Playing Demos on PhysX
Even though we can't benchmark CellFactor or Hangar of Doom in any useful way, they can't be left out when talking about the usefulness of PhysX hardware. It is very clear that using the AGEIA PhysX technology in a game can yield some impressive results. It is just as clear that current production games, while adding compelling visual effects, suffer a performance penalty that is difficult to justify.What we don't know is just how much more physics a PhysX card and do than the CPU or GPU already in every computer. We just haven't found a real world scenario in which to test the same large physics load on both the CPU and the PPU. None of the games that support PhysX include the ability to enable advanced physics features in the absence of hardware. The one small demo we do have that can run in either hardware or software mode does show a good improvement with hardware, but this test diagnostic app isn't designed as a performance analysis tool (nor is it a real world example of anything).
 |
| Click to enlarge |
Now that the CellFactor demo is downloadable, there is a little more value in picking up the hardware. Even though there is only one level to play with, the CellFactor demo is quite enjoyable in a multiplayer situation. It's not $300 USD worth of goodness, but it is a step in the right direction. It is rather impressive on a technical level, but with the full version of the game nowhere near release, the success of PhysX can't rely on CellFactor. We have a short video (3.7MB) available, although you might prefer the 400 MB video available on the CellFactor web site.
 |
| Click to enlarge |
Hangar of Doom is a demo based on Epic's UnrealEngine 3. This engine will power Unreal Tournament 2007, as well as a whole host of other games. Currently, UT2007 won't be requiring the PhysX hardware, but that shouldn't stop licensees from being able to take full advantage of it. While this demo isn't as complex as CellFactor, it demonstrates some neat ideas about the destructibility of objects in a game (planes fall apart when shot down). Again, we have a short video (2.1MB) available for download.
If you would like to try grabbing all six videos (13MB including the two from the original PhysX article) using a BitTorrent client, you may find that to be a faster solution (depending on how many people are seeding the files). Just download the torrent file if you're interested.
Unfortunately, even though these demos are very interesting and compelling, developers are not targeting levels of interactivity on this scale for the near future. With the current multiplayer trend, it doesn't make sense for developers to allow gameplay to rely on hardware that many users won't have. It isn't possible to have different gameplay in multiplayer environments. Effects are a different story, and thus the first games to support PhysX do have a tacked on feel to them.
Truly innovative uses of the AGEIA's technology are out there, but we are stuck with a chicken and egg problem. Publishers don't want to require the hardware until a large install base exists, and end users won't buy the hardware until a good number of titles support it.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
67 Comments
View All Comments
apesoccer - Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - link
That's a good question as well...especially for those of us using other additional pci cards...mbhame - Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - link
You guys are giving Ageia WAY too much slack. :(Call a spade a spade and save face.
apesoccer - Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - link
There's no use in throwing in the towel before we get in the ring...mbhame - Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - link
Throwing in the towel...? How do you infer that from what I said?I said "Call a spade a spade". Whether Anandtech.com chooses an easy-out path of "Currently the PPU sucks..." (not in so many words) or not, there is tremendous grace extended to Ageia around here, and frankly, it stinks.
Obviously there is a fine line between journalism with respect (which 99% of other websites are ignorant of) and brown-nosing, or needing to get a pair. All I'm saying is it's not very clear where this site's stand is amongst these possibilities.
Trisped - Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - link
I think everyone is being cautiously optimistic that the tech will improve. I wasn't on the 3d accelerator screen when that first happened, but from what I hear those cards were expensive and actually were worse then not having them. But now they are required for every game and windows vista.We want to wait to see if they can work out the bugs, give us better comparisons, and to compare it to the GPU only systems that are suppose to be coming. Once we have all the facts we can pass a final verdict, until then everything is guess work.
apesoccer - Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - link
There's alot of grace given to it everywhere...I have yet to see an article bash them. There has been a lot of interest in this product, and frankly, the general concensis is that we want to see it succeed. That aside, i don't think they can make a precise statement saying...This product is going to suck balls...or this is going to be the next Sliced Bread...My problem with it, is the lack of depth to the findings (and your statement "Call a spade a spade"...), I wish they had tried more kinds of CPU's with different kinds of GPU's, at several resolutions at both the same settings hardware/software and different ones. Without those tests, you can't really say you've tested the product.
Basically...because they haven't done enough work with it yet [imo](due to time restraints or whatever...), we can't make any real statements about this product. Other then, at the one hardware setting they ran it at, compared to the different software setting ( >< ), the software setting scored better in fps. Which tells us what? The ppu uses overhead cpu cycles when doing at least 3x the amount of work the cpu would be doing at the lower sofware settings. So lets see some different settings (and some of the hardware/software running at the same), so we can get a better idea of the big picture.
mbhame - Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - link
I don't agree with your assessment on the general consensus. My circles vehemently want it to fail as it's an additional cost to our PCs, an additional heat source, an additional power requirement... and for what?I think you're kidding yourself if you think some other CPU:GPU combination would yield appreciably-different results.
DerekWilson - Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - link
we're working very hard to find ways to more extensively test the hardware. you've hit the nail on the head with why people haven't been tearing this part up. we are certainly suspicious of its capabilities at this point, but we just don't have the facts to draw a hard line on its real value (exept in the context of "right now").mbhame - Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - link
Well then make stronger statements in the present-tense. Just because someone makes a product designed to do "X", it doesn't mean that they'll succeed in doing so. You guys come across as if it's a given the PPU *will be* a success and in doing so generate a level of expectation of success. As it stands now this is a total flop - treat it as such. Then IF and when they DO make it worthwhile for some appreciable reason then we can marvel at their about-face collectively.It's not cynicism, it's reality.
AnnonymousCoward - Friday, May 19, 2006 - link
Why do you need stronger criticism? You've been able to determine what's going on, and that's because the performance charts speak for themselves. I'd rather read what's currently on the conclusion page, instead of the obvious "This product's performance sucks with current games."