GTX 260 vs HD 4870

[EvilComputer92]

Originally posted by: WT
Bah, I don't mind the comments from Keys or nRollo, as both have enough technical knowledge to get some points across and engage in a good discussion, but some guys really hate the fact that they even post after they were accepted into the focus group. I'm stuck choosing between the two cards as well, and I fully expected to be buying the 4870 up until the price drop and the news on Physx, but I am now reading each and every one of these threads to further edumacate (sic) myself on which is the better choice for me.
PS - I just started playing UT3, and after having been thoroughly disgusted with the demo, the game is very good. It reminds me of the QW:ET demo fiasco, and in the end the full game is much better than the demo. The UT3 numbers are interesting to say the least. Thanks for any worthwhile input anyone can add to this discussion.

You should know that there are only 3 PhysX maps in UT3 that actually utilize the new physics objects and register a serious fps gain from hardware PhysX. Most of the maps see much smaller improvements. Even the maps where GPU PhysX is used the framerates stay around 30 to 40 fps. Maps without PhysX I get a 60 to 75 fps. This also explains why there is not a single server playing these maps online. So once your done admiring the falling snowballs while playing with bots, the maps are nothing more than a overhyped tech demo. Similar to what PhysX has been so far.

Originally posted by: nRollo
The difference in PhysX immersion and non PhysX immersion is so great no one would ever choose to play non PhysX.

8XAA is nice- but PhysX changes the whole game.

If this isn't marketing I don't know what is. It is ignorant to state that entire games are suddenly more immersive when in fact it's only a few levels that are actually seeing substantial fps gains. So far there are 3 games confirmed to use hardware PhysX. Most of the games on Nvidia's PhysX list are utilizing software PhysX, by which adding a GPU does almost nothing.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
Nvidia focus group members sure seem to ride high horses, very high horses. If you ask me, it's the way you guys post, it's full of arrogance, stating things as fact.

Are we doing that, or is that what you're reading into it? I post my opinions and experiences.

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
Might be partially due to nrollo, like him saying "In the GTX260 vs 4870, I'd say this is the deciding factor at this point as the performance of the cards is so similar.*

1. By saying "I'd say" I'm clearly only referring to my opinion.
2. I noted the HD4870 has superior 8XAA performance, so I didn't leave out it's strength.
3. By "simialr performance" I mean most people running their games at 4X16X aren't goign to find a significant difference in these two cards. I'm unaware of any games the one or the other is unplayable at a common setting like 19X12 4X16X.

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
The difference in PhysX immersion and non PhysX immersion is so great no one would ever choose to play non PhysX."

This I did state as fact, largely because it is a fact for the most part. The aim of video games is to provide a "virtual reality" experience. In reality, wood shot with rockets doesn't remain impervious, wind/weatrher exist and interact with the environment, cloth isn't as rigid as steel and impervious as well, etc.. Unless someone exists in a world where tha environment is static and unchanging, PhysX is a big step in the right direction moving towards "virtual reality".
All games would be improved by this to a much greater extent than say, a little better light reflection or slightly better AA- this jumps out at you.

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
The post above his shows the 4870 clearly being the winner in many benchmarks, performance isn't similar, the HD4870 is faster then the GTX260 in most cases.

No one says it isn't. However, if the differences are like one runs the game at 70fps with the ability to use Physx and the other at 80 without PhysX, I take the 70 with because I'll never perceive a difference in 70 and 80, and the difference between 4X AA and 8X AA isn't exactly like watching your first Blu Ray on a good 60" plasma. (i.e. you don't say say "Wow! I NEED THIS NO MATTER WHAT THE COST"- it's more like, "Oh yeah- you can tell those phone wires are a little smoother- cool.")

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
And yes, you are in a focus group purely out of marketing reasons. Average joe gets acces to some information and equipment only inhouse testers used to get, so people can see not everything is being made up. People trust average joe over PR statements. It has marketing written al over it. Don't blame some of us for being sceptical? The benchmarks you posted show how the 9800gtx+ gets completely destroyed at 1280*1024 with edge smoothing and 8xAF, on the UT3 engine, which can produce some nice images but is allready getting old. I'm talking minimum FPS of course, which I bet happens when you blow something up and the GPU can no longer handle both the 3d acceleration AND needs all of its shaderpower. This is at 1280*1024, I'm curious if the GPU will still DO any physics calculations when you turn up the resolution to 1680*1050. let alone 1920*1200. And when people have to choose between using Physx and no AA, things aren't as CLEAR or defining as nrollo makes it out to be ...

And since keys only posted half the benchmark ( which makes physx on the gpu look good, I'll post the other half )

Rig1: AthlonX2 4600+ 2GB DDR2 9800GTX+

GRAW2
1280x1024 (higher res will follow shortly) edge smoothing AA and 8xAF

Using software Physx calculations (on CPU)
Min: 2 Avg: 8.37 Max: 25

Using hardware Physx calculations (on GPU)
Min: 6 Avg: 30.05 Max: 81
-------------------------------------------------------

I think keys was trying to say that discussing whether the focus group is marketing are not a. has been done b. is off topic for a discussion of GTX260 vs HD4870 buying decisions, and therefore should be discussed elsewhere (like "Personal Forum Issues")

 

[winnar111]

I have a GTX 260 running at 702/1458/1269 (it can run slightly higher even), and I get GTX280 speeds. Very happy with it.

 

[Amart]

I've considered both and decided to save money and go 4850, with MSI's dual-slot quad-pipe cooler. The gain in performance at up to 1680x1060 resolution is not worth the price premium. They are within single digit FPS for many titles, and high enough for smooth gaming for most.

Someone building a system for higher resolution, 1080p, should have the money to pay for a 4870x2.

"will 512MB still cut if for the next few years?"

This depends on the texture quality you want to see on screen. Judging by the graphics level of current games, advancement curve is leveling. Take HL2 and use a high-res texture mod, and you get CoD4/Crysis like image-quality levels. There is a point beyond you wouldn't care much for the improvements offered.
I'm betting that the next few years are going to be advancing in a different direction - expanding physics and number of visible actors, with lesser increase in texture requirements.

Then again, Age of Conan showed that poor coding and memory leaks can cause a game to appear taxing on any system.

Upgrades are always dependent on the person wanting more from his PC. I don't see myself wanting more then what the Radeon 4850/70 offers at 1680x1060 anytime soon.

 

[cm123]

Originally posted by: cm123

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues
whats up with physx, ive even heard some nvidia guys say its basically vaporware for now

PhysX is not vaporware.

I've been playing UT3 and GRAW2 with PhysX, and Warmonger has PhysX.

There are several other games coming this year, and I believe an estimated 50 titles by the end of next year.

In the GTX260 vs 4870, I'd say this is the deciding factor at this point as the performance of the cards is so similar.* The difference in PhysX immersion and non PhysX immersion is so great no one would ever choose to play non PhysX.

There will be reviews for this showing up today, so people can see what the press's opinion is as well.


*While the 4870 can do 8X AA in some games that the GTX260 can't, I consider the difference in 4X vs 8X AA and Physx vs Non PhysX on totally different magnitude of desirability. 8XAA is nice- but PhysX changes the whole game.

wow, normally being a AMD fan as I am, normally do not agree w/you rollo - however you have some points here, moreso the entire GTX series VS 4800 series - personally, I find slighty better pic from 4870 than GTX 280 (might be more driver related really in the end as time goes on) - however got more features can use today like PhysX I guess - one thing that still hits me hard is drivers and vista for nvidia, way too many crashes...

I too acutally have been able to with my 280 play physX games already (1680x1050 with no problems) - so would I take PhysX over dx 10.1 or 8xaa - sure of course, after seeing it, who wouldn't...

personally I would like to see physx added to cod4 - would get really interesting... also improve RMA (failure rate) GTX series - dx 10.1, shame even though vapro ware for now not supported, I know much of it already is covered in GTX hardware, I would like to hear more about that, what is and such - as far as the grahpics quality said above, be interesting to talk away from public eye here as to that - few things here to take back to nvidia (sure you have already)

nrollo, be crazy for nvdia to leave the chipset market too -

should of added nRollo, its good actually to see you post and so active, info on both sides will never fully be known without some good debate - wouldn't worry about the high-horses comments, sometimes the heat of the moment causes things to get looked over and into way too much.

have a currious ? for you, by chance you have or had HD 4870 or 4870 X2 that you have run to compare your personal results against, or no - just GTX 280's?

 

[edm]

How big a deal are the Stream Processors? I see the 4870 cards have 800 while the GTX 260/280 only have 192. Obviously, if you go by the benches there doesn't seem to be a big difference between the 4870 and 260. So what exactly is the advantage of Stream Processors?

 

[taltamir]

ahem... evga, XFX, BFG... for equal money, I would get a GTX260 for one of these companies due to the excellent service and support. for less money I would most definitely get it.

One of the major AMD advantages is in the HTPC market. the 4870 can decode two movies at once (although I doubt I would use that, ever) and has HDMI support out of the box.
physics is much more materialized then DX10.1, but 10 x 0 still equals to 0. Both are worthless right now. And I think will remain worthless. even when physX works it is underwhelming. and 10.1 is just slightly faster rendering on, well, 0 titles.

 

[praesto]

Instead of focusing on 8xAA vs PHYSX effects, why not look at the most important factor in this nvidia gtx 260 vs ati 4870 debate? >>>>>> How great performance hit does your gtx 260 take when you enable physx?

What is the point of having the opportunity of using physx if EVERY game becomes as demanding as crysis when you do so. I do NOT know the answer to my first question, so if anybody has the numbers please enlighten me. If nobody has the numbers, then what's the point of this debate?....

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: edm
How big a deal are the Stream Processors? I see the 4870 cards have 800 while the GTX 260/280 only have 192. Obviously, if you go by the benches there doesn't seem to be a big difference between the 4870 and 260. So what exactly is the advantage of Stream Processors?

For marketing purposes ATI counts stream processors differently.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: nRollo

I think keys was trying to say that discussing whether the focus group is marketing are not a. has been done b. is off topic for a discussion of GTX260 vs HD4870 buying decisions, and therefore should be discussed elsewhere (like "Personal Forum Issues")

There's no discussion to be had. Focus groups are marketing tools.

It came up in this thread because keys brought it up, when he suggested that his involvement in a focus group != marketing.

He 'warned me off' and I explained myself. Hardly the end of the earth, or utter derailment of the thread, and I suspect it's a rather pertinent point when seemingly half the people in the thread discussing an ATI vs nV card comparison are nvidia focus group members, one of whom is suggesting focus groups aren't marketing tools

Back on topic, I'd be interested to see PhysX benched at common WS resolutions, 1280x1024 is so 2004

 

[golem]

I think Keys took exception to your comment that "the entire point of focus groups is marketing." Emphasis on word entire.

If you take the view that a focus groups sole purpose is to move product, then your comment would be right. But if you take the view that a focus groups purpose is to move product while also helping out users and providing correct information, then your comment would be wrong.

That's just my reading of what Keys and you wrote. If I interpreted incorrectly, I apologize in advance.

 

[sourthings]

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: nRollo

I think keys was trying to say that discussing whether the focus group is marketing are not a. has been done b. is off topic for a discussion of GTX260 vs HD4870 buying decisions, and therefore should be discussed elsewhere (like "Personal Forum Issues")

There's no discussion to be had. Focus groups are marketing tools.

It came up in this thread because keys brought it up, when he suggested that his involvement in a focus group != marketing.

He 'warned me off' and I explained myself. Hardly the end of the earth, or utter derailment of the thread, and I suspect it's a rather pertinent point when seemingly half the people in the thread discussing an ATI vs nV card comparison are nvidia focus group members, one of whom is suggesting focus groups aren't marketing tools

Back on topic, I'd be interested to see PhysX benched at common WS resolutions, 1280x1024 is so 2004

This is entirely correct. And note this threads purpose was someone looking for some help and clarification in choosing between an ATI product and an NV one. It's important in my opinion when you get a sudden rush of people provided free hardware and procured for the purpose of spreading information about nvidia products, suddenly all over the thread harping up the NV option as superior, that there are people to point out the faults in their points and make people aware who are here for information as to their affiliations and what it entails.

Helps them to take their opinions with the proper weight and perspective :beer:

If you want a straight answer and I think this is valid, in strict performance terms of what kind of framerate you will get, especially if you are gaming at say 1920x1200 and I guess 1680x1050, which seem two common resolutions these days. The 4870 outperforms the GTX 260, and if you take time to peruse benchmarks from multiple sites, you'll see this statement brought out in many reviews. It's even faster than the GTX 280 in some instances.

Yes the NV cards have the PhysX support. Have you ever downloaded one of those NV demos, with some sort of head or some scene being rendered. I'm sure much of what you will see in this 'physx pack' will be along those lines. Obviously they will release something in it that puts their product in a good light.

Video cards have a short lifespan, and physx is not some sort of widespread and viable option all the game developers are jumping on, right now, today. The same is true of DX 10.1.

If your concern is straight performance, and which card will show better fps, the 4870 is a faster card than the GTX 260, pretty much across the board, and in some cases faster than a GTX 280.

If physx appeals to you and you play the two games actually on the market that use it and are willing to sacrifice performance in all your other titles to play these games with physx on at a frame rate lower than a 4870 will play the game without physx, in these two games. Then get a 260, or if $20 for you makes it appealing to get less performance, but close, get a 260.

Otherwise the 4870 is the better option. In my opinion.

Quick Edit, a quote:

'Along with the drivers will come a downloadable PhysX software pack containing free Unreal Tournament 3 maps, the full version of NetDevil's Warmonger, a couple of Nvidia demos, and sneak peeks at Object Software's Metal Knight Zero and Nurien Software's Nurien social-networking service......
.....two upcoming titles that will feature PhysX hardware acceleration. One of them is DICE's Mirror's Edge, which will feature awesome-looking first-person free running in a futuristic dystopia. Another is Natural Motion's Backbreaker, a third-person football sim. Nvidia claims studios have signed on to implement PhysX in another 10 games?and that's just in the month following the Ageia acquisition.'

Is it me or in terms of non tech demo stuff, is there nothing there but three maps for UT3 in terms of actual substantiated gaming product ? Oh and some note of a few games, coming at some point, not yet, but soon!

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: golem
I think Keys took exception to your comment that "the entire point of focus groups is marketing." Emphasis on word entire.

If you take the view that a focus groups sole purpose is to move product, then your comment would be right. But if you take the view that a focus groups purpose is to move product while also helping out users and providing correct information, then your comment would be wrong.

That's just my reading of what Keys and you wrote. If I interpreted incorrectly, I apologize in advance.

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say. I think both of those views are the same thing.

Focus groups are a marketing tool, and part of how they work can be 'helping out users and providing correct information'.

Put more simply, a focus group can do many things, but ultimately its entire reason for being is to increase sales.

I've made it clear that I don't have a problem with it, and indeed consider it a constructive addition to our forum, but I do have a problem with any pretence or belief that focus groups are anything other than a tool used to promote a good, be that good a product, person, policy or political party.

I'd also caution people to remember that focus group members aren't necessarily going to provide the complete picture. There's nothing wrong with that, but for the end user both side of the debate are crucial if you want the best outcome for you, not ATI or nvidia

I don't apologise for dragging this thread off-topic, because I didn't, and to the extent I'm challenged on this matter I'll continue to respond.

Well I do have a problem with this being off-topic, Dug. It's a subject we'll allow, just not in this thread, which is about something else entirely. If you wish to further discuss the issue, please feel free to make a new thread.

-ViRGE

 

[dug777]

Well I do have a problem with this being off-topic, Dug. It's a subject we'll allow, just not in this thread, which is about something else entirely. If you wish to further discuss the issue, please feel free to make a new thread.

-ViRGE[/quote]

I have no desire to discuss the matter further, either in here or elsewhere

In future when someone makes a statement I consider misleading that isn't directly related to the thread topic, I shall start a new thread elsewhere if I feel it neccessary to draw the matter to anyone's attention.

Back on topic again, does anyone have access to benchmarks of the 4870 and the GTX260 in PhysX enabled games at 'todays' resolutions?

I think that's the crux of the value of PhysX in this particular debate, along with the question of whether the card will have enough horsepower to do anything 'physX' in new games. Using Crysis as a portent for the future I can't see how the card could any meaningful processing power to spare for this task...

 

[ronnn]

Originally posted by: imaheadcase, my highest electric bill this month was $90.

So how many electric bills do you get?

 

[ronnn]

looking at the video at Driverheaven, it reminded me of the shiny pipes (way back when the usual suspects were berating shader days). Not alot now, but hopefully will be something in a couple of years. :beer:

 

[octopus41092]

Basically the HD4870 is faster in most games but in situations where the GTX260 is faster the game probably won't be playable anyways so I'd go for the HD4870.

