GRAW running with and without physX (pics, vids)

[LittleNemoNES]

I say both

 

[MBrown]

I hate to say it but this might make me lean towards mostly console gaming if I have to buy a ppu and two video cards to play the game at decent fps. Actually there really wasnt much difference between the ppu on and off as far as graphics are concerned.

 

[LittleNemoNES]

I was thinking the same thing. What with Xbox360 having COD2, Oblivion, GRAW (a good version), FarCry, and BF2 xbox360 is gaining moment...

Who knows, though I already spend 2500 on my current PC...

 

[T2k]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
Idiots with deep pockets (or at least idiots that think they have deep pockets) and companies that produce parts for high end gaming rigs make good bed fellows

The biggest idiots are the ones who think the fact they cannot afford to be an early adapter makes them very smart.
Newsflash: they are just pathetic, not smart.

The PPU is very new technology and I'm pretty sure GRAW isn't supposed to be poster child for PPUs despite the fact that it supports it.

Correct, that's my assessment about GRAW too.

PPUs aren't supposed to increase your FPS, they're supposed to make the game more dynamic which should make it more interesting/fun.

Exactly.

There have been demos made showing that dual core is not the answer for physics, that a dedicated card can wipe the floor with dualcore - heck, CPUs can process our graphics but do we want to go back to software acceleration? Or have dedicated video accelerators (now known as GPUs) proven themselves?

I can't believe anybody would think a dual-core CPU would beat a specialized physics chip...

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: 1Dark1Sharigan1

Originally posted by: wizboy11
I bet the CPU could even to those calculations.

(maby?)

Well of course the CPU can but the question is efficiency and from the look of things it seems GRAW isn't intense enough physics wise for the PPU to make all that big of a difference . . .

The point of a PPU is to make much higher levels of on-screen physics manipulation possible. GRAW claims to be compatible, meaning the engine should be able offer this added level of detail.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: T2k
The biggest idiots are the ones who think the fact they cannot afford to be an early adapter makes them very smart.

I couldn't agree more. Anyone who thinks they're superior for being pissed at how other people spend their money has issues.

 

[Dethfrumbelo]

Originally posted by: MBrown
I hate to say it but this might make me lean towards mostly console gaming if I have to buy a ppu and two video cards to play the game at decent fps. Actually there really wasnt much difference between the ppu on and off as far as graphics are concerned.

2xR600/G80 + PPU = $600x2 + $300 = $1500. Ouch.

 

[nib95]

LMAO, for a few shreds of un-realistic shrappnel and a 10 fps hit (decrease?!) I'm supposed to fork out £200?
Your havin a barny!

 

[Acanthus]

Screenshots are definately a good way to judge how physics environments change the game :roll:

Where are the vids?

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer

quote from [ui]ICEMAN over at the OCUK forums


800x600 with all lowest options enabled, same story.

On

Explosion 35
Grenade 55
Gunshot 80

Off

Explosion 60
Grenade 90
Gunshot 110


800x600, lowest everything and no AA or AF and just look at the FPS drop. either the PPU isnt as powerful as everyone thinks, or the developers of GRAW did the most craptacular job of implementation ever

Its an ubisoft title... of course it runs like trash.

And isnt this game a 360 port anyway? its certainly not the flagship title for PPUs.

 

[LittleNemoNES]

If you check my original link and go through it, you'll see that the reviewer uploaded 4 videos...

They are very unimpressive. However, that is my impression on GRAW PC throughout any way.

 

[T2k]

Yeah, I guess I'll change my reserved copy tomorrow at GS for something else... problem is I don't know what should I get...

 

[RallyMaster]

that is quite disappointing. looks like a dual-core would be a better bet since more and more programs are actually using the second core.

 

[LittleNemoNES]

Originally posted by: RallyMaster
that is quite disappointing. looks like a dual-core would be a better bet since more and more programs are actually using the second core.

I agree with you.
AS FAR AS GRAW IS CONCERNED dual core could have done this easy.

Please, I don't need to be reminded of the reasons for physx chip. I understand. Its just that the GRAW implementation is a ripoff.

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: aigomorla
Anyone see the recient BS in the cost of videocard equiptment just for gaming??
or is it just me??

Not just you. People are falling all over themselves chasing the elusive performance and image quality holy grail. Whatever turns their crank. I'll tell ya what though, first LAN party I went to after FEAR (and Q4) was released, I was still using an FX5900XT and I just installed FEAR and started playing it multiplayer. The guy sitting next to me with SLI 6800GTs spent two hours fiddling with graphics settings and loudly commenting "this looks like crap... now it looks fine but framerate is crap... looks like I'll have to upgrade..." By the time he was done fiddling and complaining, we'd already moved on to another game. He never got a chance to play that day.

The point of all that? No point really, but just funny to see people back themselves into a corner when it comes to expensive computer parts, and getting all steamed over making themselves want to spend more money.

See, even the person who posted in the link in the OP wasn't very happy. Is that a trend?

Me? I'm pretty damn happy with my "slow" video cards and going LAN gaming every weekend.

Originally posted by: MBrown
I hate to say it but this might make me lean towards mostly console gaming if I have to buy a ppu and two video cards to play the game at decent fps.

It's easy to get decent FPS in a game.

Step #1 - reduce IQ a bit (disable AA, whatever).

Step #2 - do not ever do side-by-side screenshot comparisons looking for differences in IQ.

Step #3 - play games and be happy.

Originally posted by: T2k

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
Idiots with deep pockets (or at least idiots that think they have deep pockets) and companies that produce parts for high end gaming rigs make good bed fellows

The biggest idiots are the ones who think the fact they cannot afford to be an early adapter makes them very smart.
Newsflash: they are just pathetic, not smart.

Can I afford a $5000 computer? Yes, easily.

Do I want to? Hell no. "Performance" is a moving target. I'm happy with having 70% of "top" performance for 30% of the cost.

If someone comes up to me and tells me "hey wanna buy a computer with SLI 7900GTX, 2GB RAM, twin RaptorX 150 in RAID0, PC Power & Cooling SLI certified PSU, Athlon FX60 CPU, DFI Expert mobo... all for $500?" Sure, I'll buy one. That's like someone coming up to me and saying, "hey wanna buy this Ferrari F40 for $20k?" I'm on it like stink on ******. But $5k for a computer or $1 million for a car? I'll pass. I'll take a $1k computer with a 7900GT, or a $25k Mitsu Evo.

 

[TanisHalfElven]

i agree with the above post. ppl really do complain a lot about performance, and graphics. most ppl don;t play at 1920x1028 and don't need 8xAA either. so most ppl would rather have more fun games rather than 10 more shadows.

 

[OAKside24]

I'd like to see devs develop new graphics technology and compression to lessen the burden on GPUs. It seems like most couldn't care less, and aim their games toward extreme, 512MB+ quad-SLi systems. Even the -minimal- playable specs are absurdly high. Damn, id's Doom 3 looks awesome still -and- can run on a PC that's relatively dated. GRAW, with it's lack of AA and 'new' HDR graphics, requires -quite- a machine plus a PPU to run the way they intended it. And still looks like utter crap. Does GRIN know what they're doing anyway?

Let me just say Thanks to VALVe for creating the Source engine, years ago mind you, and easily allowing HDR + AA. And some damn nice physics, too. It's only now, after a few mediocre new graphics engines, that I can really appreciate Source's asskicking quality.

 

[Acanthus]

The difference between games like Doom 3, HL2, and most newer titles is BUDGET.

Doom 3 and HL2 (and to a lesser extent far cry) both use the philosophy of developing a highly optimised engine that will be sold to other companies.

"the other guys" either buy an engine, or develop an engine of their own, on a short budget, with a fast schedule to cut costs. This usually results in dismal performance.

The artists doing the work also significantly effect how the game looks. Some people are just plain more talented and can make better imagry with the same tools.

Ubisoft is obviously missing that

Edit: spelling.

 

[T2k]

IMO D3 is anything but highly optimized - in fact, it's one of the most unbalanced crap I've ever seen, especially from such an overhyped developer. I have always said and I'm still saying it sports a very nice lightning system and fine hi-res character textures - and pretty much that's it. Its environment looks totally mediocre, especially with those low-res textures, let alone the pontyheads and the less-than-mediocre sounds mixing and let';s not forget that literally there's no AI at all, it came with the 90s-style trigger-switching "intelloigence".

HL2 is much more balanced game than D3, they couldn't be mentioned together, seriously.

Disclaimer: last time I've tried these games when they've been released.

 

[hoorah]

For everyone that thinks spending mucho $$ to play games at high detail is wasting money, look at it this way. You're paying mucho $$ to play that game NOW.

Albeit except for the multiplayer, playing through a single player game from start to finish will yield the SAME experience weather you play it now or a year from now. For example, when doom 3 came out, a 6800GT was what, $450? now its $200. Is the doom3 experience any differene between those two prices? Now factor in the depreciation of the cost of the whole computer.

When I looked at it like that, I just can't justify spending any kind of serious money on graphics boards. In a year from now, I can get a 7800GT for pennies on the dollar to what it is now and play the same exact game.

I admit, even I get caught up in the excitement of a new game coming out, but if you play last years' games now and this years game next, you save a whole bunch of cash.
I guess you just have to ask yourself how much you're willing to spend to play that game now. Each person has their own answer.