ATI Radeon HD 4890 vs. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 275
by Anand Lal Shimpi & Derek Wilson on April 2, 2009 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Mirror’s Edge: Do we have a winner?
And now we get to the final test. Something truly different: Mirror’s Edge.
This is an EA game. Ben had to leave before we got to this part of the test, he does have a wife and kid after all, so I went at this one alone.
I’d never played Mirror’s Edge. I’d seen the videos, it looked interesting. You play as a girl, Faith, a runner. You run across rooftops, through buildings, it’s all very parkour-like. You’re often being pursued by “blues”, police offers, as you run through the game. I won’t give away any plot details here but this game, I liked.
The GPU accelerated PhysX impacted things like how glass shatters and the presence of destructible cloth. We posted a video of what the game looks like with NVIDIA GPU accelerated PhysX enabled late last year:
"Here is the side by side video showing better what DICE has added to Mirror's Edge for the PC with PhysX. Please note that the makers of the video (not us) slowed down the game during some effects to better show them off. The slow downs are not performance related issues. Also, the video is best viewed in full screen mode (the button in the bottom right corner)."
In Derek’s blog about the game he said the following:
“We still want to really get our hands on the game to see if it feels worth it, but from this video, we can at least say that there is more positive visual impact in Mirror's Edge than any major title that has used PhysX to date. NVIDIA is really trying to get developers to build something compelling out of PhysX, and Mirror's Edge has potential. We are anxious to see if the follow through is there.”
Well, we have had our hands on the game and I’ve played it quite a bit. I started with PhysX enabled. I was looking for the SSD-effect. I wanted to play with it on then take it away and see if I missed it. I played through the first couple of chapters with PhysX enabled, fell in lust with the game and then turned off PhysX.
I missed it.
I actually missed it. What did it for me was the way the glass shattered. When I was being pursued by blues and they were firing at me as I ran through a hallway full of windows, the hardware accelerated PhysX version was more believable. I felt more like I was in a movie than in a video game. Don’t get me wrong, it wasn’t hyper realistic, but the effect was noticeable.
I replayed a couple of chapters and then played some new ones with PhysX disabled now before turning it back on and repeating the test.
The impact of GPU accelerated PhysX was noticeable. EA had done it right.
The Verdict?
So am I sold? Would I gladly choose a slower NVIDIA part because of PhysX support? Of course not.
The reason why I enjoyed GPU accelerated PhysX in Mirror’s Edge was because it’s a good game to begin with. The implementation is subtle, but it augments an already visually interesting title. It makes the gameplay experience slightly more engrossing.
It’s a nice bonus if I already own a NVIDIA GPU, it’s not a reason for buying one.
The fact of the matter is that Mirror’s Edge should be the bare minimum requirement for GPU accelerated PhysX in games. The game has to be good to begin with and the effects should be the cherry on top. Crappy titles and gimmicky physics aren’t going to convince anyone. Aggressive marketing on top of that is merely going to push people like us to call GPU accelerated PhysX out for what it is. I can’t even call the overall implementations I’ve seen in games half baked, the oven isn’t even preheated yet. Mirror’s Edge so far is an outlier. You can pick a string of cheese off of a casserole and like it, but without some serious time in the oven it’s not going to be a good meal.
Then there’s the OpenCL argument. NVIDIA won’t port PhysX to OpenCL, at least not anytime soon. But Havok is being ported to OpenCL, that means by the end of this year all games that use OpenCL Havok can use GPU accelerated physics on any OpenCL compliant video card (NVIDIA, ATI and Intel when Larrabee comes out).
While I do believe that NVIDIA and EA were on to something with the implementation of PhysX in Mirror’s Edge, I do not believe NVIDIA is strong enough to drive the entire market on its own. Cross platform APIs like OpenCL will be the future of GPU accelerated physics, they have to be, simply because NVIDIA isn’t the only game in town. The majority of PhysX titles aren’t accelerated on NVIDIA GPUs, I would suspect that it won’t take too long for OpenCL accelerated Havok titles to equal that number once it’s ready.
Until we get a standard for GPU accelerated physics that all GPU vendors can use or until NVIDIA can somehow convince every major game developer to include compelling features that will only be accelerated on NVIDIA hardware, hardware PhysX will be nothing more than fancy lettering on a cake.
You wanted us to look at PhysX in a review of an ATI GPU, and there you have it.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
294 Comments
View All Comments
7Enigma - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link
And just go and disregard everything I typed (minus the different driver versions). Xbit apparently underclocked the 4890 to stock speeds. So I have no clue how the heck their numbers are so significantly different, except they have this posted on system settings:ATI Catalyst:
Smoothvision HD: Anti-Aliasing: Use application settings/Box Filter
Catalyst A.I.: Standard
Mipmap Detail Level: High Quality
Wait for vertical refresh: Always Off
Enable Adaptive Anti-Aliasing: On/Quality
Other settings: default
Nvidia GeForce:
Texture filtering – Quality: High quality
Texture filtering – Trilinear optimization: Off
Texture filtering – Anisotropic sample optimization: Off
Vertical sync: Force off
Antialiasing - Gamma correction: On
Antialiasing - Transparency: Multisampling
Multi-display mixed-GPU acceleration: Multiple display performance mode
Set PhysX GPU acceleration: Enabled
Other settings: default
If those are set differently in Anand's review I'm sure you could get some weird results.
SiliconDoc - Monday, April 6, 2009 - link
LOL - set PhysX gpu accelleration enabled.roflmao
Yeah man, I'm gonna get me that red card... ( if you didn't detect sarcasm, forget it)
tamalero - Thursday, April 9, 2009 - link
good to know you blame everyone for "bad reading understanding"let's see
ATI Catalyst:
Smoothvision HD: Anti-Aliasing: Use application settings/Box Filter
Catalyst A.I.: Standard
Mipmap Detail Level: High Quality
Wait for vertical refresh: Always Off
Enable Adaptive Anti-Aliasing: On/Quality
Other settings: default
Nvidia GeForce:
Texture filtering – Quality: High quality
Texture filtering – Trilinear optimization: Off
you see the big "NVIDIA GEFORCE:" right below "other settings"?
that means the physX was ENABLED on the GEFORCE CARD.
you sir, are a nvidia fanboy and a big douché
SiliconDoc - Thursday, April 23, 2009 - link
More personal attacks, when YOU are the one who can't read, you IDIOT.Here are my first two lines: LOL - set PhysX gpu accelleration enabled.
roflmao
_____
Then you tell me it says PhySx is enabled - which is what I pointed out. You probably did not go see the linked test results at the other site, and put two and two together.
Look in the mirror and see who can't read, YOU FOOL.
Better luck next time crowing barnyard animal.
"Cluckle red 'el doo ! Cluckle red 'ell doo !"
Let's see, I say PhySx is enabled, and you scream at me to point out it says PhysX is enabled, and call me an nvidia fan because of it - which would make you an nvidia fan as well - according to you, IF you knew what the heck you were doing, which YOU DON'T.
That makes you - likely a red rooster... I may check on that - hopefully you're not a noob poster, too, as that would reduce my probabilities in the discovery phase. Good luck, you'll likely need it after what I've seen so far.
7Enigma - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link
Looked even closer and the drivers used were different.ATI Drivers:
Anand-9.4 beta
Xbit-9.3
Nvidia:
Anand-185
Xbit-182.08
ancient46 - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link
I don't see the fun in shooting cloth and unrealistic non impact resistant windows in high rise buildings. The video with the cloth was distracting, it made me wonder why it was there. What was its purpose? My senior eyes did not see much of an improvement in the videos in the CUDA application.SiliconDoc - Monday, April 6, 2009 - link
Maybe someday you'll lose you're raging red fanboy bias, brakdown entirely, toss out your life religion, and buy an nvidia card. At that point perhaps Mirror's Edge will come with it, and after digging it out of the trash can (second thoughts you had), you'll try it, and like anand, really like it - turn it off, notice what you've been missing, turn it back on, and enjoy. Then after all that, you can crow "meh".I suppose after that you can revert to red rooster raging fanboy - you'll have to have your best red bud rip you from your Mirror's Edge addiction, but that's ok, he's a red and will probably smack you for trying it out - and have a clean shot with ow absorbed you'll be.
Well, that should rap it up.
poohbear - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link
are the driver issues for AMD that significant that it needs to be mentioned in a review article? im asking in all honesty as i dont know. Also, this close developer relationship nvidia has w/ developers. does that show up in any games to significantly give a performance edge for nvidia vid cards? is there an example game out there for this? thanks.7Enigma - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link
Look no further than this article. :) Here's the quote:"The first thing about Warmonger is that it runs horribly slow on ATI hardware, even with GPU accelerated PhysX disabled. I’m guessing ATI’s developer relations team hasn’t done much to optimize the shaders for Radeon HD hardware. Go figure."
But ATI also has some relations with developers that show an unusually high advantage as well (Race Driver G.R.I.D. for example). All in all, as long as no one is cheating by disabling effects or screwing with draw distances, it only benefits the consumer for the games to be optimized. The more one side pushes for optimizations, the more the other side is forced, or risk losing the benchmark wars (which ultimately decides purchases for most people).
SkullOne - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link
In the conclusion mentions Nvidia's partners releasing OC boards but nothing about AMD. There is already two versions of the XFX HD4890 on Newegg. One is 850 core and the other is 875 core.The HD4890 is geared to open that SKU of "OC" cards for AMD. People with stock cooling and stock voltage can already push the card to 950+MHz. On the ASUS card you boost voltage to the GPU which has allowed people to get over 1GHz on their GPU. As the card matures seeing 1GHz cores on stock cooling and voltage will become a reality.
It seems like these facts are being ignored.