Mafia 2 will utilize PhysX and 3D Vision

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

08-10-2010, 04:02 PM
s1nykuL

I think the game looks good, game play on foot is good, car handling sucks. (This is subjective, I am not going to argue about it). I get an average of 56fps on my sigged rig @ 1680x1050 all maxed out with AA enabled. No physX enabled, I presumed I would require a nVidia card. Perhaps I try with physX enabled at some point, but to be honest after completing the demo I probably won't bother. Time limit on exploration, distance limit to where you can travel, it sucks the big one. I was impressed enough to buy the game, but only when it becomes a budget title, I can happily wait three or so months. I won't pay full price for an nVidia sponsored DX9 game.
08-10-2010, 05:18 PM
Carfax

Quote:

Originally Posted by FischOderAal

Carfax, other expressed the same problems (PhysX running on the CPU even with NVIDIA GFX) and they solved it via installing the PhysX driver that is included in the installation folder (3rd).

Thanks, it worked! :up:

GPU 3 is my dedicated PhysX card, so it looks like the game is definitely using it for PhysX effects.

Also, from the GPU activity, it's obvious that the game doesn't require anywhere near a GTX 285 for PhysX :rolleyes:

http://a.imageshack.us/img338/5897/physxon.png
08-10-2010, 05:25 PM
Ket

A overclocked GTX240 is plenty for PhysX still carfax ;) Been playing around with the idea of getting a 240 myself for PhysX, but at the same time while actually gaming I know I wouldn't notice PhysX or miss it :/
08-10-2010, 05:39 PM
Carfax

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ket

A overclocked GTX240 is plenty for PhysX still carfax ;) Been playing around with the idea of getting a 240 myself for PhysX, but at the same time while actually gaming I know I wouldn't notice PhysX or miss it :/

Batman AA is one game where PhysX makes a big difference in the overall tone and feel of the game.

I haven't played the Mafia 2 demo yet, so until I do, I can't say whether PhysX makes a big difference or not.
08-10-2010, 06:45 PM
SamHughe

There is definitely something wrong with the game engine. I can play the demo pretty smoothly with the rig in my sig at 1920x1200 physix high up to a point then it crawls to a slow motion. If I reload from a checkpoint, it will be running smoother again.
According to the benchmark, my average FPS is 10 which is not right. So there is something wrong with the game.
The game play is good though. If you are a fan of GTA you will love this game.
08-10-2010, 06:56 PM
Johnny87au

physx or not, gonna be a sick game!
08-10-2010, 07:22 PM
SamHughe

Quote:

Originally Posted by trinibwoy

Yep, try uninstalling PhysX and then reinstalling it from the game's directory. Apparently it doesn't install properly or something and it runs on the CPU. Can't remember where I saw it else I would drop a link.

Yep this solution worked for me. The benchmark results went from 10fps average to 40fps average (52fps average with physX off).
08-10-2010, 08:08 PM
STEvil

so... anyone tested whether they Single threaded or multithreaded PhysX in this? I'm guessing single.
08-10-2010, 11:49 PM
Carfax

Quote:

Originally Posted by STEvil

so... anyone tested whether they Single threaded or multithreaded PhysX in this? I'm guessing single.

Single or multithreaded, it won't make much of a difference as the performance you'll get for running it on the CPU will be vastly inferior to running it on a GPU.

On Apex high, the game can have up to 10,000 dynamic particles on the screen...far more than modern CPUs can handle.
08-10-2010, 11:54 PM
El Mano

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carfax

Single or multithreaded, it won't make much of a difference as the performance you'll get for running it on the CPU will be vastly inferior to running it on a GPU.

On Apex high, the game can have up to 10,000 dynamic particles on the screen...far more than modern CPUs can handle.

How many CPU threads does this game use at 100%?
08-11-2010, 12:41 AM
SamHughe

By the way, now there is a way to disable that annoying 10 minute time limit in the demo. I don't think we're allowed to reveal it in here so just google it. Don't use the so called "patch" it's not working. Just look for the "hex editor" solution. It takes longer but it works. Now I can go around the map and explore the stores or just drive around in different cars. Makes the demo little bit more enjoyable.
08-11-2010, 01:01 AM
JohnZS

For those of you having PhysX related performance issues, try the latest PhysX runtime 9.10.0513 released by nVidia here
John
08-11-2010, 05:02 AM
Carfax

Quote:

Originally Posted by El Maño

How many CPU threads does this game use at 100%?

Does it really matter? Who wants to have their CPU pegged at 100%?

Ghostbusters, which used the Velocity physics engine, was able to simulate 3,500 rigid bodies, and 200 soft bodies on a Core i7 that was fully utilized.

Mafia 2 uses hardware acceleration to simulate up to 10,000 UNIQUE objects, plus cloth effects, using GPUs that costs less than a Core i7 while not even being fully taxed. :yepp:
08-11-2010, 05:02 AM
Carfax

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnZS

For those of you having PhysX related performance issues, try the latest PhysX runtime 9.10.0513 released by nVidia here
John

Did that version increase your performance?
08-11-2010, 05:20 AM
Manicdan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carfax

Does it really matter? Who wants to have their CPU pegged at 100%?

Ghostbusters, which used the Velocity physics engine, was able to simulate 3,500 rigid bodies, and 200 soft bodies on a Core i7 that was fully utilized.

Mafia 2 uses hardware acceleration to simulate up to 10,000 UNIQUE objects, plus cloth effects, using GPUs that costs less than a Core i7 while not even being fully taxed. :yepp:

this is one of the many arguments about physics and how nvidia handles physx

i own a hex-core, most games use 2 threads, some may use 4. the cost to go from a quad to hex was not that much. so if i have that extra power, something like physics which can very easily scale across more threads, should. the only reason it will not use all my cores is because it was specifically limited to not (nvidia hindering performance for the non nvidia owners). i have no say how they do business, but if their game is way to boring and plain without an nvidia card, then the chances of me buying it go way down. its their risk to take
08-11-2010, 05:38 AM
Vardant

What's the point of doing that, if majority of gamers still has dual core rigs?
08-11-2010, 05:46 AM
w0mbat

any decent quad-core cpu could render physx if nvidia would use sse instead of x87 and had a true multi-core support. but then they would lose the only reason there is right now for buying green, so it wont happen.
08-11-2010, 05:51 AM
Carfax

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manicdan

i own a hex-core, most games use 2 threads, some may use 4. the cost to go from a quad to hex was not that much. so if i have that extra power, something like physics which can very easily scale across more threads, should.

Yeah, but how many people have hexcores? Probably 2% or less.

Like Vardant said, the majority of gamers still use dual core processors; although quad cores are catching up quickly.

And from a cost/performance perspective, GPUs absolutely obliterate CPUs when it comes to physics processing anyway.

Quote:

the only reason it will not use all my cores is because it was specifically limited to not (nvidia hindering performance for the non nvidia owners). i have no say how they do business, but if their game is way to boring and plain without an nvidia card, then the chances of me buying it go way down. its their risk to take

I personally don't think Nvidia ever intentionally decided to hinder anyone's performance.

People often forget, that Ageia's physx was designed for hardware acceleration from it's inception. With that said, it makes sense that Nvidia would focus on making PhysX run on their hardware, rather than CPUs.

Anyway, by next year, this arguement will be moot, because Nvidia will release an updated version (3.0) that will include both multithread and SIMD optimizations to the PhysX code base, so everyone should be happy.
08-11-2010, 05:58 AM
Xoulz

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carfax

Does it really matter? Who wants to have their CPU pegged at 100%?

Ghostbusters, which used the Velocity physics engine, was able to simulate 3,500 rigid bodies, and 200 soft bodies on a Core i7 that was fully utilized.

Mafia 2 uses hardware acceleration to simulate up to 10,000 UNIQUE objects, plus cloth effects, using GPUs that costs less than a Core i7 while not even being fully taxed. :yepp:

Somehow, you missed the point of the Velocity demo...

It wasn't that the demo had 3,000 objects... it was that it had 3k objects being TOSSED AROUND IN REAL TIME.... all at once...!! Mafia 2 might have 10k objects in the game, but not on the screen, with all objects having physical forces being applied to them all... at the same time... :rolleyes:

Your lack of logic is sad bro, there are more physics in motion in any BF:BC2 game, than in Mafia 2.

Secondly, to the moot price point you were trying to make above... is that you need to spend an additional $150+, for a second video card, thus negating your comments, about the cost of any CPU.

Lastly, your moronic physx crusade is based on marketing and fanboism, instead of applied logic and reasoning. A good many here (within this community) has tried to help you overcome the marketing hole you got sucked into... put down the batman & mafia single player games and play something that offers more than TWIWMTBP..

Not only that, but nvidia owners are the minority of the user base now... while ironically, everyone who plays a game has a CPU. Physx is irrelevant.
08-11-2010, 06:04 AM
Vardant

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xoulz

It wasn't that the demo had 3,000 objects... it was that it had 3k objects being TOSSED AROUND IN REAL TIME.... all at once...!! Mafia 2 might have 10k objects in the game, but not on the screen, with all objects having physical forces being applied to them all... at the same time... :rolleyes:

Up to 3,000 unique particles on screen at any given time (10,000 at High settings) plus the clothing and other stuff.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xoulz

Not only that, but nvidia owners are the minority of the user base now... while ironically, everyone who plays a game has a CPU. Physx is irrelevant.

http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/8180/xsrtard.jpg

Obvious troll is obvious.
08-11-2010, 06:07 AM
Manicdan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carfax

Yeah, but how many people have hexcores? Probably 2% or less.

Like Vardant said, the majority of gamers still use dual core processors; although quad cores are catching up quickly.

And from a cost/performance perspective, GPUs absolutely obliterate CPUs when it comes to physics processing anyway.

I personally don't think Nvidia ever intentionally decided to hinder anyone's performance.

People often forget, that Ageia's physx was designed for hardware acceleration from it's inception. With that said, it makes sense that Nvidia would focus on making PhysX run on their hardware, rather than CPUs.

Anyway, by next year, this arguement will be moot, because Nvidia will release an updated version (3.0) that will include both multithread and SIMD optimizations to the PhysX code base, so everyone should be happy.

i wasnt trying to start a fight, just trying to point out the perspective that many of us have.

go look up steam hardware, lots of people have quads. and physics can be easily scaled across threads, so whats their excuse? not worth the investment, or were they paid by nvidia to reduce what they wanted for cpu physics to make physx look better? until the answer to that is known, its all just speculation. if my assumption is right, nvidia is hurting the gaming market. if your assumption is right, then developers are just flat out lazy.

btw after all the BS nvidia has pulled with physx, i honestly doubt that 3.0 will make everyone happy. i expect some kind of marketing circus again.
08-11-2010, 06:07 AM
Eastcoasthandle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xoulz

Somehow, you missed the point of the Velocity demo...

It wasn't that the demo had 3,000 objects... it was that it had 3k objects being TOSSED AROUND IN REAL TIME.... all at once...!! Mafia 2 might have 10k objects in the game, but not on the screen, with all objects having physical forces being applied to them all... at the same time... :rolleyes:

Your lack of logic is sad bro, there are more physics in motion in any BF:BC2 game, than in Mafia 2.

Secondly, to the moot price point you were trying to make above... is that you need to spend an additional $150+, for a second video card, thus negating your comments, about the cost of any CPU.

Lastly, your moronic physx crusade is based on marketing and fanboism, instead of applied logic and reasoning. A good many here (within this community) has tried to help you overcome the marketing hole you got sucked into... put down the batman & mafia single player games and play something that offers more than TWIWMTBP..

Not only that, but nvidia owners are the minority of the user base now... while ironically, everyone who plays a game has a CPU. Physx is irrelevant.

Good point.
08-11-2010, 06:13 AM
w0mbat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vardant

http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/8180/xsrtard.jpg

Obvious troll is obvious.

and u think steam is more obvious?
08-11-2010, 06:31 AM
Vardant

Do you have any other and better source of HW stats? It's hundreds of thousands of computers, that's gotta account for something.

Even when you try to predict election results, you only ask thousands of people and it is pretty accurate.
08-11-2010, 06:32 AM
Carfax

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xoulz

Somehow, you missed the point of the Velocity demo...

It wasn't that the demo had 3,000 objects... it was that it had 3k objects being TOSSED AROUND IN REAL TIME.... all at once...!! Mafia 2 might have 10k objects in the game, but not on the screen, with all objects having physical forces being applied to them all... at the same time... :rolleyes:

I should have been more specific. Mafia 2 has up to 10K objects on the screen at any given time, many of them unique with different properties.

So not only do you get more objects, but your CPU isn't pegged at 100% :rofl:

Quote:

Secondly, to the moot price point you were trying to make above... is that you need to spend an additional $150+, for a second video card, thus negating your comments, about the cost of any CPU.

No, my point isn't moot, because even the fastest hexcore processor (which costs over 1K) cannot match my 130 USD GTS 250 when it comes to physics processing.

Quote:

Lastly, your moronic physx crusade is based on marketing and fanboism, instead of applied logic and reasoning. A good many here (within this community) has tried to help you overcome the marketing hole you got sucked into... put down the batman & mafia single player games and play something that offers more than TWIWMTBP..

No, my arguements are logical, while yours is the voice of fanaticism and lunacy.

Case in point, only a fanatic would tell me what games I should, and should not play :rolleyes:

Quote:

Not only that, but nvidia owners are the minority of the user base now... while ironically, everyone who plays a game has a CPU. Physx is irrelevant.

You keep saying PhysX is irrelevent, yet big titles keep using it. First Metro 2033, then Mafia 2..

What game will be next I wonder? :ROTF:

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page