so what you're showing in all the graphs is lower performance with the hardware than without it. WTF?
yes i understand that testing without the hardware is only faster because it's running lower detail, but that's not clearly visible from a few glances over the article... and you do know how important the first impression really is.

now i just gotta ask, why can't you test both software and hardware with the same level of detail? that's what a real benchmark should show atleast. Can't you request some complete software emulation from AGEIA that can fool the game that the card is present, and turn on all the extra effects? If not from AGEIA, maybe from ATI or nVidia, who seem to have worked on such emulations that even use their GFX cards. In the worst case, if you can't get the software mode to have all the same effects, why not then atleast turn off those effects when testing the hardware implementation? In the city of villians for example, why is the software test ran with lower "Max Physics Debris Count"? (though I assume there are other effects that get automatically enabled with the hardware present and aren't configurable)

I just don't get the point of this article... if you're not able to compare apples to apples yet, then don't even bother with an article.

Reply

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.

Reply

I think they clearly stated in the first article, that GRAW for example, doesnt allow higher debris settings in software mode.

But even if it did, a $300 part that is supposed to be lightning fast and what not, should be at least as fast as ordinary software calculations - at higher debris count.

I really dont care much about apples and oranges here. The message seems to be clear, right now it isnt performing up to snuff for whatever reason.

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

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.


Reply

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.

Reply

I bet a game like GRAW actually would run faster if the same physics effects were run directly on the CPU instead of this "decelerator". You could add a lot of physics before the game would start running nearly as bad as with the PhysX card. What a great product...

Reply