Motherboards Memory Storage Cases/Cooling/PSUs IT Computing Displays Mobile Mac CPUs & Chipsets Video Digital Cameras Linux Gadgets Systems Trade Shows Guides Home Increase Font Size Decrease Font Size Change Page Size
Mirror's Edge PhysX Side-by-Side Video
Mirror's Edge PhysX Side-by-Side Video
Date: December 8th, 2008
Author: Derek Wilson
 
 

A little while back, NVIDIA brought us the news that Mirror's Edge for the PC would feature PhysX support and include some neat effects physics. Effects physics, as you may recall, is the physical simulation of things that don't impact gameplay but simply enhance the visual impact of a game. This can range from particle systems to persistent debris enhanced destructibility or more accurate simulation of fluids, smoke or other volumetric effects. The impact is in immersiveness but it doesn't bring game changing aspects of hardware accelerated physics to the table quite yet.

And we haven't seen anything, until Mirror's Edge, that looked promising in terms of adding anything really compelling to a game. The previous video we posted showed some nice potential, but we still haven't gotten the opportunity to play with it ourselves and really feel the difference. We requested a side-by-side video hoping to get a better handle on what, exactly, is improved in Mirror's Edge. NVIDIA delivered.

Here's the original video of Mirror's Edge we posted.

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).

The effects in there can be simulated on either a CPU or an NVIDIA GPU. The advantage to the GPU is performance and NVIDIA indicates that even an Intel Core i7 processor will have a tough time without GPU support. So these effects aren't anything we've never seen before, but it certainly looks like there is just a lot more of it in Mirror's Edge (and not in that really bad too many particles/too much debris sort of way). The glass breaking itself honestly looks the same (or close enough) to us, but the persistent particles are where it's at. Having a little debris stick around and be affected by the character is a nice touch. The cloth, plastic and tarp effects are what look like the real icing on the cake in the game though. The complete absence of the cloth objects when physics is disabled makes an already sparse looking world look pretty empty by comparison.

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.

Extending this story is the fact that today NVIDIA is announcing that EA and 2K games have both licensed PhysX and will be working with NVIDIA to include the technology in future titles they publish. All EA and 2K development studios will now have license to develop with PhysX for all platforms. This means Mirror's Edge may not be the only EA title going forward to get the PhysX treatment, and 2K will bring PhysX to the table with Borderlands (which is being developed by Gearbox).

It's no secret that NVIDIA wants effects physics and PhysX specifically to become the next big thing. The fact that this game enables all the effects to be run on any hardware at whatever performance it can manage is a very good move. Only enabling the effects with PhysX hardware present isn't the way to get more developers to adopt the technology. If other publishers and developers start to pick up and extend this technique of including effects physics, we could start seeing physics hardware start to live up to its potential. It may be until we have a physics API that is hardware accelerated on all platforms before we really see ubiquitous use in games, but at least NVIDIA and some game developers our there are doing what they can to move the industry forward in the meantime. That doesn't mean we'll blindly be happy with the way developers use the technology, or that we'll talk about PhysX as a must have feature until there are games that make it true. But moving forward is always a chicken and egg problem and we are happy to see NVIDIA staying behind hardware accelerated physics DICE actually trying to do something interesting with it.

82 Comments
Username:
Password:
2nd vid not avail by darckhart, 347 days ago
I'm getting a video not available error on that 2nd clip.

Reply
RE: 2nd vid not avail by DerekWilson, 347 days ago
fixed. let me know if there are any other issues.

Reply
RE: 2nd vid not avail by george12, 342 days ago
Performance by poco153, 347 days ago
It seems like the frame rate tanks pretty hard on the PhysX video when there are lots of glass shards. I wonder how noticeable that is while playing, or if it is just an anomaly.

Reply
RE: Performance by Tanclearas, 347 days ago
I thought that at first too, but then thought maybe they were slowing it down on purpose to highlight the difference. If that is indeed what they did, then it did sort of backfire, because it definitely looks like the enabled physics kills the framerate.

Reply
RE: Performance by Proteusza, 347 days ago
I was just going to say that, the framerate in the second video looks awful. I mean, it looks impressive, but if you cant enable those effects without your framerate taking a nosedive, whats the point?

Reply
RE: Performance by glynor, 347 days ago
It IS being intentionally slowed down. There is actually a subtitle in the video that states this, but it is impossible to read unless you watch the HD version.

Screen cap here: http://img353.imageshack.us/img353/6201/capture2ex2.jpg

Reply
RE: Performance by poco153, 347 days ago
Good eye :p

Thanks!

Reply
RE: Performance by poohbear, 346 days ago
or you could jsut read the paragraph between the videos as it states this quite clearly. Do u guys even bother to read what they write??!

at any rate, physics is the next big step in gaming. W/ games like Crysis showing that we've practically peaked graphically, physics and AI are the 2 things left out to make games semi real.

Reply
RE: Performance by glynor, 346 days ago
The article was updated after these posts. Thanks for being a jerk though!

Reply
RE: Performance by DerekWilson, 347 days ago
or you could just hit the full screen button on our site ;-)

Reply
RE: Performance by glynor, 347 days ago
Good point!

Reply
RE: Performance by iamezza, 347 days ago
While both videos are being slowed down, if you watch closely the left video is slow but smooth, while the right video (PhysX on) is not just slow but very jerky, indicating that the framerate could be taking a dump in some of the physics intense moments.

Reply
RE: Performance by Griswold, 346 days ago
Noticed that as well. Nice way to cover your ass when your pants dropped...

Reply
RE: Performance by VaultDweller, 347 days ago
There's text at the bottom of the video stating that the slowdown was done in post-production.

I don't know whether the videos posted here are high-resolution enough for the text to be legible, I'm at work and can't view them right now.

Reply
PhysX Cards still exist? by raskren, 347 days ago
Does the actual physical PhysX card still exist anymore? Since Nvidia has purchased that company have they decided to move all physics processing to the GPU, rather than offload to an external interface?

Reply
RE: PhysX Cards still exist? by shin0bi272, 345 days ago
yes they do but they are a pci (NOT pci express) and after testing with my 8800gtx physx enabled vs the hardware card... the 8800gtx puts out twice as many particles at the same framerate as the addin card. In warmonger you get a max of 20-30 fps with the addin card, which is much better than the 0-3 youd get without any physx, but its a far cry from what you get with the vid card version. They updated warmonger to version 2.5 and it runs much smoother than it used to.

Reply
Curious by Oyster, 347 days ago
This is real humorous: the cloth effects missing altogether when PhysX is disabled - what's to stop nVIDIA from manipulating the game physics in order to sell more PhysX [physical] cards? I mean we've all seen what games like Half Life 2, Fry Cry 2, Fallout 3 etc. can do without PhysX - this simply seems to be staged so that nVIDIA can sell more hardware.

Reply
RE: Curious by Spivonious, 346 days ago
Totally agree. The Source engine already does this (very successfully IMO) with the Havok physics engine. What makes PhysX better, aside from hardware acceleration?

Reply
RE: Curious by shin0bi272, 345 days ago
what makes it better is that its real world(or more realistic) physics. What youve been getting with 99% of games up till now is scripted physics on almost everything and ragdoll physics on 2 or 3 objects at a time on the screen. If you run the nvidia fluid demo that is part of the nvidia physx pack (1 or 2 doesnt matter), you can change the mode of display and see that what the physx is really rendering is a bunch of tiny little spheres that have adhesion to each other at different levels of stickiness. Thats also why there is some slowdown when a lot of particles and physx actions are taking place... its rendering hundreds or even tens of thousands of little spheres and masking them with a texture to make it look like cloth, metal, meat, or liquid.

When you interact with scripted physics objects in most games (like say a door in left 4 dead) it reacts the exact same way every time no matter where you shoot it. If those doors were physx based the hole from the bullets would appear exactly where you shot the door. As you also saw in the above videos when the helicopter is shooting the window out it also moves the blinds when it hits the blinds and not just the window no matter what happens.

Basically physx is the next generation of game interaction and it doesnt hurt that ageia (the company that nvidia bought physx from) was giving out their engine for free.

Lastly did anyone of you play gears of war or unreal tournament 3? those were based on ageia physx.

Reply
RE: Curious by Spivonious, 343 days ago
Play HL2? It had tons of non-scripted physics (imo scripted physics aren't physics at all). All done in software, very smoothly.

Reply
RE: Curious by shin0bi272, 341 days ago
well yes and no. objects like barrels and paint cans that you can pick up with your gravity gun and shoot had ragdoll physics (the pride of havok). Those are all that had physics though ... things like the falling smoke stack when you were driving the airboat were scripted physics.

Reply
RE: Curious by GaryJohnson, 340 days ago
All those 'physX' effects can be run without the dedicated hardware. So the question is: what's the framerate difference between dedicated hardware and software emulation?

Reply
RE: Curious by SuperGee, 340 days ago
I see it this way. If Chips performe like this.

Some Qxxxx from iNtel has 50GFlops.
GT200 has 933Gflops
while a 4870X2 has 2,4Tera flops. Maybe with OpenCL SDK rework it could do PhysX to.
And you can have more of those. Up to 4 GPU's.

Where a CPU is never dedicated!!!! Also that Cell CPU

It's about the PhysX load.
1/10 of GTX200 is like a Dual Qxxxx dedicated for physics.

If PPU is like 100GFLops dedicated it stil beats non dedicated Ci7
But takes 1/5 of a gTX280 to do comparable. Leaves 4/5 for rendering like a GTX260

5 gflops Gravity, Collisions, Ragdol, gravity gun.
50 Gflops above but with Cloths and fluids
100 Gflops as above but all object can be destructable.
200 Full basic destructable enviorment
2,4TFlop Full fine detaild destructable enviorment.
20Teraflop All PhysX features in one game posible with decent fine detail and game wide used.
Means

So games take a default mix and a enhanced mix of PhysX features depending on the target platform depends how fine detaild and how wide within the game they can use it.

So what nV PhysX means. You can optional have a lot more Physics in the game.
If you don't like a PhysX feature or it subtile it doesn't mean it not computational intensive. Like Dust its subtile its effect Physics. How much resources does it cost. Can it be scraped to enhance a other. Like make trees finer breakable feature. like a more valueble feature.

The cloths physics represents blokking tearable object. Wich is a nice touch. The hanging flags are overkill. More distracts.

A good example of PhysX is Ageia island map. knowing that it can be even better with more powerfull GPU also those in the future.

Performance CPU vs PPU vs GPU is tested with UT3 PhysX maps.

Well Mirror edge will be benched to I think in the future.

Reply
RE: Curious by frozentundra123456, 346 days ago
I agree also. I just posted comments that brought up the same issue.

Reply
not there yet by rqle, 347 days ago
I don’t see anything "special" yet. I wouldn’t mind settling for a “simulated” cloth or explosion effect either with less performance loss. Comparing the kind of “simulated” effects company like valve and others have achieved, even if it’s not technically accurate, this small physics thing looks pretty weak.

If physics is going to improve our games, it got to immense us in ways regular “simulated” explosion or particle couldn’t achieve and without the performance hit.

Reply
RE: not there yet by Tigerlight, 347 days ago
Indeed, I still see no compelling reason to be excited by hardware physics yet. There is NOTHING being done in ANY title to date that cannot be done by software just as effectively.

Reply
RE: not there yet by DerekWilson, 347 days ago
In case it wasn't really clear, the physics simulations actually are able to run no matter what hardware you have -- they will run on an all AMD system if that's what you have. The only difference is performance.

While we haven't seen the game or benchmarked anything yet, it looks like some of the preliminary data NVIDIA is sharing with us indicates that with a 3.2 GHz i7 and a 1GB Radeon HD 4870, you could see playable frame rates with all the PhysX options enabled. Of course, they aren't going to go benchmarking the entire lineup of AMD hardware for us, so we really don't know what else may or may not be playable.

But the bottom line is that NVIDIA shows off very large performance advantages (in early beta code) when running with the physics turned on. That's their advantage here rather than feature limitations.

Which is good and what I was trying to talk about near the end of the blog post. Sorry if I was ambiguous.

Reply
RE: not there yet by mmntech, 347 days ago
So far, all I'm seeing for PhysX is just a few small enhanced visuals but it really doesn't contribute much to gameplay, which is where it really counts.

Reply
RE: not there yet by Thorburn, 347 days ago
To make the physics essential to gameplay they have to be present on every system you play on.

Few developers are going to write a game title that can only be run playablely on NVIDIAs DX10 hardware - and considering PhysX processing takes resources from graphics shader processing they'd have to be fairly high-end ones at that - it would be commercial suicide.

Reply
RE: not there yet by morose, 347 days ago
So by that reasoning, Mirror's Edge would be just as compelling if it used half the number of polygon's to render stuff and looked all blocky, right? I mean, graphics don't contribute to gameplay either after a certain point except to make things look nicer/more immersive.

My point is simply just because your gameplay doesn't hinge on physics like Portal doesn't mean that physics aren't important visually. Stuff that *looks* OMG awesome is fun too. Do we need dedicated physics to do it? I dunno. I do remember playing Half-Life in completely software rendered mode and thinking it was just as fun as the accelerated version (except for missing the cool transparency effects in some textures). But when was the last time a 3D game came with THAT option? :)

Reply
RE: not there yet by SuperGee, 340 days ago
Graphics attracts gamers interest.
Graphics feeds marketing.
Graphics can enhance emersion.
Graphics load aslo sets your target audience.
Graphics is gameplay independand.
Graphics compete with gameplay.

PhysX uses shaders so the render module sees less shaders.
So less geo vertext pixel stuf can eb done. But TMU Rop stuf have the full GPU resources still avaible. Game can be Fillrate or more shader dependant. Wich means a fillrate heavy game like UT3 you must put the GFX setting extreem to make a G92 dive to CPU physX performance. A shader heavy Game GTX260 could get overstress by both loads.

Then what GPU. GT200 halve of it shader is almost a G80 and the other halve to, but minus 8 shaders each. Similar to a a bunch of PPU. six or so.
But wenn you take a 8600GT or 9800GTX+ you have a lot les. But PhysX could use 16 to 32 shader to have same or more power then a PPU.
For a shader effect hit.

So if you want G92B Rendering power thus a 9800GTX+ Wich nice.
But don't want to deliver much in on PhysX for the more heavy physX games. A GTX260 would be a better choice.

Morroredge PhysX recomendation is a 9800GTX.

So with 8600GT. Even the nV demo's run choppy fullscreen, unles in poststamp window size they run smooth.

My 4400+ 2GB 8600GT + PPU would be replaced by.
Ci7 920 6GB GTX280 55nm next year.

PhysX doesn't come for free. It uses the same GPU resources as Shader effects. Unified shaders.

So now waiting for the killer physX game. Wich this is not.

Reply
PhysX on OpenCL? by ltcommanderdata, 347 days ago
I'm guessing that right now PhysX is written using CUDA. I believe it's been said that nVidia has no objection if someone were to write a CUDA interface for ATI cards. But could the same be done by third-parties for PhysX? I'm guessing not since I assume PhysX is proprietary and the source-code not available.

I wonder what the chances of nVidia porting PhysX to OpenCL is so all GPUs can be supported, not that OpenCL is finalized and awaiting final ratification.

Reply
RE: PhysX on OpenCL? by ltcommanderdata, 347 days ago
I had a spelling mistake in my previous post. I meant "now" that OpenCL is finalized and awaiting final ratification.

It's surprising how quiet Intel has been with Havok. There seems to have been quite a few PhysX related announcement recently, but no real response from Intel. And it doesn't look like anything has come out of AMD's partnership with Havok either.

Reply
RE: PhysX on OpenCL? by chizow, 347 days ago
They've said in the past that they would love ATI to jump on the PhysX bandwagon, but I'm sure that means they would want royalties to use it as well. One of the early reports was a few pennies per GPU, which was apparently too much to pay.

Its clear at this point that ATI does not want to support PhysX directly and that Havok is going to be a dead-end until Intel can accelerate beyond the capabilities of a CPU. The only hope for ATI imo is DX11 support of hardware physics and some kind of wrapper and licensing agreement for native PhysX titles.

Reply
RE: PhysX on OpenCL? by shin0bi272, 345 days ago
one of the options nvidia could take would be to go with a pci-express 4x or 8x physx add in card. The old ones are pci and produce half the number of particles that the 8800gtx produces on its own. So a faster interface would do wonders for an add in card... then nvidia could corner the market through licensing the idea out to companies (including ati) for production just like they do their video cards. Then the people who want to buy ati vid cards and ati physx cards can do so ... or ati can add a physx chip to their cards like nvidia did when they made the 8800gtx to try to do SLI physics.

Reply
RE: PhysX on OpenCL? by SuperGee, 340 days ago
iNtel AMD nVidia are supporting OpenCL.

So I wonder if PhysX get ported to OpenCL. This means ATI can be supported inderectly. Using PhysX without hacks.

nV was in battle with iNtel about CPU vs GPGPU. The larabee thing.
So nV can see ATI(AMD) as mij direct smaller enemie is also the enemie of a bigger nV enemy so the first become a 'friend'.
nV might need AMD to pull of GPGPU Physics fast. Within the next 2 á 3 years till larabee get populair.
For nV the enemy is iNTel with havok. And AMD in the middle.

The first sign of this is wenn nV give support to the ATI hacker but AMD sticks with iNtel Havok.


Reply
Possible for ATI GPU + Nvidia PPU combination ? by danchen, 347 days ago
well this might sound stupid, but since i know nothing about physX, would someone explain if it possible to have a ATI HD4870x2 in the 1st PCI-E slot powering the graphics (GPU), then have a 8800GT in the second PCI-E slot working as a physics processing unit (PPU)?

Reply
RE: Possible for ATI GPU + Nvidia PPU combination ? by DerekWilson, 347 days ago
One of the current limitations of Vista is that you can only run one display driver using the WDDM. Since the NVIDIA driver needs to be running for PhysX to work, you cannot use ATI as a main card and NVIDIA as a PhysX card. I'm sure NVIDIA would love to allow their cards to be used even in systems with ATI graphics. Hopefully Windows 7 will change that ... though I'm not going to hold my breath.

Reply
RE: Possible for ATI GPU + Nvidia PPU combination ? by haukionkannel, 347 days ago
Yep. That is the case. DX11 change some thing that you can use CPU for GPU tast and vice versa, but nothing about different GPU's so far.

Reply
RE: Possible for ATI GPU + Nvidia PPU combination ? by Creig, 347 days ago
In fact, it sounds as if DX10 and DX10.1 hardware may already be DX11 compatible.

"GAMEFEST 08: New version adds compute shaders for GPGPU; completely compatible with DirectX 10 hardware

Microsoft has revealed the first details on the latest version of its DirectX SDK at the Gamefest event in Seattle.

Chief new features in version 11 are the new Compute Shader technology, which allows GPUs to be used for general purpose computing; support for tesselation, allowing models to be refined and smoother up-close; and multi-threaded resource handling to help games utilise multi-processor set-ups more effectively.

Rather than require new hardware as DirectX 10 did, DirectX 11 will be completely compatible with DirectX 10 and 10.1 cards - but will, like its predecessor, only support Windows Vista."

Reply
RE: Possible for ATI GPU + Nvidia PPU combination ? by strikeback03, 346 days ago
Maybe it would be possible for NVIDIA to write a driver which sees the card you want to use for PhysX as something other than a display driver?

Reply
Impressive... by chizow, 347 days ago
The first title that shows tangible gains with hardware PhysX and proof Nvidia's investment in acquiring Ageia was worthwhile! I was pretty excited about PhysX after that initial trailer but the side-by-side comparison really shows off the differences.



Reply
RE: Impressive... by shin0bi272, 345 days ago
play warmonger

Reply
Radeon+Geforce combo by setzer, 347 days ago
Hmm, do i need to have geforce card as master or can i just run this on a Radeon 38xx/48xx as a primary card and use, say, a gf 8600/9500 for the pyshics efects work?
Can this type of setup work?

Reply
RE: Radeon+Geforce combo by TantrumusMaximus, 347 days ago
This was answered above...

Reply
Impressive by giantpandaman2, 347 days ago
The PhysX implementation is impressive. Too bad about the dual driver thing, otherwise I'd toss in my 8800GT with my 4870. Any word yet, if DX11 will enable a "DirectPhysics" type of implementation rather than going with vendor specific API's?

Reply
RE: Impressive by Creig, 347 days ago
The last I heard was that DX11 would still include its own method for hardware based physics acceleration. Where that leaves PhysX and Havok once DX11 is released is anybody's guess.

Reply
RE: Impressive by giantpandaman2, 347 days ago
Personally I'd prefer if they became hardware agnostic engine add-on creators, like Havok used to be. IE-Create a tool that can easily integrate physics into Unreal Engine, Source, etc.

It would be nice, however, if someone went digging into what DX11 is exactly supposed to have and what some game makers are thinking about it right now. IE-Do they plan on using it after launch or will there be a typical 12-18 month lag between hardware introduction and actual software implementation? Hmm, might be an interesting article for Anandtech to pursue... :P

Reply
RE: Impressive by Hardin, 347 days ago
This is hardly impressive. I'd expect something better than tearing fabrics and shards of glass.

Reply
Comments Page 1 of 2





AnandTech.com Blog Categories
All categories
Anand's Macdates
Anand's Theater Construction
Anand's Updates
Cases and Power Supplies
CeBIT 2008
CES 2008
Computex 2009
Derek Decanted
Eddie's Got Game
Gary's First Looks
IT Computing general
Jarred's Musings
Kris's Corner
Raja's Ramblings
Rob's Experiences...
Ryan's Ramblings
Virtualization
What's New with Wes
Blank
Blank

Blank

Latest news by
DailyTech

 November 20, 2009

Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank

 November 19, 2009

Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank


more Blogs Discussions



pipeboost
Copyright © 1997-2009 AnandTech, Inc. All rights reserved. Terms, Conditions and Privacy Information.
Click Here for Advertising Information