PhysX in Sacred 2: There, but not tremendously valuable

The first title on the chopping block? Sacred 2.

This was Ben’s type of game. It’s a Diablo-style RPG. It’s got a Metacritic score of 71 out of 100, which indicates “mixed or average reviews”.

I let ben play Sacred 2 for a while, first with PhysX disabled and then with it enabled. His response after it was enabled? “The game feels a little choppier but I don’t really notice anything.”

Derek and I were hovering over his shoulder at times and eventually Derek pointed out the leaves blowing in the wind. “Did they do that before?”, Derek asked. “I didn’t even notice them”, was Ben’s reply.


Sacred 2 without GPU accelerated PhysX


Sacred 2 with GPU accelerated PhysX - It's more noticeable here than in the game itself

We left Ben alone for him to play for a while. His verdict mirrored ours. The GPU accelerated PhysX effects in Sacred 2 were hardly noticeable, and when they were, they didn’t really do anything for the game at all. To NVIDIA’s credit, a Diablo-style RPG isn’t really the best place for showing off GPU accelerated physics.

Ben wanted a different style of game, something more actiony. He needed explosions, perhaps that would convince him (and all of us) of the value of GPU-accelerated PhysX. We moved to the next game on the list.

The Widespread Support Fallacy PhysX in Warmonger: Fail
Comments Locked

294 Comments

View All Comments

  • lk7900 - Monday, April 27, 2009 - link


    Can you please die? Prefearbly by getting crushed to death, or by getting your face cut to shreds with a
    pocketknife.

    I hope that you get curb-stomped, f ucking retard

    Shut the *beep* up f aggot, before you get your face bashed in and cut
    to ribbons, and your throat slit.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGt3lpxyo1U">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGt3lpxyo1U

    I wish you a truly painful, bloody, gory, and agonizing death, *beep*
  • joeysfb - Wednesday, April 15, 2009 - link

    Hahaha! An eye for an eye. Guess the table has turned. AMD used to be in a needy position... taking it from left..right..center and back from players like Nvidia.
  • joeysfb - Monday, April 13, 2009 - link

    Good job AnandTech!!, really like your behind the scene commentary.
  • araczynski - Saturday, April 11, 2009 - link

    so far my overclocked 4850 crossfire setup has been keeping me happy, i'll come back into the market when the 5000 series rolls out and i upgrade my rig in general.
  • ChemicalAffinity - Thursday, April 9, 2009 - link

    Can someone ban this guy? I mean seriously.
  • SiliconDoc - Friday, April 24, 2009 - link

    Are you on drugs, is that why you don't understand or have a single counterpoint ?
    Come on, come up with at least one that refutes my endless stream of corrections to the lies you've lived with for months.
    No ?
    Ban the truth instead ?
    Yeah, that wouldn't help you.
  • Ananke - Thursday, April 9, 2009 - link

    I had 4850, 4870-1Gb, 260-216 and 280-Overclocked. Ran on 24" 1900*1200 - Crysis and Warhead, FarCry2, GTA4, Stalker ....whatever else you can imagnine...

    My experience:

    Radeons are hot and noisier. You HAVE to increase the fan speed and it is audible. Image quality in games is very good though. Especially Crysis was better looking with the Radeons. Bullet tracing and sunshine effects were spectacular...GTX 280 on max everything in Crysis was also very beautiful. However that card gets HOT, so you would be better off with 285. I didn't like the image quality of Radeons in movies , but maybe my settings were not good. 4850 is definitely not the money, too hot for my test.

    So, 4870 or 4890 1 Gb is definitely worth buying, performance is on par with 285 on 1900*1200 - Crysis was 27-41 FPS with standart Radeon 4870, and 31-45 with 280 OC 615 MHz.

    IF 285 price is $250, that would be the best buy. If it costs more is NOT worth the money, unless you really want bigger and quiter card. Performance wise is the same as Radeon 4890, which now costs 229 and can be overclocked. I did overclock the GTX280 and 285, which doesnt show any performance change, I guess they are constrained by memory bandwidth?

    So, honestly, for the money Radeon 4890 for $229 is the better choice. IF you find 4870 1Gb for $169 is worth considering also. The 896MB on the Nvidias is a constraint, I would not reccomend anything but 285, but that is expensive.

  • Truenofan - Tuesday, April 7, 2009 - link

    woops. i meant arctic cooling S1 Rev2.
  • Truenofan - Tuesday, April 7, 2009 - link

    i don't get whats going on with silicon. but i enjoy my 4870. it works best at my resolution(1920x1200) and it costed less than the 275 with the ac-1. runs very chilly(45C idle 57C load oc'ed). i dont need phys-x or an application to do video encoding that costs extra adding to the total cost of the video card. gaming is its sole purpose to me and it does that extremely well.

    180 + 80 dollars for the video applications costs more than what my 4870 ran me and it completely outclasses at stock speeds it let alone a 275(260) or 280(270) which mine still costed less than. now you can get a 4870 for what the 260 runs. wheres the logic in that? just so you can run a few games with physx that aren't even that good? to do some video encoding? i'll stick with my lower cost 4870.
  • SiliconDoc - Tuesday, April 7, 2009 - link

    I see, now your 4870 completely outclasses even the 280. LOL
    Your 4870 is matched with the 260, not the 275, and not the 280.
    You don't have anything but another set of lies, so it's not something about you determining "my problem", or you "not knowing what it is", but it is rather the obvious lies required for you to "express your opinion". Maybe you should read my responses for the 20 some pages, and tell me why any of the 20 plus solid points that destroy the lies of the reds, are incorrect ? You think you might try it ? I mean we have a lot more than just YOUR OPINION,, false as you presented it, to determine, what is correct. For instance:
    http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_conte...">http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?optio...Itemid=4...
    .
    Now, not even your 4870 overclocked XXX can beat the GTX260 GLH. In your MIND, though, it does, huh....? lol
    Too bad, for you. I, unlike you, know what your problem is, and that is exactly what should bother you, about me.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now