 

[dadach]

Originally posted by: nRollo

1. By saying "I'd say" I'm clearly only referring to my opinion.

honestly, how much do you think it is worth, considering you are actually being paid to do this exact thing? there is no doubt you guys have some valid points too, but it just gets too clouded by all the other sponsored stuff you have to repeat over and over, so whoever checks what you write, will keep you in the group

so in reality, unless you have some good insider info, which coincidentally you can never give out because of NDA, unfortunatey, you really dont serve any more purpose on this particular forum group than a banner or an ad cycling on the side...NHF

this goes to all the members of focus groups that get free stuff for building up their companies

and before you go accusing me of personal attacks, i think this is normal reaction of the other people that just want to buy and enjoy the cards of their choice



Ok i just now read virges comments i will do this in more appropriate thread next time

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: nRollo

*While the 4870 can do 8X AA in some games that the GTX260 can't, I consider the difference in 4X vs 8X AA and Physx vs Non PhysX on totally different magnitude of desirability. 8XAA is nice- but PhysX changes the whole game.

But you were telling us the whole point of running SLI was to attain 2560x1600 with high AA levels (i.e. great than 4x).

Of course activating hardware PhysX in such situations will cause a performance hit because unlike the low detail settings used in reviews thus-far, 2560x1600 + 8xAA is GPU bound.

So it could quickly become the case that enabling hardware PhysX would cause a slideshow at said settings with even high-end SLI unless you start dropping resolution and/or AA levels, thereby contradicting your earlier arguments.

This also begs the question of how PhysX affects SLI given a lower framerate is more likely to cause micro-stutter with AFR.

 

[Keysplayr]

Technology is changing every day. Running at 2560x1600 with full AA/AF and high eye candy are no longer the only reasons to run SLI. New technologies /features are emerging. It's rare for someone to play at 2560x1600. I only know of 2 or 3 people who play at this res on these forums anyway. Rollo, N7, and there was one other member. This ususally requires a 30" monitor, yes? Not very affordable for most (including myself). I can try out 3 mainstream resolutions, 1280x1024/1400x900, 1600x1200/1680x1050, and 1920x1200. I can't test 25x16. Anyway, it is normal to expect framerates to be lower when running games with Physx content. Just like it's normal to expect lower framerates when churning up Anti-Aliasing or Anistropic Filtering. It's a feature. Features usually cost frames. So far, these games I have tried out with Physx were more than playable on a "lowly" 9800GTX+, even on a lower end system. I'd like to try 9800GTXs in SLI next. Then the GTX280.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Originally posted by: nRollo

*While the 4870 can do 8X AA in some games that the GTX260 can't, I consider the difference in 4X vs 8X AA and Physx vs Non PhysX on totally different magnitude of desirability. 8XAA is nice- but PhysX changes the whole game.

But you were telling us the whole point of running SLI was to attain 2560x1600 with high AA levels (i.e. great than 4x).

I don't think you can link to me saying that because I don't believe I ever did. High AA and 25X16 are tough to come by- usually you're using SLi to get 4XAA at 25X16. 25X16 is a whole different animal when it comes to AA and performance in general.

I believe you're referring to my posts about 8X/16X AA at 19X12, and I did indeed say it was better image quality, because it is. (no one could deny that)

However, the difference in 4XAA and 8XAA and the difference in non- PhysX and PhysX can't even be compared- PhysX adds much more to the game than somewhat better edges.

Also, IMO, the need for higher AA at 25X16 is diminished in general, it's not like the old 12X10 days where a jaggie might look a 1/3" wide.

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Of course activating hardware PhysX in such situations will cause a performance hit because unlike the low detail settings used in reviews thus-far, 2560x1600 + 8xAA is GPU bound.

So it could quickly become the case that enabling hardware PhysX would cause a slideshow at said settings with even high-end SLI unless you start dropping resolution and/or AA levels, thereby contradicting your earlier arguments.

This also begs the question of how PhysX affects SLI given a lower framerate is more likely to cause micro-stutter with AFR.

See above, and note that even if I did make that argument (which I don't believe I did because I for sure wasn't running 8XAA much at 25X16 on my GX2s) positions change with the tecnhology as to what's preferable.

For me 25X16 0X16X PhysX >>>>>> 25X16 16X16X no PhysX. (and I get over 30fps minimum, around 50fps average at UT3 so it's very playable)

The situation has changed, back in the SLi AA arguments you were referring to high AA was the best you could hope for. Now something better has come along.

GTX280 SLi at 25X16 to come soon for those who are interested.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: ronnn
looking at the video at Driverheaven, it reminded me of the shiny pipes (way back when the usual suspects were berating shader days). Not alot now, but hopefully will be something in a couple of years. :beer:

This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about here- usually the differences we discuss in these forums are trivial- like the light reflecting on the pipes or water demos at Shader Days. Shinier pipes are nice, but don't really change the game at all.

Being able to shoot the cover an enemy might be hiding behind and then the enemy changes the game.

Being able to shoot the stairs behind you so an enemy can't follow you up changes the game.

Being able to shoot a catwalk out from under an enemy changes the game.

Having cloth ripple and tear and not be static, or break like glass, changes the game.

Having wind actually move things in the environment realistically changes the experience.

Having walls crumble and signs fall when shot with high power weapons instead of remaining impervious changes the game.

We don't live in a world where rocket launchers have no effect on buildings, how can a game be realistic without this?

Every game needs this tech built into it, and I'm not here to tell you what's available today is reason enough to buy a video card.

Games are being patched and developed as I type this though- and every level that becomes available as time goes by is a step in the right direction. IIRC NVIDIA has said there will be over 30 titles using this by the end of next year.

IMO, even if 1/3 of that comes true, that IS a reason to buy a video card.The only functional difference I see in the two cards discussed here is the HD4870 can run 8XAA in more games and PhysX. I've seen both, and I'd trade PhysX for the ability to run 8X AA at all.

 

[EvilComputer92]

Originally posted by: nRollo
For me 25X16 0X16X PhysX >>>>>> 25X16 16X16X no PhysX. (and I get over 30fps minimum, around 50fps average at UT3 so it's very playable)

Again it's only in three maps. Are those the only levels you play? In the other 50 maps that shipped with the game it's obvious that 8XAA would be much better. 8XAA works in almost any 3D game ever made. PhysX so far has been demonstrated in a few levels in select games.

Originally posted by: nRollo
IIRC NVIDIA has said there will be over 30 titles using this by the end of next year.

Is there a specific link to this showing that there will be 30 titles using full hardware physX?

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
It's a feature. Features usually cost frames. So far, these games I have tried out with Physx were more than playable on a "lowly" 9800GTX+, even on a lower end system. I'd like to try 9800GTXs in SLI next. Then the GTX280.

It's a gameplay feature which makes it far different than AA or AF. This is why it will be very difficult for it to be widespread or be anything further than a tech demo in certain games. Only a few people will be capable of running it. If the person doesn't have a PhysX card, they will be essentially barred from playing the PhysX game. There is no setting you can turn off to improve performance with PhysX. This is especially an issue in multiplayer games where gameplay must be synchronized between players. You can't have 5 players with PhysX enabled and the other 5 without it.

Also on my 9800GTX PhysX framerates were still pretty bad in UT3. I averaged around 20 to 30 fps with frequent drops in the teens when lots of physics objects started flying.

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: nRollo

I don't think you can link to me saying that because I don't believe I ever did.

LMAO.

The first search brought us this:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...147216&highlight_key=y

Five out of the six games you linked to in your commentary contained 2560x1600x8xAA results, results you were using to extol the virtues of tri-SLI.

Furthermore you?ve done this multiple times when engaging in your SLI marketing campaign so please, don't insult our collective intelligence by denying it.

For me 25X16 0X16X PhysX >>>>>> 25X16 16X16X no PhysX. (and I get over 30fps minimum, around 50fps average at UT3 so it's very playable)

To quote yourself from the link above: So you see n7, the payoff I was referring to was being able to use your monitor to game with the ultimate image quality available

Riiight, so now running with AA disabled is acceptable on high-end SLI? What happened to your desire for "ultimate image quality available"?

I?ve been running AA since about 2002 so why aren?t you running AA on your tri-SLI rig in 2008 that provides ?ultimate image quality??

The situation has changed,

Yep, it sure has, nVidia now has something new to promote so you're required to reverse over your previous arguments in order to do it.

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: nRollo

IIRC NVIDIA has said there will be over 30 titles using this by the end of next year.

30, out of how many tens of thousands of games where 8xMSAA can be enabled? That?s not even a drop in a bucket.

I've seen both, and I'd trade PhysX for the ability to run 8X AA at all.

In every comparative test I've seen a PhysX board is faster than a GPU so if you're so keen on physics why didn't you buy PhysX board back in the day?

I didn't see a peep out of you about it until it became an nVidia product.