Borderlands 2 benchmarks (& Physx)

[wand3r3r]

Try to empty the ocean with a bucket eh?
Why does Intel have " Intel Xeon Phi"?

Answer because something are much better calculated on GPU than a CPU.
The PPU was chip that didn't resemble a CPU very much, but more a GPU.

BTW, you sound like something dug up from the past:
http://physxinfo.com/news/5671/physx-sdk-3-0-has-been-released/

That was over a year ago.

Combined with this:
http://beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1451158&postcount=136



Their response talked about:
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2010/...ts-cpu-gaming-physics-library-to-spite-intel/

Could you move into 2012, so the debste is made up of facts, not outdated ignorance?

Oh, and you still havn't provied onee shred of proff of this:



No arms...no cookie.

I find it annoying that AMD is still playing with it's crownjuvels when it comes to hardware physics...oh, and people living in the past and thinking it's a viable "argument"...

Nice Fail.

You didn't disprove anything, they clearly admit they haven't optimized physx for the pc, they get it to work on consoles and port it to the PC, and that's about it.

Nice you came in here to rain on the party without providing anything useful again. (I didn't mind the info, but it didn't help your case and your arrogance. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't see a shred of evidence proving the comments wrong.)

What's your affiliation with NV/Physx? You come into threads about them and claim how great they work when clearly they don't when the highest end cards can't handle the physx high setting.

 

[The_Golden_Man]

It looks like they only use PhysX like a gimmick for Nvidia. They don't even care to implement it properly. Batman AC is no exception. It runs terrible, even in high-end SLI systems.

There is a reason I have GTX 670 SLI... It is to try and maintain 60FPS (Vsync on my monitor) at all times. Below 60FPS feels sluggish to me.

These games clearly run on consoles from 2005, still they have trouble running properly on high-end computers from 2012. I know the console versions are scaled down a bit, but not that much. What's the point in buying high-end parts if they don't even care to optimize games to take advantage of them?

I really hope they can patch this game at least to work properly. As it is now, I don't feel this game is finished.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Read both links. sorry, but what's your point. The part you quoted states that it's optimized for consoles and ported to PC. That the performance is faster so they leave it alone.


That's because it's not optimized for PC.

BTW, you don't have to be so rude with your response. If you have a point, state it. If I've made a mistake, I want to know. I'm not an engineer nor a developer. I don't claim to be all knowing. I'm just here to interact, discuss, and learn. You should try talking to people like they are sitting in front of you. You are interacting with another human being.

Oh no you don't
Cherry picking one thing, to sound right is not something you are getting away with.

Your false claims:
Singlethreaded -> proven false since SDK 3.0
Using x87 -> proven false and irrelvant...SSE didn't do wonders.

Unoptimzied -> Where is your data...chain of evidence.

You made several FALSE arguments...don't be mad because the world has moved on....read up instead.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Nice Fail.

You didn't disprove anything, they clearly admit they haven't optimized physx for the pc, they get it to work on consoles and port it to the PC, and that's about it.

Nice you came in here to rain on the party without providing anything useful again. (I didn't mind the info, but it didn't help your case and your arrogance. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't see a shred of evidence proving the comments wrong.)

What's your affiliation with NV/Physx? You come into threads about them and claim how great they work when clearly they don't when the highest end cards can't handle the physx high setting.

I don't have to disprove anything.

YOu have to prove your claims...or in this case the #D-thingy needs too.

Why try and use religious-style fallacies?


No arms, no cookies.

And jumping on the "bandwagon" just because you have a bone with PhysX is a bad move...enless you like fott-in-motuh.

Boottomline:
You have nothing...and I did provide links that debunked 2D-thingys bull.
That was usefulll...unlike your post that contains nothing factual.

 

[wand3r3r]

Oh no you don't
Cherry picking one thing, to sound right is not something you are getting away with.

Your false claims:
Singlethreaded -> proven false since SDK 3.0
Using x87 -> proven false and irrelvant...SSE didn't do wonders.

Unoptimzied -> Where is your data...chain of evidence.

You made several FALSE arguments...don't be mad because the world has moved on....read up instead.

Prove that it is "optimized". The whole thread has shown how not even the highest end nvidia cards can handle physx in borderlands 2.

What are you trying to prove? It's "optimized" and runs great? That's clearly not true as displayed with the abundant data. So your nitpicking a couple points to try avoid the fact we care about, physx is way to demanding in borderlands 2 for current hardware, or it's very buggy.

Either way it's a waste to spend $400-$1200 for nv with physx when it can't even run properly with a minimum of 60 FPS while you could easily get by with a ~$300 HD 7950 overclocked without physx (or a gtx 670/680).

 

[The_Golden_Man]

Proof enough that PhysX is not optimized in Borderlands 2 is when you set PhysX to low (Disabled) even single card configurations can maintain 60FPS + (Not dip below) at all times.

 

[Jaydip]

Prove that it is "optimized". The whole thread has shown how not even the highest end nvidia cards can handle physx in borderlands 2.

What are you trying to prove? It's "optimized" and runs great? That's clearly not true as displayed with the abundant data. So your nitpicking a couple points to try avoid the fact we care about, physx is way to demanding in borderlands 2 for current hardware, or it's very buggy.

Either way it's a waste to spend $400-$1200 for nv with physx when it can't even run properly with a minimum of 60 FPS while you could easily get by with a ~$300 HD 7950 overclocked without physx (or a gtx 670/680).

BL2 looks utter crap with Physx set to low and I get quite good frame rates with Physx on high.The only slowdowns I experienced were in Caustic Caverns.

 

[wand3r3r]

BL2 looks utter crap with Physx set to low and I get quite good frame rates with Physx on high.The only slowdowns I experienced were in Caustic Caverns.

Yeah, it depends on gaming style and how many players/elements there are. I play multiplayer currently with the assassin and melee a lot and get right in the midst of the action. There is hardly a map or big fight without a major slowdown even on a 690. Everytime the fragments are flying and physx pools of goo are forming and exploding the fps tank (not just one explosion but a bunch of action).

When I sit back and snipe and don't get quite as close or with less players it's pretty smooth sailing.

And I agree, physx adds a nice effect. I too use it on high, I've just been disappointed the fastest gpu doesn't suffice and I get slowdowns.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Prove that it is "optimized". The whole thread has shown how not even the highest end nvidia cards can handle physx in borderlands 2.

What are you trying to prove? It's "optimized" and runs great? That's clearly not true as displayed with the abundant data. So your nitpicking a couple points to try avoid the fact we care about, physx is way to demanding in borderlands 2 for current hardware, or it's very buggy.

Either way it's a waste to spend $400-$1200 for nv with physx when it can't even run properly with a minimum of 60 FPS while you could easily get by with a ~$300 HD 7950 overclocked without physx (or a gtx 670/680).

I have a link for you, since you insist on use "religious fallacies":
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#shifting

Shifting the burden of proof

The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.
For further discussion of this idea, see the "Introduction to Atheism" document.
"OK, so if you don't think the grey aliens have gained control of the US government, can you prove it?"

This is the level of "oppostion" you get from the anti-NVIDIA crowd.

 

[3DVagabond]

Oh no you don't
Cherry picking one thing, to sound right is not something you are getting away with.

Your false claims:
Singlethreaded -> proven false since SDK 3.0
Using x87 -> proven false and irrelvant...SSE didn't do wonders.

Unoptimzied -> Where is your data...chain of evidence.

You made several FALSE arguments...don't be mad because the world has moved on....read up instead.

Seriously, you are going to have to point it out. All I saw in your threads was multi thread on consoles and SSE did improve performance. I didn't see where they aren't using X86 anymore either. Plus they said that they didn't optimize for PC they only ported it across and it was good enough.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Proof enough that PhysX is not optimized in Borderlands 2 is when you set PhysX to low (Disabled) even single card configurations can maintain 60FPS + (Not dip below) at all times.

 

[The_Golden_Man]

Only reason you get more and worse frame dips in co-op is because there is even more physX effects happening VS singleplayer.

I've played singleplayer for about 60 hours now, and there have been many FPS dips far below 60fps. So this affects singleplayer too.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Seriously, you are going to have to point it out. All I saw in your threads was multi thread on consoles and SSE did improve performance. I didn't see where they aren't using X86 anymore either. Plus they said that they didn't optimize for PC they only ported it across and it was good enough.

Nice backpedeal:

It's really annoying that PhysX is so unoptimized. How many years ago was Agea running it on a weak, by today's standards, PPU? It would be better for us if it wasn't single threaded and used ancient X86 instructions instead of something more suited on CPU. Then even nVidia owners could play games on a single GPU. Most computers have CPU power to spare when a program scales properly across a multi core CPU.

 

[Jaydip]

@The Golden Man
Did you disable SLI and give it a shot?

 

[Lonbjerg]

Only reason you get more and worse frame dips in co-op is because there is even more physX effects happening VS singleplayer.

I've played singleplayer for about 60 hours now, and there have been many FPS dips far below 60fps. So this affects singleplayer too.

You do know that you are way off right?

Comparing Physx Low (runs on CPU, LOWER amount of effects and fidelity) to PhysX high (run on GPU, HIGHER amount of effects and fidelity)...is so batshitcrazy that even Char-lie wouldn't go there...you do know that right?

 

[wand3r3r]

I have a link for you, since you insist on use "religious fallacies":
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#shifting





This is the level of "oppostion" you get from the anti-NVIDIA crowd.

So you are admitting to being on the pro-NVIDIA crowd. That's obvious from the way you defend them without proving anything.

I have shown plenty of proof that the gtx 690 can't handle physx on high, as well as a single 670. You come in here and claim physx is optimized but yet the very link you provide admits that they just port the console stuff over and that's good enough.

Perhaps the religious fanaticism is actually you defending NV/Physx.

You do know that you are way off right?

Comparing Physx Low (runs on CPU, LOWER amount of effects and fidelity) to PhysX high (run on GPU, HIGHER amount of effects and fidelity)...is so batshitcrazy that even Char-lie wouldn't go there...you do know that right?

He was referring to the quote I made where I said I notice more slowdowns with multiplayer, and there are way more physx effects in multiplayer. Each player has their own elemental weapons, the turrets, sirens phaselock, etc. are way more intense in a multiplayer scene then in the single player.

 

[3DVagabond]

Nice backpedeal:

You've obviously have a comprehension problem. I'm not denying anything I wrote. I'll leave you until you have something reasonable to add to this conversation.

 

[The_Golden_Man]

http://www.freewebs.com/calitorial/Don__t_feed_the_Troll.jpg

 

[SirPauly]

I'm not denying anything I wrote.

What about the work nVidia did for PhysX 3.0 and above?

http://physxinfo.com/news/5671/physx-sdk-3-0-has-been-released/

 

[Lonbjerg]

So you are admitting to being on the pro-NVIDIA crowd. That's obvious from the way you defend them without proving anything.

No, you are doing ad hominem now...another fallcy to replace yourr fist.
Epic fail.
And irrelevant.

I have shown plenty of proof that the gtx 690 can't handle physx on high, as well as a single 670. You come in here and claim physx is optimized but yet the very link you provide admits that they just port the consol stuff over and that's good enough.

Why should a GTX670 run Borderlands 2 with all settings on max at 60 fps?
Sense...you make none.
If that is your "proof"...it's just sad.

Perhaps the religious fanaticism is actually you defending NV/Physx.

I'm not defending anything here.
Just debunked false claims..and it got you mad, post fallcies...but no valid arguments..and you then added an artifical bar for the game...just in order to support your circulear logic...fail *shrugs*

 

[Lonbjerg]

You've obviously have a comprehension problem. I'm not denying anything I wrote. I'll leave you until you have something reasonable to add to this conversation.

So PhysX is multicore and uses SSE, not x87...and you still got no valid data to assert your claim about "unoptimized"?

Because those are the facts.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Have any of you tried overclocking your processors? I see several of you have low clocked SB systems, PhsyX requires cpu cycles even if you're offloading the workload to a gpu.

PhysX uses SSE2 on a x86 processor, it is considered intentionally crippled by many because of the old instruction set it uses on processors.

 

[wand3r3r]

No, you are doing ad hominem now...another fallcy to replace yourr fist.
Epic fail.
And irrelevant.



Why should a GTX670 run Borderlands 2 with all settings on max at 60 fps?
Sense...you make none.
If that is your "proof"...it's just sad.



I'm not defending anything here.
Just debunked false claims..and it got you mad, post fallcies...but no valid arguments..and you then added an artifical bar for the game...just in order to support your circulear logic...fail *shrugs*

Ok troll, what did I fail to prove?

The only point I have made and asserted with proof is that the gtx 690 is incapable of handling physx in borderlands 2. Some suggested their 670/680's handled it fine, so I bought a gtx 670 PE to test if it were some obscure SLI bug, which it wasn't.

So PhysX is multicore and uses SSE, not x87...and you still got no valid data to assert your claim about "unoptimized"?

Because those are the facts.

This = fail.

Yeah, perhaps whether it was single core vs. multi core or x86 vs. x87 and some other details have been lost or incorrect. Just because it uses SSE etc. doesn't mean it's optimized.

If a 690 can't render physx then how optimized can it be? Who cares if it technically uses certain instructions if it can't even be ran on a GTX 690.

/end of pointless discussion. People will read this thread, glance at the facts, ignore trolling and make up their own minds.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

wand3r3r - Can we see your MSI Afterburner GPU usage w/o vsync as well as the fps counter while you do these tests?

Before we can assume a 690 can't process the PhysX load in a multiplayer game we need to first eliminate the other half of the story, which is can your processor handle it.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Read both links. sorry, but what's your point. The part you quoted states that it's optimized for consoles and ported to PC. That the performance is faster so they leave it alone.

About the bolded part.
Google: unoptimized
(This is hillarious!!!)

That's because it's not optimized for PC.

So performance is now both faster(previous bolded part)...and slower(unoptimized) at the same time? :whiste:

BTW, you don't have to be so rude with your response. If you have a point, state it. If I've made a mistake, I want to know. I'm not an engineer nor a developer. I don't claim to be all knowing. I'm just here to interact, discuss, and learn. You should try talking to people like they are sitting in front of you. You are interacting with another human being.

When presented with fallacies presented as facts it's not my ton that is the issue...or the problem.

You still havn't delivered evidence that PhysX is unoptimized and could do much better.
(If you were true, it would be in NVIDIA's own interest to boost PhysX performance, to spread it's use...logic 101)

And you still havn't answered my question aboyt why a GTX670 should run at +60 FPS max settings?