowski@gmail.com> on Monday March 20 2006, @03:13PM (#14959356)
    How does this work in relation to AMD's consideration of a physics coprocessor or another specialized processor? It seems like that solution is superior.
  • General purpose GPUs (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Mr. Vandemar (797798) on Monday March 20 2006, @03:13PM (#14959360) Homepage
    I've been waiting for this for a while. It's the obvious next step in GPU design. I have a feeling GPUs are going to become more and more general, and eventually accelerate the majority of inherently parallel processes, while the CPU executes everything else. We don't even have to change the acronym. Just call it a "Generic Processing Unit"...
  • Press release. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Goalie_Ca (584234) on Monday March 20 2006, @03:13PM (#14959363)
    Of course its nothing more than a press release but there are numerous questions it raises:

    1) What limitations are there on calculations. A GPU is not as general as a cpu and it would probably suck when dealing with branches especially when they aren't independant.

    2) How much faster could this actually be. Is it simply a matter of looking to the future? (ie: we can already run with Aniso and AA and high resolutions so 5 years from now they'll be "overpowered"). IMO the next logical step is full fledged HDR and then more polygons.

    3) What is exactly expected of these. General physics shouldn't be, but i can understand if they do small effects here or there.
  • by Hortensia Patel (101296) on Monday March 20 2006, @03:14PM (#14959374)
    I don't think this is a general physics processor. It seems to be aimed at "eyecandy" physics calculations - mostly particle systems - whose results don't need to feed back into application logic. Which makes sense, given than GPU->CPU readbacks are a notorious perfomance killer.

    Potentially shiny, but not really revolutionary or new. People have been doing particle system updates with shaders for a while now.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20 2006, @03:17PM (#14959395)
    This neither requires SLI nor is it limited to NVIDIA chips. NVIDIA is just launching it publicly. ATI will be showing it off behind closed doors this week.
  • 10x faster? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20 2006, @03:18PM (#14959407)
    10x faster? They might as well just say it's infinity times faster so that we know they are bullshitting from the second we read it...
    • Re:10x faster? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by LLuthor (909583) <lexington.luthor@gmail.com> on Monday March 20 2006, @03:34PM (#14959545)
      10 times faster is not all that unreasonable.

      I used brook to compute some SVM calculations, and my 7800GT was about 40x faster than my Athlon64 3000+ (even after I hand-optimized some loops using SSE instructions). So its perfectly understandable for physics to be 10x faster on the GPU.
      • The GPU may be 10x faster at physics calculations, but the summary says framerate improvments of 10x - so how realistic is something like 600 fps? Ridiculous, even if you had a monitor/graphics system capable of 600 refreshes per second.
        • The article compared fancy physics effects on the CPU at ~6fps and fancy physics effects on the GPU at ~60fps. This is completely understandable. It does nothing for current games and you most definitely will not see framerates of 600.
  • PCI Express (Score:3, Insightful)

    by CastrTroy (595695) on Monday March 20 2006, @03:19PM (#14959416) Homepage
    Why not have a complete physics card? It would be a nice use for that PCI express bus which only has video cards as an option right now. That way you could just buy the physics card, without having to upgrade the video card. Although this is all kind of weird. Start offloading everything off to specialized cards, you pretty much have a multiple CPU machine, where each CPU is specially tuned to do a specific type of processing. Might be the leap necessary to maintain Moore's law.
    • Lots of other things use PCI-Express including:
      Single and Dual Port 4X SDR and DDR InfiniBand over PCI-Express x8
      Dual port 2Gb and 4Gb FibreChannel over PCI-Express x4
      Ethernet (multiport 1 gigabit and 10 gigabit), over PCI-Express x4
      Multi port FireWire 800 over PCI-Express x1
      DualChannel UltraSCSI320 over PCI-Express x1

      There are more probably... PCI-Express grew out of InfiniBand. They cut out the networking to make it cheaper for just inside a single system. Ironically, they put a lot of the networking b
  • by Jerry Coffin (824726) on Monday March 20 2006, @03:21PM (#14959434)
    A few years ago, they were being slammed for doing load balancing where they offloaded graphics processing onto the CPU when/if the CPU was less busy than the GPU. Now the GPUs are enough faster that they can frequently expect to be "ahead" of the CPU -- so now they're starting to work on doing the opposite, offloading work from the CPU to the GPU instead.

    Of course, the basic isn't exactly brand new -- some of us have been writing shaders to handle heavy duty math for a while. The difference is that up until now, most real support for this has been more or less experimental (e.g. the Brook system [stanford.edu] for doing numeric processing on GPUs. Brook is also sufficiently different from an average programming language that it's probably fairly difficult to put to use in quite a few situations.

    Having a physics-oriented framework will probably make this capability quite a bit easier to apply in quite a few more situations, which is clearly a good thing (especially for nVidia and perhaps ATI, of course).

    The part I find interesting is that Intel has taken a big part of the low-end graphics market. Now nVidia is working at taking more of the computing high-end market. I can see it now: a game that does all the computing on a couple of big nVidia chips, and then displays the results via Intel integrated graphics...

  • by Homology (639438) on Monday March 20 2006, @03:27PM (#14959484)
    Modern graphics cards can be used to bypass security measures as an unprivileged user (reading kernel memory, say). Theo de Raadt of OpenBSD reminded [theaimsgroup.com] users how modern X works:

    I would like to educate people of something which many are not aware of -- how X works on a modern machine.

    Some of our architectures use a tricky and horrid thing to allow X to run. This is due to modern PC video card architecture containing a large quantity of PURE EVIL. To get around this evil the X developers have done some rather expedient things, such as directly accessing the cards via IO registers, directly from userland. It is hard to see how they could have done other -- that is how much evil the cards contain. Most operating systems make accessing these cards trivially easy for X to do this, but OpenBSD creates a small security barrier through the use of an "aperture driver", called xf86(4) (...)

    • Non-root, user-level access to IO ports (by authorized programs) is not evil; it's what allows non-kernel level display servers. It keeps some really complicated stuff out of the kernel, thus improving system stability.
    • by xactoguy (555443) on Tuesday March 21 2006, @02:58AM (#14962416)
      ... Most of you didn't get the point. It's not that you can access the GPU from userland (it depends on that access, but that's not the point). The main point is that that the current gen of programmable GPUs allow you to (theoretically) directly access kernel memory, as pointed out later in the thread by Theo:


      > Are these new programable cards capable of reading main memory, which
      > OpenBSD would not be able to prevent if machdep.allowaperture were
      > set to something other than 0?

      Yes, they have DMA engines. If the privilege seperate X server has a
      bug, it can still wiggle the IO registers of the card to do DMA to
      physical addresses, entirely bypassing system security.


      Thus, a resourceful attacker theoretically could get access to kernel memory through anything which allows access to the video card. An unusual and probably difficult-to-exploit hole, but a possible hole none the less.
  • Real-time cinematic quality graphics rendering = HARD.
    Physics acceleration that allows for rather impressive collisions and water: MUCH EASIER.

    Maximum output for minimum input. Having physics acceleration in the GPU makes sense as you don't have to buy an extra accelerator card.
  • by TomorrowPlusX (571956) on Monday March 20 2006, @03:43PM (#14959608)
    I can't read the article since it's slashdotted, but here's what I want to know:

    First, what physics API are they using? This is, after all, a little like OpenGL vs DirectX. You need a physics API to do this stuff, and there are out there a *lot* of portable and high quality APIs. Havok, Newton, Aegeia (spelling?), and the open source ODE ( which I use ). The APIs aren't interchangeable, and aren't necessarily free.

    Second, at least when I'm doing this work, there's a *lot* of back and forth between the physics and my game engine. Maybe not a whole lot of data, but a lot of callbacks -- a lot of situations where the collision system determines A & B are about to touch and has to ask my code what to do about it. And my code has to do some hairy stuff to forward these events to A & B ( since physics engines have their own idea of what a physical object instance is, and it's orthogonal to my game objects, so I have to have some container and void ptr mojo ) and so on and so forth. If all this is running on the GPU, sure the math may be fast but I worry about all the stalls resulting from the back and forth. Sure, that can be parallelized and the callbacks can be queued, but still.

    Anyway, I want info, not marketing.

    Oh christ, and finally, I work on a Mac. When will I see support? ( lol. this is me falling off my chair, crying and laughing, crying... sobbing. Because I know the answer ). Can we at least assume/hope that they'll provide a software fallback api, and that that api will be available for linux and mac? After all, NVIDIA has linux and mac ports of Cg, so why not this? I'm keeping my fingers crossed.
    • Havok is the primarily used API in the gaming industry. It is the one being targeted by this implementation.

      That said, it would presumably be possible to implement other APIs (if there is sufficient demand), given that the GPU hardware is now general enough to handle that level of computation.
  • by Jherek Carnelian (831679) on Monday March 20 2006, @04:14PM (#14959838)
    The guys over at http://www.gpgpu.org/ [gpgpu.org] have been doing various math calculations, including 'physics' on GPUs for a while now. One big problem is that the only real API is OpenGL. So not only do you have to be a smart math programmer (which is pretty rare to begin with) but you also have to understand graphics programming too and then figure out how to map traditional math operations onto the graphics operations that OpenGL makes available. It isn't that hard to do simple things like matrix math, but trying to really optimize it for really good performance requires almost wizard-level understanding of OpenGL and the underlying hardware implementation.

    The cards' math capabilities would be so much more accessible (and thus used by so many more programmers) if Nvidia (and ATI) would come out with standard math-library interfaces to their cards. Give us something that looks like FFTW and has been tweaked by the card engineers for maximum performance and then we will see everbody and his brother using these video cards for math co-processing.
  • by fallen1 (230220) on Monday March 20 2006, @04:53PM (#14960174) Homepage
    While I hate to ride a horse into the ground and then feed off its bones, every time I hear something like this happening I immediately think "Amiga". Why? I would guess that it is because the Amiga had a CPU and then it had dedicated chips to handle other functions - math, graphics, sounds, etc. This arrangement created a computer system that did not get surpassed for MANY years after its demise and, some would say, it still hasn't been bested in many areas (multi-tasking is one of those).

    Each time I hear that an "advance" has been made and I read that it is basically re-integrating various components back into the primary system or tying those components tighter to the CPU then I can't help but scream "AMIGA!" Of course, this leads to co-workers walking wider paths around me while having avoiding eye contact '-).

    Still, all of these advances lead me to believe that we might going back to a dedicated chip style of computing BUT what I am also hoping for is a completely upgradeable system that I can pull the, say, physics processor out and plug a newer version or better chip into without having to replace the entire motherboard or daughterboard. Which, of course, leade me right back to that whole screaming scenario :) The Amiga style of computing may yet live again.

    • by robbyjo (315601) on Monday March 20 2006, @03:23PM (#14959453) Homepage Journal
      Well, I for one, want to have a smarter AI in all games. Unloading the "mundane" physics engine to the graphic card will hopefully spare more CPU cycles for the AI. After all, it's not graphics that matter in games. It's the gameplay.
    • by lbrandy (923907) on Monday March 20 2006, @03:30PM (#14959514)
      By offloading physics from the CPU to the graphics card, this improves frame rates?

      Yes. Why does that surprise you? When you do incredibly complicated physics simulation, things can be very parallel and consequently GPUs outperform CPUs.

      Why would I waste precious GPU processing to process Physics? I mean, all the CPU does these days is handle AI, physics, and texture loading. If you offload physics to the GPU, then the CPU is doing less and your swamping the GPU with more work.

      You seem to be under the impression that your GPU cycles are more important than your cpu cycles. This is done with SLI for a reason..

      If it does increase frame rates, then I would suggest why not improve graphics rendering rather then physics processing.

      Because the quality of the render is controlled in software? Because hardware is currently limited by, ya know, physics and technology?

      I find that for all the advances nVidia and ATI have made over the years, 3D gaming visual quality is still inferior to cinematic quality 3D rendering.

      And in other news, offline processing is still more powerful than online processing. There's a shocker.

      I would prefer if nVidia and ATI actually focused on bringing cinematic quality 3D rendering to gaming, instead of just claiming they do.

      First of all, 99.9% of what nVidia and ATI do is exactly that. They are also starting to realize that the GPU paradigm, with minor modification, can be turned into a very powerful co-processor... and they are the experts at creating those types of chips. The market for them is growing... and they don't want to miss the boat.

      I want smooth high-poly models with realistic lighting and 60fps.

      And I want peace in the middle east. Give it 10 years, one of us may get our wish.
      • by Hektor_Troy (262592) on Monday March 20 2006, @03:41PM (#14959600)
        I want smooth high-poly models with realistic lighting and 60fps.

        And I want peace in the middle east. Give it 10 years, one of us may get our wish.
        Well, compared to 10 years ago, we probably HAVE cinematic quality rendering in games, and we definately have smooth high-poly models with realistic lighting and 60 fps. Trouble is that apart from 60 fps, every thing else in that statement is a very moving target.
    • I find that for all the advances nVidia and ATI have made over the years, 3D gaming visual quality is still inferior to cinematic quality 3D rendering... I would prefer if nVidia and ATI actually focused on bringing cinematic quality 3D rendering to gaming, instead of just claiming they do

      Clearly, you misunderstand how cinematic 3D is rendered

      Desktop GPUs will always be inferior to cinematic 3D, simply because cinematic 3D is rendered at a rate of several frames per day by a multi-million dollar farm
    • Many many people already have a capable GPU and would only need a driver/software update.

      The physX card is considerably more cumbersome to use for the average gamer, and is consequently less likely to be supported by game developers. Not to mention the fact that the cards are likely to be quite expensive.
    • by jandrese (485) * <kensama@vt.edu> on Monday March 20 2006, @03:48PM (#14959643) Homepage Journal
      I think the point is that this is for games where the bottleneck is in the CPU and the graphics card is sitting idle half of the time. By pulling 10% of the graphics card's resources to physics calculations, you could offload enough of the work from the CPU that it could keep the rest of the card completely fed and see a framerateimprovement with no additional hardware or loss in video quality.
    • BF2 for example. This game is ALL physics... I love it personally, and one of the coolest (and crappy) things is when you get shelled by artillary 500 yards into the air. Your limbs are flying everywhere and the FPS decrease is noticeable when there are 10 or so soliders all ragdolled in the air (i'm sure particles have a lot to do with this also, but IAN a FPS programmer).

      Uh, that's highly unlikely. The physics of a flying body is no more difficult to compute that the physics of a running body. "Particl