[Ailuros]

Originally Posted by John Reynolds

As promised, here are some quick Batman: AA numbers using the in-game benchmark. Test system is a Core i7 965, 6GB, GTX 285, VelociRaptor/Intel X-25M SSD, 190.38 driver set. All in-game settings maxed out, 16x AF set via the control panel (8x AA via the app). I don't have much free time tonight, so just ran the test three times at 2560x1600.

PhysX off = 58 average fps
PhysX Normal = 35 fps
PhysX High = 28 fps

So at that res, with those settings, PhysX literally cuts the frame rate in half (at least in that benchmark, which specifically focuses on scenes using it). The difference between high and normal is cloth physics (no fluttering flags or cobwebs at normal).

8xMSAA in 2560? Doesn't sound like a very demanding game to me. Two questions for when you have time: how does it fair with 4xAA instead and what's roughly the average framerate that still guarantees playability?

[Davros]

Do devs have working g300's

[neliz]

Originally Posted by Davros

Do devs have working g300's

would they tell you?


Better question would be, How long have they been working on that other GPU?

[leoneazzurro]

Originally Posted by Ailuros

8xMSAA in 2560? Doesn't sound like a very demanding game to me. Two questions for when you have time: how does it fair with 4xAA instead and what's roughly the average framerate that still guarantees playability?

Problem is, that these very low FPS are reached also at lower resolutions, like there was a "CPU limited" issue (I don't know if it's a driver or implementation related problem, or that at this point the calculations are simply too many for the present GPUs), and this is the current high-end single card. I have a GTS250, imagine that frame rate JR showed being more than halved again even at 1024*768 and we can have the picture.

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Originally Posted by digitalwanderer

I think the moral of this thread is that nVidia will spread whatever FUD they feel they must in order to make up for their lack of a competing product.

They are working with what they've got, but it's never been the case before that they've had so little to work with.

Unfortunately whenever Nvidia is in that position, they tend to throw out what little honesty they have and seem to be happy to say whatever they need to say, even if it's lies and nonsense. It's one of the reasons I boycott their products. As a consumer I just don't trust them. I feel like I'm being treated like an idiot when I see things like that "Physx > All" PR statment, so I don't want to give them my money.

[Davros]

@neliz no, but if they give an answer like "im not allowed to comment"
we've got them after all nv wouldn't get them to sign something saying they cant tell us if they have something they don't have

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Originally Posted by Arty

Pfft, holiday season isnt important. If it does matter even remotely then Nvidia will have launched G300 in some form or another.

Of course, Nvidia will soon be telling us that Christmas isn't important and Easter is what consumers actually want. :


Nvidia's Sr. Vice President, Investor Relations, Mike Hara, has played down the significance of Christmas at the Deutsche Bank Securities Technology Conference. Instead, Mr. Hard insists Holidays like Easter, 4th July, and Thanksgiving are the future.

“Christmas by itself is not going be the defining reason to buy a new GPU. It will be one of the reasons. This is why Microsoft is in work with the industry to allow more freedom and more creativity in how you build holidays, which is always good, and the new features at Christmas are going to allow people to do that. But that no longer is the only reason, we believe, consumers would want to invest in Christmas,” explains Mr. Hara.

[Alexko]

Originally Posted by Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.

Of course, Nvidia will soon be telling us that Christmas isn't important and Easter is what consumers actually want. :


Nvidia's Sr. Vice President, Investor Relations, Mike Hara, has played down the significance of Christmas at the Deutsche Bank Securities Technology Conference. Instead, Mr. Hard insists Holidays like Easter, 4th July, and Thanksgiving are the future.

“Christmas by itself is not going be the defining reason to buy a new GPU. It will be one of the reasons. This is why Microsoft is in work with the industry to allow more freedom and more creativity in how you build holidays, which is always good, and the new features at Christmas are going to allow people to do that. But that no longer is the only reason, we believe, consumers would want to invest in Christmas,” explains Mr. Hara.

Someone should make a generator for this, where you pick 2 words (e.g. GPGPU and DX11, Easter and Christmas, etc.) and it generates an Nvidia statement.

[Scali]

Originally Posted by Ailuros

8xMSAA in 2560? Doesn't sound like a very demanding game to me. Two questions for when you have time: how does it fair with 4xAA instead and what's roughly the average framerate that still guarantees playability?

Proves the point I made earlier though... Even current cards can get 60+ fps at very high resolutions.
The game is capped at 60 fps anyway, so what point is there in a faster AMD card?
It may be faster than the GTX285, but the GTX285 can already do 60+ fps at 2560 res with 8xMSAA and 16xAF. Where do you go from there?

[neliz]

Originally Posted by Scali

Proves the point I made earlier though... Even current cards can get 60+ fps at very high resolutions.
The game is capped at 60 fps anyway, so what point is there in a faster AMD card?
It may be faster than the GTX285, but the GTX285 can already do 60+ fps at 2560 res with 8xMSAA and 16xAF. Where do you go from there?

eyefinity?

[Scali]

Originally Posted by neliz

eyefinity?

I don't see myself splashing out tons of cash on a bunch of monitors... heck, I don't even have the room for them on my desk. I think that goes for most people, they neither want to spend the money or the room required for such a setup.
As I said before, I think it's a niche feature.

[Florin]

Originally Posted by Alexko

Someone should make a generator for this, where you pick 2 words (e.g. GPGPU and DX11, Easter and Christmas, etc.) and it generates an Nvidia statement.

Maybe ask Charlie if you can borrow his article generator?

[LonelyMind]

Originally Posted by John Reynolds

As promised, here are some quick Batman: AA numbers using the in-game benchmark. Test system is a Core i7 965, 6GB, GTX 285, VelociRaptor/Intel X-25M SSD, 190.38 driver set. All in-game settings maxed out, 16x AF set via the control panel (8x AA via the app). I don't have much free time tonight, so just ran the test three times at 2560x1600.

PhysX off = 58 average fps
PhysX Normal = 35 fps
PhysX High = 28 fps

So at that res, with those settings, PhysX literally cuts the frame rate in half (at least in that benchmark, which specifically focuses on scenes using it). The difference between high and normal is cloth physics (no fluttering flags or cobwebs at normal).

What am I missing here? I thought by buying a nVidia card (and one of the best) you get a lot of visual extras and the card takes care of the math doing it? Then why does the fps tank? 285 is quite a capable card, no?

Looks like strange marketing to me; "Buy a PhysX card with lots of visual extras in games and get your fps halved at the same time". With fps nearly halfed, why couldn't these extras be run on the CPU and an AMD GPU instead?
Please explain as I feel very confused at the moment.

With DX10.1 wasn't the games (like Assassins Creed before a patch took it away) both looking better AND running faster?

[LunchBox]

Actually, I am more interested in minimum fps than max frames or average frames, coz the limiting factor is always the minimum frames in a game, they could render something with an average fps of over 100 but if the minimum fps is like 6 then ithe gamer will absolutely see the difference.

[Scali]

Originally Posted by LonelyMind

What am I missing here? I thought by buying a nVidia card (and one of the best) you get a lot of visual extras and the card takes care of the math doing it? Then why does the fps tank? 285 is quite a capable card, no?

Looks like strange marketing to me; "Buy a PhysX card with lots of visual extras in games and get your fps halved at the same time". With fps nearly halfed, why couldn't these extras be run on the CPU and an AMD GPU instead?
Please explain as I feel very confused at the moment.

Have you ever come across a game that does NOT drop in fps when you go from low to higher detail settings?
There's no such thing as a free lunch.

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Originally Posted by LonelyMind

What am I missing here? I thought by buying a nVidia card (and one of the best) you get a lot of visual extras and the card takes care of the math doing it? Then why does the fps tank? 285 is quite a capable card, no?

Looks like strange marketing to me; "Buy a PhysX card with lots of visual extras in games and get your fps halved at the same time". With fps nearly halfed, why couldn't these extras be run on the CPU and an AMD GPU instead?
Please explain as I feel very confused at the moment.

With DX10.1 wasn't the games (like Assassins Creed before a patch took it away) both looking better AND running faster?

Because the extra features of Physx still needs to run on your graphics card, reducing the amount of horsepower available for things like more frames.

It's all very well some people claiming "you don't need more than 60 fps because that's what the game is locked to", but you won't ever get to 60 fps if your card tanks because it can't do the physics calculations and the graphics calculations at the same time. So you need more horsepower in the form of a faster card.

This is where the current "Physx > All" marketing push from Nvidia falls down - they don't have cards fast enough to actually use Physx and keep a reasonable speed up, as shown by their one big Physx title, "Batman Arkham Asylum". Maybe in the next generation of Nvidia cards in the middle of next year.

Originally Posted by LonelyMind

With DX10.1 wasn't the games (like Assassins Creed before a patch took it away) both looking better AND running faster?

That allowed the devs to render more efficiently, thus your card was doing less work and so had more free processing time, allowing other effects, increased framerate or higher resolution. This is one of the advantages of the newer versions of DX10/11 and a matching graphics card.

[Ailuros]

Originally Posted by Scali

Proves the point I made earlier though... Even current cards can get 60+ fps at very high resolutions.
The game is capped at 60 fps anyway, so what point is there in a faster AMD card?
It may be faster than the GTX285, but the GTX285 can already do 60+ fps at 2560 res with 8xMSAA and 16xAF. Where do you go from there?

I'd have to play the game first to reach a fair verdict, but with framerate cutting in half with physics at high it sounds more like a case to me where someone has simply overdone it with physics effects just that the last semi-blind bozo can notice a difference. If that should be the case it's a partial waste of resources which any developer could have invested elsewhere.

[Sxotty]

Originally Posted by Davros

*note to self,
dont tell jokes to chrisray....

That is what emoticons are for And no I didn't think it was a joke either. It came off more as flamebait to me as well.

[Scali]

Originally Posted by Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.

This is where the current "Physx > All" marketing push from Nvidia falls down - they don't have cards fast enough to actually use Physx and keep a reasonable speed up, as shown by their one big Physx title, "Batman Arkham Asylum". Maybe in the next generation of Nvidia cards in the middle of next year.

Firstly, 2560x1600 resolution is way higher than what most people use for gaming. Secondly, 8xMSAA is way higher than what most people use.
Thirdly, even at these extreme settings it still gives you an average of well over 30 fps, which qualifies as 'reaonable speed'.

Playing at more reasonable settings like 1920x1080 and with 4xMSAA, I'm sure the cards still manage to get 60+ fps. 'Not fast enough' is just pure rubbish.

Besides, when nVidia does release faster cards (which they inevitably will at some point), at least with PhysX you can put that extra horsepower to use, where otherwise your card will just be spinning its wheels at 60+ fps, but no additional effects.

[Sxotty]

Originally Posted by Geo

The next person to use "you" or "your" in a post on this thread (after this one, of course) in the next ~24 hours gets a free one week vacation. This isn't RPSC. Members will discuss the issues relevant to the thread, not each other. Or else.

The next smart-aleck oneliner in the next ~24 hours gets a discount --just a one day vacation.

Why the "~"? Because if it is 24 hours and two minutes or something of that carefully not exactly announced duration, no forum-lawyering will avail in defense, s'welp me!

Ugh so now one must write everything in passive voice and use poor sentence structure .

[XMAN26]

Originally Posted by Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.

They are working with what they've got, but it's never been the case before that they've had so little to work with.

Unfortunately whenever Nvidia is in that position, they tend to throw out what little honesty they have and seem to be happy to say whatever they need to say, even if it's lies and nonsense. It's one of the reasons I boycott their products. As a consumer I just don't trust them. I feel like I'm being treated like an idiot when I see things like that "Physx > All" PR statment, so I don't want to give them my money.

And if you think AMD/ATI doesn't do the same exact thing, well I'll leave it up to everyone to make that conclusion. Granted it may not be to the same scale, but they do do it. Maybe you should try ignoring/avoid reading anything Nvidia PR related then you wouldn't have to worry about it. I tend to ignore both sides PR garbage production centers and simply look for the "Proof in the pudding" articles for performance. It works out so much better that way.

[trinibwoy]

Originally Posted by Scali

Firstly, 2560x1600 resolution is way higher than what most people use for gaming. Secondly, 8xMSAA is way higher than what most people use.
Thirdly, even at these extreme settings it still gives you an average of well over 30 fps, which qualifies as 'reaonable speed'.

No, no Scali. You don't get it. PhysX is now worthless unless you can run it at settings that 3% of the gaming population uses.

Besides, when nVidia does release faster cards (which they inevitably will at some point), at least with PhysX you can put that extra horsepower to use, where otherwise your card will just be spinning its wheels at 60+ fps, but no additional effects.

Yep, pretty much. But PhysX only has so much steam until DX11 games hit. And that is completely up to how the initial batch uses those DX11 effects. If it's another CoH Nvidia has nothing to worry about. But if AMD gets its own Batman before Nvidia gets its act together they'll have a hard time spinning.

[Pressure]

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

[neliz]

We will get die shots of GT300.. but no one will tell if it works or not.

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Originally Posted by XMAN26

Granted it may not be to the same scale, but they do do it.

That's kind of where the point lies. Would you have someone pick the flowers, or plough up the meadow and build a swamp?