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
SiliconDoc - Monday, April 6, 2009 - link
Oh great, a whole other sku to lose another billion a year with. Wonderful. Any word on the new costs of the bigger cpu and expensive capacitors and vrm upgrades ?Ahh, nevermind, heck, this ain't a green greedy monster card, screw it if they lose their shirts making it - I mean there's no fantasy satisfaction there.
Get back to me on the nvidia costs - so I can really dream about them losing money.
itbj2 - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link
I am not sure about you guys but NVIDIA has problems with their drivers as well. I have a 9400GT and a 8800 GTS in my machine and the new drivers can't make the two work well enough for my computer to come out of hibernation with out Windows XP crashing every so often. This use to work just fine before I upgraded the drivers to the latest version.FishTankX - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link
For anyone who REALLY wants temp data..Firingsquad 4890/GTX275 review
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/ati_radeon_489...">http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/ati...4890_nvi...
Idle
GTX 260 216 (45C)
GTX 285 (46C)
GTX 275 (47C)
4890 1GB (51C)
4870 (60C)
Load
4890 1GB (64C)
GTX 260 216 (64C)
GTX 275 (68C)
GTX 285 (70C)
4870 1GB (80C)
Power consumption
(Total system power)
Idle
GTX 275 (143W)
4890 (172W)
Load
4890 (276W)
GTX 275 (279W)
There, now you can can it! :D
SiliconDoc - Monday, April 6, 2009 - link
There it is again, 30 watts less idle for nvidia, and only 3 watts more in 3d. NVIDIA WINS - that's why they left it out - they just couldn't HANDLE it....So, if you're 3d gaming 91% of the time, and only 2d surfing 9% of the time, the ati card comes in at equal power useage...
Otherwise, it LOSES - again.
I doubt the red raging reviewers can even say it. Oh well, thanks for posting numbers.
7Enigma - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link
Can anyone confirm whether or not the heatsink/fan has been altered between the 4870 and the 4890? I'm interested to know if the decreased temps of the higher clocked 4890 are due in part to a better cooling mechanism, or strictly from a respin/binning.Warren21 - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link
Yes, the cooler has been slightly revised. I believe it's a combination of both. I'll admit I'm a bit disappointed AT didn't explore the differences between the HD 4870 and the 4890 more in-depth.Comparisson:
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canu...">http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/ha...phire-ra...
bill3 - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link
"It looks like NVIDIA might be the marginal leader at this new price point of $250." you wroteBut looking at your own benches..
Since you run 3 resolutions of your benches, lets reasonably declare that the card that can win 2 or more of them "wins" that game. In that case 4890 wins over 275 in: COD WaW, Warhead, Fallout 3, Far Cry 2, GRID, and Left 4 Dead. 275 wins over 4890 in Age of Conan. Either with AA or without the results stay the same.
The only way I think you can contend 275 has an edge is if you place a premium on the 2560X1600 results, where it seems to edge out the 4890 more often. However, it's often at unplayable framerates. Further I dont see a reason to place undue importance on the 2560X benches, the majority of people still game on 1680X1050 monitors, and as you yourself noted, Nvidia released a new driver that trades off performance at low res for high res, which I think is arguably neither here nor their, not a clear advantage at all.
Even at 2560 (using the AA bar graphs because its often difficult to spot the winner at 2560 on the line graphs), where the 275 wins 5 and loses 2, the margins are often so ridiculously close it essentially a tie. 275 takes AOC, COD WaW, and L4D by a reasonable margin at the highest res, while the 4890 wins Fallout3 and GRID comfortably. Warhead and Far Cry 2 are within .7 FPS although nominally wins for 275. Thats a difference of all of 3-2 in materially relevant wins, or exactly 1 game. But keep in mind again that 4890 is fairly clearly winning the lower reses more often, and to me it's wrong to state 275 has the edge.
SiliconDoc - Monday, April 6, 2009 - link
The funny thing is, if you're in those games and constantly looking at your 5-10 fps difference at 50-60-100-200 fps - there's definitely something wrong with you.I find reviews that show LOWEST framerate during game when it's a very high resolution and a demanding game useful - usually more useful when the playable rate is hovering around 30 or below 50 (and dips a ways below 30.
Otherwise, you'd have to be an IDIOT to base your decision on the very often, way over playable framerates in the near equally matched cards. WE HAVE A LOT OF IDIOTS HERE.
Then comes the next conclusion, or the follow on. Since framerates are at playable, and are within 10% at the top end, the things that really matter are : game drivers / stability , profiles , clarity, added features, added box contents (a free game one wants perhaps).
Almost ALWAYS, Nvidia wins that - with the very things this site continues to claim simply do not matter, and should not matter - to ANYONE they claim - in effect.
I think it's one big fat lie, and they most certainly SHOULD know it.
Note now, that NVidia - having released their, according to this site, high resolution driver tweak for 2560xX , wins at that resolution, the review calmly states it does'nt matter much, most people don't play at that resolution - and recommend ati now instead.
Whereas just prior, for MONTHS on end, when ati won only the top resolution, and NVidia took the others, this same site could not stop ranting and raving that ATI won it all and was the only buy that made sense.
It's REALLY SICK.
I pointed out their 30" monitor for ATI bias months ago, and they continued with it - but now they agree with me - when ATI loses at that rezz... LOL
Yeah, they're schesiters. Ain't no doubt about it.
Others notice as well - and are saying things now.
I see Jarred is their damage control agent.
JonnyDough - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link
Why not just use RivaTuner or ATI Tool to underclock OC'd cards?Jamahl - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link
How can the conclusion be that the 275 is the leader at the price point? The benchmarks are clearly in favour of the 4890 apart from the extreme end 2560x1600.