HD 4890 and GTX 275 Reviews [Archive]

onethreehill

04-10-2009, 12:29 AM

HD 4890 vs GTX 275 Reviews
http://techreport.com/articles.x/16681
http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3539
http://techgage.com/article/ati_radeon_hd_4890_nvidia_geforce_gtx_275/
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2344294,00.asp
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,680543/Review-Ati-Radeon-HD-4890-versus-Nvidia-Geforce-GTX-275/Reviews/
http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews.php?reviewid=745
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2009/04/03/radeon-hd-4890-vs-geforce-gtx-275/1
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=684
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/ati_radeon_4890_nvidia_geforce_gtx_275/
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=17863
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2344294,00.asp
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/944/1/

HD 4890 Reviews
http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=317&Itemid=72
http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=315&Itemid=72
http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-4890-review-test/
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/16365-sapphire-radeon-hd-4890-1gb-review.html
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Sapphire/HD_4890/
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/HD_4890/
http://xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/radeon-hd4890.html
http://en.expreview.com/2009/04/02/radeon-hd-4890-gets-reviewed.html
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/ATIHD4890launch/
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-4890,2262.html
http://www.elitebastards.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=703&Itemid=27
http://www.elitebastards.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=702&Itemid=27
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=17915

GTX 275 Reviews
http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-275-review-test/
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/16400-nvidia-geforce-gtx-275-896mb-review.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-275,2266.html
http://hothardware.com/Articles/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-275-Unveiled/
http://en.expreview.com/2009/04/03/geforce-gtx-275-review-arrives.html#more-2960
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_GTX_275_Amp_Edition/

HD 4890 Reviews (1GHz Core)
XFX HD 4890 Black Edition Review (1GHz Core/1GHz memory)
http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews.php?reviewid=797

Sapphire HD 4890 ATOMIC Review (1GHz Core/1.05GHz memory)
http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews.php?reviewid=794
http://www.cluboc.net/reviews/video/sapphire/hd4890_Atomic/p1.asp
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/sapphire_hd4890_atomic/

MSI Radeon 4890 Cyclone SOC Edition Review (1GHz Core/1GHz memory)
http://www.guru3d.com/article/msi-radeon-4890-cyclone-soc-review-1ghz/
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/HD_4890_Cyclone_SOC/

PowerColor Announces PCS++ HD4890 (1.01GHz Core/1.1GHz memory)
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=224450

IKIKUINTHENUTZ

04-10-2009, 12:31 AM

Good effort for compiling the list :up:

PS Is this your first post since the revival of XS?

Glow9

04-10-2009, 12:32 AM

does anyone have a list/ chart of which beat which in each review?

Bobsama

04-10-2009, 12:37 AM

:up: Thanks for the list. I've been out of the loop for 2 weeks.

W1zzard

04-10-2009, 12:37 AM

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/HD_4890/
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Sapphire/HD_4890/
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ATI/HD_4890_CrossFire/
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_GTX_275_Amp_Edition/

billdavis

04-10-2009, 12:57 AM

ahhh just happy to be back on this site

i also want some down and dirty crossfire vs sli benchmarks

XRogerX

04-10-2009, 01:03 AM

here some benchie in CF HERE

Well for the 4890 that is

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ATI/HD_4890_CrossFire

tenebre

04-10-2009, 01:23 AM

I'm waiting for dry ice benches!

downforce

04-22-2009, 06:13 AM

WOW, thanks!

I searched here first then was going to hit up Google. Who needs Google when you have XS!

I'm so torn between these atm!! Then have to decide on a FC block for the winner.

jam2k

04-22-2009, 07:35 AM

Computerbase (http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&js=n&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.computerbase.de%2Fartikel%2Fhar dware%2Fgrafikkarten%2F2009%2Ftest_ati_radeon_hd_4 890_nvidia_geforce_gtx_275%2F&sl=de&tl=en)

EniGmA1987

04-22-2009, 07:42 AM

so it looks like it is a matter of what games you play, but overall the GTX275 seems like it has a bit more muscle.

Russ_64

04-22-2009, 07:47 AM

As a folder these reviews convinced me to change from ATI to NV and for the cost I got 2 GTX260 - 216 cards for the price of 1 GTX285.

onethreehill

04-23-2009, 12:17 AM

Ultimate Heavy-Weight Fight: Radeon HD 4890 CrossFireX vs. GeForce GTX 285 SLI
http://xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/gtx285sli-hd4890cf.html

onethreehill

04-30-2009, 05:36 PM

PowerColor HD 4890 PCS Review

PowerColor is one of the first ATI AIBs to release their own HD 4890 design called HD 4890 PCS it features a non-reference cooler and custom PCB .

AMD has made clear that RV790 will have plenty of overclocking potential, so PowerColor went all out and is shipping their HD 4890 PCS with stock clocks of 950 MHz core and 1100 MHz memory. As cooler a solution from Zerotherm is used. Last but not least, the voltage controller design has been changed as well, most probably to reduce cost significantly. All this results in a card that will not cost more than most reference cards: $249 .........
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/HD_4890_PCS

perkam

04-30-2009, 06:12 PM

PowerColor HD 4890 PCS Review

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/HD_4890_PCSTwo of these in xfire will rock, especially since it is priced the same as reference cards.

Perkam

Macadamia

04-30-2009, 07:20 PM

Whoa. I want 1 now! :D

clayton

04-30-2009, 08:41 PM

here some benchie in CF HERE

Well for the 4890 that is

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ATI/HD_4890_CrossFire

Techpowerup is weird. They showed GTX 295 having the same powerconsumption as GTX 280, 285, and 260.

cegras

05-01-2009, 11:04 AM

http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3555&p=20

All but two.

That's how many benchmarks in which our 1GHz/1.2GHz (core/mem) Radeon HD 4890 lead the stock NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285. That's nothing to sneeze at. Certainly it doesn't mean that the 4890 is faster or better than the GTX 285, especially because the GTX 285 can be overclocked as well to improve performance. What this does mean is that for about $100 less we have the potential to achieve the stock performance of NVIDIA's flagship single GPU part with a highly overclocked AMD GPU. From an end user value perspective, that extra $100 is there to ensure you get at least the performance of the GTX 285 along with any potential overclocking benefits you might have from the higher end part. There is still reason to buy the GTX 285 if you need even more power. But this is quite intriguing from an architectural perspective.

These tests show that there is the potential for a 959 Million transistor AMD GPU to consistently outperform a 1.4 Billion transistor NVIDIA GPU in the same power envelope at 55nm with similar memory bandwidth.

Yields and business being what they are, it doesn't make sense for AMD to push out a part at the extreme clock speeds we tested. But from an engineering standpoint, even with the smaller die, less is more, multiGPU at the top end strategy, AMD has built a part that can (when overclocked) best the stock performance of top of the line NVIDIA hardware designed to pack as much power into a single GPU as possible.

And that seems pretty significant.

At the same time, while we don't have any solid standardized OpenCL tests to run as of yet, it appears from some limited applications like folding@home and others that NVIDIA's approach may be better suited to GPU computing or more general purpose or flexible applications beyond gaming. We can't really confirm this theory yet, as there isn't a wide enough range of GPU computing applications, but it might not be that NVIDIA has been pushing CUDA so hard because they know it to be an advantage, not just in terms of software support and a feature check box, but in terms of a fundamental performance or architectural edge for these algorithms. The architectural path NVIDIA has chosen may well prove useful when DX11 hits and we see a further push away from DX9 towards really deep programmability and flexibility. Only time will tell on that front, though.

In the meantime, NVIDIA's margins are much tighter on their larger GPUs and now their single GPU performance advantage has started to erode. It seems the wonders of the RV7xx series have yet to exhaust themselves. Competition is indeed a wonderful thing, and we can't wait to see what comes out of the upcoming DX11 hardware battle.

For now, at resolutions below 2560x1600, the Radeon HD 4890 has the advantage. At 2560x1600, the lines become a little more blurry. For stock hardware the GTX 285 is still the fastest thing around in most cases. But if you want to take your chances with overclocking, 30" gaming on a single AMD GPU just got a lot more potentially attractive.

Eastcoasthandle

05-02-2009, 09:39 AM

http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3555&p=20

That is an informative review.

CoolZone

05-02-2009, 11:05 AM

ATI Radeon HD 4890

http://pcshoptalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14324

ColonelCain

05-02-2009, 11:07 AM

That is an informative review.

I agree. :yepp:

They even acknowledged the fact that while an overclocked 4890 can beat a GTX285 in most tests, the GTX285 can be overclocked as well.

Manicdan

05-02-2009, 11:47 AM

its nuts when you compare a 4870 512MB to a 4890 OC, how much that one chip has grown this last year

onethreehill

05-04-2009, 02:45 AM

Sapphire HD 4890 Atomic Edition Review

The HD 4890 is a stout performer that puts a serious dent in the performance lead that Nvidia enjoys with the GTX 285. Rather than wait out the sales rush on the initial HD 4890, Sapphire has stepped up the HD 4890 to Atomic status with the usual items: in-house PCB design, better voltage regulation and improved looks, and most importantly the cooling improvements. The PCB is the light teal blue that lets you know this is not the reference PCB, but Sapphire's own design that usually incorporates better voltage regulation to drive performance higher. The Atomic uses the RV790 core with clock speeds bumped up to a massive 1GHz from the stock cards' 850MHz. The 1GB of GDDR5 memory sees a bump up from 975MHz to 1020 MHZ, nowhere near as significant as the increase in the core clock, but still a bump up nonetheless. The cooling solution looks very similar to what is on the HD 4870 1GB Toxic Edition, but the heatpipes do not extend as far from the fin array. The Atomic version is a dual-slot card, so it will indeed cover two slots on the motherboard, while only physically being in one slot. The front of the card is decorated with the "Atomic" and "Vapor-X" logos.
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/sapphire_hd4890_atomic/

Manicdan

05-04-2009, 06:40 AM

Sapphire HD 4890 Atomic Edition Review

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/sapphire_hd4890_atomic/

they dont go over the voltage needed to get that 1050mhz core OC, or what the voltage was at stock. and i dont see anything about temperature. its hard to tell how much OC room the card really has without those details.

Jimmer411

05-04-2009, 06:25 PM

Thanks for the reviews, looks like I have no reason to upgrade my 4870 this time around.

Glow9

05-05-2009, 01:55 PM

[T]ard put a good one out this week 4890 sadly on part with 4870 but the MSI GTX 260 does great

onethreehill

05-11-2009, 03:30 AM

Sapphire Radeon HD 4890 ATOMIC: 1,000MHz core - how fast is it?

We've now seen a steady trickle of partner-designed Radeon HD 4890 graphics cards be unveiled since the launch of the GPU five weeks ago. Radeon HD 4890s ships at either 850MHz core and 3,900MHz memory (XT), or 900MHz core and 3,900MHz (OC) and are available for around £200 for both models.

Sapphire has now unleashed a Radeon HD 4890 that it hopes will steal the thunder from rivals. Encased in a Vapor-X heatsink and pre-overclocked, the ATOMIC version of the card ships with a 1,000MHz core and 4,200MHz memory. The fastest HD 4890 of them all, does it provide good value at £250? We find out.
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=18359

acidpython

05-11-2009, 03:34 AM

Sapphire Radeon HD 4890 ATOMIC: 1,000MHz core - how fast is it?

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=18359

That's not horrible for a custom cooler + stock OC. Alas £50 is too dear for me.

Manicdan

05-11-2009, 09:00 AM

i dont know how accurate the prices are for US, the 4850x2 costs right around the same price as a 900mhz 4890. but overall a great review comparing the two finally. but still no word of what voltage the card runs at, the assume it was overvolted, but still no details. is it really that hard to find out? and at 9w above the stock 4890, sounds like they didnt overvolt, or the crazy good temps that cooler gives really helps with the power draw.

if i was buying a 4890, id go with this on, since the cooler looks to be top quality (not sure about noise), and id hope the voltage still has some room left to really see this ramp up past 1100mhz.

onethreehill

05-11-2009, 03:55 PM

PowerColor Liquid Cooled Radeon HD 4890 LCS

The PC scene is constantly evolving as businesses and individuals make use of next generation products that increase productivity or provide higher levels of entertainment. Bigger, better, faster - these are the insatiable desires of consumers. It doesn't matter if we're speaking of gigahertz or gigabytes, the demand endures and companies do their best to crank out sought after new technology.

As we're currently witnessing, competition for consumer dollars is fierce within respective markets and few can argue that there has never been a better time for those looking to buy. The Radeon HD 4890 is ATI's latest contender and we covered it extensively at launch. Now, overclocked variants of the videocard are rolling out with the goal of squeezing every last bit of performance from the RV790 GPU. Stock heatsinks do well to move the heat from the videocard at reference settings, but overclocking the core and memory quickly surpasses the threshold in which those heatsinks were designed for. That's where PowerColor's HD 4890 LCS liquid cooled videocard comes in. With factory overclocked speeds and increased cooling capability, let's find out what this card has to offer.
http://hothardware.com/Articles/PowerColor-Radeon-HD-4890-LCs/

perkam

05-11-2009, 04:01 PM

PowerColor Liquid Cooled Radeon HD 4890 LCS

http://hothardware.com/Articles/PowerColor-Radeon-HD-4890-LCs/They didn't add voltages to the card for extra overclock :stick:

Perkam

LordEC911

05-11-2009, 05:42 PM

They didn't add voltages to the card for extra overclock :stick:

Perkam

Were does it say these used stock volts?
PCS is notorious for using non-reference voltage to net stable factory overclocks.

onethreehill

05-12-2009, 10:18 PM

Inno3D iChill GTX275 Review
http://www.overclockersclub.com/siteimages/articles/inno3d_ichill_gtx275/stp66498_thumb.jpg
http://www.overclockersclub.com/siteimages/articles/inno3d_ichill_gtx275/stp66554_thumb.jpg
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/inno3d_ichill_gtx275/

onethreehill

05-13-2009, 03:03 AM

GeForce GTX 295 Vs. GTX 275 SLI: When Two Are Better Than One

he GeForce GTX 275, launched last month, gives us an opportunity to run some interesting thought experiments using Nvidia’s SLI multi-GPU rendering technology.

You see, the graphics processor driving the GTX 275—a 55nm mash-up somewhere between the GeForce GTX 280 and 260—sports the same configuration found in the company’s GeForce GTX 295 (doubled, of course). By putting a pair of GTX 275s up against a GTX 295, we’re essentially able to test one graphics solution operating over the throughput of a single 16-lane PCI Express 2.0 slot against the same arrangement running across two x16 slots.

With all of the core, shader, and memory clocks set to the same frequencies, the only real variable here would seem to be the amount of PCI Express bandwidth available to your SLI setup. In both situations, separate PCBs are attached with Nvidia’s SLI connector. But the story isn’t quite that simple and, as we’ll see in the benchmarks, the performance results don’t always reflect an advantage in one direction or the other.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-sli,2298.html

onethreehill

05-25-2009, 10:09 PM

GeForce GTX 275 Roundup (Gigabyte, EVGA, MSI, Sparkle, BFG)

The GTX 275 was released a short while ago and while it was in short supply, it can now be found everywhere. With sales of these cards happening on a nearly weekly basis, what better time would there be to do a roundup? Today we look a products from EVGA, BFG, Sparkle, Gigabyte and MSI. A total of SIX GTX 275s passed through the wringer before the dust settled.
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/18235-geforce-gtx-275-roundup-gigabyte-evga-msi-sparkle-bfg.html

SKYMTL

05-25-2009, 10:23 PM

Man OTH, you are inhumanly fast...

Kuroimaho

05-25-2009, 11:28 PM

Well you have rss on the site, anyway at the spec you wrote Mhz instead of MB in most of the memory fields. Otherwise well done.

onethreehill

05-26-2009, 02:49 AM

Sapphire Radeon HD 4890 1GB Atomic Review
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2009/05/26/sapphire-radeon-hd-4890-1gb-atomic-review/1

SKYMTL

05-26-2009, 05:19 AM

Well you have rss on the site, anyway at the spec you wrote Mhz instead of MB in most of the memory fields. Otherwise well done.

:D. That's what I get when I copy / paste. I should know better by now.

perkam

05-26-2009, 05:30 AM

Sapphire Radeon HD 4890 1GB Atomic Review
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2009/05/26/sapphire-radeon-hd-4890-1gb-atomic-review/1Another review that shows that when AA and AF are turned on at high resolutions, the 4890 OC beats the 285.

Perkam

SKYMTL

05-26-2009, 05:51 AM

Another review that shows that when AA and AF are turned on at high resolutions, the 4890 OC beats the 285.

Perkam

And priced at $40 - $50 USD less than a stock GTX 285 as well. Not bad at all.

Talonman

05-26-2009, 08:14 AM

Sapphire Radeon HD 4890 1GB Atomic Review
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2009/05/26/sapphire-radeon-hd-4890-1gb-atomic-review/1

Sapphire Radeon HD 4890 1GB Atomic operating at 1000/4,200MHz using Catalyst 9.4 WHQL
"ramped the GPU core speed up from an already impressive 850MHz to a mighty 1GHz, a whopping 17 per cent increase.
As well as upping the core clock by 150MHz Sapphire has also upped the memory clock from 975MHz (3,900MHz effective) to 1,050MHz (4,200MHz), just shy of an eight percent increase over the stock speed."

* Nvidia GeForce GTX 275 896MB – operating at 633/1,404/2,268MHz using Forceware 185.68 WHQL
(A bone stock 275 runs at 633/1404/2268)

* Nvidia GeForce GTX 285 1GB – operating at 648/1,476/2,2484MHz using Forceware 185.68 WHQL
(A bone stock 285 runs at 648/1467/2448)

The Atomic -vs- bone stock Nvidia

Crysis goes to the 285. (Both high and very high settings)...

Fallout3 goes to the Atomic.

Far Cry 2 goes to the Atomic. (both DX9 and DX10)

Call of Duty goes to the 285.

STALKER goes to the Atomic

GRID goes to the Atomic.

Folding @ Home goes to the 285.

I wish they would have cranked the Core, Shaders, and Memory up some, on the Nvidia cards...

Nvidia might have came out on top more?

spursindonesia

05-26-2009, 08:49 AM

What's the OC ceiling of these 1 Gigz HD 4890s ? Using stock cooling and good PSU ?

Manicdan

05-26-2009, 09:14 AM

in the last review it was very limited, but they again, never mention the voltages applied, so i really dont know the answer.

JH_man

05-27-2009, 05:01 AM

Sapphire Radeon HD 4890 Vapor-X 1GB video card review (http://www.elitebastards.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=720&Itemid=27)

JH_man

dan7777

05-27-2009, 05:14 AM

Sapphire Radeon HD 4890 Vapor-X 1GB video card review (http://www.elitebastards.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=720&Itemid=27)

JH_man

from that review not much difference if any from the standard 4890 to this- vapor-x does the odd fps warrant the price ???

JH_man

05-27-2009, 05:27 AM

from that review not much difference if any from the standard 4890 to this- vapor-x does the odd fps warrant the price ???

There is a big difference; take a look at the ports. Its aimed at a different market/target.

The question is more; will the upcomming HD 4890 Toxic Edition be of any point? Its a lower clocked Atomic version...

JH_man

dan7777

05-27-2009, 05:31 AM

your opinion ive just read review and ok 10% performance increase maybe warrant the price im guna hold out for the big 1 300 series dx11 then we will see crysis wars shine :)

dan7777

05-27-2009, 05:44 AM

ordered a 4890 tie me over till crimbo

Talonman

05-27-2009, 07:09 AM

Sapphire Radeon HD 4890 1GB Atomic Review
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2009/05/26/sapphire-radeon-hd-4890-1gb-atomic-review/1

In that review, the Vantage FPS are low...

Jane Nash = 29.6 FPS

New Calico = 29.75 FPS

AI Test = N/A

Physics Test = N/A

Texture Fill rate 907.3

Color Fill rate = 6.33 GPixels/s

Pixel Shader = ???

Stream Out (flags) = 24.84

GPU Particles = ???

Perlin Noise = 61.86

With my single 280, I scored:
Talonman ------------- Q6600@ 3.84GHz ----- 280 756/1566/1350 ----- P16,170
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dmv=773418

Jane Nash = 39.68 FPS

New Calico = 38.17 FPS

AI Test = 1834.43 Operations/s

Physics Test = 175.18 Operations/s

Texture Fill rate 843.24 GTexels/s

Color Fill rate = 8.18 GPixels/s

Pixel Shader = 38.81 FPS

Stream Out (flags) = 34.54

GPU Particles = 45.44

Perlin Noise = 44.26

A Single 260 gets:
427jmf ------------------ i7 920@ 4.24GHz ------- C @ 786/1600/1276 ----- P15,211
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dmv=1068524

Jane Nash = 36.65 FPS

New Calico = 35.04 FPS

I would have thought the 1GB Atomic would have done better?

perkam

05-27-2009, 07:20 AM

*snip*

I would have thought the 1GB Atomic would have done better?Vantage is Nvidia ballpark and it doesn't represent actual performance.

Here is actual performance prowess of a 1Ghz 4890 from the Bit Tech review:

http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/2350/farcr1920atomic.jpg

The HD 4890 1Ghz is a 1920 AA/AF monster. Even if it loses to the 285 in 2560 res it ends up on top in 1920 res.

Perkam

Talonman

05-27-2009, 07:24 AM

I thought Vantage was only in Nvidia's ballpark in PhysX.

I didn't know Jane Nash, and New Calico were too. :)

Odd he selected that program to show off the GPU then.

Beefy22

05-27-2009, 07:32 AM

Another review that shows that when AA and AF are turned on at high resolutions, the 4890 OC beats the 285.

Perkam

I don't believe AF has any noticeable impact on performance with respect to nvidia based cards... AA is another story altogether though. BTW, if you're going to keep mentioning AF as a problem for nvidia based cards, could you at least provide some proof(IE 0xAA, 8-16xAF)?

I recently bought a xfx 4890 and the biggest difference between it and my 8800gts(G92)? AA. The GTS could run all the games I played @ 1920x1200 on high with max AF, but if enabled AA(beyond 2x) always slaughtered FPS. 4890 on the other hand, same settings, but this time 4-8xAA smooth as silk. :)

The only (quasi)negative I can think of is the fan on this beast, @ 40% it sounds like the GTS's fan @ ~90%. Still, at least it keeps the card cool.

As for IQ, both camps seem very competitive.

Kuroimaho

05-27-2009, 08:57 AM

Vantage is Nvidia ballpark and it doesn't represent actual performance.

Here is actual performance prowess of a 1Ghz 4890 from the Bit Tech review:

http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/2350/farcr1920atomic.jpg

The HD 4890 1Ghz is a 1920 AA/AF monster. Even if it loses to the 285 in 2560 res it ends up on top in 1920 res.

Perkam

So if it is OCd to 1G it can match the stock 285... :shocked:

perkam

05-27-2009, 09:46 AM

So if it is OCd to 1G it can match the stock 285... :shocked:Yes. I've been trying to get that point across for a little while now :p:

Perkam

Talonman

05-27-2009, 12:07 PM

I would say it depends on what program we are talking about. :)

JH_man

05-27-2009, 06:38 PM

One more Vapor-X review (http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,685395/Sapphire-Radeon-HD-4890-Vapor-X-reviewed/Reviews/)

JH_man

tajoh111

05-27-2009, 09:44 PM

Yes. I've been trying to get that point across for a little while now :p:

Perkam

What the heck perkam? In that same graph, isn't the gtx 275 faster than the 4890, even if its just a smidge. You can't compare the overclock score to the regular score of a gtx 285. We are comparing an 4890 atomic edition which is considerably more expensive than the standard 4890. I can't get my powercolor 4890 stable entirely at 950mhz. Thats with 100% fan and a scythe 3000rpm 133cfm blowing 8C air on top.

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,685395/Sapphire-Radeon-HD-4890-Vapor-X-reviewed/Reviews/
The above model has the vapor x cooler and they still get it to 970 only.

1000mhz is not easy at all to get on the 4890s.

Sure the gtx 285 is not the greatest value, but the gtx 275 is just a good a value as the 4890.

Whats with the 4890 promoting Perkam?

randomizer

05-27-2009, 09:55 PM

What the heck perkam? In that same graph, isn't the gtx 275 faster than the 4890, even if its just a smidge.

Stock 4890 matches the GTX275. OCed it matches the GTX285. Not that hard to see.

onethreehill

05-27-2009, 10:25 PM

Gigabyte GV-N275UD-896H GeForce GTX 275 Review

With its 2-ounce copper PCB and 1200MHz memory, Gigabyte's GV-N275UD-896H is one of the first GeForce GTX 275 cards on the market to deviate from NVIDA's reference design
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/gigabyte_gv-n275ud-896h_geforce_gtx_275_review/

Kuroimaho

05-27-2009, 10:36 PM

Yes. I've been trying to get that point across for a little while now :p:

Perkam

I see, then look another interesting one. OCd 260 tops the 4890 Link. (http://hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTY0MSw2LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==) :p:

Whats with the 4890 promoting Perkam?

Been wondering about that as well.

tajoh111

05-27-2009, 11:07 PM

Stock 4890 matches the GTX275. OCed it matches the GTX285. Not that hard to see.

But this is the thing, he promoting the 4890 like its the greatest thing since slice bread. The thing is although the 4890 can beat a gtx 285 when overclocked, however, its obvious that a gtx 275 can do the same. However, the gtx275 always not even mentioned in his post and thus by default, the recommendation goes to the 4890. It should also be inherently obvious although he never mentions it, that a gtx 285 OC can likely beat a OC 4890.

And atleast in Canada, a highly overclocked 4890, cost as much as an overclocked gtx 285.

This is the closest thing I can find to a 1000mhz 4890(its a 950)
http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131156&nm_mc=OTC-sho6b0tCA&cm_mmc=OTC-sho6b0tCA-_-Video+Cards-_-Powercolor-_-14131156
And its at its cheapest price. 330.

This is a OC gtx 285 its 333(with a rebate)
http://www.directcanada.com/products/?sku=23310BD0106&vpn=BFGEGTX2851024OCE&manufacture=BFG

These super overclocked 4890 lose much of their value because they so closely priced to the gtx 285.

Additionally, he keeps on posting xbitlabs links, which writes very pro AMD reviews(which can be objectively proved), and uses a AA method(which no other site uses and they are criticized for it) which penalizes NV cards more.

Perkam a good guy, but lately, he been posting a little too much hd4890 stuff, some of it being misleading.

JH_man

05-28-2009, 02:16 AM

It also has to do with price. In Norway the 285 cost 50% more then the 4890 (stock vs stock). After what I can see of the hyper-x prices etc, it dont look to me the Atomic prices will be much higher then stock, since hyper-x is basicly at sale for stock prices, so Atomic will be a bit higher.

Nvidia si simply priceing the cards out of the ballpark, or to say it another way; AMD is most likely able to make the cards cheaper due to smaller chips (less transistors) etc.

There is simply no way I would get a 285 for 50% higher price then a 4890.

JH_man

dan7777

05-28-2009, 02:23 AM

Talonman

05-28-2009, 02:32 AM

Stock 4890 matches the GTX275. OCed it matches the GTX285. Not that hard to see.

Yes, and OC the 285 too, and bye bye 4890... :woot:

randomizer

05-28-2009, 02:57 AM

Yes, and OC the 285 too, and bye bye 4890... :woot:

Here the GTX285 is ~$150 more, I'd expect it to beat the 4890 :ROTF:

dan7777

05-28-2009, 03:42 AM

with the 285 overclcoked it wont beat out the 4890 by that much and that extra cash can almost buy ya anthor 4890 cf bye bye 285

spursindonesia

05-28-2009, 04:13 AM

In my country, HD 4890 price is around 5-10% cheaper than GTX 275, so the value still tops nVidia's offering.

cowie

05-28-2009, 04:18 AM

But this is the thing, he promoting the 4890 like its the greatest thing since slice bread. The thing is although the 4890 can beat a gtx 285 when overclocked, however, its obvious that a gtx 275 can do the same. However, the gtx275 always not even mentioned in his post and thus by default, the recommendation goes to the 4890. It should also be inherently obvious although he never mentions it, that a gtx 285 OC can likely beat a OC 4890.

And atleast in Canada, a highly overclocked 4890, cost as much as an overclocked gtx 285.

This is the closest thing I can find to a 1000mhz 4890(its a 950)
http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131156&nm_mc=OTC-sho6b0tCA&cm_mmc=OTC-sho6b0tCA-_-Video+Cards-_-Powercolor-_-14131156
And its at its cheapest price. 330.

This is a OC gtx 285 its 333(with a rebate)
http://www.directcanada.com/products/?sku=23310BD0106&vpn=BFGEGTX2851024OCE&manufacture=BFG

These super overclocked 4890 lose much of their value because they so closely priced to the gtx 285.

Additionally, he keeps on posting xbitlabs links, which writes very pro AMD reviews(which can be objectively proved), and uses a AA method(which no other site uses and they are criticized for it) which penalizes NV cards more.

Perkam a good guy, but lately, he been posting a little too much hd4890 stuff, some of it being misleading.
my volt modded 275(780/1300)24/7really games about 2-3 fps over my volt modded 4890(1000/1180) 24/7.
its just that when people see a crappy game(most all new games IMHO) that has 1 -2 fps more on ethier card they call a winner.:rolleyes:

one game the 4890 smacks aruond the 275 is fm 03.... by lots too.::yepp:
as for price,easy the 4890 might be a better price to performance winner costing 20-30 u.s.d cheaper.

Talonman

05-28-2009, 04:49 AM

Here the GTX285 is ~$150 more, I'd expect it to beat the 4890 :ROTF:

Yes, but we aren't talking price, we are trying to pass off the 4890, as if it can run with a 285... Gasp!!

Bad info in my book. :yepp:

I bet an OC'ed 260 would give it a run for it's money...

It will in Jane Nash, and New Calico, Crysis, and I bet lots of others too...

In that review, the Vantage FPS are low...

Jane Nash = 29.6 FPS

New Calico = 29.75 FPS

A Single 260 gets:
427jmf ------------------ i7 920@ 4.24GHz ------- C @ 786/1600/1276 ----- P15,211
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dmv=1068524

Jane Nash = 36.65 FPS

New Calico = 35.04 FPS

I would have thought the 1GB Atomic would have done better?

It would have to be a program that ATI does extra well on, to keep things close.

perkam

05-28-2009, 09:56 AM

I see, then look another interesting one. OCd 260 tops the 4890 That's a 4870 m8, not 4890 ;)

Secondly, Bit Tech, Xbit, Anandtech and many others have shown the OCed 4890 @ 1Ghz beating the GTX 285 for $$ less. Heck, when Xbit Labs did their 4890 Crossfire review, they didn't even choose the 275, they went directly to the 285 SLI and the 4890 Xfire came to within 0.6% performance of 285 SLI. I give credit where its due gentlemen, and when I see not one, not two, not three but numerous review sites showing upwards of 20% increases in performance with the 1Ghz 4890, I call it like I see it ;)

Obviously performance goes up and down with each game application, but the 4890 and the 1Ghz models have been consistently strong at 1920 with high AA and AF, with the 285 getting ahead at 2560 resolution. The GTX 275 is a good card, so is the 285, but the 4890 1Ghz is right in the middle and is the best of both worlds at the moment.

@ Talonman:

This is XtremeSystems. ALL the ATI WRs being broken right now are with the 4890s, whereas all the Nvidia WRs are still being broken by the 295.

Every wonder why ;)

Perkam

Talonman

05-28-2009, 10:07 AM

That's a 4870 m8, not 4890 ;)

when Xbit Labs did their 4890 Crossfire review, they didn't even choose the 275, they went directly to the 285 SLI and the 4890 Xfire came to within 0.6% performance of 285 SLI.
Perkam

Any chance they OC'ed the 4890's, and ran the 285 bone stock too, like the other 'test'? ;)

perkam

05-28-2009, 10:10 AM

Any chance they OC'ed the 4890's, and ran the 285 bone stock too, like the other 'test'? ;)A. I don't make big posts very often, so it'd be nice if you could respond to the ENTIRE post.

B. If they thought that the 275 OC was enough to match the 4890 OC, they would have chose it, but they didn't, they went straight to the 285.

Obviously, I'm not the only one doing the 285 vs 1Ghz 4890 scenario, its an entire group of reviewers thinking the same thing m8.

Perkam

Talonman

05-28-2009, 10:58 AM

That's a 4870 m8, not 4890 ;)

Secondly, Bit Tech, Xbit, Anandtech and many others have shown the OCed 4890 @ 1Ghz beating the GTX 285 for $$ less. Heck, when Xbit Labs did their 4890 Crossfire review, they didn't even choose the 275, they went directly to the 285 SLI and the 4890 Xfire came to within 0.6% performance of 285 SLI. I give credit where its due gentlemen, and when I see not one, not two, not three but numerous review sites showing upwards of 20% increases in performance with the 1Ghz 4890, I call it like I see it ;)

Obviously performance goes up and down with each game application, but the 4890 and the 1Ghz models have been consistently strong at 1920 with high AA and AF, with the 285 getting ahead at 2560 resolution. The GTX 275 is a good card, so is the 285, but the 4890 1Ghz is right in the middle and is the best of both worlds at the moment.

@ Talonman:

This is XtremeSystems. ALL the ATI WRs being broken right now are with the 4890s, whereas all the Nvidia WRs are still being broken by the 295.

Every wonder why ;)

Perkam

Sorry...

I don't know what to say as to why they went directly to the stock clocked 285 SLI's. I am guessing they think it would look better if they could show any 4890 beating a more expensive 285 in any scinareo... Not sure.

As to the 295 holding all speed records, I totally agree with you, and that is why I have one myself.

I know you aren't the one setting up OC 4890 speed tests, running against a stock 285. :)

I just say run both at stock setting, and let the chips fall where they may.

perkam

05-28-2009, 11:09 AM

I just say run both at stock setting, and let the chips fall where they may.I'm afraid that is YOUR outlook.

The stock 4890 and the OC 4890 is a SEPARATE card, and a SEPARATE product. If you had to manually OC a 4890 and then compare with a GTX 285 then you're right, but when it comes pre-OCed then the user does not have to manually OC it and thus 1Ghz is the STOCK speed of the card. Here:

Regular 4890: STOCK SPEEDS: 850/975
4890 OC: STOCK SPEEDS: 1,000/1,100

See my point. They are two different products, and the 4890 OC is a great product when compared to the 285 ;)

Perkam

Talonman

05-28-2009, 11:13 AM

I'm afraid that is YOUR outlook.

The stock 4890 and the OC 4890 is a SEPARATE card, and a SEPARATE product. If you had to manually OC a 4890 and then compare with a GTX 285 then you're right, but when it comes pre-OCed then the user does not have to manually OC it and thus 1Ghz is the STOCK speeds of the card. Here:

Regular 4890: STOCK SPEEDS: 850/975
4890 OC: STOCK SPEEDS: 1,000/1,100

See my point. They are two different products, and the 4890 OC is a great product when compared to the 285 ;)

Perkam

So running against a 285 FTW would have been a good test too. :)

perkam

05-28-2009, 11:14 AM

So running against a 285 FTW would have been a good test too. :)Go right ahead.

Once we see the results between OC 4890 and GTX 285 FTW, we'll do a price/performance see which one's better :)

Perkam

Talonman

05-28-2009, 11:16 AM

Well if we are going to switch gears and go price... you win.

I was only talking pure performance.

It is a good bang for the buck card. I wouldn't even kid about that. :up:

perkam

05-28-2009, 11:18 AM

Well if we are going to switch gears and go price... you win.

I was only talking pure performance.

It is a good bang for the buck card. I wouldn't even kid about that. :up:Well you could compare the 295 to the 4890 and Ofcourse the 295 is faster :p:

The point is, within the same price range.

Oh and...Holy Hell 0_o: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130496&Tpk=gtx%20285%20ftw

Should be called Price gouging FTW.

Perkam

Talonman

05-28-2009, 11:22 AM

Quality GPU's that run both Graphics anf PhysX, dont come cheep! :)

Also the EVGA brand with Step Up option...

Service and support from EVGA is second to none...

Able to replace the stock cooling, and still have warranty in tact...

All extra $$$, but worth it to some. (Like me) :D

SKYMTL

05-28-2009, 11:32 AM

Canadian pricing for a GTX 275 FTW is within the same range as the HD 4890 1Ghz in the US.

FTW: http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130479&nm_mc=OTC-Pr1c3canadaCA&cm_mmc=OTC-Pr1c3canadaCA-_-Video+Cards-_-EVGA-_-14130479

HD 4890 1Ghz in USD: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102839

The correct pricing makes the Sapphire HD 4890 Atomic 1Ghz the same price or slightly higher than the EVGA GTX 275 FTW yet performance is pretty much the same.

perkam

05-28-2009, 11:35 AM

Canadian pricing for a GTX 275 FTW is within the same range as the HD 4890 1Ghz in the US.

FTW: http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130479&nm_mc=OTC-Pr1c3canadaCA&cm_mmc=OTC-Pr1c3canadaCA-_-Video+Cards-_-EVGA-_-14130479The link I have was 285 FTW, sky, not 275 FTW.

The price is correct. Here is the Canadian price for the 285 FTW: http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130496&Tpk=gtx%20285%20ftw

Perkam

SKYMTL

05-28-2009, 11:47 AM

The link I have was 285 FTW, sky, not 275 FTW.

The price is correct. Here is the Canadian price for the 285 FTW: http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130496&Tpk=gtx%20285%20ftw

Perkam

Somehow you replied in the 30 seconds it took me to edit my post. :up:

perkam

05-28-2009, 12:20 PM

Somehow you replied in the 30 seconds it took me to edit my post. :up:Well. If Bachus is called the Blitz Mod, then I guess you can call me "Speed Poster". I'll even talk like in the cartoon :p:

Perkam

SKYMTL

05-28-2009, 01:05 PM

Yeah, after benching the GTX 275 FTW for the Roundup, yesterday I started the HD 4890 roundup. I kept the GTX 275 FTW in the charts and the Atomic lines up with it very well performance-wise.

Talonman

05-28-2009, 01:20 PM

Throw a PhysX game in there too...

No site has the gonads to do that.

Be the first.

SKYMTL

05-28-2009, 01:52 PM

Throw a PhysX game in there too...

No site has the gonads to do that.

Be the first.

There are some sites that do.

We don't do it because none of us has played a PhysX title that is worth the disk it was printed on. Mirror's Edge is the lone exception but in its non-PhysX form it is hardly that demanding on GPUs. What else is there? Bionic Commando? Sacred 2? Warmonger? Ugh. :shrug:

At this point everyone already knows how non-Nvidia cards will be absolutely crippled by PhysX implementation so I don't really see the need to beat a dead horse.

If one of these days a game is released with PhysX that is worth playing for more than 5 minutes, it will be included. Until then, they will all get lumped into one PhysX article that will be released when it is ready.

Talonman

05-28-2009, 01:55 PM

Cryostasys...

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1420948

A good read, written by a smart guy. :up:

perkam

05-28-2009, 03:02 PM

Throw a PhysX game in there too...

No site has the gonads to do that.

Be the first.I agree :)

Let's have Physx on for Nvidia cards and DX10.1 on for ATI cards for people to make their own buying decisions :)

Remember though that both will be deemed useless by DX11, which will have performance optimizations and its own built in physics API.

Perkam

Talonman

05-28-2009, 03:05 PM

perkam

05-28-2009, 03:09 PM

Super idea...

Lets see what makes the better gaming experience. :yepp:

I also like the fact that when you buy a 300 and use it for Graphics, you can still use your 280 for dedicated PhysX.

Then Nvidia still has the best of both worlds.

What will ATI do then. :ROTF:Tell their customers that they'll do their physics on GPU just fine like the rest of the DX 11 cards? :shrug:

Buying an extra card for Physx has never taken off now. What makes you think it will take off with DX 11 cards?

Perkam

Talonman

05-28-2009, 03:12 PM

I will believe it when I see it... :p:

Will the largest game makers in the world, who are currently making PhysX games for Nvidia, even work their magic with DX11 physics?

Probably not. ATI will have to do some leg work to get some people on the physics train too.

FYI - PhysX is currently the only multi-threaded physics solution.

"Buying an extra card for Physx has never taken off now. What makes you think it will take off with DX 11 cards?"

1 - It takes time to develop quality games... Nvidia hasent had PhysX that long... They will arrive.

2 - Animal speed that a dedicated PhysX card brings, that gives you higher FPS in PhysX games, faster video transcoding, better performance in folding, and probably the 3D glasses too.

grimREEFER

05-28-2009, 03:24 PM

in the long run, when dx11 cards come out, the differences between the gtx275 and 4890 are gonna seem so minuscule when they themselves are getting dwarfed.

randomizer

05-28-2009, 05:04 PM

1 - It takes time to develop quality games...

Yea, in the last 5 years almost nothing has come out. And for 3D Realms 12 years wasn't enough.

Talonman

05-28-2009, 05:09 PM

More bad info... :down:

Nvidia hasen't had PhysX for 5 years...

Agiea runing the show was a joke. Check your info.

Let me help you out... :)

Author: Josh Walrath
Date: Feb 04, 2008
Subject: Graphics Card
Manufacturer: NVIDIA

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=515

perkam

05-28-2009, 05:14 PM

Talonman

05-28-2009, 05:15 PM

Still not 5 years...

Thanks for more conformation. :cool:

randomizer

05-28-2009, 05:16 PM

Nvidia hasen't had PhysX for 5 years...

I never said they did.

Talonman

05-28-2009, 05:19 PM

1 - It takes time to develop quality games... Nvidia hasent had PhysX that long... They will arrive.

Well I did, so I don't know who you were talking to then... odd!

randomizer

05-28-2009, 05:21 PM

Look at my quote. I was specifically targeting the comment on time to develop quality games. It doesn't matter if they have PhysX or not, most games just plain suck.

Talonman

05-28-2009, 05:25 PM

Look at my quote. I was specifically targeting the comment on time to develop quality games. It doesn't matter if they have PhysX or not, most games just plain suck.

With Ageia at the helm, and no big name software support...

And your surprised with it running on their slow PPU...

List the companies that wrote games for them.

perkam

05-28-2009, 05:31 PM

Take it to PM you two :stick:

Anandtech's poll is VERY interesting:

http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/3167/physxpopularity.jpg

And what is surprising to see is that the majority of those who responded were in fact Nvidia users:

http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/1737/physxnvidia.jpg

Perkam

Talonman

05-28-2009, 05:44 PM

Your telling me to take it to PM, and posting a poor PhysX poll? :mad:

What PhysX games were they playing when that valuable poll was made?

"Before we get to the questions, last week saw the announcement of several upcoming titles that will support PhysX:

Terminator Salvation
Dark Void
Darkest of Days
U-Wars"

At least they know the modern games are being made...

Kuroimaho

05-28-2009, 07:34 PM

That's a 4870 m8, not 4890 ;)

Ah really try to take a look again, a few more times...
Apparently you are so blinded by fanboyism you can't even read anymore, or you only see what you want to see.

http://hardocp.com/images/articles/1240554049SFszCnrmRW_6_3.gif

BababooeyHTJ

05-28-2009, 07:57 PM

I have owned either a GTX260 or 280 since Nvidia started with this physix crap and have never played a game that uses physix and don't have an urge to pick up any game that uses it. Mirrors edge sounds like a bore fest and Cryostasis dosen't sound much better. All Physix did was bug up Nvidias drivers for MONTHS. Physix is a joke that will NEVER take off. I'll pick up one of those stupid Killer NIC cards before I buy a dedicated Physix card. Ambient Occlusion is a bigger deal to me than Physix and I have only used that once but it was pretty cool.

perkam

05-28-2009, 08:04 PM

Apparently you are so blinded by fanboyism you can't even read anymore, or you only see what you want to seeI don't respond to posts like that m8. You should know better.

@ babbaloey, I agree. I believe the next step in the evolution of gaming is not in the hands of the hardware makers, but in the hands of the software developers. Crysis is merely one small step in the history books. The only game that might show new breakthroughs graphics wise on the PC in 2009 would probably be Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising, if what I've seen from the previews ends up in the final game:

http://xbox360media.ign.com/xbox360/image/article/987/987329/operation-flashpoint-dragon-rising--20090528053041517_640w.jpg
http://xbox360media.ign.com/xbox360/image/article/980/980730/operation-flashpoint-dragon-rising--20090507113750456_640w.jpg
http://xbox360media.ign.com/xbox360/image/article/987/987329/operation-flashpoint-dragon-rising--20090528053038845_640w.jpg

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/welcome-to-operation-flashpoint/48947 :up:

Perkam

_galactic_

05-28-2009, 08:20 PM

Ah really try to take a look again, a few more times...
Apparently you are so blinded by fanboyism you can't even read anymore, or you only see what you want to see.

http://hardocp.com/images/articles/1240554049SFszCnrmRW_6_3.gif

Please look again, that farking GTX260 will beat even the GTX275 due to its clockspeed.

http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1034057786&postcount=7

Both the 4870 and GTX 260 are overclocked. When we setup this review initially prices were different, for one the GTX 260 wasn't as cheap. One thing we wanted to know was how an OC 4870 would compare to a 4890, since the only difference is clock speed. Obviously the 4890 will far surpass the 4870 if overclocked itself to 1GHz+. But at stock frequencies, we wanted to show that comparison. Our ASUS 4890 we used in this evaluation uses AMD stock frequencies, most sites used the OC SKU 4890, which has higher clolcks.

This was pretty much are last look at the 4870 and GTX 260 cards, we've done them to death, we'll be moving forward with 4890, GTX 275 and 4770 evaluations from here. We will be taking a look at an XFX and a highly overclockable ASUS 4890 we hope to see big returns on when overclocking past 1GHz.

randomizer

05-28-2009, 08:44 PM

Posting results from [H] throws credibility out the window.

Kuroimaho

05-28-2009, 08:51 PM

I don't respond to posts like that m8. You should know better.

Should have done that in your previous reply as well, would have been less lame.

SKYMTL

05-28-2009, 09:27 PM

The only game that might show new breakthroughs graphics wise on the PC in 2009 would probably be Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising, if what I've seen from the previews ends up in the final game:

Perkam

Graphics breakthroughs and PS3 / XBox 360 port are mutually exclusive IMO. There is nothing there which is even close to the quality of Far Cry2 or Crysis.

perkam

05-28-2009, 09:44 PM

Graphics breakthroughs and PS3 / XBox 360 port are mutually exclusive IMO. There is nothing there which is even close to the quality of Far Cry2 or Crysis.I know :( But I can dream can't he :cry:

Actually the game's based on the GRID engine, but modified for FPS and it may very well be the most realistic military FPS sim to date.

Perkam

spursindonesia

05-29-2009, 01:33 AM

I personally consider Phsyx GPU acceleration and DX 10.1 as gimmick, and anybody who's putting too much weight on either of them as FANBOYS themselves. I only take notice to hardware accelerated physic solution that works on ALL IHVs (including Intel too), and DX API that's supported by all players.

Talonman

05-29-2009, 01:59 AM

I have owned either a GTX260 or 280 since Nvidia started with this physix crap and have never played a game that uses physix and don't have an urge to pick up any game that uses it.

For a guy that has never played a PhysX game, you have some strong opinions.

Maybe you should try Cryostasys? I love the game.

STaRGaZeR

05-29-2009, 05:33 AM

Graphics breakthroughs and PS3 / XBox 360 port are mutually exclusive IMO. There is nothing there which is even close to the quality of Crysis.

Fixed. Far Cry 2 is not quality. It's a blurred, HDR'ed, unfocused, brown piece of crap.

SKYMTL

05-29-2009, 06:53 AM

I personally consider Phsyx GPU acceleration and DX 10.1 as gimmick,

To a certain extent, I beg to differ about these being gimmicks.

While you will find me to be a VERY large opponent to the current crop of PhysX games, I find that the overall goal of PhysX and other physics APIs has merit. Why? Because at this point the majority of the games out there will continue to be co-developed for multiple platforms. This means that the graphics themselves are usually designed to perform well with the current crop of consoles and (even with graphical tweaks) a modern PC will have no issue handling them. Sure there are some exceptions but they seem to be few and far between these days. Case and point; check out the first 10 pages of PC trailers on Gametrailers.com, it's brutal other than Diablo III.

What I am trying to say here is that due to the fact that the next generation of consoles isn't due out until 2011 / 2012, the graphics quality of many future PC games could very well be based on those from consoles that are 5-6 years old. A 2012 release date could mean graphical stagnation for another 3 years. Both Nvidia and ATI have saw this long ago and have worked pretty hard to make sure their GPUs would be more than graphics crunching machines. Hence why you see Nvidia pimping CUDA so much and to a lesser extent ATI pushes their Stream GPGPU technology.

So where does that leave PC gamers? Considering our technological advantage over the current crop of consoles and the fact that many games won't be using our system to the fullest of its capabilities. Yes, I know DX11 is coming but the number of games to actually use it has yet to be determined. Without many games being on the cutting edge graphics-wise for the next while, us PC gamers will need something else to take advantage of our expensive hardware. What better way is there to do this than add realism not through cutting-edge graphics but through physics? At this point it hasn't been done well but when you look at games like the new Ghost Busters or even an older title Company of Heroes, it is obvious that the potential is there. Whether the future is PhysX, Havok or whatever Intel is developing has yet to be seen but I am personally pretty excited for better physics in my games.

As for DX10.1, I think many people are missing the point. While there are some very minor graphical tweaks and additions, the main selling point of DX10.1 is its rendering efficiency particularly when AA is enabled. Anyone who has played HawX with an ATI card in Vista will know what I am talking about. There is barely any impact on framerates when going from 0xAA to 4xAA; that in itself will have a huge impact on the overall look and feel of a game.

spursindonesia

05-29-2009, 07:15 AM

Whoa SKY, that's one long reply that deserve further commment and clarification by me -BTW, i kinda miss your posts and PSU reviews in jG forum. :D To clarify it, i don't dislike Physx acceleration in GPU, but i do hate the propietary solution that's monopolized by one IHV, not a standard that's followed by the industry as a whole. Regarding DX 10.1, all the advantages of this feature become moot with limited support from the developers. I know, not really ATi fault, but atleast for now, before this API become a part of DX 11 which will be supported by all IHV, atleast momentarily, it's just a gimmicky selling point for ATi's product sold out there.

Manicdan

05-29-2009, 07:41 AM

What I am trying to say here is that due to the fact that the next generation of consoles isn't due out until 2011 / 2012,

im going to disagree with that point, there is really no need for a new console until there is new technology to put it on. the jump to max out details on 1080p with just some new cool effects i believe will not be nearly enough. if we have 2160p tvs in 2012 that use a new cable type, then i could see a desire for a new gaming console.

SKYMTL

05-29-2009, 07:42 AM

I know, not really ATi fault, but atleast for now, before this API become a part of DX 11 which will be supported by all IHV, atleast momentarily, it's just a gimmicky selling point for ATi's product sold out there.

I guess it all depends on perspective. For someone who loves the Call of Duty series or plays Left 4 Dead like it was going out of style, it could sure be considered a gimmick. However, games like Assassin's Creed and HawX have proved that the technology actually works and people playing those games can benefit.

You are completely right though; the number of games with DX10.1 is absolutely pathetic and many that have been released lately are pure crap. Case and point: Stormrise and Battle Forge.

SKYMTL

05-29-2009, 07:46 AM

im going to disagree with that point, there is really no need for a new console until there is new technology to put it on. the jump to max out details on 1080p with just some new cool effects i believe will not be nearly enough. if we have 2160p tvs in 2012 that use a new cable type, then i could see a desire for a new gaming console.

I was basing that statement off of rumors circulating and reports from JPR. It wasn't based in fact and I completely agree with you. However, my point is still the same: more and more PC games are nothing more but ports of console games. Without a major advancement in console technology, many future PC games won't stress even today's mid-range PCs (unless they are poorly coded). Therefore, Nvidia, ATI and soon Intel will need some other selling points (physics, GPGPU, etc.) for their upcoming technologies.

Manicdan

05-29-2009, 07:53 AM

I was basing that statement off of rumors circulating and reports from JPR. It wasn't based in fact and I completely agree with you. However, my point is still the same: more and more PC games are nothing more but ports of console games. Without a major advancement in console technology, many future PC games won't stress even today's mid-range PCs (unless they are poorly coded). Therefore, Nvidia, ATI and soon Intel will need some other selling points (physics, GPGPU, etc.) for their upcoming technologies.

100% agreeable, current consoles hold back PCs within 2 years of their release. (and the Wii looks like crap on any hd tv) and it seems to be getting worse with each new console. the PS2 seemed to hold its own for 3-4 years. and before then i didnt know what a gaming computer was like.

i think they should really work on a scalable console, imagine if you could take your xbox or ps3 and upgrade the internals with parts that use up less heat, or pack in a few more cards. and with the way the computer and console are merging closer and closer, its quite possible one will be obsolete by the time we see the next gens come out.

Talonman

05-29-2009, 07:53 AM

Sky, Thanks for your thoughts on the matter...

I found it to be a good read. :up:

onethreehill

06-03-2009, 09:48 PM

ATI Radeon HD 4890 Roundup (ASUS, Diamond, HIS, Sapphire, XFX)
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/18549-ati-radeon-hd-4890-roundup-asus-diamond-his-sapphire-xfx.html

onethreehill

06-04-2009, 03:06 AM

Overclocking Extravaganza: GTX 275's Complex Characteristics

After our in depth look at overclocking with AMD's Radeon HD 4890, many of our readers wanted to see the same thing done with NVIDIA's GTX 275. We had planned on looking at both parts from the beginning, but we knew each review would take a bit of time and effort to design and put together. Our goal has been to try and design tests that would best show the particular overclocking characteristics of the different hardware, and shoehorning all that into one review would be difficult. Different approaches are needed to evaluate overclocking with AMD and NVIDIA hardware.

For our AMD tests, we only needed to worry about memory and core clock speed. This gave us some freedom to look at clock scaling in order to better understand the hardware. On the other hand, NVIDIA divides their GPU up a bit more and has another, higher speed, clock domain for shader hardware. Throwing another variable in there has a multiplicative impact on our testing, and we had a hard time deciding what tests really mattered. If we had simply used the same approach we did with the 4890 article, we would have ended up with way too much data to easily present or meaningfully analyze......
http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3575

perkam

06-04-2009, 09:04 AM

Far Cry 2 DX9 1920 4xAA (http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image//skymtl/GPU/HD4890-ROUNDUP/HD4890-ROUNDUP-64.JPG)

Far Cry 2 DX10 1920 4xAA (http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image//skymtl/GPU/HD4890-ROUNDUP/HD4890-ROUNDUP-70.JPG)

And here I thought FPS would be higher on DX9. Wow 0_0

Also, what is with the FPS hit with AA with the Nvidia cards? Some of them lose close to 30FPS when 4xAA is enabled.

Perkam

Talonman

06-04-2009, 09:17 AM

perkam

06-04-2009, 09:20 AM

AA is small potatos...

PhysX will add more realism to the gaming experience, than anti-aliasing ever dreamed about...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mo54DJHBZWk

ATI guys try and find jaggies...
Nvidia boys look for realistic interactive in game PhysX effects. :)

Ya got to have priorities... Your call!Dude, do you get an e-mail everytime I post in this thread? :p:

I was talking about the Hardware Canucks review, not in general :up:

Perkam

Talonman

06-04-2009, 09:37 AM

Eastcoasthandle

06-04-2009, 09:46 AM

Manicdan

06-04-2009, 09:52 AM

SKYMTL

06-04-2009, 09:53 AM

Also, what is with the FPS hit with AA with the Nvidia cards? Some of them lose close to 30FPS when 4xAA is enabled.

Perkam

Nvidia's performance is very interesting these days. Their driver team seems to be really concentrating on performance improvements for high resolution / 4xAA scenarios. Meanwhile, at times I have found that lower resolution AA performance has suffered. A PERFECT example of this is Left 4 Dead.

In addition, Far Cry 2 uses the DX10.1 code path which makes ATI's cards that much more efficient when AA is turned on.

Final8ty

06-04-2009, 10:01 AM

Horrible tech video. Mid-way through this video they should the game again and all they did was remove any noticeable physics that could have been done on the CPU.

At 0:53 bits of debris was created from bullet fire. The concept when watching this made no sense to any level of realism IMO.

At 1:13 several layers of debris dropped from the ceiling onto the ground then disappeared.

I agree.
I didn't see anything that could not be done on the CPU.

Talonman

06-04-2009, 10:13 AM

Horrible tech video. Mid-way through this video they showed the game again and all they did was remove any noticeable physics that could have been done on the CPU.

At 0:53 bits of debris was created from bullet fire when they hit the ground. The concept when watching this made no sense to any level of realism IMO.

At 1:13 several layers of debris dropped from the ceiling onto the ground then disappeared.

Yes, selecting the slower CPU to process PhysX on is an option. not a good one though.

Let's save some time, and you list the PhysX effects you do like, then we can have a talking point.
What PhysX games are you running on what GPU?

Eastcoasthandle

06-04-2009, 10:15 AM

Yes, selecting the slower CPU to process PhysX on is an option. not a good one though.

Let's save some time, and you list the PhysX effects you do like, then we can have a talking point.
What PhysX games are you running on what GPU?

I honestly don't care how physics is done. However, there is no point in showing when physics is used and when it's removed in examples like this. If you noticed I criticized what I actually saw which wasn't what I found acceptable. Which is part of the gist of my previous post.

ahmad

06-04-2009, 10:17 AM

So why isn't this in the video card section, every other thread got moved...

SKYMTL

06-04-2009, 10:37 AM

Yes, selecting the slower CPU to process PhysX on is an option. not a good one though.

Let's save some time, and you list the PhysX effects you do like, then we can have a talking point.

I would like to counter this with one point: PhysX is optimized for a GPU while other physics processing apps are optimized for a CPU.

Bear with me while I go through this.

In many situations, I would rather my CPU take a performance hit rather than my GPU when gaming. Like it or not, PhysX results in lower performance of a GPU when it is enabled.

Let me give you an example.

Say I am playing a game at 1920 resolution with 4x AA enabled on a GTX 260 216. I am getting framerates of around 60. Ok, great. Now I go and enable PhysX on my GPU which will take up valuable rendering performance for somethign a CPU can do. The next thing I know, I am having to settle with lower IQ settings just to justify having a few rocks bouncing around realistically. To me and most other gamers, this is an unacceptable trade-off.

The fact of the matter is that when gaming at enthusiast / "gamer" resolutions, the GPU's RENDERING performance is paramount and it can't afford using cycles to process GPU physics as well. What use is physics if your framerate will go down the crapper? There are very few "free" GPU cycles when playing graphically demanding game.

HOWEVER, when playing at higher resolutions and AA settings, we all know that the CPU itself takes a back seat when it comes to overall gaming performance. That is precisely why the MAJORITY of game developers have decided to go with CPU-bound physics engines such as Havok can be just as efficient or more efficient than PhysX. Don't believe me? Take a look at the the laundry list of games out there that use Havok: Fallout 3, Company of Heroes, Dawn of War II, Resident Evil 5, World in Conflict, etc. Need upcoming titles? Voila. (http://www.havok.com/content/blogcategory/37/78/)

I don't know about you, but I find that some of those titles had some seriously good physics effects and no one ever saw their modern quad or dual core CPU becoming an issue when it was processing physics.

Talonman

06-04-2009, 10:47 AM

I honestly don't care how physics is done. However, there is no point in showing when physics is used and when it's removed in examples like this. If you noticed I criticized what I actually saw which wasn't what I found acceptable. Which is part of the gist of my previous post.

Yes, criticized it for not running it on the GPU or CPU. Any work they take off the GPU, and move over the your dedicated PhysX GPU is a win in my book. I have an OC'ed, water cooled 280 just waiting to free up the graphics GPU from PhysX work.

Putting the extra work on the CPU would be even worse for overall system performance.

It's fine if you don't like the way a game used a PhysX effect, if it just looked bad, but not liking the effect just because we could have loaded down the GPU or CPU with it, isnt a good reason to me.

Flying debris and interactive fog is hard not to like. :)

Talonman

06-04-2009, 10:53 AM

I would like to counter this with one point: PhysX is optimized for a GPU while other physics processing apps are optimized for a CPU.

Bear with me while I go through this.

In many situations, I would rather my CPU take a performance hit rather than my GPU when gaming. Like it or not, PhysX results in lower performance of a GPU when it is enabled.

Let me give you an example.

Say I am playing a game at 1920 resolution with 4x AA enabled on a GTX 260 216. I am getting framerates of around 60. Ok, great. Now I go and enable PhysX on my GPU which will take up valuable rendering performance for somethign a CPU can do. The next thing I know, I am having to settle with lower IQ settings just to justify having a few rocks bouncing around realistically. To me and most other gamers, this is an unacceptable trade-off.

The fact of the matter is that when gaming at enthusiast / "gamer" resolutions, the GPU's RENDERING performance is paramount and it can't afford using cycles to process GPU physics as well. What use is physics if your framerate will go down the crapper? There are very few "free" GPU cycles when playing graphically demanding game.

HOWEVER, when playing at higher resolutions and AA settings, we all know that the CPU itself takes a back seat when it comes to overall gaming performance. That is precisely why the MAJORITY of game developers have decided to go with CPU-bound physics engines such as Havok can be just as efficient or more efficient than PhysX. Don't believe me? Take a look at the the laundry list of games out there that use Havok: Fallout 3, Company of Heroes, Dawn of War II, Resident Evil 5, World in Conflict, etc. Need upcoming titles? Voila. (http://www.havok.com/content/blogcategory/37/78/)

I don't know about you, but I find that some of those titles had some seriously good physics effects and no one ever saw their modern quad or dual core CPU becoming an issue when it was processing physics.

Good points until you run a dedicated PhysX pocessor.

AA does take away performance. So does PhysX. Gamers like them both, and both add to the game. PhysX just adds more, with the option of running a dedicated processor for that task.

SKYMTL

06-04-2009, 10:59 AM

Good points until you run a dedicated PhysX pocessor.

AA does take away performance. So does PhysX. Gamers like them both, and both add to the game. PhysX just adds more, with the option of running a dedicated processor for that task.

Two points:

- AA can't be offset to the processor and physics can

- Paying money for a "dedicated PhysX card" was an insane proposition back when the PPUs were released and it still is.

Eastcoasthandle

06-04-2009, 11:01 AM

Yes, criticized it for not running it on the GPU or CPU. Any work they take off the GPU, and move over the your dedicated PhysX GPU is a win in my book. I have an OC'ed, water cooled 280 just waiting to free up the graphics GPU from PhysX work.

Putting the extra work on the CPU would be even worse for overall system performance.

It's fine if you don't like the way a game used a PhysX effect, if it just looked bad, but not liking the effect just because we could have loaded down the GPU or CPU with it, isnt a good reason to me.

Flying debris and interactive fog is hard not to like. :)
This really makes no sense (at least to me). What I understood in your post is that those with the specific hardware should use of physx only. We know that everyone who wants to play a certain game may have a low, mid or high end PC. I can't see why they should be ignored or excluded from playing any particular game. This isn't a console (where certain games will only play on certain hardware) but PC. As such all who own one should be able to enjoy any game of their choice. As long as they adhere to what's naturally expected from it's minimal spec requirement.

So in the end what we have is:
-Those use physx who usually have higher then normal PC specs.
VS
-Those with low, mid to high end PCs who can enjoy physics using just their CPU.

Talonman

06-04-2009, 11:02 AM

Using a 280 for a dedicated PhysX processor is rather Xtreme one might say! :p:

STaRGaZeR

06-04-2009, 11:04 AM

Using a 280 for a dedicated PhysX processor is rather Xtreme one might say! :p:

It's rather stupid.

Talonman

06-04-2009, 11:09 AM

This really makes no sense (at least to me). What I understood in your post is that those with the higher end hardware should enjoy the use of physx. We know that everyone who wants to play a certain game may have a low-mid range PC. I can't see why they should be ignored or excluded from playing any particular game. This isn't a console (where certain games will only play on certain hardware) but PC. As such all who own one should be able to enjoy any game of their choice. As long as they adhere to what's naturally expected from it's minimal spec requirement.

Maybe they sould print 'Best with a dedicated PhysX GPU' on the box?

Same deal with Crysis...

Lots of people couldn't run that one.

"As long as they adhere to what's naturally expected from it's minimal spec requirement."

Minimum system requirements
from Crytek and EA

OS - Windows XP or Windows Vista
Processor - 2.8 GHz or faster (XP) or 3.2 GHz or faster* (Vista)
Memory - 1.0 GB RAM (XP) or 1.5 GB RAM (Vista)
Video Card -256 MB**
Hard Drive - 12GB
Sound Card - DirectX 9.0c compatible

I wonder what 256MB card they are talking about to run this game?

Talonman

06-04-2009, 11:11 AM

It's rather stupid.

But adds more performance in PhysX games than an i7 system can...

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1420948

Only stupid to the uninformed...

Eastcoasthandle

06-04-2009, 11:14 AM

Maybe they sould print 'Best with a dedicated PhysX GPU' on the box?

Same deal with Crysis...

Lots of people couldn't run that one.

"As long as they adhere to what's naturally expected from it's minimal spec requirement."

Minimum system requirements
from Crytek and EA

OS - Windows XP or Windows Vista
Processor - 2.8 GHz or faster (XP) or 3.2 GHz or faster* (Vista)
Memory - 1.0 GB RAM (XP) or 1.5 GB RAM (Vista)
Video Card -256 MB**
Hard Drive - 12GB
Sound Card - DirectX 9.0c compatible

I wonder what 256MB card they are talking about?
I don't think you understand what I am saying. What I am getting is what you find important (how physics is done) isn't very important to the masses out there (from what I reading and from my own opinion).

For example, if the cloth from Terminator were removed and the physics done on the CPU I don't believe it would have any major impact on the game. Thus why I pointed out what you seem to find important:
-Physx only being accessible to specific PCs
vs
-CPU physics which is accessible to everyone else (IE: min. system requirements, etc)

Manicdan

06-04-2009, 11:16 AM

my opinion is that if its truly beautiful, then i dont care how it gets calculated, as long as its not making it unplayable. (i still love how people die in CS:S and thats pretty simple i thought, i watched a guy get hit by a shotgun from the side, and was pushed sideways a few feet leaning over a ledge and slide down slowly, pretty funny looking) but blowing up a building will be alot tougher i bet than just ragdoll, and one critical factor is in multiplayer games where everyone has to have it perfect or not at all, thats probably the biggest setback

and keep in mind xfire and sli is getting better, it could be so much cheaper to buy a 50$ card that can run physx, or do some small other task that can be taken off the big boys load.

perkam

06-04-2009, 11:26 AM

The 275 @ 1920X1200 scored 48.85, and 67.47 with no AA.
The HD 4890 @ 1920x1200 scored 50.07, and 68.63 with no AA.

With 4XAA

The 275 scored 38.21, and 54.26.
The HD 4890 dropped down to 32.67, and 53.91.

The ATI card takes a bigger hit on performance when AA is enabled, correct?You're right, it goes back and forth.

I was looking at the AA drop in Hawx, where the ATI card lost ~10 FPS and the GTX FTW lost close to 30 FPS. It differs with every game it seems. I'm sure that will change with Nvidia's 40nm DX10.1 offerings :)

Perkam

SNiiPE_DoGG

06-04-2009, 11:33 AM

Talon, you seem to not understand one thing - when playing at high res all multi core CPU's are grossly underused.

take an i7 for example when its running a game it is being utilized at most ~38% (3 threads and thats being generous). Basically what I am saying is that there is no point to running physx on a GPU in general but for your situation running mormal physics calculations on the CPU for a game instead of PHYSX would result in no decrease in performance of the game.

LightSpeed

06-04-2009, 11:44 AM

So this is a PhysX debate now?

PhysX is simply rubbish, nvidias marketing can only tout that feature but no good game has come out with PhysX support which really enhances the game. period

By the time the CPU can not process the complex physics, we will have DX11 and a common physics API

So again, physX = FAIL (and all the vote polls ive seen reflect that)

Talonman

06-04-2009, 11:44 AM

I don't think you understand what I am saying. What I am getting is what you find important (how physics is done) isn't very important to the masses out there (from what I reading and from my own opinion).

For example, if the cloth from Terminator were removed and the physics done on the CPU I don't believe it would have any major impact on the game. Thus why I pointed out what you seem to find important:
-Physx only being accessible to specific PCs
vs
-CPU physics which is accessible to everyone else (IE: min. system requirements, etc)

The CPU does offer better accessability, I will give you that for sure! ;)
I still however don't buy that CPU's can crank out the real time calculations that in game PhysX requires.

If both ATI and Nvidia could run PhysX, then it would have better accessibility for all to enjoy. I wish ATI would have taken Nvidia up on their offer to help them with that.

I can't defend ATI not being able to run PhysX too.

Talonman

06-04-2009, 11:46 AM

You're right, it goes back and forth.

I was looking at the AA drop in Hawx, where the ATI card lost ~10 FPS and the GTX FTW lost close to 30 FPS. It differs with every game it seems. I'm sure that will change with Nvidia's 40nm DX10.1 offerings :)

Perkam

I actually was suprised, when I took a hard look at the numbers... :)

I do know Nvidia does usually loose the AA race with ATI. Good to see them working on that. :up:

Talonman

06-04-2009, 11:47 AM

STaRGaZeR

06-04-2009, 11:48 AM

But adds more performance in PhysX games than an i7 system can...

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1420948

Only stupid to the uninformed...

:ROTF: :D

You sure don't understand a thing, do you?

Talonman

06-04-2009, 11:50 AM

Eastcoasthandle

06-04-2009, 11:52 AM

The CPU does offer better accessability, I will give you that for sure! ;)
This is one of the points you seem to care about. However, I can't find it important. We know that the CPU can do physics and it can be demonstrated very well. So, what you consider "better accessibility" isn't something I believe the masses find important.

I still however don't buy that CPU's can crank out the real time calculations that in game PhysX requires.
It's hard to really care at this point. I don't think people sit there trying to determine real time calculations in a game.

If both ATI and Nvidia could run PhysX, then it would heve better accessibility for all to enjoy. I wish ATI would have taken Nvidia up on their offer to help them with that.

I can't defend ATI not being able to run PhysX too.
It wasn't uncommon for things to turn out the way they did. After all they are rivals in the same market.
:up:

Talonman

06-04-2009, 11:52 AM

:ROTF: :D

You sure don't understand a thing, do you?

Be spacific. What part of PhysX performance do you wish to educate me on? :)

SKYMTL

06-04-2009, 12:08 PM

I still however don't buy that CPU's can crank out the real time calculations that in game PhysX requires.

Look at Company of Heroes if you don't buy that.

For future games, check out the physics in Alan Wake.

Talonman

06-04-2009, 12:21 PM

Well i hope my 4 cores on my Q6600 can calculate PhysX as fast as my 280 can then...

If it's just an optimization issue, maybe the Nvidia PhysX fluid demo will start to run faster on my CPU as more time goes by, and further optimizations are completed? If my Q6600 has as much animal speed for PhysX, as my 280 does, I hope they can tap into it soon. Right now, the GPU smokes the CPU real bad in performance. Here I have been thinking that it was just a 'not enouigh cores issue'. Maybe it is really just unoptimized code all along?

Do you think Nvidia is disappointed in so many hardware review sites not giving PhysX it's due, or seeing it's value? I do.

LightSpeed

06-04-2009, 12:35 PM

Do you think Nvidia is disappointed in so many hardware review sites not giving PhysX it's due, or seeing it's value? I do.

Hardware review sites look at real world benefits, and when there are no games that are worth playing and actually utilise physX, they will simply ignore it. Do u not think that if every review site ignores it more or less, then physX at its current form is a load of crap? I do

edit: on a side note, nvidia will obviously want its feature to be touted as something great, but sadly it isnt so review sites simply ignore it

Talonman

06-04-2009, 12:38 PM

Hardware review sites look at real world benefits, and when there are no games that are worth playing and actually utilise physX, they will simply ignore it.

I only wish that were true...

Have you found one site letting the users know that using a 280 as a dedicated processor will add more performance in games, and giving the % of performance increase that is realized by doing so? It's all in the way you present the info.

Cryostasys and Mirrors edge are good games with PhysX...

What PhysX games did you play? None? You never answered last time i asked you about Cryostasys?

SNiiPE_DoGG

06-04-2009, 01:00 PM

correction - a 280 for dedicated physx only makes it so physx takes away less performance - it doesnt increase performance.

mirrors edge is a fun game, but its just as fun without physx as with. in fact evey single physx implimentation in that game is superficial and could easily be done on the CPU instead.

I have never played or even seen cryostasis so I have no idea about that game.

Talonman

06-04-2009, 01:11 PM

Final8ty

06-04-2009, 01:21 PM

correction - a 280 for dedicated physx only makes it so physx takes away less performance - it doesnt increase performance.

mirrors edge is a fun game, but its just as fun without physx as with. in fact evey single physx implimentation in that game is superficial and could easily be done on the CPU instead.

I have played or even seen cryostasis so I have no idea about that game.

That because cryostasis is not all that.

BababooeyHTJ

06-04-2009, 01:24 PM

That one is a must... :)

It has the best PhysX implementation in any game yet...

A game patch is due out to increase the PhysX effects too. :up:

So PhysX and AA both take away performance, but only PhysX can be run on a dedicated processor to minimize the performance loss.

I wonder if so many hated AA too, when it came out?

It's entirely different really. I'm also with snipe on the fact that most of those effects could probably be done on the cpu. There is no way to prove that since I'm sure Physix is not optimized for an x86 processor at all. Look at Crysis can do on a single thread, I can only imagine what a quad can do when utilized to it's fullest extent. It's just not something that will ever take off in it's current form especilly with DX11 and Opencl.

SNiiPE_DoGG

06-04-2009, 01:24 PM

That one is a must... :)

It has the best PhysX implementation in any game yet...

A game patch is due out to increase the PhysX effects too. :up:

So PhysX and AA both take away performance, but only PhysX can be run on a dedicated processor to minimize the performance loss.

I wonder if so many hated AA too, when it came out?

the thing is that people hate physx becuase all it does if take features away from people without the physx card. as I said before, every single PhysX feature in any game thus far can easily be done using the CPU....

Sn@ke:~

06-04-2009, 01:26 PM

By the time PhysX become fully implemented in most game (if it ever does) having the physiX run on a GPU instead of CPU will be a good advantage for the consumer with a lower end CPU that can't make the future PhysiX calculation that will be require.

Talonman

06-04-2009, 01:30 PM

That because cryostasis is not all that.

All these ATI guys that have suposidly played PhysX games, just astounds me...

It's like me talking about what a fine peace of software ATI's catalyst is.
If i have never run it, but have seen a youtube video of it in action, Am I qualified to write a review, or give strong opinions about it's worth on the board? Would anybody care, or be expected to take it searously?

SNiiPE_DoGG

06-04-2009, 01:32 PM

All these ATI guys that have suposidly played PhysX games, just astounds me...

It's like me talking about what a fine peace of softwate ATI's catalyst is.
If i have never run it, but have seen a youtube video of it in action, Am I qualified to write a review, or give strong opinions about it's worth on the board? Would anybody care, or be expected to take it searously?

lol you act like I have never used an nvidia video card.... :shakes: I build systems for customers quite frequently - none of them ever get posted here.

SNiiPE_DoGG

06-04-2009, 01:33 PM

Talonman

06-04-2009, 01:38 PM

the thing is that people hate physx becuase all it does if take features away from people without the physx card. as I said before, every single PhysX feature in any game thus far can easily be done using the CPU....

Thus far... maybe.

In the long run, with the GPU's we will soon have... CPU's will only dream about their PhysX speed.

Mabey Video encoding will be as fast processing on a CPU as on a Video card too? Again, my money is still on the GPU. :)

GPU's can do some things faster than CPU's. PhysX is one of thoes things.

Final8ty

06-04-2009, 01:38 PM

All these ATI guys that have suposidly played PhysX games, just astounds me...

It's like me talking about what a fine peace of softwate ATI's catalyst is.
If i have never run it, but have seen a youtube video of it in action, Am I qualified to write a review, or give strong opinions about it's worth on the board? Would anybody care, or be expected to take it searously?

I was talking about the game & not what cards were involved, but seeing as you have mentioned.

It was the NV users views on another forum as to why i made that comment as the physx don't make the game.

Talonman

06-04-2009, 01:39 PM

lol you act like I have never used an nvidia video card.... :shakes: I build systems for customers quite frequently - none of them ever get posted here.

Wow! I am suprised... :)

You should talk about the Nvidia rigs you built more... :up:

Talonman

06-04-2009, 01:41 PM

I was talking about the game & not what cards were involved, but seeing as you have mentioned.

It was the NV users views on another forum as to why i made that comment as the physx don't make the game.

Understood...

Thanks. :)

kadozer

06-04-2009, 01:46 PM

zalbard

06-04-2009, 01:59 PM

Talonman

06-04-2009, 02:22 PM

Talon were you not the same guy stubbornly touting the 9800gx2 as the next best thing as the slice of bread. How did that turn out? This guy puts into words better than I can on what will become of Physx http://www.edbordenblog.com/2009/05/inevitable-bleak-outcome-of-nvidias.html

Not sure what the GX2 has to do with anything?? :shrug:

The article has poor conclusions...
He thinks OpenCL is a better choice... I have seen posts that it is not.

PhysX is like collatoral damage in this whole drama....If that's true, It's odd how the largest game makers in the world signed up to make PhysX games. I guess they didnt read his article, on how PhysX could have been a cornerstone technology and key part of a massive industry paradigm shift. Instead, it's going end up a footnote, right next to CUDA.

The goal wasn't to control the interconnect, it was to give it away so the entire market would benefit and grow.ATI should have taken the free help.

perkam

06-04-2009, 03:16 PM

Nvidia will not be touting Physx as its killer feature in the upcoming months. It will be touting its DX10.1 implementation on its 40nm cards.

It will be sponsoring more DX10.1 based TWIMTBP games for performance increases on Nvidia cards to point out "superior" Dx10.1 implementation on its cards so that Nvidia users buy its own die shrunk GT2xx cards instead of ATI cards.

As I pointed out with the Anandtech poll, as good as Physx will ever get, consumers will never base their buying decisions on extra physics on a select few games.

From that POV, Nvidia users will be taking a good look at the GTX 275 and wondering whether it will make sense to buy a card that will become obsolete in a couple of months versus a card that already has Directx 10.1.

EDIT: Oh and check in the AMD DX11 thread, someone managed to get a shot of a working R800 card. :p:

Perkam

Talonman

06-04-2009, 03:35 PM

So is it your stance, that the PhysX games that are currently being produced, will not be completed?

Name the release date of the last 'dead horse' PhysX game that will be released. It sound like you think the game is over already...

If it is, and you are correct, we should know very soon, right?

Game engines support PhysX technology:
Unreal Engine 3, Gamebryo, Vision, Instinct, Trinigy, Diesel, Unity 3D, Hero, BigWorld.

Game publishers have licensed PhysX for their global studios:
EA, THQ, 2K Games, Sega and others.

Nomadsoul

06-09-2009, 09:34 PM

Overclocking Extravaganza: GTX 275's Complex Characteristics (http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3575) :up: :yepp:

Final8ty

06-09-2009, 10:15 PM

Talonman

06-10-2009, 04:43 AM

I do wish I knew the future of PhysX, and if Nvidia is trying to get Microsoft to have it included in DX11... I think they are?

Then PhysX and DX11 would be one install. ATI might then be able to run PhysX through DX11?

I have also seen where Nvidia has an OpenCL page going too, at their site.
http://www.nvidia.com/object/cuda_opencl.html

PhysX isn't their only baby.
They obviously must have some resources allocated to OpenCL too. (The language all programs can understand.)

I don't care so much that PhysX has to win, as much as I like my 280 being able to run in dedicated PhysX mode, to help out my 295.
GPU-accelerated applications is the future. :D

PhysX being supported, is good enouigh for me. :)

I do however think that more PhysX games are being made, than most here seem to think.

Notice in this video...
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=physx+terminator&docid=977429070086&mid=C56B92EDE96D691B216BC56B92EDE96D691B216B&FORM=VIVR

Jen-Hsun Huang presentation's key points, on the board behind him:

CUDA EVERYWHERE
100M+ CUDA GPU's shipped
5,000 enerprise customers
125 Universities Teaching CUDA

Odd selection of topics if PhysX isn't a big part of the companies future plans...

I like this Cryostasis review...
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTY0NiwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA

Glad to see Mark Warner include these words: "There are thirteen NVIDIA staffers named in Cryostasis’ credits, and two ATI personnel. TWO! Now, we know that NVIDIA is quite aggressive when courting developers. We also know that AMD/ATI is not. Thus, this is not entirely NVIDIA’s fault. AMD seems asleep at the wheel, compared to NVIDIA. Jen-Hsen Huang is out there, his people are out there, and people buy his products and invest in his technology. In their own words, AMD likes to create an ecosystem for developers to work within. What that sounds like to us is that they want to put their technology out there for people to adopt at their leisure. Given the massive quantity of "TWIMTBP" games out there, and the shocking lack of games sporting an ATI logo, it is apparent to us that NVIDIA is winning the Developer Relations battle as this game is thoroughly a part of".

I agree Nvidia is doing a super job with developers, and also getting some PhysX games produced for us PhysX fans. I expect it to continue. :)
We should give credit, where credit is due. ;)

SNiiPE_DoGG

06-10-2009, 05:13 AM

CUDA EVERYWHERE
100M+ CUDA GPU's shipped
5,000 enerprise customers
125 Universities Teaching CUDA

Odd selection of topics if PhysX isn't a big part of the companies future plans...

nope, not physx - parallel computing. Nvidia wants to be a company with a solid enterprise base so they dont get completely shut out when larrabee comes and gets packaged with all of intel's server hardware.

Talonman

06-10-2009, 05:26 AM

Thanks for the info Snipe. :)

But what else can run on CUDA, other than PhysX?

perkam

06-10-2009, 05:30 AM

SNiiPE_DoGG

06-10-2009, 05:32 AM

Thanks for the info Snipe. :)

But what else can run on CUDA, other than PhysX?

thats the point of teching students cuda ;) anything written in basic C cuda can run on cuda so it depends what the company needs cuda to do, they dev software for that task in house.

OpenCL will take over but nvidia is ready for that too. I remains to be seen exactly how good larrabee will be at parallel but I think its safe to assume intel is counting on it to be good.

Talonman

06-10-2009, 05:40 AM

Thanks guys..

The way I had it in my mind was..

CUDA is the base, or lowest level code. (Required to run PhysX)

PhysX runs on top of CUDA, and it is what generates the eye candy. (It is also currently the only application that runs on CUDA.)

So this new army of CUDA programmers, would be making internal CUDA code, for games, or GPU-accelerated applications, each at their individual company.
Nvidia was looking Mar 4 2008,... http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=61402 :)

We need 1 leader in this field. I hope Nvidia's PhysX and DX11 merge. Microsoft and Nvidia working together on this might give us one clear cut direction to follow.
Where exactly do the PhysX train tracks lead? Directly into DX11?

More important to me, would DX11 allow for a dedicated physics GPU to be used? If not, I hope PhysX goes on forever...

onethreehill

06-10-2009, 04:40 PM

Galaxy GeForce GTX 275 OC 896MB Review
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=728

Frontl1ne

06-10-2009, 04:49 PM

We need 1 leader in this field. I hope Nvidia's PhysX and DX11 merge. Microsoft and Nvidia working together on this might give us one clear cut direction to follow.

...wouldn't that be infringing on some sort of antitrust law? Microsoft's already been in hot waters for including IE with Windows.

Besides, ATi's coming out with their own OpenCL/Havok (?) physics engine. Which IMO sounds a whole lot more promising than PhysX.

570091D

06-10-2009, 05:08 PM

Besides, ATi's coming out with their own OpenCL/Havok (?) physics engine. Which IMO sounds a whole lot more promising than PhysX.

they already have it, but it won't be released to the great unwashed, intel owns havoc and it's part of thier "optimized for intel" program. maybe when larrabee is released havoc on gpu will be part of the driver... maybe.

Talonman

06-10-2009, 06:34 PM

...wouldn't that be infringing on some sort of antitrust law? Microsoft's already been in hot waters for including IE with Windows.

Besides, ATi's coming out with their own OpenCL/Havok (?) physics engine. Which IMO sounds a whole lot more promising than PhysX.
Not sure about the antitrust law... :)
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=physx+terminator&docid=962341306764&mid=63FA90ABB5B0B7365BB263FA90ABB5B0B7365BB2&FORM=VIVR3

In the above video, Drew Henry says 1min, 14 sec in: (Speaking about DirectX, and the PhysX smoke effect.)
We've been working with Microsoft, to build in the ability to use, our new PhysX API.

I wish I knew more about exactly what that means. :shrug:

perkam

06-10-2009, 06:51 PM

Not sure about the antitrust law... :)
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=physx+terminator&docid=962341306764&mid=63FA90ABB5B0B7365BB263FA90ABB5B0B7365BB2&FORM=VIVR3

In the above video, Drew Henry says 1min, 14 sec in: (Speaking about DirectX, and the PhysX smoke effect.)
We've been working with Microsoft, to build in the ability to use, our new PhysX API.

I wish I knew more about exactly what that means. :shrug:I wish Terminator Salvation didn't flop...but no one's buying that game m8.

Pekram

Talonman

06-11-2009, 02:20 AM

Yes, i'm sure you were looking foward to that game... not

What does Terminator Salvation have to do with antitrust law... or PhysX being included with DX? :shrug:

If you have the Terminator PhysX patch, upload it to the board.

None of us have it yet, due to it not even being released. :rofl:

Just for the record, PhysX will help that game sell.

I won't buy mine until PhysX is included. I am not alone on this.

Look on the bright side. It probably has AA so the ATI guys will be happy. :stick:

SNiiPE_DoGG

06-11-2009, 04:11 AM

lol, any reasonable person knows OpenCL is the way the market should go and in reality thats the way it WILL go. No firm wants to program for a language and platform that cuts them out of 70% of the market (unless it is an in house devlopment and even then its shakey).

Heres how the hypothetical goes:
Make your parallel program on openCL, probably spend many thousands of dollars on dev - use nvidia and get great results - nvidia goes under for defrauding the investors - (if they were using cuda, at this point they are boned) - no worries, the software is on openCL, well just switch to AMD or intel GPU

Talonman

06-11-2009, 04:31 AM

Do you think that when Drew Henry says "We've been working with Microsoft, to build in the ability to use, our new PhysX API".

Is he actually talking about PhysX and DX being merged?

I really don't know what he is inferring, nor do i know how Microsoft would feel about that.

I wonder if PhysX could be converted to OpenCL?

perkam

06-11-2009, 04:54 AM

Yes, i'm sure you were looking foward to that game... notNot the game, the movie, which tanked at the box office and never recovered :(

Perkam

SNiiPE_DoGG

06-11-2009, 05:00 AM

Talonman

06-11-2009, 05:07 AM

Not the game, the movie, which tanked at the box office and never recovered :(

Perkam

opps... my bad. Sorry. :)

Talonman

06-11-2009, 05:09 AM

PhysX can be re-coded to run on OpenCL, CUDA programs wont run on OpenCL

Thanks...
It seems like there are 2 camps on CUDA too. We have 125 Universities Teaching CUDA, and that link:
http://www.edbordenblog.com/2009/05/inevitable-bleak-outcome-of-nvidias.html
the dude has CUDA as ending up a footnote, right next to PhysX. Is CUDA really that bad off?

I did find that Microsoft Robotics Studio is based on PhysX SDK
http://msdn.microsoft.com/ru-ru/robotics/default(en-us).aspx

Still looking for a link on Nvidias PhysX plans with Microsoft.

It must still be a good secret.

rogueagent6

06-11-2009, 08:35 AM

Just for the record, PhysX will help that game sell.

I won't buy mine until PhysX is included. I am not alone on this.

Maybe you aren't alone, but you are part of a small minority.

AnandTech PhysX Poll (http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3558)

Most people only consider it a bonus, but in no way a deal breaker.

Talonman

06-11-2009, 08:54 AM

Old review that is out of date... :)

What PhysX games were they playing when that valuable poll was made?

"Before we get to the questions, last week saw the announcement of several upcoming titles that will support PhysX:

Terminator Salvation
Dark Void
Darkest of Days
U-Wars"

At least they know the modern games are being made...

rogueagent6

06-11-2009, 09:03 AM

Old review that is out of date... :)

It wasn't a review, it was a poll on how people view the importance of PhysX. :rolleyes:

PhysX Polls
How important is hardware PhysX acceleration in buying software?

* Very important; PhysX completely drives decisions (248 votes)
*
2%
* Important; PhysX is a big factor but not everything (651 votes)
*
4%
* Useful; PhysX helps find games that run well on my hardware (1,329 votes)
*
9%
* Marginal; PhysX is a bonus if a game I like supports it (7,505 votes)
*
52%
* Not useful; Hardware physics doesn't matter until it's cross platform (4,322 votes)
*
30%
* Detrimental; PhysX detracts from overall quality (438 votes)
*
3%
*

14,493 total votes

How important is PhysX in hardware buying decisions?

How important is PhysX in hardware buying decisions?

* Very important; PhysX is a must have (432 votes)
*
3%
* Important; PhysX doesn't outweigh rendering capability (664 votes)
*
5%
* Useful; PhysX is a clear benefit and desirable feature (2,109 votes)
*
15%
* Marginal; PhysX is a bonus if a game I like supports it (6,022 votes)
*
42%
* Not useful; PhysX is irrelevant as it is not cross platform (4,786 votes)
*
33%
* Detrimental; PhysX is a net negative for the GPU market (488 votes)
*
3%
*

14,501 total votes

Do you own an NVIDIA card that supports PhysX?

# Yes (7,820 votes)
#
54%
# No (6,125 votes)
#
42%
# I don't know (556 votes)
#
4%
#

It had nothing do do with reviewing anything.

SNiiPE_DoGG

06-11-2009, 09:10 AM

Its a very recent poll, I would say it holds a lot of credibility as the sample is pretty big.

Talonman

06-11-2009, 09:27 AM

What PhysX games were they playing when that valuable poll was made?

SNiiPE_DoGG

06-11-2009, 09:32 AM

why do you keep asking about what "they" were playing? its a public poll of anandtech readers. It has nothing to do with whether or not any has or was playing a phsyx game.

rogueagent6

06-11-2009, 09:37 AM

What PhysX games were they playing when that valuable poll was made?

:rofl:

It was a poll... It has NOTHING to do with any games... Read the questions, they are pretty self explanatory.

Here, I'll even quote the poll questions for you again.

How important is hardware PhysX acceleration in buying software?

How important is PhysX in hardware buying decisions?

Do you own an NVIDIA card that supports PhysX?

How do you get a review of games out of that?

Talonman

06-11-2009, 09:41 AM

I guess I think the actual PhysX games that were out at the time the poll was made, has a direct effect on the polls results...

Sorry you don't see how thoes two things would be related.

SNiiPE_DoGG

06-11-2009, 09:41 AM

I guess I think the actual PhysX games that were out at the time the poll was made, has a direct effect on the polls results...

Sorry you don't see how thoes two things would be related.

lol the poll is from just over a month ago :rofl: its VERY RECENT

Talonman

06-11-2009, 09:48 AM

So they were playing Warmonger? :p:

I'm so shocked!

From the review...
"Until we actually play the games, we won't know whether the PhysX implementation is any good though. Many of the ideas like debris, fog, smoke, contrails, destructable environments and weapons / fighting effects have seen light in other titles only to fall short of the expectation. But at least Mirror's Edge was able to take some of the same things and package them in a professional and appealing way".

Fall short... Gasp.
Smoke is one of the best effects they have, and generally considered to be cool...
http://www.nvidia.com/object/physx_new.html

You can just tell they hate Nvidia...

How much more do you even need to read with a poll like that.

Total waste!

ToTTenTranz

06-11-2009, 09:55 AM

Even I answered that poll a couple of weeks ago.

No PhysX-enabled game came out in the meantime, AFAIK.

Talonman

06-11-2009, 10:08 AM

Poll was over and posted by May 6th...

http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/46574/Cryostasis-Released
Cryostasis Released Apr 28, 2009.

How many of the people polled, had that game?

NVIDIA Buys AGEIA: How it affects you Date: Feb 04, 2008
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=515

Nvida has only had control of PhysX for just over a year now.
Sorry if the games didnt get developed on your time schedule.

As long as they don't move at ATI speed on GPU acceleration advancement, we can expect to see more good thing soon. :up:

rogueagent6

06-11-2009, 10:09 AM

You can just tell they hate Nvidia...

How much more do you even need to read with a poll like that.

Total waste!

Wow.

:rofl:

You do realize the results of the poll have NOTHING to do with what was stated about the games mentioned, don't you?

Are you willing to say that ALL 14,500 people that answered ONLY played that one game?

Do you realize that OVER 50% of the people polled own nvidia cards, don't you?

Talonman

06-11-2009, 10:13 AM

Wow.

:rofl:

You do realize the results of the poll have NOTHING to do with what was stated about the games mentioned, don't you?

Are you willing to say that ALL 14,500 people that answered ONLY played that one game?

Do you realize that OVER 50% of the people polled own nvidia cards, don't you?

No, not that they ONYL played that one game... They haven't played the new games, after Nvidia took over. The old ageia games were weak.

SNiiPE_DoGG

06-11-2009, 10:22 AM

............................................______ __........................
....................................,.-‘”...................``~.,..................
.............................,.-”...................................“-.,............
.........................,/...............................................”:, ........
.....................,?........................... ...........................\,.....
.................../.................................................. .........,}....
................./.................................................. ....,:`^`..}....
.............../.................................................. .,:”........./.....
..............?.....__............................ .............:`.........../.....
............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../........
.........../(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`..... ..._/...........
..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}...........
...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../............
...,,,___.\`~,......“~.,....................`..... }............../.............
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-”...............
............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\...................
.............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__...........
,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|........... ...`=~-,....
.....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\... .....................
...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\............. ..........
................................`:,,.............. .............`\..............__..
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``.......
........................................_\........ ..._,-%.......`\...............
...................................,<`.._|_,-&``................`\..............

TALON: the Anandtech POLL is from MAY the 9TH, 2009 that means that all the physx games that are out today were out THEN TOO.
Are you thick? its like you are talking about something completely different than us....

Talonman

06-11-2009, 10:45 AM

SNiiPE_DoGG

06-11-2009, 10:53 AM

Lol this game? the one that got a 6/10 from IGN? I really wish I could play that ONE GAME

http://www.gamestats.com/objects/901/901814/articles.html

Talonman

06-11-2009, 11:05 AM

I only consider Mirrors Edge and Cryostasis the first of the new wave of Physx games, with Nvidia at the helm.

I do agree with you on that the ageia games were not that fun to play.

To me, out of the old games, Cellshock looked the best with it's 'PhysX kill', but that is also the one that won't run on Vista.

It's missing some DLL file that is looking for the ageia PPU. No way to get it to run off of the GPU as far as I can find.

BababooeyHTJ

06-11-2009, 11:45 AM

Can you fill me in on ANY interesting games being developed with Physix now that Nvidia has owned Physix for over a year now? I don't know of any. Like I said before Crysis seems to be able to do a great job of all of those effects that you claim Physix does better than a cpu on with only 2 threads, I wonder what could be done with an engine that is properly threaded for a quad. I would imagine that it's easier to program these things for an x86 processer than in cuda.

Talonman

06-11-2009, 12:07 PM

Be glad to... :)

Look here...

http://www.evga.com/forums/tm.asp?m=100718880&mpage=1&key=&#100718880

onethreehill

06-11-2009, 04:16 PM

GeForce GTX 275 and Radeon HD 4890 Round-Up
http://hothardware.com/Articles/The-GeForce-GTX-275-and-HD-4890-go-HeadtoHead/

perkam

06-11-2009, 06:38 PM

GeForce GTX 275 and Radeon HD 4890 Round-Up
http://hothardware.com/Articles/The-GeForce-GTX-275-and-HD-4890-go-HeadtoHead/A good review and they were making an attempt at being neutral and I think they succeeded, except for the Xfire vs SLI conclusion.

They said that 2x275 was as fast 3x4890 based on one game, Crysis, and even that with no AA or AF.

Looking forward to them doing a more comprehensive SLI vs Xfire review, seeing as Xbit and Anandtech have both matched 4890 Xfire in the GTX 285 SLI range.

Perkam

tajoh111

06-12-2009, 11:51 PM

GeForce GTX 275 and Radeon HD 4890 Round-Up
http://hothardware.com/Articles/The-GeForce-GTX-275-and-HD-4890-go-HeadtoHead/

Did anyone notice the monster overclocking results in that review.

I am surprised that they didn't try to overclock the shaders or didn't mention it anyways.

At those speed they should be beating the gtx 285. I mean 775 mhz. Thats a huge overclock. Its seems they didn't overclock the shader that well or at all.

The lowest clocked model made it to 757. That a 19.5% increase. The review made the gtx 275 to be better overclocker than the 4890.

onethreehill

06-17-2009, 04:06 PM

http://www.cluboc.net/reviews/video/sapphire/hd4890_Atomic/Images/01.jpg

Sapphire HD 4890 ATOMIC Review
http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews.php?reviewid=794
http://www.cluboc.net/reviews/video/sapphire/hd4890_Atomic/p1.asp

BababooeyHTJ

06-17-2009, 05:15 PM

$300 No thanks

I would expect a little overclocking headroom for that kind of money.

cegras

06-18-2009, 07:12 AM

"All the physx games that are out today were out THEN TOO".

No thicker than you...

NVIDIA Buys AGEIA: How it affects you Date: Feb 04, 2008
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=515

Nvida has only had control of PhysX for just over a year now.
Sorry if the games didnt get developed on your time schedule.

The best is yet to come. What part of that can't you understand?

Poll was over and posted by May 6th...

http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/46...tasis-Released
Cryostasis Released Apr 28, 2009.

How many of the people polled, had that game?

You're missing the point entirely. The prevailing attitude of people who answered the poll is that PhysX is not a major factor in deciding whether they purchase a game or not. This means even if a great game with PhysX is released in the future, the reason why it would sell is because it would be a great game, not because PhysX pushed them to buy it or made a marginal game great. 52% and more of the people polled say that.

onethreehill

06-19-2009, 04:28 PM

XFX HD 4890 Black Edition Review(1GHz Core/1GHz memory)
http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews.php?reviewid=797

perkam

06-19-2009, 04:29 PM

XFX HD 4890 Black Edition Review(1GHz Core/1GHz memory)
http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews.php?reviewid=797Availability = 0 :stick:

Perkam

oohms

06-19-2009, 07:06 PM

The best is yet to come. What part of that can't you understand?

Poll was over and posted by May 6th...

http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/46...tasis-Released
Cryostasis Released Apr 28, 2009.

How many of the people polled, had that game?

I think that by now, most people have a good grasp on what physx is, and what it isn't. Cryostasis doesn't really change that. (Read: do the survey again today and you will get the same results)

PhysX is nvidia only, cutting out almost half of the market, so physx games can either be nvidia only, or non gameplay physics only.

Also the closest thing i have seen to a totally new experience is cell factor. That pretty much required physX (and hence nvidia). None of the games that used physx for visual effects only have really made me go "wow this is awesome, physx makes it so much better"