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
segagenesis - Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - link
I feel so tempted to bring up the old cliche "The message is clear..." when you word it like that :)Really why is there not more "WTF" here? A better analogy to what you describe is the old "Hardware Decelerators" that say the S3 Virge was. And for $300? Damn, next thing we know they will be sub-licensing Patty-On-Patty technology from Burger King with a dual core physics processor for only $600! *groan*
They have the right idea here but this is some of the poorest execution possible in convincing people you need this product.
Magnadoodle - Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - link
Calling this a physics decelerator seems just perfect. I wish anandtech would use some biting humour now and then. But that would mean degraded relations with Asus and BFG.Oh well, let's just get nostalgic about the days of unconstrained journalism and reread those old 6% Pcgamer reviews.
abhaxus - Friday, May 19, 2006 - link
When I got my original voodoo 1 card, the first thing I did was plug it in and run a few timedemos in GLquake... surprise surprise, it was actually a few FPS slower than I was running in software mode. Of course, I was running software mode at 320x240 and GL at 640x480 and the game looked incredible.I haven't seen a PhysX card in person but the trailers for cellfactor look very impressive. With PhysX being taken advantage of throughout the design and coding process I can't wait to see what the final results are for new games... of course, new drivers and a PCIe version will help too.
That said... I really think that this card will eventually turn out to be only for people that don't have a dual core CPU. Seems like most everything could be done by properly multithreading the physics calculations.
Nighteye2 - Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - link
It's perfectly possible to remain be critical while remaining polite. Biting humour is unnecessarily degrading and does not add any value. Even 6% ratings can be given in perfectly polite wording.DerekWilson - Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - link
We certainly aren't pulling punches, and we wouldn't do anything to preserve a relationship with any company. If we make someone angry, we've still got plenty of ways to get a hold of their product.I hope we were able to make it clear that CoV giving similar results to GRAW gave us pause about the value of PhysX when applied to games that just stick in some effects here and there. We also (I hope clearly) stressed that there isn't enough value in the product for consumers to justify a purchase at this time.
But we weren't overly hard on AGEIA as we could be for a couple reasons. First, CellFactor and HangarofDoom are pretty interesting demos. The performance of them and the possibilities presented by games like them indicate that PhysX could be more useful in the future (especially with its integration into UE3 and other game engines). Second, without more tools or games we just can't determine the actual potential of this hardware. Sure, right now developers aren't making practical use of the technology and it isn't worth its price tag. But it is very premature for us to stamp a "decelerator" label on it and close the case.
Maybe we will end up calling this thing a lemon, but we just need more hard data before we will do so.
Magnadoodle - Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - link
Yes, I understand your point of view, and I don't think you're pulling any punches or being biaised. In fact, a biting review would be more biaised than anything. I was just remarking that this would have made a perfect occasion to have a bit of fun with AGEIA and drag them through the dredges. I nostalgically recalled the quite biting and humorous style PC Gamer put into their 6% reviews. PC Gamer never was a pantheon of game reviewing, but they didn't have to be nice to nobody (actually to "nobodies", because they had to be nice to big corporations). My point was more about the lack of wits and style in web publications these days than about anandtech being biaised. Not that anandtech has bad writers, just that it's more scientific than sarcastic.Anyway, good review Mr. Wilson and keep up the good work.
Seer - Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - link
Im also wondering about this claim that the driver update increased framerates. In all but two of the tests, the avg fps was either the same or a decrease. The largest increase was 1 fps, totally within the margin of error. (I'm talking about the GRAW tests). So, um, yeah, no increase there.