Ageia PhysX + UT3

Perfect_Chaos · 15 Oct 2007 at 11:23

Richdog said:
I take it you haven't ready any threads or posts on the forum about UT3 then.

Not yet, ive only seen benchmarks of 1600 x 1200 + though.. then minimum was around 40 fps. So i imagine its like silk at 1024 x 768.

drunkenmaster · 15 Oct 2007 at 11:55

Pottsey said:
Is there a benchmarks option/command? If there is I am happy to post benchmarks.

Its looking like the demo is not max graphics. Like the old demos full graphics and settings only work in the full game.

“but texture options are gpu limit related, they will have no effect, and gain no increase in speed from a ageia physx card”
Not directly no. But lets say you have 30fps you turn on the extra texture options and lose 10fps. Now add a PPU and gain 10fps. The PPU lets you up the settings and keep the FPS smooth. In theory.

not really, if you are losing fps from just texture options then you are gpu limited, releasing a bit of free cpu power will not change that you are gpu limited so no, the physx would give exactly the same fps there.

the only situation it could help is really in poor cpu/good gpu situations, and then only possibly, we need to see which maps support it, what difference it makes. i don't even know what the current demo does in terms of the physx option. you're supposed to be able to run identical settings physx or cpu, so the hardware physx option should just load the cpu more without the card. unfortunately i can't get the demo working at all now and i have no clue why(cept maybe a dying hdd where i saved the demo too, not really sure if its dying though).

Margaret · 15 Oct 2007 at 12:16

leon4112 said:
well the fact of the matter is the demo is only running with medium textures which was said before the demo came out so thats why its running so well on everyones pcs wait till the full version is out and the high and very high textures are in and see how ure pc dies then !!!!

I doubt high and very high textures are going to decrease the FPS by a huge margin, the full product will probably perform even better than this demo does at the moment, plus ATi and nVidia will bring drivers out to increase performance again more than likely.

Pottsey · 15 Oct 2007 at 19:28

“In terms of raw numbers, this spells out like this:
When physics are going on, that means debris flying all around, explosions etc. Judging from the screenshots, with the physX card off, I'm seeing 29-30 FPS
With the Card in, in similar situations, I'm seeing 39-40 FPS.”

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?p=2488461

masterk · 15 Oct 2007 at 19:47

Im running a Q6600, with 20 bots on a big map it uses about 40% of all my cores, so its using around 4.5ghz. I honestly cant see in any way they are going to implement any physics effects that use over 4.5ghz of my remaining power.

Or to that affect how a £70 PHYSX card is going to be more powerful than 4.5ghz of Intel Core CPU?

badbob · 15 Oct 2007 at 19:51

masterk said:
Or to that affect how a £70 PHYSX card is going to be more powerful than 4.5ghz of Intel Core CPU?

Much like a PSX1 is faster than a 12mhz PC when it comes to 3D gaming. Or add-on co-processor helped maths functions
Not that I'm hyping up Aegia card.

Final8y · 15 Oct 2007 at 20:19

masterk said:
Im running a Q6600, with 20 bots on a big map it uses about 40% of all my cores, so its using around 4.5ghz. I honestly cant see in any way they are going to implement any physics effects that use over 4.5ghz of my remaining power.

Or to that affect how a £70 PHYSX card is going to be more powerful than 4.5ghz of Intel Core CPU?

They guy in the bench link pottsey posted was using a Quad Q6600 the fact that you cant see or understand why is irrelevant.

metalmackey · 15 Oct 2007 at 21:13

I know someone who has done a lot of work with the PhysX SDK. He says you get a lot better performance with a dual core cpu than with a single core+PPu. I asked why, he said coz it takes a lot longer to sync with the PPU than with another cpu core.

valerian · 15 Oct 2007 at 21:15

Rangler said:
Ok unfortunately I dont own one of these cards but with the UT3 demo installing some libraries for PhysX and the U3 engine being used by more games, its making me wonder "Should i try one?"

Surely it must take some of the load away from the main CPU and place it on the PPU and hence on lower spec pc's increase frame rate etc.??

I know my pc (in sig) isnt the best but come X-mas ill have 4GB of ram and eith a 640MB GTS or 2900Pro to go with it, so would a PhysX card really help.?

Im curious.. Are there any people out there with PhysX cards that have tried the UT3 demo?, can they comment on wether turning HARDWARE PhysX ON and OFF makes a difference.?

Thoughts and comments please.???

don't bother, also uses up a valuable slot if you get a decent graphics card and cooler.

mdjmcnally · 15 Oct 2007 at 21:16

Wow it's taken 15 days for the month Ageia thread. With UT3 on the way and also some other UT3 based games coming out then looks like the PPU might be worth getting.

After all compared to the price of Quad Core CPU's 8800/2900 cards, 24" monitors, and the extra memory that everyone seems to be buying then you can't seriously say that you will miss £70-80 for the PPU can you?

Pottsey · 15 Oct 2007 at 21:27

”Originally Posted by masterk
Or to that affect how a £70 PHYSX card is going to be more powerful than 4.5ghz of Intel Core CPU?”
The PPU has 12+cores and way more internal bandwidth then a Intel CPU. For physics paper spec wise a PPU is more powerful then any current home CPU.

Rangler · 15 Oct 2007 at 23:04

I see what everyone is saying about the fact that a quad core cpu is going to be more powerful..

But surely a device that is designed and built from the ground up is going to be more efficient and please note "efficient" and not affective than a cpu.

At the end of the day we really need someone with real world benchmarks, which i suppose isnt going to happen until the full game is released.

Also is the Aegia PhysX card supported in 64bit terms.? driver wise.? or otherwise.?

Im still not 100% certain about this, we see 100's if not 1000's of benchmarks from hardware vendors and reseller sites regarding gfx cards, cpu and combinations thereoff.
Is it not time we have a substantial review from an independant reseller like for example "OCUK" who would give independant none biased reviews etc.???

Just my 5 penneth.

Rangler · 15 Oct 2007 at 23:10

valerian said:
don't bother, also uses up a valuable slot if you get a decent graphics card and cooler.

Ok so lets hypothesise that i have plently of space, and the spare cash etc...

Im trying get get thoughts and real world results here, regardless off space etc etc..

Margaret · 15 Oct 2007 at 23:13

Don't get one of them, you will regret it when other people are posting "UT3 runs maxed out great on my system! Specs are E6600"..etc

badbob · 15 Oct 2007 at 23:14

I think you're trying to justify the purchase, rather than NEEDING it. It's not like a soundcard or GPU upgrade.

At the present time I think a Aegia card is a waste of money, until ALL games have extra content built into the game, rather just a few things here and there.

Rangler · 15 Oct 2007 at 23:18

Ok then so lets say theyre totally pants and absolutely useless....

In that case WHY does the U3 engine support it.?.. Forget the framerate benefit and gfx side of things.. Would it improve gameplay and realism.???

Again im hypothesising as i dont have one of these cards YET a lot of people who play GRAW etc do have them and enjoy them...!!?

Rangler · 15 Oct 2007 at 23:20

Im not trying to justify buying one,,, Im about to spend £300 on a gfx card so £75+ on a PPU card isnt going to hurt as its coming up to christmas and i probably upgrade maybe once every 18-24 months.

Margaret · 15 Oct 2007 at 23:23

Rangler said:
Ok then so lets say theyre totally pants and absolutely useless....

In that case WHY does the U3 engine support it.?.. Forget the framerate benefit and gfx side of things.. Would it improve gameplay and realism.???

Again im hypothesising as i dont have one of these cards YET a lot of people who play GRAW etc do have them and enjoy them...!!?

No and what the hell? Unreal isn't meant to be realistic!

Also of course they would say that, doubt they wanna say something bad when they paid 70+ quid for it.

badbob · 15 Oct 2007 at 23:27

Rangler said:
Im not trying to justify buying one,,, Im about to spend £300 on a gfx card so £75+ on a PPU card isnt going to hurt as its coming up to christmas and i probably upgrade maybe once every 18-24 months.

You're a marketing mans wet dream, sounds like you're already sold on one anyway and want to be told not to buy it.

Think the other way round.

Rangler · 15 Oct 2007 at 23:35

Save the £75 and go for quad core then.??

So maybe what people are saying is ...

"save the dosh sell my existing C2D and go for a quad core then.?".

Hell gaming and the pc industry is far too much hard word im just going to sell it all and get a PS3... NOT.!!!

The purpose of this thread was to get thoughts and ideas from people, which it has done and for this i thank you all..

I now think a sensible idea is for the missus and i to share buying one and test ourselves then if we like it we buy another one.. Hell if we dont we've only lost £35 each and I'll give it her for X-mas and she'll think she's got a bargain