NVIDIA To Buy AGEIA

The two companies announced today that NVIDIA will acquire PhysX maker AGEIA; terms were not disclosed. The Daily Tech is one of the few covering the news to go much beyond the press release, mentioning that AMD considered buying AGEIA last November but passed, and that the combination positions NVIDIA to compete with Intel on a second front, beyond the GPU — as Intel purchased AGEIA competitor Havok last September. While NVIDIA talked about supporting the PhysX engine on their GPUs, it's not clear whether AGEIA's hardware-based physics accelerator will play any part in that. AMD declared GPU physics dead last year, but NVIDIA at least presumably begs to differ. The coverage over at PC Perspectives goes into more depth on what the acquisition portends for the future of physics, on the GPU or elsewhere.

off on a tangent

[User 956 (568564)]

The Daily Tech is one of the few covering the news to go much beyond the press release, mentioning that AMD considered buying AGEIA last November but passed

Well, that's because they were pondering a similar strategy to Microsoft, and were going to buy Yahoo.

Re:off on a tangent

[ma1wrbu5tr (1066262)]

Here's a strange tangent... or two

It's almost like some bizarre comic.

Lets imagine that AMD and ATI teamed to to be the Super Friends.

And Intel and nVidia are the Legion of Doom.

Now, let the battle for the universe begin.


At least that's how I feel when I read ./ers comments sometimes.
We geeks tend to take ourselves entirely too seriously,

Grammatical and spelling errors are bonuses.

Re:off on a tangent

[mabhatter654 (561290)]

except Intel doesn't think they need Nvidia... that's why they've got nearly all the notebook vendors pumping out crappy built-in graphics that just barely run Windows Vista. ATI saw the writing on the wall and got themselves bought by AMD. Now AMD battles on CPUs, integrated graphics, and high end graphics... Intel can never buy Nvidia because they'd be instantly sued. Nvidia overpriced themselves, even with all the work they did for AMD, and the matching logos... stock holders were just too rich for AMD.

This makes Nvidia the "odd man out" because they don't make processors. Both Intel and AMD have integrated solutions and obviously want physics processing on the CPU so that they can sell 7 core 3.21GHz processors. NVidia has to break the mold if they want sales... they got shunned the last round of consoles for IBM and ATI, and Microsoft pretty much let ATI write the book for DX10 this round. NVidia + Ageia only makes sense if they'll make an open source console that runs either AMD or Intel CPUs. Games would need to run flawlessly, without "installing" just like a console. There's a hole for PC gaming right now... Apple's not filling it (they think it's stupid) Wintel is not helping (Microsoft only wants Vista gaming, and Intel wants to sell integrated graphics) so a well done Linux console could help... but there's too much IP in the way to make it happen.

Re:off on a tangent

[default luser (529332)]

But Sun doesn't have an x86 processor, and this is the key.

Nvidia needs a an x86 processor to compete. Sure, Nvidia could just adapt their GPU architecture and expand the language to make a general-purpose VLIW processor. They could package it and sell it as an Itanium competitor. But nobody wants to use a non-x86 chip in mainstream markets, and that's where the long-term money is.

This is why Windows, Linux, Solaris, BSD, and now even OS X run on x86: if your OS has redeeming or unique qualities, more people will buy based on OS features alone if your hardware platform is agnostic.

And herein lies two problems: one, while you can make x86 processors without a license, you are constantly in danger of litigation from Intel's massive patent portfolio. In the last two decades, every x86 chipmaker has eventually negotiated a cross-license agreement with Intel. The other problem is, it is hard to build a new x86 processor from-scratch. Thus, a takeover bid for an x86 processor manufacturer is likely the best way to solve Nvidia's problem; they get a license to keep Intel at-bay, and a solid starting point.

I'm thinking Via, personally. Their sales have slumped in the last year, and they've stopped making Intel chipsets. In fact, Intel has been bullying poor Via for the last year, offering a new Intel chipset license if they just stop manufacturing CPUs. Either Nvidia will buy Via, or Via will spin-off their processor division for some cash. Thanks to the Intel cross-license Via purchased along with IDT, their processor arm is a goldmine in the long-run.

Must bundle with GPU

[Macfox (50100)]

This won't float unless they bundle it with the next generation GPU. AGEIA haven't been able to get traction with a dedicated card and neither will nVidia, unless a heap of games support it overnight.

Re:Must bundle with GPU

[Kyrubas (991784)]

It might be that nVidia doesn't even intend to use the overall PhysX stuff at all, but instead wants to tear it apart for the patents on specific design patents further optimization of their GPUs.

Re:Must bundle with GPU

[644bd346996 (1012333)]

Don't forget that PhysX has software out there, too. It hasn't been doing well against Havok, but it's obviously in NVidia's best interests to promote the use of physics engines in games, seeing as they could provide the hardware acceleration for them. I expect the PhysX engine will soon have the ability to use NVidia GPUs, and it will pushed as a more viable competitor to Havok, especially since Intel cancelled Havok FX.

Re:

[mrxak (727974)]

That's just it, really. Games need to support it in large enough numbers, and need to do it well enough to make a difference between those without the cards and those that have them. Most people seem to think this is a joke, and the way CPUs are going anyway with extra cores, I think we'd be better off seeing multithreaded games instead of physics cards.

Re:Must bundle with GPU

[Rival (14861)]

Games are great at motivating the development of better video cards, and to some extent bus speeds, processors and other non-gaming-specific components. This is a good thing, though I have some old-man opinions on how Moore's Law is spoiling many developers.

That being said, I don't believe games drive the adoption of hardware as much as you might be thinking. As a case in point, look at Vista. Ugly and bloated, yes, but perforce nearly everywhere. And the minimum requirements for Aero (which is the one feature your average user is going to jump on -- ooh, it's pretty!) are going to do more to push the next large jump in base video card standards than any given game.

Retailers don't have enough fiscal incentives to stop pushing Vista, even if they do try to gain positive PR by selling Ubuntu or XP on a few low-end models. And if they're pushing Vista, they want to support the pretty interface the public expects. By making hardware-accelerated rendering a practical requirement of the OS, Microsoft has raised the bar of the "minimum acceptable" video card.

Right now we see physics cards as a niche product, barely supported. It has been the same with all technical developments. But if we're heading toward 3D interfaces (which I believe we are,)then physics can only play an increasing roll in such an environment. If that should become the case, then a dedicated processor will be much more valuable then assigning a generic CPU core to try and handle the calculations.

Re:Must bundle with GPU

[Wesley Felter (138342)]

There's nothing stopping you from buying a low-end PC and installing a real GPU. AFAIK, most systems with integrated graphics still have a PCI Express slot so you can upgrade.

I also don't see any gouging going in in gaming PCs. I recently built a $1000 gaming PC and prebuilt models with similar specs were selling for $1100-1200, which is not much of a markup.

Re:

[Rival (14861)]

I see your floating point.

The way I picture things, a Physics Processing unit (PPU?) will end up like FPUs: at first an optional, narrow-use add-on, then integrated on premium products, then more widespread as software vendors feel comfortable relying on it, and finally ubiquitous and practically indispensable.

And then Slashdotters will be able to say, "You kids with your integrated PPUs nowadays -- when I was your age, we had to calculate trajectories and drag coefficients by hand, and we liked it that way

Re:

[Grave (8234)]

And then Slashdotters will be able to say, "You kids with your integrated PPUs nowadays -- when I was your age, we had to calculate trajectories and drag coefficients by hand, and we liked it that way!"

But I already say that...

Re:Must bundle with GPU

[RelliK (4466)]

I always thought that GPU + physics engine would be a perfect combination. Ultimately, the AGEIA card is just a DSP + software driver for calculating physics. A GPU is... also a DSP + software driver for calculating graphics. It wouldn't be too hard to write a driver that does both: some of the pipelines could be allocated to graphics, and some to physics. Might even make a software-configurable to dedicate more/less units to physics.

Re:

[milsoRgen (1016505)]

The interesting thing about the processor on an AGEIA card is it's similair in design to an IBM Cell processor [wikipedia.org]. Just a fewer number of SPE's...

I can't seem to find the link to the paper that discussed it in detail, if I can find it I'll post it later...

Re:Must bundle with GPU

[RelliK (4466)]

Every GPU is similar in design to IBM Cell. It's just a simple but massively parallel DSP with very fast local memory.

Re:Must bundle with GPU

[milsoRgen (1016505)]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_processing_unit#Cell_Processor_vs_PPUs [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_processing_unit#GPUs_vs_PPUs [wikipedia.org]

There are differences. Otherwise Sony wouldn't have wet themselves when they announced Cell technology in the PS3 or Microsoft could of countered their ATI GPU was pretty much the same thing or more powerful or however the market types would of spun it if that was the case

Re:

[TheLink (130905)]

The difference between graphics and physics isn't that subtle.

For most games if you turn down the graphics the gameplay isn't supposed to change that much. So people with cheaper video cards can still play the game.

Whereas what happens if you turn down the physics? For the gameplay to not change the crap that's bouncing around can't matter at all.

I'd rather the physics mattered.

But if the physics mattered, people with cheaper physics cards might not be able to play the game.

The game makers won't like that :

Re:Must bundle with GPU

[mikael (484)]

With the current PC architecture, the CPU has to send data to the Physics card, read the data back, then finally send it down to the GPU. This would have to be done for things like character animation (ragdoll motion), particle systems for visual effects (bouncing off the scenery/characters). Ideally, you would want the Physics processor to have a direct path to the GPU. Then you could avoid two of these steps.

And if nothing else, Nvidia also get a team of engineers who have worked together and have both DSP and current game industry technology experience.

The Future of Physics

[calebt3 (1098475)]

the future of physics

I am personally hoping that the future of physics leads to warp engines.

Re:The Future of Physics

[by Anonymous Coward]

I'd be satisfied with socks that stay up by themselves.

Re:

[bky1701 (979071)]

I'll be happy when someone starts to enforce the laws of physics. I mean, do you ever hear about someone in court because they violated the second law of thermal dynamics? Didn't think so. What are we going to do when people stop following them?? It will be lunacy, I tell you!

I wonder how this will affect AMD's GPU offerings

[Scareduck (177470)]

I don't pay close attention to the GPU market in general, though lately I've been interested in a few numerical modeling projects that could benefit from high-performance computing. The AMD Firestream 9170 [amd.com] is supposed to be released in the first quarter of this year, with a peak speed of 500 GFLOPS, most likely single-precision, but the beauty part is that it should also support double-precision, the numeric standard for most computational modeling. NVidia's option in this space is the Tesla C870 [nvidia.com]; I wonder whether this move to purchase another GPU line will divert resources away from their number-crunching-first GPUs.

Whither Nvidia/PhysX?

[Crypto Gnome (651401)]

1. Purchase Aegia
2. Continue selling dedicated Physics addon-cards
3. Integrate PPU onto Graphics Cards
4. (somewhere along the line, get full Microsoft Direct-Something endorsement/support of dedicated physics processing)
   • possibly by licensing to AMD "PPU included on Graphics Card" rights, thusly invoking the power of Least Common Denominator
5. Integrate PPU circuitry/logics into GPU (making it faster/more efficient/cheaper than equivalent solution licensed to AMD)
6. ?? Profit ??

In the end, for this to *really* succeed, it needs to be a "Least Common Denominator" factor. So it *requires* full support by Microsoft and Direct-X (them being The Big Factors in the games industry). And in order to get full support from The Windows Monopolist, you'll probably (not absolutely necessary, mut it'd make it much easier to convince Microsoft) need to enable AMD/ATI to leverage this technology, to some degree.

Remember folks, Nvidia don't need to *kill* AMD/ATI, they only need to stay one or two generations ahead of them in technology. So they *could* license them "last years tech" for use on their cards, to make "Least Common Denominator" not a factor which excludes their latest-get tech implementations.

Interesting news.

[Besna (1175279)]

The computing industry is seeing a dramatic shift towards single-package parallelism. Yet again, the x86 architecture largely holds back the CPU from becoming more all-purpose and doing GPU and PPU activities. There are actual engineering reasons you can't have a truly general-purpose ASIC (you can with an FPGA, but that would be too slow for the purpose). The GPU and PPU is where the interesting stuff is. They can actually write new macroarchitecture! They can design on-chip parallelism with far greater complexity without the need for a backwards-compatible architecture.

The exciting aspect to this acquisition is the stronger fusion of two companies that have the ability to harness processing power without historical limitations. ATI/AMD really didn't have this, with AMD stuck with x86. Something like Cell is interesting in this space. However, it lacks flexibility in matching up the main core with the secondary cores. Why bring in PowerPC, for that matter?

This will lead to great things. It is fun again to follow computer architecture.

Why do we need physics cards?

[Cathoderoytube (1088737)]

So, I'm assuming I'm not getting all the physics simulation quality I can get out of my games? The whole deal with the bridges collapsing in real time and all sorts of junk bouncing around isn't the ultimate physics experience? Is there... Another level of ragdoll I'm not experiencing? Is there some dynamic to a flaming barrel rolling down a hill my computer can't handle?! Or.. Or.. Is it Nvidia making one of its patented cash grabs?! Considering all the physics simulations in games to date have been done o

Re:

[dbIII (701233)]

Consider something like WoW - lots of pretty pictures but you can run through people or monsters. Collision dectection requires a bit of effort when there are a lot of objects.

Re:Why do we need physics cards?

[NeMon'ess (160583)]

With physics acceleration, the little things that don't feel real could be done.

Running through grass could cause it to deform and brush the character, and some of it gets stepped on and stays bent down. Or in sports games, each limb could have a better defined clipping box and rules for how it can flex.

Then when two players collide going for a ball, they hit more realistically and don't clip through each other. Especially on the slow motion replays it would look nice.

Or in a racing game, when cars crash, they could really crash. Imagine bodywork deforming and "real" parts going flying, instead of only a flash of sparks.

Also, it would be cool for grenades and other explosives to properly damage the room and buildings in games that want realism. Walls that crumble into rubble. Tables that break into chunks and splinters. Ceilings that collapse when the supports are destroyed or weakened too much.

Then outside, no more indestructible walls. When I ram a truck or tank into an unreinforced building, something actually happens. As in the vehicle crashes through the wall, or continues through the building with momentum.

Re:Why do we need physics cards?

[TheThiefMaster (992038)]

The biggest problem in FPS game physics at the moment is a ridiculously trivial one:
When the player moves forward he pushes whatever is under him forward.

I'm not kidding, try standing on something and moving. In reality there's no real problem, as long as the centre of gravity of you+object is under the object's base. If it's light enough, you might kick it out behind you. In a game, 99% of the time you will kick the object under you forwards and out from under you.

Try standing on a barrel in Half-Life 2 for example. The game even gives you a puzzle at the start where you have to stack crates to get through a window, where you can notice this problem.

Re:

[Charcharodon (611187)]

Actually the thing you are missing is the bridge pieces bending before it collapses, the barrel being dented as it rolls down the hill, or the rag doll limbs breaking or being ripped off with the proper application of force. Those things cannot be done in real time on a CPU.

Unfortunately most of those things are only avialable in demos atm. UT3 has a couple of special maps that do some neat stuff, but then you start running into problems with the video card trying to keep up with the 100 or so bricks

A physics card is just dual-core for the idiot

[idonthack (883680)]

With dual-core coming standard now on all new PCs, and multi-core rapidly approaching, physics cards are done for. Graphics cards are still a good idea because the kind of calculations they do can be heavily hardware-optimized in a way that general purpose CPUs are not, but physics cards don't do anything a second (or fourth) full speed CPU isn't capable of doing better and faster.

Re:

[XaXXon (202882)]

Shoot. With all those available cores, let's move everything back to the CPU. Get rid of graphics cards.

Oh wait. General purpose CPUs aren't very good at certain types of workloads.

Re:

[Tolkien (664315)]

I didn't think of this until after I posted, but how do you think graphics cards came about? They started off integrated with motherboards too, then it was discovered that dedicated hardware can perform MUCH better relatively cheaply. Same deal with sound cards, ditto network cards, what with the KillerNIC now. It's pure logic really, specialization leads to better performance.

Re:

[Webmonger (24302)]

I didn't think of this until after I posted, but how do you think graphics cards came about?

How did graphics cards come about? Wow, you must be young. Let me tell you.
Sometimes, when a mainframe and a television set love each other very much...

Naw, man. At least in terms of the PC architecture, graphics hardware has been available in expansion card form since the original IBM PC offered your choice of MDA (text only) and CGA (limited four-color) cards.

Re:

[idonthack (883680)]

I get the point of a PPU. But at this point brute force is cheaper and easier. CPUs do well enough at processing physics, and they are fast enough and cheap enough that it's smarter to run respectable physics code there instead of spending an extra $100 to $200 on an expansion card that provides almost zero gameplay enhancement. PPUs may have been a good idea ten or fifteen years ago when CPUs were slower, but game physics engines haven't improved significantly since 2003. Faster processors are available ch

Re:A physics card is just dual-core for the idiot

[sssssss27 (1117705)]

I don't think you are thinking grand enough. I remember the days where you didn't need a dedicated graphics card to play games and I'm only 21. You really didn't get improved game play per say but it did look a heck of a lot better. A dedicated physics processor though has the potential to vastly improve game play and realism.

Imagine instead of designers creating models of buildings they actually built them. That is a brick building had individual bricks all stacked on each other. Whenever you hit it with an explosive it would actually crumble like a real building or burn like a real building. That is a lot of calculations which a general CPU isn't the best at.

The thing is not enough people have PPUs in their computers so you can't include it into core game play yet. Hopefully nVidia acquiring Ageia will allow them to start bundling it with their GPUs or even better yet offer it embedded on their motherboards. While graphics are easily scaled, game play elements are not. I wouldn't be surprised if you see PPUs being crucial to the game on consoles before PCs.

I guess I can stop waiting for Linux support

[Eric Smith (4379)]

They've had a Linux version of their SDK for a long time, but it was a software-only version and didn't support their hardware. Given NVidia's lack of enthusiasm for Linux, I suppose if there was any chance that Ageia might have listened to those of us that wanted hardware support on Linux, it's gone now.

Re:I guess I can stop waiting for Linux support

[moosesocks (264553)]

Unless something's changed in the past year or two it's been since I stopped using Nvidia, their drivers always tended to be quite good.

They were Binary-only, but they were good in that they were fast, stable, and supported all the major functions of their cards. Hardly half-assed if you ask me.

GPGPU and Nvidia

[volsung (378)]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned CUDA [nvidia.com] yet, which is Nvidia's existing entry into the world of general purpose GPU computing. So far their target market is mostly dedicated calculations with limited interoperability with OpenGL/DirectX, but I expect we'll see future cards that can partition their compute resources between multiple tasks, like rendering and physics. Hopefully, porting over the PhysX SDK will help grow the GPGPU toolset, and make it easier to use.

(CUDA already transforms the 8800 GTX i

Nvida and AMD were already working on Physics

[BagOBones (574735)]

A year ago both Nvidia and ATI/AMD both showed off their GPUs doing HAVOK acceleration equal or better than AGEIA. With ATI claiming to have a 7 month lead... Could this be a catchup move of patent grab by NVIDIA?

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/06/06/ati_gpu_physics_pitch/ [reghardware.co.uk]

Re:

[LingNoi (1066278)]

How great is the pipeline?

If I have a server with example game running and it's calculating physics, can I then grab back that batch of models I sent off for physics and then send the updated coordinates to the players computers? Or is it just part of the graphics rendering pipeline?

Geographical Ramifications

[BeeBeard (999187)]

Does this mean that all boats on the Aegean Sea will now have to use proprietary rudders?

Talk about a niche market...

[WoTG (610710)]

When you can count the number of games that support hardware physics on one hand (actually I made that up, please correct me if I'm wrong), you can be pretty sure that there isn't much volume in the PPU market.

Heck, fewer and fewer PC's come with dedicated GPUs. Integrated video can now handle dual monitor output and HDTV decoding. It's only gamers and graphics designers who need them now.

Re:

[webmaster404 (1148909)]

I don't really think that all this will be better in the long run. While faster GPUs and better cards mean faster games, with all the DRM that Vista has it makes them more expensive and have poorer performance. Linux lacks in games to really test the cards out and getting drivers for ATI/Nvidia is a pain to say the least, and OS X really doesn't support non-apple internal hardware very well so that's not a test. Technology wise in the hardware department we are making leaps and bounds every day, however wit

Re:

[DAldredge (2353)]

What issues does Vista have with DRM when playing non-DRMed content?

Re:

[The Analog Kid (565327)]

Makes ya wonder what happened to OpenGL in the PC gaming market.

Maybe if OpenGL development was run as a dictatorship rather than an oligarchy, it would catch on. Right now it's lagging behind DirectX featurewise, because development by committee is slow.

Re:

[milsoRgen (1016505)]

Just look at Intel's rather quick turn around from the P4 to the Core architecture. They were headed down the same road GPU makers are going, yet reversed course. Sure it's mostly thanks to the Israeli development team that produced the Pentium M. Which was in turn based the Pentium 3. The fact of the matter is nVidia has shown time and time again they can make a killer product. I believe they could make a highly efficient CPU with performance to watt ratios well inline with current products. If not even be

Fab capability...

[Junta (36770)]

I would disagree with your characterization of the migration to P4 to core as 'quick'. I would also not declare Intel successfully turning around a product that was competitive across the board with AMD until Core 2, when they pulled in the good instruction per clock and the 64 bit instruction sets all together. It took years for Intel to develop something that *almost* completely dominates the AMD equivalents (one could still make a case for the AMD memory architecture at scale, which Intel will counter with QPI this year). And the clock didn't start ticking until AMD forced their hand.

If it takes a company like Intel years to crank out something like that, a company with debatably the top notch fabrication capabilities in the world, what are nVidia's chances, given that only now they are feasibly able to leverage 65 nm fabrication processes for manufacture of their chips. Fabrication processes aren't everything, but it is a decent indicator of how the cards would be stacked for nVidia going into that market.

I personally would love to see nVidia enter the market with a viable offering, if only because I fear AMD is blowing the situation and the market desperately needs comparable vendors to compete, but I'm not optimistic about nVidia's capabilities.

Re:

[mikael (484)]

I had the same problem with a latop - turns out the intake vent (on the underside of the laptop!) for the cooling fan was clogged with dust - using the narrow tip of vacuum cleaner cleaned out all that junk. No more "CPU is running in modulated mode" messages.

Re:

[mrchaotica (681592)]

Can't wait for DirectX 11(tm) Now with Fizziks Power (tm).

You say that sarcastically, but I actually would like to see something like "OpenPL" (Open Physics Language).

Re:

[Cornelius the Great (555189)]

Well, there's already Open Dynamics Engine [ode.org].