• 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.

Full set of PPU benchmarks in UT 3 on normal maps and PhysX maps

Pottsey

Pottsey

Pottsey

Soldato
Joined
29 May 2006
Posts
5,382
At long last benchmarks on both the PhysX maps and normal maps. Why no one else did normal maps is beyond me as that’s what most people will play.

I can see why it’s not worth it due to the cost and lack of games but if you have one there’s no reason not to use it. I see the current PPU as a luxury item that’s not needed, but nice to have for the extra FPS.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3171&p=1

I wonder what difference its makes if you use a slow old CPU?
 
So, what we've established today is that you need to run the PhysX map on an 8800 GTX, a PPU and a QX9650 at 800x600 in order to get playable framerates, and that gains on normal maps and settings are well and truely minimal for the £80 you're supposed to pay for these?
 
Looking at all of our results then, is the PhysX PPU improving performance under UT3’s stock maps? Probably. We can’t rule out other possibilities with the data we have, but our best explanation is that given a big enough map with enough players and vehicles, and enough of a computer to not be held down elsewhere, the PhysX PPU is giving us a measurable performance improvement of 10-20%. However we also have to keep in mind that with the frame rates we were already getting and the kinds of maps we believe this benefit is most pronounced on, that it’s not making a significant difference.



Unreal Tournament 3 as measured by its stock maps however is not that game. There’s an interesting performance boost in what we believe are a fraction of the total maps, but it’s practically academic. The possible performance boost doesn’t occur in enough maps or occur as a big enough boost to clearly justify installing a PhysX PPU; either way the game is going to be completely playable. But it’s a start.

as stated before not worth it !!!
 
Hey Pottsey,

Am I right in thinking that on a Phsx Maps, you get all of the physics effects regardless if you have a Physics processing unit or not, the PPU is primary there to boost the frames per second?

Now referring to the graphs below:

It's very unlikely that people that are into games actually play at a resolution of 800x600, so is it fair to say we can rule that particular resolution out completely? Now referring to the resolution off 1600x1200, even though it is quite clear that you do gain a few extra frames per second (FPS) with a Physics processing unit, surely it still isn't enough to warrant buying a physics processing unit for example the BFG Ageia PhysX Accelerator which costs £88.11, which is quite a lot of money for them extra frames per second.

Phsx.jpg


Now moving on to this graph (Below):

As it is quite clearly showing, even on Non-Phsx Maps, you still get roughly the same extra frames per second with a Physics processing unit but even without one, the game is still very playable and in my opinion, is really not worth having one.

Phsx1.jpg


I am not sure how much of a difference a Phsx Map make's as regards to the Physic effects. Now would it be fair if I was to say that most people who play's games are happy with the visuals and effects of the game as a whole without any of the Phsx? If so surely it would be much better to do away with the whole Physics processing unit and Phsx Maps (At the moment) until the performance on a Phsx Map is much nearer to that of a Non-Physx map with or without a PPU? :)
 
Last edited:
“Am I right in thinking that on a Phsx Maps, you get all of the physics effects regardless if you have a Physics processing unit or not, the PPU is primary there to boost the frames per second?”
That is correct.
 
“another failed attempt to try and claim the PPU is worth it.
Seriously give up pottsey.“
It’s not a failed attempt to try and claim the PPU is worth it, as it’s not an attempt to say the PPU is worth it. It was to show the PPU is not worthless and that it doesn’t slow down FPS. Its not a must have item for UT, its just nice to have.

Can we just once have a decent conversation on the idea behind hardware physics. Without silly pictures and stupid comments?
 
Ok then about hardware. The cpu isn't beig maxed out, instead the game has been made to use a ppu instead so that it can be marketed in some way as mildly useful when in truth its not needed and could ahve been done on the cpu if coded properly without any back hand deals with ppu.

When are you going to give up and relise that the effects being made for ppu only maps arn't very good, they look bad and developers dont put good enough textures on them. The "scripted" physics looks a lot nicer and thats what we care about.

The boost in UT isn't worth it as the game is still quite easly playerble without it and the ppu only maps run really badly and arn't very good anyway. Infact there is only a boost when playing at 800x600 when its from 100 to 120... gee il really notice that difference. At 1900x1200 i doubt ther would be any difference as there isn't much at 1600x1200

Seems quite evident its all made to just try and advertise the PPu and they failed also.
 
Last edited:
Nothing wrong with Pottsey bringing this to peoples attention 8igdave. He may have mentioned it a fair number of times, but that's because he's interested in it, no one else is really taking interest so if he wants to, good on him.

Think it's good to see an improvement regardless of however small it might be.

Matthew
 
“The cpu isn't beig maxed out, instead the game has been made to use a ppu instead so that it can be marketed in some way as mildly useful when in truth its not needed and could ahve been done on the cpu if coded properly without any back hand deals with ppu.”
Code can only be optimised so far. No matter how much you optimised, the CPU should always be slower then hardware. Saying ”could ahve been done on the cpu if coded properly” is just a very poor argument with no basis in fact.

The CPU is sometimes being maxed out see http://www.pcper.com/images/reviews/491/cpuusage_physxmapwithphysx.gif
http://www.pcper.com/images/reviews/491/cpuusage_nonphysxmap.gif





“When are you going to give up and relise that the effects being made for ppu only maps arn't very good, they look bad and developers dont put good enough textures on them. The "scripted" physics looks a lot nicer and thats what we care about.”
First there are no PPU only maps just like there are no PhysX PPU only effects.
Before telling me "give up and relise that the effects being made for ppu only maps arn't very good" you should really read my posts. I said lots of times the PhysX maps are rubbish. In fact I never said anything different then the PhysX maps are rubbish UT.

Scripted physics don’t look as nice and cannot do half the physics the PPU does. Scripted events only go so far. Things like not enough textures has nothing to do with PPU’s and some things just dont work with scripts.





“Infact there is only a boost when playing at 800x600 when its from 100 to 120... gee il really notice that difference. At 1900x1200 i doubt ther would be any difference as there isn't much at 1600x1200”
There is a large difference between 100 and 120fps if your monitor can display that many FPS. Most LCD monitors cannot. As for 1600x1200 that’s because at higher resolutions your GPU limited not CPU limited. So freeing up the CPU by offloading physics isn’t going make much of a difference. The PPU is more helpful for those with slower CPU’s when you’re more CPU limited or at normal resolutions. Also 1600x1200 is rare only a very small number of gamers play that high. Most are 1024x768 or around about that. At common resolutions the PPU does boost FPS as your not as GPU limited.




“Infact there is only a boost when playing at 800x600 when its from 100 to 120...”
Only at 800x600! what about the 1600x1200 score at almost 15fps faster? Also with the PPU your minimum FPS are going be higher then with just the CPU, that’s always a good thing.
 
Last edited:
and seeing that we don't all have quad core CPUs yet, it's interesting to see the difference it makes on a lesser CPU.

I've only looked at that chart above, but it makes a fair difference to the E6600... however, of course, I'd rather take the £80, and sell my E6600 for £80 and buy a Q6600 to be fair ;)

I do like the idea of a Physics card, if we all had one, so they could program games to cater for us all having one, and involve more complex, interactive physics, that affect game play, not just eye candy.

I also wonder if the "old" PPUs aren't getting a bit old now?

If they'd be utilized in games when we all had Pentium 4's, which would struggle to to todays level of physics, if they wouldn't have helped more. They've been available for some time now, and the fact that it's only really the last, what, 6 months or so.... recent future anyway, that I've been reading about big selling games incorporating it, at a time when quad core CPUs are £160 or so, is it too little, too late? I'm not sure what the processing power of a PPU is anyway, but surely it's time for them to release PPU v2, with more horsepower, to really do stunning things that CPUs cannot?

Just thinking out loud here, I don't know how fast the PPU is, only been paying attention to all these threads, where if we're honest, the PPU hasn't been proving itself too well... at least in a "I want to spend my money on this to improve my gaming experience" sort of way.

Regards to Pottsey, I'm not going to flame him at all for his views, and his interest in tech. I'm very interested in Physics hardware tech as well, and would love to see it really used, in the same way as 3D cards were first introduced. First off with software or hardware rendering modes, so the naysayers could still play. As more and more effects were added, and more speed was able to be gained, and the CPU alone couldn't cope any more, games started to become "3D card only" games and these days, we have Crysis! PPU could go the same way, if it could add full interactive physics, to everything, in a simple for the devs to use kind of way, and some kind of massive push to get people to want them... an upcoming game, to have amazing physics effects, both eye candy, and affecting the envirnment to an excessive degree as well, to make you go WOW I HAVE TO HAVE ONE OF THOSE.

For the time being though, if I were a Dragon ;) and saw this being presented to me, I'd have to say "I'M OUT"

V1N.
 
8igdave said:
another failed attempt to try and claim the PPU is worth it.

Seriously give up pottsey.
Click to expand...

No Dave. Seriously, you give up!.

Read his first post and let it sink in. In fact I've taken a snip of what Pottsey has just said below.

I can see why it’s not worth it due to the cost and lack of games but if you have one there’s no reason not to use it. I see the current PPU as a luxury item that’s not needed, but nice to have for the extra FPS.
Click to expand...

I think you're due Pottsey an apology for your arrogance. It's Christmas Dave, lighten up kid. Nice new system and your itching for a heated debate lol (Now, now :p).
 
8igdave said:
another failed attempt to try and claim the PPU is worth it.

Seriously give up pottsey.
Click to expand...

Fail.

Try reading his post again.

Not once did he claim it was worth it, rather, it is a nice accessory to have. A perfectly acceptable thing to say.

8igdave said:
When are you going to give up and relise
Click to expand...

When are you going to install a spell checker?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom