Dude, do you get an e-mail everytime I post in this thread? :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Talonman
I was talking about the Hardware Canucks review, not in general :up:
Perkam
Printable View
Dude, do you get an e-mail everytime I post in this thread? :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Talonman
I was talking about the Hardware Canucks review, not in general :up:
Perkam
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?
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.
i dont get those numbers, whats the first and second fps? average/max?Quote:
Originally Posted by Talonman
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by perkam
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.
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle
I didn't see anything that could not be done on the CPU.
Yes, selecting the slower CPU to process PhysX on is an option. not a good one though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Talonman
So why isn't this in the video card section, every other thread got moved...
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Talonman
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle
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. :)
Good points until you run a dedicated PhysX pocessor.Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Talonman
- 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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Talonman
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.
Using a 280 for a dedicated PhysX processor is rather Xtreme one might say! :p:
It's rather stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Talonman
Maybe they sould print 'Best with a dedicated PhysX GPU' on the box?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle
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?
But adds more performance in PhysX games than an i7 system can...Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1420948
Only stupid to the uninformed...
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by Talonman
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)
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.
You're right, it goes back and forth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Talonman
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
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.
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)
The CPU does offer better accessability, I will give you that for sure! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle
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.
I actually was suprised, when I took a hard look at the numbers... :)Quote:
Originally Posted by perkam
I do know Nvidia does usually loose the AA race with ATI. Good to see them working on that. :up: