Mafia II's strangely high suggested "Apex" (PhysX) recommended requirements

[Wag]

http://news.bigdownload.com/2010/07/08/mafia-2-pc-system-requirements-revealed/

MINIMUM SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS
Operating System: Microsoft Windows XP (SP2 or later) / Windows Vista / Windows 7
Processor: Pentium D 3Ghz or AMD Athlon 64 X2 3600+ (Dual core) or higher
RAM: 1.5 GB
Video Card: nVidia GeForce 8600 / ATI HD2600 Pro or better
Hard Disc Space: 8 GB
Sound Card: 100% DirectX 9.0c compatible sound card
Peripherals: Keyboard and mouse or Windows compatible gamepad

RECOMMENDED SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS
Operating System: Microsoft Windows XP (SP2 or later) / Windows Vista / Windows 7
Processor: 2.4 GHz Quad Core processor
RAM: 2 GB
Video Card: nVidia GeForce 9800 GTX / ATI Radeon HD 3870 or better
Hard Disc: 10 GB
Sound Card: 100% DirectX 9.0c compliant card
Peripherals: Keyboard and mouse or Windows compatible gamepad

PHSYX/APEX ENHANCEMENTS SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS
Operating System: Microsoft Windows XP (SP2 or later) / Windows Vista / Windows 7 Minimum Processor: 2.4 GHz Quad Core processor
Recommended Processor: 2.66 GHz Core i7-920 RAM: 2 GB

Video Cards and resolution: APEX medium settings
Minimum: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260 (or better) for Graphics and a dedicated NVIDIA 9800GTX (or better) for PhysX
Recommended: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 470 (or better)

Video Cards and resolution: APEX High settings
Minimum: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 470 (or better) and a dedicated NVIDIA 9800GTX (or better) for PhysX
Recommended: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 for Graphics and a dedicated NVIDIA GTX 285 (or better) for PhysX NVIDIA GPU driver: 197.13 or later.
NVIDIA PhysX driver: 10.04.02_9.10.0522. Included and automatically installed with the game.

GTX 470/480 anyone? What's up with that?

 

[Lonyo]

Strangely for the enhanced physics it also requires a faster processor.
So not only do you need GPU power, you need CPU power as well, which seems a little silly.

 

[Wag]

I hope this isn't another case of a poorly optimized engine like Metro 2033. Considering my setup is < the "recommended" requirements I'm not going to pre-order this one.

 

[tviceman]

The recommended settings for the high apex/physx configuration is ridiculous. Batman: AA recommended a dedicated 9800GTX for when playing the game with physx on high, but the game ran fine for me (for the most part) with just a gtx260 216 ---- so hopefully to play Mafia II with playable frame rates you won't actually need a gtx480 with a gtx280 as a dedicated physx card.

Also, I've got a core 2 duo overclocked to 4.05 ghz - I bet it'll outperform a core 2 quad @ 2.4 ghz.

 

[MrK6]

What have I been saying? NVIDIA can't write PhysX well enough to run on the same card that's rendering. Either that they can but don't so they can use it as a gimmick to sell more cards.

 

[tviceman]

What have I been saying? NVIDIA can't write PhysX well enough to run on the same card that's rendering. Either that they can but don't so they can use it as a gimmick to sell more cards.

Batman and Mirror's Edge both ran well on my gtx260 216 without a dedicated card. But then again, Mafia II's physx effects look both more intense and more frequent than in either Batman or ME.

Funny actually, the other day when the Mafia II requirements came out, I started wondering why nvidia hasn't marketed cards specifically designed to be physx add-ons. Do physx dedicated cards use their video ram for anything? Do they need wide memory interfaces? I'm not exactly positive, but I don't think they particularly rely that much on either. Nvidia could have benefited from releasing "physx dedicated cards" with G92 cores or a gt215, slapping it on a 192-bit interface with 384 megs of video ram -- cheaper to make and would also help spread physx. They also could have benefited from not locking out heterogeneous setups (amd gpu + nvidia gpu for physx).

But I digress. It's only more PC potential being wasted to squabbling companies.

 

[MrK6]

Batman and Mirror's Edge both ran well on my gtx260 216 without a dedicated card. But then again, Mafia II's physx effects look both more intense and more frequent than in either Batman or ME.

The ~55&#37; performance hit in a console port isn't acceptable in my book (nor would be the resulting ~30FPS on a GTX260, but that's not my card).

Funny actually, the other day when the Mafia II requirements came out, I started wondering why nvidia hasn't marketed cards specifically designed to be physx add-ons. Do physx dedicated cards use their video ram for anything? Do they need wide memory interfaces? I'm not exactly positive, but I don't think they particularly rely that much on either. Nvidia could have benefited from releasing "physx dedicated cards" with G92 cores or a gt215, slapping it on a 192-bit interface with 384 megs of video ram -- cheaper to make and would also help spread physx. They also could have benefited from not locking out heterogeneous setups (amd gpu + nvidia gpu for physx).

But I digress. It's only more PC potential being wasted to squabbling companies.

Pretty much. In almost every direction PhysX has been executed poorly.

 

[tviceman]

The ~55&#37; performance hit in a console port isn't acceptable in my book (nor would be the resulting ~30FPS on a GTX260, but that's not my card).

Well you can play Mirror's Edge at 50-60 fps at all times with a gtx260 216 and physx turned on, so whatever performance hit you are referring to there is a nonissue. The game is still 100% fluid and smooth all the time. My brother has a gts250 and on his particular rig, only when glass shatters can I notice the frame rate dipping into what I am guessing is the mid 30's. And for reference, he cannot notice it.

And as far as Batman goes, I could have chose to play the game at >= 50fps at all times without the extra special effects (a la almost exactly how it looks on the consoles), or accept some occasional dips into the upper 20's, but mostly have around 50 fps with physx on high. For me, I can tolerate single player games having occasional frame rate drops below 35. And, for me, it was well worth the added eye candy in this particular game.

It's a matter of preference and choice, but at least we are given the choice.

 

[MrK6]

Well you can play Mirror's Edge at 50-60 fps at all times with a gtx260 216 and physx turned on, so whatever performance hit you are referring to there is a nonissue. The game is still 100% fluid and smooth all the time. My brother has a gts250 and on his particular rig, only when glass shatters can I notice the frame rate dipping into what I am guessing is the mid 30's. And for reference, he cannot notice it.

Not what the numbers say: http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/mirrors_edge_physx_performance/page3.asp . And Mirror's Edge isn't even that graphically impressive nor does it do anything amazing with PhysX.

And as far as Batman goes, I could have chose to play the game at >= 50fps at all times without the extra special effects (a la almost exactly how it looks on the consoles), or accept some occasional dips into the upper 20's, but mostly have around 50 fps with physx on high. For me, I can tolerate single player games having occasional frame rate drops below 35. And, for me, it was well worth the added eye candy in this particular game.

It's a matter of preference and choice, but at least we are given the choice.

Different strokes for different folks.

 

[tviceman]

Not what the numbers say: http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/mirrors_edge_physx_performance/page3.asp . And Mirror's Edge isn't even that graphically impressive nor does it do anything amazing with PhysX.

We can cherry pick benchmarks all day long that prove either one of us right:

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...hysx-effects-benchmark-review/Reviews/?page=2

I played the game on a gtx260-216 with physx on and experienced no slow down at all throughout the whole game.

 

[MrK6]

We can cherry pick benchmarks all day long that prove either one of us right:

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...hysx-effects-benchmark-review/Reviews/?page=2

I played the game on a gtx260-216 with physx on and experienced no slow down at all throughout the whole game.

Nowhere do I have to be right as none of the comments I've made have been rebutted. You made a statement, I proved it wrong, that's it. You said:

Well you can play Mirror's Edge at 50-60 fps at all times with a gtx260 216 and physx turned on,

and I showed that isn't true. There's nothing else to discuss there, and your included benchmark doesn't change that.

To summarize since this discussion seems to be going astray: I had stated the NVIDIA still has yet to offer a GPU hardware physics solution that doesn't drastically impact the rendering performance of a single GPU system. Cutting framerates in half for a bit of smoke, sparks, or destruction, all effects that can easily be rendered much more efficiently through other routes, is ridiculous in my opinion. That kind of performance penalty is not acceptable to me, definitely not for the resulting minor visual changes (I can't even collectively call them enhancements).

 

[Lonbjerg]

Should be an indicator of that the PhysX implementation in MafiaII will be bigger.

Comparing games with diffrent levels of phyiscs are really not helpfull.

Clothing will be much more computational in MafiaII for once.

 

[MarkLuvsCS]

lol damn. I was really looking forward to Mafia II but those requirements I hope are a little exaggerated. I was just looking into getting another nvidia card to pair with my 470 for physx only primarily because i knew this game was gonna use more of it but DAMN. I really not sure which one to shoot for now let alone if it'd be enough. I hope we'll see some benchmarks to compare with physx on/off to see what is actually needed for smooth gameplay.

 

[happy medium]

lol damn. I was really looking forward to Mafia II but those requirements I hope are a little exaggerated. I was just looking into getting another nvidia card to pair with my 470 for physx only primarily because i knew this game was gonna use more of it but DAMN. I really not sure which one to shoot for now let alone if it'd be enough. I hope we'll see some benchmarks to compare with physx on/off to see what is actually needed for smooth gameplay.

Shoot for a used gtx 260, 192 sp. They go for around 115$ now. That should be plenty.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2075243

 

[MarkLuvsCS]

Shoot for a used gtx 260, 192 sp. They go for around 115$ now. That should be plenty.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2075243

Thanks for the advice happy medium!

I think I'll wait till the game releases and see if the engine needs more than that. I see a fair bit of 260s for ~110-120 which seems like a solid purchase. If needed I may just look at the 460/465s. Seems silly but if the game will need it, I won't mind giving it a newer card for Physx.

 

[Wreckage]

It's good to see someone pushing PC games beyond console graphics. I'm looking forward to this game. PhysX is really starting to shine this year. Especially after the good year it had in 2009.

 

[Patrick Wolf]

Nowhere do I have to be right as none of the comments I've made have been rebutted. You made a statement, I proved it wrong, that's it. You said:

and I showed that isn't true. There's nothing else to discuss there, and your included benchmark doesn't change that.

To summarize since this discussion seems to be going astray: I had stated the NVIDIA still has yet to offer a GPU hardware physics solution that doesn't drastically impact the rendering performance of a single GPU system. Cutting framerates in half for a bit of smoke, sparks, or destruction, all effects that can easily be rendered much more efficiently through other routes, is ridiculous in my opinion. That kind of performance penalty is not acceptable to me, definitely not for the resulting minor visual changes (I can't even collectively call them enhancements).

Your benchmark shows 1920x1200 vs. his which was 1680x1050. So maybe that's the difference that allows a person to play 50-60 fps w/ a gtx260-216 in ME.

However I totally agree with you about physx in general.

 

[OCGuy]

Awesome.

 

[StinkyPinky]

Who cares about crap like physx.

I loved the original game for the gameplay. Very enjoyable, better than any of the GTA games. Hopefully this one is just as good.

 

[apathy_next2]

poor code poor implementation phyx sucks i played it on my 8800GT
Let's wait until the game is out and tests are run before we jump to conclusions?

 

[tviceman]

Neve saw your response.

Nowhere do I have to be right as none of the comments I've made have been rebutted. You made a statement, I proved it wrong, that's it. You said:

and I showed that isn't true. There's nothing else to discuss there, and your included benchmark doesn't change that.

I showed that my statement was true. My monitor is 1680x1050 and the benchmark I provided clear shows the game's minimum frame rate with a gtx 260 216 to be between 47-58 fps. MINIMUM.

To summarize since this discussion seems to be going astray: I had stated the NVIDIA still has yet to offer a GPU hardware physics solution that doesn't drastically impact the rendering performance of a single GPU system. Cutting framerates in half for a bit of smoke, sparks, or destruction, all effects that can easily be rendered much more efficiently through other routes, is ridiculous in my opinion. That kind of performance penalty is not acceptable to me, definitely not for the resulting minor visual changes (I can't even collectively call them enhancements).

Until you say there are more efficient methods to render their physics effects (which simply isn't true), clearly the rest is only an opnion and one we do not wholly agree on.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

Who cares about crap like physx.

All us nvidia owners that soak up all that physickie goodness. We like AA too on SC.

 

[zerocool84]

It's good to see someone pushing PC games beyond console graphics. I'm looking forward to this game. PhysX is really starting to shine this year. Especially after the good year it had in 2009.

lol yea what a great year Physx has had........

I really hope this game actually does do something meaningful with Physx. More so than some of the eye-candy we've seen which is cool but still doesn't live up to what Nvidia promised us.

 

[Nintendesert]

I liked the first Mafia game so we'll see what this one has to offer, but the requirements for the game seem ridiculous and the graphics just don't seem to live up to the hardware that's required to run it.

I'll wait until I play the final game though to make a final judgement on whether it's a great implementation and use of technology or just another poorly coded POS that got done for the payoffs that nVidia hands out to developers.

 

[StrangerGuy]

Seems like we have already climbed the diminishing returns mountain too high up, no?