bit-tech.net

Mafia 2 PhysX Performance

Comments 1 to 25 of 39

Reply
[USRF]Obiwan 3rd September 2010, 13:06 Quote
very interesting read. I would like to know what, lets say a lesser (read cheaper and less power hungry) Nvidia graphics card dedicated for physx will bring to the table.
xaser04 3rd September 2010, 13:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by [USRF
Obiwan]very interesting read. I would like to know what, lets say a lesser (read cheaper and less power hungry) Nvidia graphics card dedicated for physx will bring to the table.

Agreed, the most obvious option being the 8800GT which can be picked up for under £50.

TBH though with a bit of physx tweaking I have made the Mafia 2 demo perfectly playable on my single GTX460 1GB with physx set to medium. It's probably not as good as a dedicated physx card but I am not buying a 8800GT for one game.

The physx effects arn't exactly earth shattering either.
Jezcentral 3rd September 2010, 13:37 Quote
I would have preferred you tested a 1GB version of the 460. that's a much better card.

Someone's never satisfied, eh? :)
eldiablo 3rd September 2010, 13:41 Quote
This is what i've done, upgraded my pc and decided instead of selling my 8800gts to keep it as my physx card. Otherwise i would have never bought an extra card just for physx, but if you have one collecting dust you should definitely install it in you're computer.
I love the scene's where you can destroy most of the stuff and al the debris is collecting up on the floor.
Da_Rude_Baboon 3rd September 2010, 14:07 Quote
[QUOTE=xaser04]
Quote:
Originally Posted by [USRF
Obiwan]Agreed, the most obvious option being the 8800GT which can be picked up for under £50.

I'm running at 5870 1GB with an 8800GT in hybrid physx at 1680x1050 with everything turned on and set to highest settings and get an average frame rate of 32fps in the inbuilt benchmark. The benchmark seems to give a lower frame rate than the in game performance as the same level in game was free of any lag or stutter.
HyBry 3rd September 2010, 14:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by xaser04
Quote:
Originally Posted by [USRF
Obiwan]very interesting read. I would like to know what, lets say a lesser (read cheaper and less power hungry) Nvidia graphics card dedicated for physx will bring to the table.

Agreed, the most obvious option being the 8800GT which can be picked up for under £50.

TBH though with a bit of physx tweaking I have made the Mafia 2 demo perfectly playable on my single GTX460 1GB with physx set to medium. It's probably not as good as a dedicated physx card but I am not buying a 8800GT for one game.

The physx effects arn't exactly earth shattering either.

It would be nice to know if something like 9400 can handle physx without serious loss in fps. That card is what, somehting like GBP25?

And I must say that it is interesting to see how bad the implementation of CPU physx is. For a game that lets everthing beyond 2 cores just to sit back and do nothing there really should not be such a penaly for physx. Then again I believe that it was discovered somewhere earlier this year that physx code is ancient and not well optimised for CPU (although that could be easily achieved).
xaser04 3rd September 2010, 14:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by HyBry
Quote:
Originally Posted by xaser04
Quote:
Originally Posted by [USRF
Obiwan]very interesting read. I would like to know what, lets say a lesser (read cheaper and less power hungry) Nvidia graphics card dedicated for physx will bring to the table.

Agreed, the most obvious option being the 8800GT which can be picked up for under £50.

TBH though with a bit of physx tweaking I have made the Mafia 2 demo perfectly playable on my single GTX460 1GB with physx set to medium. It's probably not as good as a dedicated physx card but I am not buying a 8800GT for one game.

The physx effects arn't exactly earth shattering either.

It would be nice to know if something like 9400 can handle physx without serious loss in fps. That card is what, somehting like GBP25?

And I must say that it is interesting to see how bad the implementation of CPU physx is. For a game that lets everthing beyond 2 cores just to sit back and do nothing there really should not be such a penaly for physx. Then again I believe that it was discovered somewhere earlier this year that physx code is ancient and not well optimised for CPU (although that could be easily achieved).

The 9400 is incapable of running Physx (at least properly) as the minimum cuda core count is 32. The absolute minimum you could get away with is a 9500GT (or the older 8600GT).

I have noticed that the *sweet spot* seems to be the GT240 (96) or the 8800/9800GT (112) although anything from the GT220 (48) up to the 9800GTS (128) would do fine. A GTX260 or above is complete overkill imo. Whilst it nets a potential higher framerate the mere fact is that what shows on screen vs the processing power required simply doesn't add up.
kenco_uk 3rd September 2010, 14:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jezcentral
I would have preferred you tested a 1GB version of the 460. that's a much better card.

Someone's never satisfied, eh? :)

Only with AA at high res would the extra ram make any discernable difference. The test was carried out with no AA and not at the top end screen res, so 768MB (as seen from the results) can cope pretty well with Mafia II.
Xir 3rd September 2010, 14:38 Quote
Hmmm,
where do you turn on/off Physics, is there a seperate driver? In Game?
How do you "dedicate" a card for physics?
blood69 3rd September 2010, 14:41 Quote
I think the problem is program writers are using real physics formulas instead of using tricks. There are good libraries to overcome the problem.
I know that is not comparable with the new games but HL2 had good physics that still amazes me. Look at PORTAL, it dosen't require all that "ComputaPowa" has i like to call it".
I like the idea of having dedicated paralel hardware to process the physics like they are, its more easier for program writers, but it costs more to consumers.
r3loaded 3rd September 2010, 15:00 Quote
Maybe the GTS 450 would make a good PhysX card? And when you're not using PhysX, you could run folding on it.
leexgx 3rd September 2010, 15:26 Quote
Physx for this game is Very badly coded you tried this game on an GTX480 on med or high game becomes unplayable (unless they fixed it in the retail game)

i but an GTS250 Blacknight that i had lying around yes that did fix the problem but it was using over 50% of the GPU resources and due to poor cooling the GTS is dumping its heat into my GTX480 even at idle i can hear both of the GPUs (think its more the GTS250)

@Xir
if you fit an second nvidia card the driver norm auto picks the secondary card (Nvidia control panel you see the arrow very small one above the cards is pointing at the second one)
schmidtbag 3rd September 2010, 15:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by xaser04
Quote:
Originally Posted by HyBry
Quote:
Originally Posted by xaser04
Quote:
Originally Posted by [USRF
Obiwan]very interesting read. I would like to know what, lets say a lesser (read cheaper and less power hungry) Nvidia graphics card dedicated for physx will bring to the table.

Agreed, the most obvious option being the 8800GT which can be picked up for under £50.

TBH though with a bit of physx tweaking I have made the Mafia 2 demo perfectly playable on my single GTX460 1GB with physx set to medium. It's probably not as good as a dedicated physx card but I am not buying a 8800GT for one game.

The physx effects arn't exactly earth shattering either.

It would be nice to know if something like 9400 can handle physx without serious loss in fps. That card is what, somehting like GBP25?

And I must say that it is interesting to see how bad the implementation of CPU physx is. For a game that lets everthing beyond 2 cores just to sit back and do nothing there really should not be such a penaly for physx. Then again I believe that it was discovered somewhere earlier this year that physx code is ancient and not well optimised for CPU (although that could be easily achieved).

The 9400 is incapable of running Physx (at least properly) as the minimum cuda core count is 32. The absolute minimum you could get away with is a 9500GT (or the older 8600GT).

I have noticed that the *sweet spot* seems to be the GT240 (96) or the 8800/9800GT (112) although anything from the GT220 (48) up to the 9800GTS (128) would do fine. A GTX260 or above is complete overkill imo. Whilst it nets a potential higher framerate the mere fact is that what shows on screen vs the processing power required simply doesn't add up.

Not true, I've done physx with an 8400GS. I used it as a dedicated physx card, and then I used a HD5750 for my main graphics. The 8400gs is pretty crappy when it comes to physx but it works. It even says on the box of the card that its physx capable. Unfortunately, since mirror's edge is the only good game I have that uses a PPU, I just stuck the 8400GS in one of my Linux setups; it needed something less power consuming than my old 7900GTO, and I don't do gaming on it so the 8400GS works fine.

If physx gets more popular thanks to mafia II, I might use my 8400GS for physx again.
Burdman27911 3rd September 2010, 16:01 Quote
Fixed, thanks!
thehippoz 3rd September 2010, 16:22 Quote
it's just bad coding, especially for what you see.. the in game aa isn't optimized either imo

driver shens? 6 cores performs as well as 2- caps? I just really don't like physx to tell you the truth..

crytek might catch flak for making a gpu heavy game.. but at least it walks the walk for those who have seen it full up and doesn't use the gimmicks.. mafia 2 is a console game end of the day

I find it very odd the game won't even start without the latest nvidia driver also.. why can't we see what we can do with older drivers to confirm
Evildead666 3rd September 2010, 16:25 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by [USRF
Obiwan]very interesting read. I would like to know what, lets say a lesser (read cheaper and less power hungry) Nvidia graphics card dedicated for physx will bring to the table.

Me too, like a 9800GTX or even, a 8800GTS 640 or something ;)
steve30x 3rd September 2010, 16:33 Quote
I wonder did they turn on the OSD to display if the GPU is using Physx. Lately its touch and go if the driver enables Physx. I had serious problems getting Physx running on my GTX280 along with a lot of others. I done everything from reinstalling GPU graphics to reinstalling Physx drivers but nothing worked. In the end I had to do a fresh windows install for Physx to use my GPU.
erratum1 3rd September 2010, 17:54 Quote
I think real-time physics is an interesting idea, but the effect doesn't really blow me away at the moment. I can live without debris collecting on the floor and the drop in performance can be huge.
Waynio 3rd September 2010, 18:05 Quote
I put my spare 9800GTX to use for dedicated physx to go with my 5870, in physx games it done the job well, Mafia II was the reason I tried out hybrid physx, but later found some of my other games became unstable, I was on the edge of buying a GTX460 but after finding this out I scrapped the idea & reverted to just using my 5870 & all is good again.

To be honest physx isn't all that great really, debris chunks of wall bounce on the floor without rotating they stay static so isn't realistic at all so for me physx is nothing to get hyped about in the slightest, the coolest physx features in the game is the interactive smoke from the car tyres but to be honest when your focused on just playing the game it's barely noticable & without physx the game stays silky smooth other than the possible memory leak the game has, becomes chuggy after a few chapters, restart the game & runs good again.
Baz 3rd September 2010, 18:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burdman27911
Last graph on page 4 has the wrong number fors 5870 (4.2ghz). Looks like you pasted the numbers for the 275 (4.2ghz).

Added the correct numbers and re-worded the copy. Thanks for the spot!
wuyanxu 3rd September 2010, 18:32 Quote
looks like nVidia has found a way to fight the hybrid-PhysX users. could the game be using CUDA instead of PhysX?

in Just Cause 2, the water effects must be on CUDA enabled rendering graphics card. caused a bit of problem with my hybrid setup. could this mean Mafia 2 has some level of CPU CUDA execution when the rendering graphics card isn't nVidia card?
CowBlazed 3rd September 2010, 18:37 Quote
Mafia 2 apparently does the cloth simulations on the CPU, and there are NPCs walking everywhere.

By removing some of the cloth files from the APEX>Cloth game directory you can make it so only the main characters use the cloth simulation. Just leave the ClothRemapTable and m2skeleton.ms files, along with any files beginning with Vito and Joe.

Using this you can use medium or high Apex settings on relatively lower end single GPUs or also making it much easier for CPU physX.
javaman 3rd September 2010, 18:44 Quote
I was reading an article that tested havock and physx and concluded that nvidia has gimped CPU physx to create the illusion CPU physics isn't possible. Simply if they re-wrote and compiled physx using the x86 instruction set it would actually perform just as well as if not better on CPU than GPU
mastorofpuppetz 3rd September 2010, 18:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by thehippoz
it's just bad coding, especially for what you see.. the in game aa isn't optimized either imo

driver shens? 6 cores performs as well as 2- caps? I just really don't like physx to tell you the truth..

crytek might catch flak for making a gpu heavy game.. but at least it walks the walk for those who have seen it full up and doesn't use the gimmicks.. mafia 2 is a console game end of the day

I find it very odd the game won't even start without the latest nvidia driver also.. why can't we see what we can do with older drivers to confirm

No, mafia II if anything is a PC game, the console versions look and play like crap in comparision. The game looks outstanding on PC, and is very smooth. The Pc version was designed on PC, and it was later made for consoles due to financial concerns. Game is a major dissappointment though, but it surely is a PC game.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums