Merry Xmas Pottsey

Cyber-Mav · 22 Nov 2007 at 21:57

question for pottsey:

what sort of difference would a ppu make in UT3 for this spec system:
athlon xp3200+
2gig ram
x1950pro agp

im guessing there will be cpu limitation for the above system since it runs windows xp and at a rez of 1360x768.

Pottsey · 22 Nov 2007 at 22:19

"Are you blind? The graphs are in that link Pottsey..."
We are working out or %’s in a different way. I was doing percent decrease from the larger number. I was thinking of is like GTX 50% of the speed of GTX Sli. Going back and quoting my self “You double the fillrate double the bandwidth, well double everything so the max FPS boost you can get is double.” Ulfhedjinn is right I am not really on my best day today. Sorry about any confusion. What I meant was SLI under perfect conditions is double FPS max. Never more and should always be less then double. The benchmarks numbers you posted agree with that.

Cyber-Mav I cannot answer you questions as I haven’t seen any professional benchmarks from websites. Not installed the game and tested it my self either so I cannot comment on speed from first hand information. I only know what other fourm user's have said.

Richdog · 22 Nov 2007 at 22:23

And im sorry if my posts seem a bit cutting, i'll edit them for arse-ness...

MumboJumbo · 22 Nov 2007 at 22:40

I shall look through the links you sent tomorrow. Thanks for showing me them.
as for:

Pottsey said:
“Very few people play at 1024x768 and those that do wont be bothered in getting a PPU and would be far better off getting a new cpu, gpu first etc.”
Check resolutions polls and surveys. 1024x768 and 1280x1024 are the main resolutions used.
http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html more then 75% of people use the resolutions I stated.

Steam servays are for those that play css a lot on the crappy pcs that it needs. Also they use low resolutions to make heads bigger etc. It is not a showing of other games that will actually require sli.

Anyone that uses sli isn't going to be running at such a low resolution do not try and down play it claiming games are cpu limited and not gpu limited when you are going by a steam survay of css players who use low resolutions to kill people easyer.

try gamse like oblivion, fear, stalker, crysis etc. They arn't going to use small resolutions ther are they.

O and ass for sli results on company of heros the GTX in sli almost gets 100% increase in performance:

Company of Heroes
1920x1200 4xAA 16xAF, Maximum Detail, DirectX 10

Single GTX 37

SLI 60

Company of Heroes
2560x1600 0xAA 16xAF, Maximum Detail, DirectX 10

single - 28

sli 48.5
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2007/11/02/nvidia_geforce_8800_gt/11

Enermy quake wars shows pritty much 100% on the 8800 GT also:

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2007/11/02/nvidia_geforce_8800_gt/10

Marc Fraser · 22 Nov 2007 at 23:11

8igdave said:
I shall look through the links you sent tomorrow. Thanks for showing me them.
as for:

Steam servays are for those that play css a lot on the crappy pcs that it needs. Also they use low resolutions to make heads bigger etc. It is not a showing of other games that will actually require sli.

Anyone that uses sli isn't going to be running at such a low resolution do not try and down play it claiming games are cpu limited and not gpu limited when you are going by a steam survay of css players who use low resolutions to kill people easyer.

try gamse like oblivion, fear, stalker, crysis etc. They arn't going to use small resolutions ther are they.

I don't think you can dismiss Steam Survey's that easily as only being for people who play CSS. Most people I know do not have a monitor larger than 19" which has a native resolution is 1280 X 1024.

8igdave said:
O and ass for sli results on company of heros the GTX in sli almost gets 100% increase in performance:

Company of Heroes
1920x1200 4xAA 16xAF, Maximum Detail, DirectX 10

Single GTX 37

SLI 60

Company of Heroes
2560x1600 0xAA 16xAF, Maximum Detail, DirectX 10

single - 28

sli 48.5
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2007/11/02/nvidia_geforce_8800_gt/11

Enermy quake wars shows pritty much 100% on the 8800 GT also:

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2007/11/02/nvidia_geforce_8800_gt/10

Pottsey was talking about City of Heroes not company of heroes. Completley different games.

MumboJumbo · 22 Nov 2007 at 23:15

Marc Fraser said:
I don't think you can dismiss Steam Survey's that easily as only being for people who play CSS. Most people I know do not have a monitor larger than 19" which has a native resolution is 1280 X 1024.

Most people i know have a 22" or 24". Any person who only plans on using a 19" shouldn't be spendingm oeny on sli anyway. I still dont understand why its being used as a reason as to why sli doesn't benefit all games?

Also the steam questionare was taken some time ago i beleive?

Pottsey was talking about City of Heroes not company of heroes. Completley different games.

He saiod the max you can get from sli is 50% else where.

Marc Fraser · 22 Nov 2007 at 23:32

8igdave said:
Most people i know have a 22" or 24". Any person who only plans on using a 19" shouldn't be spendingm oeny on sli anyway. I still dont understand why its being used as a reason as to why sli doesn't benefit all games?

Also the steam questionare was taken some time ago i beleive?

no one is saying you should spend money on sli if you use a19" monitor. In fact Pottsey was saying quite the opposite. He was saying, if you game at a low resolution you are more likely to be CPU limited and adding an additional graphics card will not improve performance if you are cpu limited. Therefore for games that support a ppu and are cpu limited you are better off getting a ppu than a second graphics card especially if you are using a monitor with a low resolution.

8igdave said:
He saiod the max you can get from sli is 50% else where.

Read post 102.

MumboJumbo · 22 Nov 2007 at 23:43

Pottsey said:
In reality you have bottlenecks, some things have to be in both sets of ram so ram isn’t really double. Some things are sent more then once so you don’t have effectively twice as much bandwidth as you sending more then twice as much stuff. You have driver overheads and other overheads of getting the two cards to work together. You CPU has to send more data holding you back more. In reality you don’t get 50% increase in speed from a 2nd GPU. Its more like 30% if your lucky.

Pottsey said:
SLI should never be able to give a 50% FPS boost. That should be impossible if both cards are the same power.

My benchmarks show almost 100% increase. He said it else where as well but im not bothered in searching any more.

Marc Fraser · 22 Nov 2007 at 23:50

8igdave said:
My benchmarks show almost 100% increase. He said it else where as well but im not bothered in searching any more.

I said read post 102!!!!

Here it is for you

"Are you blind? The graphs are in that link Pottsey..."
We are working out or %’s in a different way. I was doing percent decrease from the larger number. I was thinking of is like GTX 50% of the speed of GTX Sli. Going back and quoting my self “You double the fillrate double the bandwidth, well double everything so the max FPS boost you can get is double.” Ulfhedjinn is right I am not really on my best day today. Sorry about any confusion. What I meant was SLI under perfect conditions is double FPS max. Never more and should always be less then double. The benchmarks numbers you posted agree with that.

As you can see he is admitting he was causing confusion and meant sli is 100% quicker than a single card.

MumboJumbo · 22 Nov 2007 at 23:56

o lol... i skim read to much

Marc Fraser · 22 Nov 2007 at 23:59

8igdave said:
o lol... i skim read to much

That's alright. I have often done the same myself.

MumboJumbo · 23 Nov 2007 at 00:03

LOl dont worry ill be back with some more points to argue... youi havn't won yet

Chronictank · 23 Nov 2007 at 02:10

That steam link also says that about 70% of the users have 256mb or video ram and less

it would cost less than a PPU (based on OCuk prices) to buy a new gfx card and run it at a higher res

Pointing out games that are CPU limited is all well and good, but you cant proove they will benefit
For all you know the CPU being hammered may have nothing to do with physics at all, so the performance gain could be near nothing..
It's a pretty poor defence speculating tbh as it can go 2 ways

Soul Rider · 23 Nov 2007 at 03:33

8igdave said:
Most people i know have a 22" or 24". Any person who only plans on using a 19" shouldn't be spendingm oeny on sli anyway. I still dont understand why its being used as a reason as to why sli doesn't benefit all games?

Also the steam questionare was taken some time ago i beleive?

Steam do regular surveys although I cannot confirm the date of the latest survey, nor the one being mentioned earlier.

Your quote regarding monitor sizes shows that you only know people who spend a lot of money on their PC's. I used to run LAN parties (still do but on a much smaller scale now than they used to be admittedly) and I can tell you categorically that over 70% of our gamers had a monitor smaller than 22". Hell, almost a third of our regular gamers still used CRT monitors.

This isn't an all proving statistic, but perhaps this will help you to understand that not every PC user spends a fortune on their PC/Monitor, it only tends to be the geeks and enthusiasts that spend their time on forums such as these, and I include myself in this, and they make up a VERY SMALL percentage of total users, in fact almost so small as to be totally irrelevant in the grander scheme of things.

Foxor` · 23 Nov 2007 at 05:40

you can get these for 59quid from the men in purple shirts anyway,the bfg ones aswell... its been like that for a few weeks look on there site, i was considering getting one since they are so cheap now but id rather get drunk

Richdog · 23 Nov 2007 at 07:01

Marc Fraser said:
As you can see he is admitting he was causing confusion and meant sli is 100% quicker than a single card.

We've already established that Marc a few posts back... you really don't need to be acting like Pottseys babysitter as it seems a tad patronising, i'm sure he can more than look after himself.

Pottsey · 23 Nov 2007 at 07:29

So how many of you have tried the PPU maps without a PPU in UT 3?

Marc Fraser · 23 Nov 2007 at 09:23

Richdog said:
We've already established that Marc a few posts back... you really don't need to be acting like Pottseys babysitter as it seems a tad patronising, i'm sure he can more than look after himself.

Did you read the posts before that or just that line. The reason I wrote it was because I was pointing it out to 8igdave who had missed it.

I am not acting like his babysitter. I just agree with the point he was making and thought I would offer my view on it as well.

Pottsey · 23 Nov 2007 at 12:55

http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/2007/11/23/unreal_tournament_3/4

Very disappointing I hope it was just because they forgot to install the UT 3 Ageia drivers. Why no benchmarks with and without the PPU?

SteveOBHave · 23 Nov 2007 at 14:02

Interesting letter from Richard Huddy to Inq re: AMD will not buy Ageia

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/11/22/amd-will-not-buy-ageia

I think my words have been taken to mean more than they really do.

I said that I wouldn’t rule it out and I said we’re not likely to splash $100M on a PPU vendor, and I said that we go through the arguments every few months.

That’s certainly not something that I would have headlined as “AMD considers buying Ageia”. The thought has certainly passed through our minds - but then humans think about a lot of things, and if you look at what I said I also point out that the cost is crazy high, so actually I come very close to ruling it out…

As far as I can see there’s really no news here. Everyone in the industry understands that Ageia’s primary aim is to just to be bought, and we’re one of the companies that needs to work out whether we think it makes sense.

Seems that even AMD thinks that Ageia is not worth the expendature.

At some stage we're just going to have to accept that whilst it's a great idea - it really is just a big steaming pile of the proverbial. Like Richard mentions - Ageia exists to be bought, they are just sitting in amongst their steaming pile waiting for someone to come along and shovel it off them.

Simply put there are 'NO' games out there worth mine or any other persons pennies that provide even close to good useful utilisation and there will not be any time in the near future simply because any developer that does will have to give the game away (Cell Factor) because no-one will pay for it.

To summarise - PhysX = steaming pile of proverbial.