• 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.

PPU more then 100% faster then CPU in UT3 benchmark here.

You still get a performance increase on the none PPU maps and they didn’t use a high end GPU but did use max settings. You either need to turn down the settings or get a better GPU. Or a quad core with the PPU would be over 30fps avarge. The game is CPU limited.

The point is it proves the PPU makes noticeable FPS difference.
 
“nobody is going to buy a ppu for ut3 if they're going to be getting under 30fps.”
You’re not though. You get over 30fps on all but 2 maps with a PPU. Those two maps that are under 30fps are only under 30 if you have mid range hardware. High end hardware is fine.




“Then you look at the performance, lmao 25FPS, I've seen more specialized processing power in a wet fart.”
All the maps are optimised for the card. Did you lot not bother to look at the hardware used? They didn’t use high-end hardware.

But I agree some none PPU and PPU scores on normal maps would be nice. With the same graph over time they used.
 
“Exqueze me? Not high end hardware?“
Quad core = high end
Dual core = mid end.

Unless I got the GPU’s muddled up its
8800 GT = mid end
GTS/GTX = high end.




“£88, for still under 30fps.“
Its more like quad core = under 15fps
Quad core + PPU = over 30dfps.




“Average FPS if you don't care about crappy Ageia PhysX effects: 60
Decisions, decisions!”
Average FPS with the PPU if you don’t care about the two maps over 60.
Think I will take over 60 for how a cheap a PPU is. That way I can turn more settings up and stay at 60fps.
 
“oh and another PPU game comes out, Cellfactor was claimed to have been amazing right, a great game, which became a couple levels tech demo that basically no one spent time on.”
How many times do I have to correct you on that? It’s not a couple level tech demo.
It’s got more then a couple of levels and it’s a full game. It has way to much to be a tech demo.


“again, yet again, PPU FAILS.”
The PPU boosts FPS on all maps over the CPU that’s not PPU fails.




“i contend that they didn't use a quad core as it would have only narrowed the performance advantage in the ppu maps. they did it on purpose,”
Clearly you didn’t read what the was written. Even with the PPU the game is CPU limited and quad core will improve FPS with a PPU. Also the CPU usage shows the dual core was at 100% with the PPU. Anyway the bonus maps are a waste of time. Its the main game that matters and the PPU is usefull for the main game.





”More like Quad Core - PhysX entirely = over 60 FPS.”
Impossible. If the dual is getting 12.1 fps then a quad is not going be 60.
quad core + PPU is always going be faster then just quad core.



“Uhm... why would you buy a PhysX card to not play the PhysX maps?”
For extra speed. Kind of the same reason you get a SLI setup or faster CPU. Buying a PPU just for PPU maps is normally silly. The maps are a waste of time, apart from to play around with once or twice



”sorry pottsey, but it hasn't change an iota. firstly, claiming 30fps when its not, 26fps would need close to a 20% speed boost to be counted as 30fps. 20% is not a small difference.”
It is with quad core on PPU maps and is on normal maps its over double 30.The game is CPU limited and quad core make a large diffrance.

A quad core can give more then a 20% FPS boost.





“the WHOLE point you keep making is that PPU negates the need for cpu power, so why would an ultra fast dual core make a difference.”
It only negates the need for cpu power for physics. If your CPU limited due to none physics a PPU helps but you will still be CPU limited. A PPU means you can get away with a weaker CPU on the normal maps. Not on the bonus maps.




“the whole point you miss here, is with a quad core, the ONLY difference will be on the PPU specific maps ppu speed will stay the same,!”
No it won’t. It will go up over 30%.
 
Last edited:
“Normal map without either = 60
Hmm yes I know what I want!!! 60 FPS Vs 30FPS with some slightly better physics hmm tough!”
Normal maps with PPU over 60. I know which I will take the PPU much better then without.

There are no disadvantages to having the PPU only advantages from the speed boost.




”Funny how Pottsey says the low framerates in Crysis are due to physics and not the GPU, yet the lower dramerates in the PPU maps are coz of the GPU/CPU. Please make your mind up Pottsey.”
Learn to read, I am being constant. I said the GPU/CPU is the reason for low FPS in Crysis. I said Crysis is both CPU limited and GPU limited in certain situations. During normal gameplay its mostly only GPU limited. I never said the GPU doesn’t factor into low FPS in Crysis dueing normal gameplay.
 
“Will you please stop saying that Crysis is CPU limited? I've already proven to you that Crysis is only CPU limited at super low resolutions like 800x600 with lots of physics going on.”
You haven’t proven anything as that CPU chart is without the situation I said that makes the game CPU limited. I already said during normal gameplay without extra physics the game is not CPU limited.

Its only CPU limited with the extra physics turned on with the ini file and lots of physics going off at once. The rest of the time it’s not CPU limited. Your chart is without those extra physics so your chart shouldn’t be CPU limited, hence your chart agrees with what I said. It doesnt prove me wrong.





“I think you misunderstand, I meant Quad Core MINUS the whole Ageia PhysX junk results in 60+ FPS.”
You quoted my scores of the PPU map and dual core then said quad core is 60fps. I thought you meant quad core on the PPU maps.




"Get rid of the PPU only stuff entirely and you have a nice steady framerate.”
Then add a PPU and you have an even better frame rate.




“What exta speed? Where is your proof? You have none, and until you do I won't believe a PPU helps at all in non-PPU maps.“
Apart from all the links I gave from end users in the others thread. I wish some website would do decent benchmark with and without the PPU using the same charts that where in the link I posted in this thread.
 
“Sorry Pottsey but how can you justify a 50% framerate drop in a PPU map over a non PPU map an advantage?”
As you get far more then a 50% drop without the PPU so its an advantage. Anyway as I said the PPU maps are rubbish. There are tons of things wrong with them. It’s the normal game that matters and the PPU is an advantage for that.
 
“If a game only utilises 100% of the CPU in exactly one situation, one I might have to add that isn't even in the game but has to be heavily tweaked in the editor, then it's not CPU limited.”
Which is pretty much what I have been saying all along. The reason its not in game is because it makes the came CPU limited so they took it out.





“No, what my chart shows is that even when utilising heavy amounts of physics that are actually in the game, even at 800x600 resolution, you don't get 100% utilisation of the CPU.”
Look I have been saying all along that under normal in game physics the game is not CPU limited. You chart is under normal in game physics and its not CPU limited. Your chart agrees with me.
The only time the game is CPU limited is when you increase physics past default. The reason the higher physics settings are not in game is because they are CPU limited making the game unplayable. The normal game is not CPU limited unless you have a real old CPU.





“P.S. If your benchmarks are anything to go by, it seems that the Ageia PPU isn't up to the task either when it comes to physics produced by the PhysX API.”
That’s not what it shows. It shows that you need both a high end CPU and PPU to play the PPU maps. On the PPU maps even with the PPU doing physics there is too much work for the CPU. The maps are badly designed in more ways then one.





“Why did Epic go with PhysX in the first place, was Havok too expensive for them? ”
The PhysX API is widely regarded as just as good as Havok if not better. It’s a very popular API to use.





“It's not unfair to speculate that the physics effects generated by the PhysX API are even far too much for the Ageia PPU to cope with and maintain good framerates.”
Apart from the fact that the CPU is at 100% usage even with the physics on the PPU. The CPU being at 100% means the CPU cannot send enough data to the GPU. The CPU is holding the FPS back as the maps are beadily designed.
http://www.pcper.com/images/reviews/491/cpuusage_physxmapwithphysx.gif
There is also far more work for the GPU on the PPU maps. Explaing more of the slow down.






“Paying £88 to have a few extra sparksand what-not and your framerate halved seems idiotic to me,”
You have to be an idiotic to think that. A PPU card doesn’t half your frame rate and doesn’t add extra sparks. A PPU card boosts FPS and doesn’t add any extra effects in UT.




“have a MUCH more enjoyable experience WITHOUT the extra PPU effects at 60FPS+ than WITH the extra effects at less than 30FPS..“
Clearly you don’t understand it. There are no extra effects by having a PPU.





“If it wasn't, which I suspect from those results, then it just shows that the game isn't CPU limited. The game is obviously GPU-limited on normal maps and PPU-limited on PhysX "optimised" maps.”
http://www.pcper.com/images/reviews/491/cpuusage_physxmapwithphysx.gif
How is that not CPU limited? Its at almost 100% all the time during the map.




“You have yet to come out with any decent facts about why we should have it.”
Apart from that it boost FPS on normal maps. No none at all.
 
“you ARE wrong. the ppu IS useless.”
As I said before if the PPU is boosting FPS on all normal maps over the CPU how is it useless? You have a very strange definition of useless. I am not wrong. Prove me wrong if I am. Show the PPU slowing down the FPS on normal maps. O wait I forgot from the past you dont like to prove people wrong with facts. You just like to tell them they are.




“why is cellfactor revolution a tech demo. i installed ati's ruby demo, i ran it once, i uninstalled it. in installed cellfactor , i ran it through once, i uninstalled it, it ran like crap, it wasn't fun,”
So anything you load up once and don’t like is a tech demo. Hrrm very strange definition of tech demo. No wonder you think its a tech demo. No wonder you think its only got two maps.




“i think it would be, assuming 50k voted, pottsey 1, 49,999 think warmongers pointless.”
Not going happen, you see lots of time I have said I don’t like Warmonger as a game. I like the physics in game but the game its self is not fun.





“Doesn't that sort of defeat the purpose of the PPU?”
No as the main purpose of the PPU is to offload the physics from the CPU during normal gameplay and boost FPS. That’s just what it does. You can as a 2nd option boost physics over default.





“Your arguments are just badly flawed.
Bit-tech didn't like the physics in it either:
http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/2007/...tournament_3/4”
Where is my argument flawed? Also as proved before Bit-tech is wrong. They used the old drivers and get a low score that far worse then what 99% of other people are reporting.




“There isn't much added unless you play the physics only maps, which are poorly optimized.
Why do you constantly try and argue this pottsey?”
I am not trying to say that. Where have I once said the extra phsyics are worth while in UT? In fact more then once I said the maps are a waste. You reading things into what I write that I am not saying. I write the maps are a waste you seem to read "eveyone the maps are cool go buy a PPU" then have a go at me for saying that.





“In the other one you constantly said ooo look at these effects you cant do them on a quad core. You showed no proof its not possible.”
Apart from the video and benchmark and forum link to lots of people saying the same thing no proof what so ever.




“You claim crysis has bad physics because the quad cant handle it.”
I didn’t say it had bad Physics, I said CPU’s are holding physics back compared to what the engine could do. The engine can do phsyics that the CPU cannot handle. Hence the reason why PPU’s are needed. I also said with Crysis I wasn’t talking about the Ageia PPU but PPU tech in general.

If the CPU cannot handle the physics as the phsyics cause the FPS to go to 1 fps then a PPU would be usefull.





“You said oo we can get liquid effects we cant make on the cpu where is your proof?”
Everything that has liquid 3d effects runs at under 10fps with the CPU. There is not one example of it running ok on CPU’s. Where is your proof it can run?





“Sorry but why spend 80 quid on a ppu when you could put that into a quad core and the quad qwould benefit all games, well a lot more then the ppu does.”
Anyone with half a brain would get a quad core first. I have been saying that all along. The PPU is nice for the speed boost it gives but it’s a luxury item you don’t get till the rest of your system is up to spec. No one should buy a PPU intread of other PC parts. I see the current PPU like Sli, not needed but nice to have.
 
Last edited:
“Is there anything on the PPU maps that hasnt been done better and faster on a CPU?“
There is nothing that’s been better or faster on the CPU physics wise.
 
“course not. lets see, UT3 , not the height of realism, and the PPU , makes it more unrealistic..”
The PPU does a big zero change to the game. How does it make it more unrealistic when it doesnt change anything? You do love making stuff up.




“where did bit-tech show numbers for UT3 that are far lower than what others are getting? They”
Was that a why did bit tech? If it was a way. Then Bit-tech didn’t show PPU numbers for UT3 lower then the CPU.





“or will you as per usual say "i always link to all the reviews/framerates you ask about, i'm not doing it again" because you've been saying that for, i dunno 6 months worth of threads talking up the PPU.“
Lol you’re so funny at times. You say that every other PPU thread. I then post a link showing a FPS increase and you ignore it along with the others. Shell we do it again exactly like last time? http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/physx performance update city _090506100924/12955.png there we go the PPU is running at higher settings then the CPU and faster. Now we just need to wait a few more PPU thead so you can tell me I never post links again. EDIT: I forgot next comes the, PPU's cannot do level 1 physics BS.





“pottsey said the game is cpu limited in a non physics way, yet elsewhere he says it is cpu limited in a physics way to argue to different points.”
You’re making stuff up again. Where did I say UT was CPU limited in a physics way? I bet you cannot find that somewhere else post.





“the maps designed specifically for the ppu ARE tech demo's and no one will play them more than once, because theres no one to play them against, and they run like crap.”
You really need to lean what a tech demo is. You seem to have no clue. Your also don’t seem to be aware that the PPU servers are full of people playing more then once.





“your whole argument was always that ageia will help give us realistic physics,”
Where have I ever said Ageia will give us more realistic physics? I don’t think I ever have every said that.





“So Crysys is crap compared to the physics in theese maps?”
Physic wise the tornado on the PPU map is better then Crysis. Graphics wise it might not be.





“It is clear that 99% of people can see the truth that the PPU is a complete waste of time and money. So come one people, stop feeding the troll.“
As I keep asking how is something that boosts FPS over the CPU a complete waste?





“its not cpu limited at all, care to possible argue those two points.”
No as its not CPU limited for none PPU maps. Never said it was. It is for PPU maps but thats easy to prove http://www.pcper.com/images/reviews/491/cpuusage_physxmapwithphysx.gif
 
Last edited:
“no, in every thread i've ask for benchmarkS you haven't posted anything, you've repeatedly stated you wouldn't as you have before. if i leave a thread you posted benchmarks after you said i wouldn't, not exactly my fault.”
More lies. Lots of people can back me up on that.
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9079066&postcount=46
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9081872&postcount=53
You asked me for a benchmark. I posted. Then you came back into more threads after saying I never post benchmarks. I post more, you say I don’t The process keeps going.

There was one point about 2 or 3 months back that I got fed up and refused to post any more as you ignored all the others.




“which is fine, i wasn't specific, but i thought the generality of this thread was talking about UT3, and i thought my question implied that i wanted to see something as such in UT3 benchmarking.”
As I said many times I don’t know how to do UT3 benchmarking. If someone explains how, I will run tests. Been searching on yahoo but not found anything. I also said before I want to see some decent UT 3 becnmarks on none PPU maps.






“Because it doesn't increase FPS by any amount that makes it useful.”
How do you know this, please prove it. Or tell me how to run a benchmark in UT3. I would love to see what’s true about the FPS score. The only data we have is an amount thats usefull. But I want more persice data.




“It makes no difference. Therefore it is a waste of time. Can't you see why we are saying what we are?”
You keep telling me this but in my games I did benchmark its boosting FPS, so it makes a difference and isn’t a waste of time. Why can you not see this?





“How much does a Physics processing unit boost performance as regards to frames per second on a Non-Physx map?”
No idea precisely. Been trying to find out how to run a fair timedemo benchmark. But no one can tell me. According to other PPU owners its about 15fps faster. But I would prefer a benchmark over screenshot numbers.





“If the PPU is meant to do all the physics then what is the CPU doing on PPU maps that it's not doing in non-PPU maps?”
Processing extra data to send to the GPU. It’s a lot harder to render a roof being turn into lots of flying bits along with all the other rubble blown about then it is one big flat roof. There is a lot of extra none physics work for the CPU on the PPU maps.





You're showing some faulty logic here. Without a PPU those maps are obviously CPU limited, and with one they're obviously PPU limited. Neither apply to normal maps, at least not in a way that halves performance.”
It’s not faulty logic. How are they obviously PPU limited? With the CPU at 100% it’s clear its CPU limited and the PPU boosts FPS by over 100%. A 100% boost doesn’t sound PPU limited. It looks like the CPU cannot provide enough data to the GPU to render all the extra bits. Everything points to being CPU limited which is holding back the GPU which means low FPS.




“That's not what graphs on Anandtech show supposedly, nor does it happen with users on this forum who have posted their own task manager graphs.”
Can I have a link please not seen it my self, not seen any of the PPU maps on Anandtech. What post number on here says different? I must have missed it.




“for the love of for **** sake, can we not just accept the PPU is pointless and move on, how many bleeding threads are there about how PPUs increase game performance, and in the end it turns out they actually slow it down”
What is getting old are people like you coming out with BS. It’s not useless, its boosts FPS and there isn’t a single recent game showing the PPU slowing down the game.






“well, bit-tech say that the game changes for the worse on the ppu only maps, with as i stated, THEY said the explosions become clouds of particles which you can move under, despite realistically, if you shoot something it won't become a cloud of splinters that remain in the air that long.”
Well they lied and/or are wrong like the other findings. It’s the same with or without the PPU. I see no difference playing the game and I don’t recall anyone else saying there is a difference. None of other reviews say its diffrent do they?










“stop telling me what a tech demo is, a tech demo is something that shows off a few things, it can be playable, theres no standard to say exactly what a tech demo is.”
There is a standard. “A technology demo is a prototype, rough example or an otherwise incomplete version of a product, put together with the primary purpose of showcasing the idea,”

A complete version of something cannot be a tech demo. Using your strange definition Crysis is a tech demo. So is Half Life EP 1 and Portal and many others. tech demos are just that demos. A full game is not a demo just because you dont like it and play it once.
 
“So you're saying the PPU effects put unnecessary strain on the CPU even with a PPU in there?”
Yes sometimes.

There are 3 ways to use a PPU.

* Don’t add new effects get a FPS boost (UT normal maps, PPU takes strain off CPU)

* Add a few new effects so your FPS stays the same. (COH style PPU adds effects and takes strain off CPU)

* Add lots of new effects so you lose FPS. (UT bonus maps, PPU puts strain on CPU)

If you add lots of effects you take physics strain off the CPU and put it on the PPU. But you then add graphic strain onto the CPU and GPU.

There isn’t a single source it something I said and came up with from the facts we have. So I guess the source is me.

Increase physics past default and CPU usage goes up. During increase physics useage FPS drops down to sub 1fps when lots of physics happen at once, like half a forest is knocked down. Only conclusion you can get from that is the CPU cannot handle the extra phsyics so your CPU limited. If your back is turned away from the physics there is zero works for the GPU so its not being GPU limited.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxOSOJSmess&feature=related video evidence. You get the same 1fps without recoding video. So the video recoding isnt to blame.

http://www.crymod.com/thread.php?threadid=9226&threadview=0&hilight=nuke&hilightuser=0

“TIP - Keep the Physics radius fairly low, as this drags the performance down trying to calculate the destruction of too many trees.”

“Based on the performance drop, I'd say Crytek have disabled those effects because computers aren't able to handle them just yet.”

“Okay, I did this and it completely, and I mean COMPLETELY, rapes your PC.”

There forum is full of people going on about physics on a mass scale don’t work with today’s CPU’s.




“I thought a PPU was supposed to take all the physics and stuff off the CPU, Ageia need to change their advertising because they've seemingly left us all grossly misinformed.”
It does take all physics off the CPU. Why do they need to change there advertising?
Ageia aways said there are 3 ways to use a PPU. Not all boost speed.
 
“See above. P.S. I love how you skipped my source, I still want it.”
I posted back in post 80 post
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10588985&postcount=80

http://www.pcper.com/images/reviews/491/cpuusage_physxmapwithphysx.gif




“That's all you had to say. It's an £88 framerate halving card, at least in UT3.”
But that’s not true
Plug in PPU and your FPS go up by over 100%. That does not = a framerate halving card.

On normal maps you framerate goes up not down. So again not a framerate halving card.

The card its self never lowers FPS in UT. You either have the card and get a FPS boost or you don’t have the card and get less FPS.
 
“That's not the source I meant. I meant the one for your claim about Crytek removing effects.”
I just posted it. Those effects are in the game engine but disable for the main game as the game cannot handle them with today’s CPU’s.





“You use the PhysX API and its effects with a PPU in UT3 and you get half the framerate.”
No.
You use the PhysX API and its effects “That's not the source I meant. I meant the one for your claim about Crytek removing effects.”
I just posted it. Those effects are in the game engine but disable for the main game as the game cannot handle them with today’s CPU’s.



“You use the PhysX API and its effects with a PPU in UT3 and you get half the framerate.”
No.
You use the PhysX API and its effects with a PPU and you gain 100% FPS on the bonus maps.

You use the PhysX API and its effects with a PPU and you gain 10% ish FPS on the rest of the maps.

That’s why I don’t think its fair to call the PPU a FPS halving card. As its boosting FPS.

(10% is a guess we need accurate benchmarks.)
 
"By Pottsey's own definition in the previous Crysis thread, blowing up a wall that you can interact with is not "high physics" and therefore doesn't count. Especially so since a CPU can do just that."
Are your reading what’s wrote? Marc Fraser asked How does that not effect gameplay? Me saying its not high end physics by my definition has nothing to do with what he asked.

High end physics to me would be knocking down 10+ walls. But I fail to see what that has to do with this thread.


EDIT
“You take those over-elaborate, pointless effects out of the game and you gain 100% FPS."
Then plug in a PPU and gain 110% instead of 100%.
 
“If you're not going to complain about the effects in UT3 not being "high physics" then I guess you have finally come to your senses and see that Crysis has good physics.“
A tornado ripping about multiply buildings, tearing the roof off tile by tile with lots of bits flying around is high end physics. All the while with strong winds that blow missiles and weapons away from there target. While this is going off 10+ walls are being shot though creating lots of physics work.

Crysis does have good physics they are just on a small scale as the CPU cannot do a large scale.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom