• 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.

well so far, to me, 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 ARE wrong. the ppu IS useless. 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.

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, it was completely pointless just to show off a few things that could be done with better code on a cpu faster if they wanted. EVERYONE did that, its a completely pointless game, as are lots of small, short crappy things people don't play. i've just installed warmonger, i'm fully expecting to turn it on, find crappy performance, be bored of it within 5 minutes, and uninstall. thats not something i do with crysis, with ut3, with cod4, i actually play them, and KEEP playing them, then i play them some more, because there's fun to be had playing them. i don't go through them going, oh look they are just exagerating stuff to highlight what the hardware can do, then finishing the game.


games aren't cpu limited with normal physics, which are fine and make the games run fine and feel good.

ppu's have failed in any game to add realism, they add simply effects in normal situations, or stupid maps no one can play. boo hoo.

reserving space to come back and say how fun warmonger is and what a great game, or the more likely to come back saying yay, couple nice effects, completely pointless, no game play, short as hell, will never play again, uninstalled. should we start a poll, see what the entire forum thinks will be the outcome, former or later. i think it would be, assuming 50k voted, pottsey 1, 49,999 think warmongers pointless. i could be wrong though. i think it happened once about 9 years ago.
 
Marc Fraser said:
Did you read my post earlier when I explained how an additional load can be placed on the CPU by having more objects in the game? The kind of objects I am talking about are debris from destructable terrain that stays in the environment.

The only load that is shifted to the PPU is the physics calculations not the AI routines and draw call which are all increased if you have more objects in the scene.
Click to expand...
Doesn't that sort of defeat the purpose of the PPU? If it puts so much extra load on the CPU to cause a game like UT3 to drop from 60+ to the mid 20's, there is clearly some kind of optimization issue.

This is amplified by that fact that I know first hand that most of the debris from destroyed objects disappears. It does this in GRAW 1 and 2 and also in that new Warmonger game. The stuff explodes, flies around and then most of it is almost instantly culled from the level.

Let's face it, the extra PhysX effects are just not worth the performance hit. You have to pay £50 for a card to get these extra effects, only to find the technology is **** poor and offloads extra crap back onto your CPU anyway, defeating any reason you had to buy a PPU in the first place.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but no gamer in their right mind would want something like that, it's just an unfair trade off, it's just simply not worth it. Anyone who has played Crysis through should know that it has physics effects just as good as anything Ageia and the PhysX PPU have produced minus the cost and headaches caused by them.
 
Well, clearly to get the full experience you need the PPU, an AUOPU (Additional Ugly-Object Processing Unit) and an AIPU.

All coming soon from Ageia! Buy all three and get a second PPU for free! Also, for a limited time only, buy today and get a free dunce hat, absolutely free of charge!

Come on folks, we're practically giving this stuff away!

Ageia: A solution in search of a problem.
 
Last edited:
errm, the game is barely cpu limited with a top end card at 1024x768 http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3127&p=4

20% boost with literally double the cpu power, at incredibly low res for the card. this game is not even close to cpu limited. theres nothing at all in the review of a ppu card thats trying to put it in its best light, to show what res they did their basic cpu usage testing in. it could have been 640x400 for all we know.

lol, bit-tech seem to suggest not only are the effects system killing, but completely crap and unrealistic. isn't the whole point realism? isn't what i've been saying, realistic numbers don't mean realistic gameplay and accurate numbers on a ppu doesn't auto mean realistic.

shoot at several planks of wood, only one explodes, and you can get underneath the particles before they all hit the floor, and basically its just all completely crap. yay for ultra accurate but really badly done physics. as opposed to much cheaper on cpu time estimated realism, but done very well. oh look, good design trumps power and code :o
 
Last edited:
“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.
 
drunkenmaster said:
errm, the game is barely cpu limited with a top end card at 1024x768 http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3127&p=4

20% boost with literally double the cpu power, at incredibly low res for the card. this game is not even close to cpu limited. theres nothing at all in the review of a ppu card thats trying to put it in its best light, to show what res they did their basic cpu usage testing in. it could have been 640x400 for all we know.
Click to expand...

Just because you double the number of cores it does not mean you will get double the performance. Depending on the work the CPU is doing it is not always practical to split it into that many separate threads.

Also if one thread is taking up 100% of one cores time, adding more cores will not improve performance unless you can split the work done by one thread into two. As I said this is not always practical.
 
Does it really matter if the game is CPU limited or not, or if the extra effects use 1% or 100% of the PPU? At the end of the day the framerate is half that of a non PPU map (for whatever reason) and thats whats gonna put gamers of the card.
 
“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.
 
where does a ppu boost framerate, where did bit-tech show numbers for UT3 that are far lower than what others are getting? they state the physics themselves are unrealistic and crap, thats down to drivers, because i don't think so.

your whole argument was always that ageia will help give us realistic physics, but thats not what we are seeing. we are seeing pointless extra particles that aren't very realistic always, and simply add nothing at all.

you always say it boosts fps on non ppu maps, in which games i don't know, that review you started this thread based on, doesn't show any non ppu specific maps with cpu vs ppu. again, every other single review shows marginal gain in fps at lowest possible resolution from dual to quad core. its not cpu limited at all, care to possible argue those two points. 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.
 
Pottsey said:
“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.
Click to expand...

of course not. lets see, UT3 , not the height of realism, and the PPU , makes it more unrealistic. crysis is pretty advanced physics wise, what PPU game blows crysis away exactly? what about hl2, what games blow that away physics wise.

shockingly, i'm not talking about one bit of cloth, or a puddle that somehow looks identical to other puddles but i'm told is apparently more realistic, i'm talking about where physics effects a game, where a ppu has done that better?
 
To be fair to Pottsey if you look at the results they shows, both cores were hitting 95-100% a LOT, so a quad may well help the situation improve drastically. But having said that, unless it improves it by another 15-20fps I still don't see a point in buying the PhysX card at the moment.
 
“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:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom