Batman: Arkham City

[joker454]

I´ll spoil it no more. Looks like gtx580 isn´t enough for this game though Maybe with driver update magic.

Bah, he did the test with 3d on, as he says here:

"I actually ended up turning off the PhysX features and turning down some of the DirectX 11 effects so I could keep the high resolution with 3D enabled and still play at 60 frames per second"

No interest in that. Need to see a non 3d mode enabled benchmark with everything maxed. Guess I'll have to test it later.

 

[John Reynolds]

I love Rocksteady's press release: Please turn off DX11 until we can patch it. Yes, we delayed the release of the PC version for a month so we could then tell users to not take advantage of the features we quoted as the cause of the delay.

 

[Malo]

Nvidia sponsored game and contains tessellation. Let me guess, Jersey Barrier Syndrome again?

 

[John Reynolds]

EA's Origin service has a Black Friday special of $25 for Arkham City today. And you can get a boxed copy of Battlefield 3 for $30.

 

[Mendel]

The game seems to run fine most of the time but occasionally the performance takes a nose dive and goes to single digit framerate for like 2-5 seconds, then resumes smoothness... It´s like as if the gtx580 was running out of texture memory and it would stream from main memory for a while or something. I may try turning down various settings to see with what I can run to make the game keep staying smooth all the time.

 

[Ike Turner]

The game seems to run fine most of the time but occasionally the performance takes a nose dive and goes to single digit framerate for like 2-5 seconds, then resumes smoothness... It´s like as if the gtx580 was running out of texture memory and it would stream from main memory for a while or something. I may try turning down various settings to see with what I can run to make the game keep staying smooth all the time.

Are you running it in DX11? If so then switching to DX9 is theonly solution right now. TockSteady has already stated that the DX11 path is busted and are workingon a fix.

 

[John Reynolds]

Pulled it down from Origin yesterday, took about 8-9 hours, but that's because of my ISP's bandwidth. Origin was completely reliable. I go to install the game, it wants a date check, then it wants to activate my license key. The game launches, which takes about two minutes, and then GfWL wants a login. I provide that, and it wants the license key too, and then it has to update itself. I relaunch the game, and GfWL then pulls a profile down to allow me to create save games. After all that I'm finally able to start playing. At least Origin, unlike Steam, isn't required to be running in the background, because otherwise the entire experience was a total PITA.

 

[MfA]

All the sponsorship is killing games ... the tech is intentionally retarded, the DRM is intentionally retarded ... the whole thing is intentionally retarded.

If all the devs had some backbone like say Carmack it wouldn't be so bad, but most of them just sell out their customers.

 

[homerdog]

All the sponsorship is killing games ... the tech is intentionally retarded, the DRM is intentionally retarded ... the whole thing is intentionally retarded.

If all the devs had some backbone like say Carmack it wouldn't be so bad, but most of them just sell out their customers.

That's what irks me the most. These DX11 paths aren't meant to benefit the customer, they are to receive a check from NVIDIA. If they were serious about making a great PC version it would have a DX10 path, since the majority of PC gamers are still on DX10 hardware. BF3 is the shining example of a 2011 PC game done right, at least on the tech side.

 

[Mendel]

Oh well... I guess I´ll play Arkham Asylum on hard through first... and then a bit of dark souls... and then resume to check if they´ve patched this game

 

[Man from Atlantis]

i did some benchies, dedicated card is waste of power

Q9650@4.00GHz, GTX 460 1GB@900/4200MHz, 9800GT@625/1563/2200MHz, ForceWare 285.79, PhysX driver 09.11.1107

DX9, 1920x1080, All Maxed, 8xMSAA, 16:1 HQAF in driver, LOD=-0.125..

min fps chart

Spoiler

lol 448 cuda cores

 

[Mendel]

care to do the same test with low resolution, no msaa? (just curious if that moves the bottleneck towards physx performance or not)

 

[Man from Atlantis]

care to do the same test with low resolution, no msaa? (just curious if that moves the bottleneck towards physx performance or not)

sure :smile:

same settings same clocks, 800x600, Physx High, NoAA.. 9800GT + GTX 460(PhysX) faster than GTX 460 + 9800GT(PhysX)

now gonna try at 1080p..

 

[Man from Atlantis]

ok done.. with 8xmsaa&physx high 9800GT(512mb) is too slow and ran out of memory even great help with GTX 460 is not enough.. but when we turn 8xmsaa off and turn FXAA high on things change and 9800GT + GTX460(physx) gives same playability with GTX460 + 9800GT(physx).. still a bit slower though..

8xMSAA

FXAA High

 

[Davros]

the 9800gt seems to do very little

 

[Mendel]

Yeah sure seems like 9800gt has outlived its usefulness. Very interesting data though, thanks !

 

[Davros]

Might be useful to ati users as it will enable them to use gpu physx as cpu physx isnt the same
The only problem is the 9800gt is a big, heavy, hot and power hungry card (the reason im not using my gtx260 for physx with my 6950)

having a cool low power card would be preferable.
I wonder if the current gen budget cards have caught up to the 9000 series high end yet (shader power wise)

edit: gt520 has 48 cuda cores as opposed to 112 on the 9800gt so half the power if they are comparable

 

[Malo]

I didn't think Nvidia PhysX drivers allow an Nv GPU to be used for PhysX acceleration when a non-Nvidia primary card is detected? Or has that changed?

 

[Davros]

Not exactly, but it can be done

NVIDIA GeForce driver 256 Hybrid PhysX mod [x86/x64] v1.05ff
http://www.ngohq.com/graphic-cards/17706-hybrid-physx-mod-v1-03-v1-05ff.html

 

[Man from Atlantis]

Might be useful to ati users as it will enable them to use gpu physx as cpu physx isnt the same
The only problem is the 9800gt is a big, heavy, hot and power hungry card (the reason im not using my gtx260 for physx with my 6950)

having a cool low power card would be preferable.
I wonder if the current gen budget cards have caught up to the 9000 series high end yet (shader power wise)

edit: gt520 has 48 cuda cores as opposed to 112 on the 9800gt so half the power if they are comparable

mine is 9800GT Green 55nm G92b, no additional 6 pin power plug.. very efficient card but clearly there is no need, GTX460 is fast enough.. the bad thing is card has very poor idle power management.. gpu sticks with 300mhz @2d and draws ~15-20w higher than my GTX460(i have killawatt)..

heat readings..
9800GT master (51C) + GTX 460 Physx
GTX460 master + 9800GT Physx (41C)