Associate
- Joined
- 9 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 335
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
As thread title asks...?
Sorry for the noob question.
Sorry for the noob question.
-
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.
Are the Physics cards PCI or PCI-Express?
- Thread starter techmonkey
- Start date
- Joined
- 9 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 335
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
Cheers. 
testa12 said:
to provide realistic physics simulation in the latest games like cellfactor, graw, etc. the agiea physics card is immensly powerful, it allows for deformable terrains in all the latest games. clock half life 2 in under 30 mins by abusing the physics engine to the max!
They are not useless anymore at least not for everyone. The problems with large performance loss has been fixed. Sure the PPU is limited but not useless. They boost max FPS sometimes and give you extra effects. If you’re thinking about getting one look at the games you have and games you plan to get. If you have games that use the PPU or games on pre order that will use the PPU its worth getting.
If you don’t have games that use the PPU and none of the games due out with PPU support are on your list of games to get, don’t get the PPU.
But with there being 6 games out now and all better then the Ghost Recon effects I dont think its fair to call the PPU useless. You need to look at the games you have and which if any use the PPU.
If you don’t have games that use the PPU and none of the games due out with PPU support are on your list of games to get, don’t get the PPU.
But with there being 6 games out now and all better then the Ghost Recon effects I dont think its fair to call the PPU useless. You need to look at the games you have and which if any use the PPU.
That’s an extremely bad review. The reviewer was vary unfair against the PPU. He choose not to patch the game and instead ran the version which is known to have massive physics related performance issues and them on top of that he used old drivers.
Surly a fair review should have used the patch which fix’s the physics related problems? New drivers would have been nice as well. Or at the very least did 1 benchmark/comparison of the retail game and the patched game.
Also the review was complaining about a lot of physics done by Havok only he never once mentioned Havok did the physics but instead made it sound like the PPU was to blame.
I know I am classed as a bit of a fanboy. But I am sure you can agree as reviews go that’s not a fair review. No ones interested in how the PPU used to be. We all know it was poor when it first came out. We are interested in what its like now after patch’s and new drivers have fixed the problems.
Everyone would be up in arms if someone reviewed a new 3Dcard with old drivers and an unpatched game with known 3D related issues which have been fixed with patch’s before the review took place.
Surly a fair review should have used the patch which fix’s the physics related problems? New drivers would have been nice as well. Or at the very least did 1 benchmark/comparison of the retail game and the patched game.
Also the review was complaining about a lot of physics done by Havok only he never once mentioned Havok did the physics but instead made it sound like the PPU was to blame.
I know I am classed as a bit of a fanboy. But I am sure you can agree as reviews go that’s not a fair review. No ones interested in how the PPU used to be. We all know it was poor when it first came out. We are interested in what its like now after patch’s and new drivers have fixed the problems.
Everyone would be up in arms if someone reviewed a new 3Dcard with old drivers and an unpatched game with known 3D related issues which have been fixed with patch’s before the review took place.