• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

My UT3 experience with my physx card1

Combat squirrel

Combat squirrel

Combat squirrel

Soldato
Joined
7 Aug 2004
Posts
11,182
As title, running with it on or off makes no noticible difference to game play on all the normal levels.

On the special physx levels it runs noticibly slower, tornado drops to ~6 fps, it runs and is coded oh so very badly, yet the debri and all that stuff are simply shapes, i REALLY dont know what agiea are playing at, the stuff and physics on crysis is 100X better and runs a hell of a lot better as well, not in the slighest impressed, if they used the crysis engine physics on the tornado level it would be a load better.

Oh well, simply it aint powerful enough to run even half complex physics, at worst its moving around tubes, cubes and circles in a tornado, and a LOAD less of them than in crysis.

Bye bye agiea you suck, good job I got the card 2nd hand for a cheap cheap price ! lol

Seriously studying the physx engine in a modern game environment its far far behind the times, new updates needed, new physics engine needed simple as that, they should start from the ground up and begin again.

Before you jump in pottsey with stats and 2TB internal bandwidth figures, it makes no difference, what the end user see's; is how powerful the card is, and it is quite frankly, NOT powerful, backed up by a truely aweful and old old physics engine code
 
Last edited:
Silly question, but I'm presuming you have all the necessary drivers etc? And most up to date ones? :) And all relevant patches.
 
i was going to pick up one of these the other day for £60 but i wont bother, isnt there a new revised version 2 coming out soon?
 
Just seems weird to me, that you add the card to get the extra effects...Then it kills your system :eek:

Maybe they'll add a patch to it...Have you looked on any forums for people with similar problems or?
 
Part of the problem is that the PhysX card is now 18 months old and the design of it will be even older. 18 months in CPU development is an age and current processors have simply caught up a great deal. When PhysX was launched, the C2D wasn't even available, it was P4s and Athlons. Whilst a dedicated physics processor will always have an edge over a general purpose one, the gap has closed significantly over the past year or two, such that software based physics systems like Havoc have been able to produce much the same level of effects as PhysX cards are capable of.
 
Agiea are dead in the water, UT3 was just away for them to get some much needed attention, shame they didnt actually put out in the game to warrant it. I really don't see how they can keep on operating, the game support is pathetic and when they do have a supported game, the extras and performance you get with the agiea card are feeble at best, finances must be really thin, sooner they go under the better.
 
Last edited:
And isnt the latest thinking that physics will be dealt with by a CPU core in multi core models anyway, removing the need for a Physics card?
 
Lmfao, i'm waiting for Pottsey's excuse for this one. The OP's done everything Pottsey would normally argue about if a review was saying it was performing awfully.

Newest drivers, decent spec, specialized map.

Ouch :D
 
It's just flawed...Simple as.

IF they could somehow make the PhysX card take physics away from the CPU "naturally" ie without specific coding for each game, it would be so much more beneficial in my opinion. I don't know how they could do it, but instead of running the physics through the cpu, just let the Physx card intervene and take the load off the cpu all together.
 
Delvis said:
It's just flawed...Simple as.

IF they could somehow make the PhysX card take physics away from the CPU "naturally" ie without specific coding for each game, it would be so much more beneficial in my opinion. I don't know how they could do it, but instead of running the physics through the cpu, just let the Physx card intervene and take the load off the cpu all together.
Click to expand...

This is what im hoping the GPU's will do when you can SLi or Crossfire them to act as physics cards (the X1600 has done this? correct me if im wrong).
 
Nymins said:
This is what im hoping the GPU's will do when you can SLi or Crossfire them to act as physics cards (the X1600 has done this? correct me if im wrong).
Click to expand...

Yeah that's what I mean, if they could do that with the physx card, I'd probably get one to help with everyday physics calculations.
 
A random name said:
Lmfao, i'm waiting for Pottsey's excuse for this one. The OP's done everything Pottsey would normally argue about if a review was saying it was performing awfully.

Newest drivers, decent spec, specialized map.

Ouch :D
Click to expand...

Yep iv double checked everything, the only thing it could be is agieas own latest drivers, or simply the fact that the card is slow and the physx engine is crud.

Only thing im going to check now is play the game on a normal map with and without hardware physx enabled, to see how much CPU usage is taking place, not that it matters, both run fine.
 
Havok FX should take off as soon ATI and Nvidia implement it into their cards and Games start to take advantage of it.
 
You can run the levels without a PhysX card anyway, I get 25-30fps on them @ 2560x1600 highest details. For comparison I get 60+ on any of the normal UT3 maps. I haven't stuck my PhysX card in yet as it's sitting in a box somewhere and I really don't want to remove one of my Ultras for it.
 
SS-89 said:
Havok FX should take off as soon ATI and Nvidia implement it into their cards and Games start to take advantage of it.
Click to expand...

Not sure it will with intel buying havok it has already been said havok with nvidia and ati is dead in the water now that why it been posted about AMD buying agiea and we been waiting for ati/nvidia to do physics with a add on card for years now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom