• 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.

“All that and still only half the fps a duel core can run a normal map at.“
You know if I did that you would be up in arms. Stop comparing apples to oranges. It should be CPU v PPU on the same map. It’s like me comparing the PPU on a normal map to the CPU on the bonus maps.

Imagine me saying the PPU is 70fps compared to 12.1 on the CPU.

It might be all that and half the fps a duel core can run a normal map but it turns the map from unplayable on the CPU to playable with the PPU.




“are there any benchmarks to show everyone here that its 'perfectly playable' with a quad core.”
No but it’s a safe assumption. If dual core is 26fps and the map is CPU limited then its safe to assume quad core is less CPU limited and you gain more then 4 FPS from 2 extra cores. 30fps is perfectly playable. They mention quad core in the article and how it’s needed over there scores on a dual core.
 
Last edited:
Pottsey said:
“are there any benchmarks to show everyone here that its 'perfectly playable' with a quad core.”
No but it’s a safe assumption. If dual core is 26fps and the map is CPU limited then its safe to assume quad core is less CPU limited and you gain more then 4 FPS from 2 extra cores. 30fps is perfectly playable. They mention quad core in the article and how it’s needed over there scores on a dual core.
Click to expand...

im sorry but no, a 'safe assumption' doesnt really cut it.I dont see 2 extra cores improving the frames that much, especially since the ppu is already taking a load off the cpu, so they claim. and 30fps for many people who actually play the game properly is not perfectly playable. its an extremely fast paced twitch shooter. if 30 is an average, it would be in the late teens/ low 20's at points, which just isnt 'perfectly playable' at all.


find me a benchmark from a reputable source. and i may think differently
 
“I dont see 2 extra cores improving the frames that much, especially since the ppu is already taking a load off the cpu, so they claim.”
http://www.pcper.com/images/reviews/491/cpuusage_physxmapwithphysx.gif
take a look at that chart. Its cearly CPU limited which means the FPS are being hold back by the CPU. The review says “then adding a quad core CPU would have a positive result on performance.“

Saying that I agree it would be nice to see some quad core v dual core benchmarks.
 
I'll just pearost my comment on Futuremark here

Face it, the only people sticking up for physx and their lack of decent performance are the only 3 people who bought them.

A lot of money for a lot of nothing much extra,

Why should it matter if it improves normal maps when normal maps run at 60fps+ anyway on any half decent system.
 
Why is it comparing apples to oranges Pottsey? Its the same engine and game, just with more physics that the PPU should be doing.

BTW I tried the game in SLI and got extra performance in normal maps and zero increae in tornado. So its not the gfx cards holding it back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom