nVidia has faster & cheaper GPU than HD 5870 already

[Heinz68]

Well at least according to this statement at VentureBeat (http://venturebeat.com/2009/09/10/amd-introduces-a-graphics-chip-that-can-power-six-computer-displays/)

Acer, Dell, HP, MSI and Toshiba are creating computers using AMD’s latest graphics chips. In response, Nvidia said in a statement, “The gaming world has moved to dynamic realism, which depicts actual physical movement more realistically than ever before. For example, the No. 1 PC game coming out next week is ‘Batman: Arkham Assyum,’ which takes advantage of graphics plus physics to give it extraordinary realism. Because we support GPU-accelerated physics, our $129 card that’s shipping today is faster than their new RV870 (code name for new AMD chips) that sells for $399.”

[shabby]

The gaming world has moved to dynamic realism

Sure it has...

[K007]

err....

[Maverick123w]

:headexplode:

[Fotis]

(gay)(gay)

[doom3ed_player]

marketing failness

[CaptNKILL]

Ok, I love what games are doing with Physx... but this is retarded. :lol:

[Eliminator]

if only that $129 card could play cryostasis with physx at more than 10fps

[Apheleon]

Because we support GPU-accelerated physics, our $129 card that’s shipping today is faster than their new RV870 (code name for new AMD chips) that sells for $399.”

PX FKING ATi IN PX GAMES (nana2)

[CaptNKILL]

Because we support GPU-accelerated physics, our $129 card that’s shipping today is faster than their new RV870 (code name for new AMD chips) that sells for $399.”

PX FKING ATi IN PX GAMES (nana2)

I have no idea what you just said.

[K007]

guess nvidia is just scared atm?

[jlippo]

guess nvidia is just scared atm?
Apparently their marketing people found out that ati/amd is launching new generation before they do.
Remember the 'unified shders is bad idea' marketing a month or two before 8xxx series..

Happily we do not have to listen their BS for many months, soon we have new generation for both companies and we pretty much know the setting for the next 3 years. ;)

[Lfctony]

What PhysX does is cut your performance in half for a bit of smoke and a few broken tiles. And that's on a GTX280 which costs more $399...

Careful on your way out guys, you might step in the bullsh*t...

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/mirrors_edge_physx_performance/page3.asp

As you can see, turning on GPU-based PhysX had a profound impact on performance. The GeForce GTX 260 saw its frame rate drop by nearly half at 1920x1200, falling 40%. The 9800 GTX+ and 8800 GT saw slightly lower hits of 35% and 33% respectively, but the performance drop was still pretty significant. In fact, enabling PhysX has such a large hit on performance, the GTX 260 and 9800 GTX+ perform awfully close to one another at 1600x1200. Only under the greater graphics demand of 1920x1200 does the GTX 260 begin to pull away from the 9800 GTX+.

OOOOOHHHH! Tempting... :headexplode:

[Muppet]

Apparently their marketing people found out that ati/amd is launching new generation before they do.
Remember the 'unified shders is bad idea' marketing a month or two before 8xxx series..

Happily we do not have to listen their BS for many months, soon we have new generation for both companies and we pretty much know the setting for the next 3 years. ;)

Care to enlighten us. I have no idea what the future holds for ATI and Nvidia in the next few years.

[josiahsuarez]

What PhysX does is cut your performance in half for a bit of smoke and a few broken tiles. And that's on a GTX280 which costs more $399...

Careful on your way out guys, you might step in the bullsh*t...

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/mirrors_edge_physx_performance/page3.asp

OOOOOHHHH! Tempting... :headexplode:

but, what is the point of getting more than 60 FPS if the human eye can't perceive it. better to use that wasted power doing something, instead of drawing extra frames that you will never even see.

if you really wanted to, lower the resolution to 640x480 and turn all the details down to the lowest setting. you'll get a an absolutely massive % increase in performance! all those frivolous "shaders" are cutting your performance in half! just for a bit of polygons and lighting...

[Lfctony]

but, what is the point of getting more than 60 FPS if the human eye can't perceive it. better to use that wasted power doing something, instead of drawing extra frames that you will never even see.

if you really wanted to, lower the resolution to 640x480 and turn all the details down to the lowest setting. you'll get a an absolutely massive % increase in performance! all those frivolous "shaders" are cutting your performance in half! just for a bit of polygons and lighting...

1. What the human eye can perceive is debateable. (Regarding FPS)
2. Your second point couldn't be more off. You are talking about taking everything down and dropping the resolution vs Ultra High settings. I'm talking about Ultra High settings Vs Ultra High settings + smoke. Clearly, not the same.
3. Not all games have the ability to take 50% off their FPS and still be playable, when you enable PhysX. Sure, you can do it in Mirror's Edge. If PhysX was supported in Crysis, which would you prefer? Excellent graphics with smooth gameplay or crappy graphics with "nice" smoke?

BTW, Force Unleashed, Havok. Doable on consoles...
PhysX, Batman, undoable on consoles...

IMO, give us an option to accelerate normal physics ONLY with GPU PhysX acceleration without these extra effects. Not everyone (I believe I'm not alone in this) likes the performance hit of these "features"...

[josiahsuarez]

1. What the human eye can perceive is debateable. (Regarding FPS)
2. Your second point couldn't be more off. You are talking about taking everything down and dropping the resolution vs Ultra High settings. I'm talking about Ultra High settings Vs Ultra High settings + smoke. Clearly, not the same.
3. Not all games have the ability to take 50% off their FPS and still be playable, when you enable PhysX. Sure, you can do it in Mirror's Edge. If PhysX was supported in Crysis, which would you prefer? Excellent graphics with smooth gameplay or crappy graphics with "nice" smoke?

well, this is all very subjective as to what's more important. is it better to have a solid 30 FPS with great graphics, or a solid 60 FPS with just good graphics? different people will give different answers.

my point is that physics effects are part of the graphics of the game. it makes a difference in what you see (beside any gameplay implications, I'm just talking about graphics). a game with "nice" smoke has better graphics than a game with not-so-nice smoke. you could turn those effects off to get better performance, and you could also lower the texture resolution to get better performance. again this gets into a subjective area of what's more important to you personally.

[Lfctony]

IMO its not worth the performance hit for what it offers. As I said, I believe they should offer "PhysX Acceleration" (ie normal physics effects but accelerated by the GPU thus offering better performance) or PhysX Acceleration with Extra Effects (which has the normal physics plus a little extra for people who's system can take the extra load)...

[XMAN52373]

IMO its not worth the performance hit for what it offers. As I said, I believe they should offer "PhysX Acceleration" (ie normal physics effects but accelerated by the GPU thus offering better performance) or PhysX Acceleration with Extra Effects (which has the normal physics plus a little extra for people who's system can take the extra load)...


Disagree, I like having physx enabled when I can. I find it quite funny the review is very suspect. How did they get a modern game which uses PhysX to do PhysX on the Ageai PPU card with Current Nvidia driver installed aswell concidering Nvidia drivers for quite some time have been overriding those cards and making them usless.

And it help I have 2x GTX260 in SLI and have a spare 9600GT I can use for dedicated PhysX use.

[hell_of_doom227]

What PhysX does is cut your performance in half for a bit of smoke and a few broken tiles. And that's on a GTX280 which costs more $399...

Careful on your way out guys, you might step in the bullsh*t...

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/mirrors_edge_physx_performance/page3.asp



OOOOOHHHH! Tempting... :headexplode:

I played Mirror Edge, playing now Darkest of Days. Both game run better on nvidia with physics on then ati cards physics off and btw Darkest of Days looks great with Physics ON. Physics is great and firing squad people are idiots.

[Lfctony]

I played Mirror Edge, playing now Darkest of Days. Both game run better on nvidia with physics on then ati cards physics off and btw Darkest of Days looks great with Physics ON. Physics is great and firing squad people are idiots.

Yes, now that you confirmed it... :headexplode: Excuse if I trust them more than you...

[Ancient76]

Ok, what's wrong with Physx? You can put an old 9600GT for Physx calculations and have much better framerate. In some games performance increase is huge. And how much an old 9600GT costs?

If you don't want Physx, you can disable it.

[Lfctony]

Ok, what's wrong with Physx? You can put an old 9600GT for Physx calculations and have much better framerate. In some games performance increase is huge. And how much an old 9600GT costs?

If you don't want Physx, you can disable it.

Usually, PhysX means extra, very demanding effects... What I'm asking is the option for PhysX GPU acceleration without the extra effects, thus speeding up the framerate. And anyone who wants the extra effects, just enable the "extra" mode...

For example: In Batman (which uses PhysX as its normal engine) having PhysX GPU acceleration enabled offers no performance increases AFAIK. So, whether you have an ATI card or an Nvidia card, makes no difference for physics performance. Enabling PhysX enables extra effects which hit your system hard. An option should be there to enable normal physics acceleration via GPU without the extra effects.

The same happened when Ghost Recon AW came out with Ageia PhysX. Instead of a faster frame rate, the game ran worse when using the PPU...

[aceflier]

Since its a phsX engine, if the effects were enabled on ati hardware (there is a hack to do this via cpu) you would get low fps (Highs of 30fps via this hack). So in reality you are getting improved performance with gpu accelerated physics.

Or am i entirely wrong?

[josiahsuarez]

if you were running the same physics with GPU acceleration you would be getting better overall performance. but like Lfctony said, games supporting Physx do more complex physics to really show off the feature. so at the end of the day overall performance is lower, but you get really slick physics effects in exchange.