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.
You probably should have included your resolution in the original statement then. As it stands, I showed that at typical gaming resolutions, the GTX 260-216 could not keep up. I'm sure if you lower the resolution enough, it can eventually put out decent framerates. Either way, the main point was the performance hit for running PhysX is completely disproportional to the minor visual changes.
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.
But there are. Games have been doing most PhysX effects on CPUs or by different methods on the the GPU for the last decade, with much better performance results. NVIDIA's implementation is shoddy at best, and promoting it otherwise is laughable.
"a dedicated NVIDIA GTX 285 (or better) for PhysX"
That's either bullshit, or a perfect example of how poorly coded physx is. Even if Mafia 2 has the greatest physx implementation yet there's no way in hell a 285 should be needed to smoothly render some piddly effects.
Exactly. They either suck at coding or they're doing it on purpose to try to sell video cards.
Apex is mainly improved particle systems and more advanced cloth simulations. Those who want to bash it will be able to make themselves feel good by repeating it doesn't matter. Those who like to see advancement in visual fidelity will appreciate what it is for what it is.
"Visual fidelity"
I will state that ATi still has yet to offer a GPU 32x AA solution that doesn't drastically impact the rendering performance of a single GPU system. Their AA also hasn't changed the gameplay in any game I've tried either.
Reaching for anything now, huh? What exactly does 32x AA offer over 16x AA? Could you take a few screenshots to show the differences, since it seems to be such a worthwhile investment to you? I personally prefer that AMD went the extra mile to develop single GPU solutions that can actually render well at much higher resolutions, rather that twist pixels even more. My 5850 handles 2560x1600 and even 5760x1200 well. In fact, it far surpasses NVIDIA's single GPU multi-monitor solution because... oh wait, NVIDIA cards can't even do that, nevermind.