Final Words
Our first few weeks playing with PhysX have been a bit of a mixed bag. On one hand, the technology is really exciting, game developers are promising support for it, two games already benefit from it, and the effects in supported games and demos do look good. On the other hand, only two games really currently support the hardware, the extent of the added content isn't worth the price of the hardware, promises can be broken, we've observed performance issues, and hardware is only really as good as the software that runs on it.Playing the CellFactor demo for a while, messing around in the Hangar of Doom, and blowing up things in GRAW and City of Villains is a start, but it is only a start. As we said before, we can't recommend buying a PPU unless money is no object and the games which do support it are your absolute favorites. Even then, the advantages of owning the hardware are limited and questionable (due to the performance issues we've observed).
Seeing City of Villains behave in the same manner as GRAW gives us pause about the capability of near term titles to properly support and implement hardware physics support. The situation is even worse if the issue is not in the software implementation. If spawning lots of effects on the PhysX card makes the system stutter, then it defeats the purpose of having such a card in the first place. If similar effects could be possible on the CPU or GPU with no less of a performance hit, then why spend $300?
Performance is a large issue, and without more tests to really get under the skin of what's going on, it is very hard for us to know if there is a way to fix it or not. The solution could be as simple as making better use of the hardware while idle, or as complex as redesigning an entire game/physics engine from the ground up to take advantage of the hardware features offered by AGEIA.
We are still excited about the potential of the PhysX processor, but the practicality issue is not one that can be ignored. The issues are two fold: can developers properly implement support for PhysX without impacting gameplay while still making enhancements compelling, and will end users be able to wait out the problems with performance and variety of titles until there are better implementations in more games?
From a developer standpoint, PhysX hardware would provide a fixed resource. Developers love fixed resources as one of the most difficult aspects of PC game design is targeting a wide range of system requirements. While it will be difficult to decide how to best use the hardware, once the decision is made, there is no question about what type of physics processing resources will be afforded. Hopefully this fact, combined with the potential for expanded creativity, will keep game developers interested in using the hardware.
As an end user, we would like to say that the promise of upcoming titles is enough. Unfortunately, it is not by a long shot. We still need hard and fast ways to properly compare the same physics algorithm running on a CPU, a GPU, and a PPU -- or at the very least, on a (dual/multi-core) CPU and PPU. More titles must actually be released and fully support PhysX hardware in production code. Performance issues must not exist, as stuttering framerates have nothing to do with why people spend thousands of dollars on a gaming rig.
Here's to hoping everything magically falls into place, and games like CellFactor are much closer than we think. (Hey, even reviewers can dream... right?)
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."