ATI Radeon HD 4890 vs. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 275
by Anand Lal Shimpi & Derek Wilson on April 2, 2009 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Mirror’s Edge: Do we have a winner?
And now we get to the final test. Something truly different: Mirror’s Edge.
This is an EA game. Ben had to leave before we got to this part of the test, he does have a wife and kid after all, so I went at this one alone.
I’d never played Mirror’s Edge. I’d seen the videos, it looked interesting. You play as a girl, Faith, a runner. You run across rooftops, through buildings, it’s all very parkour-like. You’re often being pursued by “blues”, police offers, as you run through the game. I won’t give away any plot details here but this game, I liked.
The GPU accelerated PhysX impacted things like how glass shatters and the presence of destructible cloth. We posted a video of what the game looks like with NVIDIA GPU accelerated PhysX enabled late last year:
"Here is the side by side video showing better what DICE has added to Mirror's Edge for the PC with PhysX. Please note that the makers of the video (not us) slowed down the game during some effects to better show them off. The slow downs are not performance related issues. Also, the video is best viewed in full screen mode (the button in the bottom right corner)."
In Derek’s blog about the game he said the following:
“We still want to really get our hands on the game to see if it feels worth it, but from this video, we can at least say that there is more positive visual impact in Mirror's Edge than any major title that has used PhysX to date. NVIDIA is really trying to get developers to build something compelling out of PhysX, and Mirror's Edge has potential. We are anxious to see if the follow through is there.”
Well, we have had our hands on the game and I’ve played it quite a bit. I started with PhysX enabled. I was looking for the SSD-effect. I wanted to play with it on then take it away and see if I missed it. I played through the first couple of chapters with PhysX enabled, fell in lust with the game and then turned off PhysX.
I missed it.
I actually missed it. What did it for me was the way the glass shattered. When I was being pursued by blues and they were firing at me as I ran through a hallway full of windows, the hardware accelerated PhysX version was more believable. I felt more like I was in a movie than in a video game. Don’t get me wrong, it wasn’t hyper realistic, but the effect was noticeable.
I replayed a couple of chapters and then played some new ones with PhysX disabled now before turning it back on and repeating the test.
The impact of GPU accelerated PhysX was noticeable. EA had done it right.
The Verdict?
So am I sold? Would I gladly choose a slower NVIDIA part because of PhysX support? Of course not.
The reason why I enjoyed GPU accelerated PhysX in Mirror’s Edge was because it’s a good game to begin with. The implementation is subtle, but it augments an already visually interesting title. It makes the gameplay experience slightly more engrossing.
It’s a nice bonus if I already own a NVIDIA GPU, it’s not a reason for buying one.
The fact of the matter is that Mirror’s Edge should be the bare minimum requirement for GPU accelerated PhysX in games. The game has to be good to begin with and the effects should be the cherry on top. Crappy titles and gimmicky physics aren’t going to convince anyone. Aggressive marketing on top of that is merely going to push people like us to call GPU accelerated PhysX out for what it is. I can’t even call the overall implementations I’ve seen in games half baked, the oven isn’t even preheated yet. Mirror’s Edge so far is an outlier. You can pick a string of cheese off of a casserole and like it, but without some serious time in the oven it’s not going to be a good meal.
Then there’s the OpenCL argument. NVIDIA won’t port PhysX to OpenCL, at least not anytime soon. But Havok is being ported to OpenCL, that means by the end of this year all games that use OpenCL Havok can use GPU accelerated physics on any OpenCL compliant video card (NVIDIA, ATI and Intel when Larrabee comes out).
While I do believe that NVIDIA and EA were on to something with the implementation of PhysX in Mirror’s Edge, I do not believe NVIDIA is strong enough to drive the entire market on its own. Cross platform APIs like OpenCL will be the future of GPU accelerated physics, they have to be, simply because NVIDIA isn’t the only game in town. The majority of PhysX titles aren’t accelerated on NVIDIA GPUs, I would suspect that it won’t take too long for OpenCL accelerated Havok titles to equal that number once it’s ready.
Until we get a standard for GPU accelerated physics that all GPU vendors can use or until NVIDIA can somehow convince every major game developer to include compelling features that will only be accelerated on NVIDIA hardware, hardware PhysX will be nothing more than fancy lettering on a cake.
You wanted us to look at PhysX in a review of an ATI GPU, and there you have it.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
294 Comments
View All Comments
josh6079 - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link
I'm one with the opinion that PhysX is good and will only become better in time. Yet, I more than acknowledge the fact that CUDA is going to hinder its adoption so long as nVidia remains unwilling to decouple the two.There was a big thread concerning this on the Video forum, and some people just can't get through the fact that CUDA is proprietary and OpenCL is not. As long as you have that factor, hardware vendors are going to refrain from supporting their competitors proprietary parallel programming and because of that developers will continue to aim for the biggest market segment.
PhysX set the stage for non-CPU physic calculations, but that is no longer going to be an advantageous trait for them. They'll need to improve PhysX itself, and even then they will have to provide it to all consumers -- be it if they have an ATi or nVidia GPU in their system. They'll have to do this because Havok will be doing this with OpenCL to serve as the parallel programming instead of CUDA, thereby allowing Havok GPU-accelerated physics for all OpenCL-compliant GPUs.
tamalero - Sunday, April 5, 2009 - link
the problem is, by the time the PhysX becomes norm, you will be on your NVidia 480GTX :Pit happened to AMD and their X64 technology, took quite a bit to blast off.
haukionkannel - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link
Well, if these cards reduce the price of earlier cards it's just a good thing :-)From ATI's part changes are not big, but they make the product better. It's better owerclocker than the predessor, it has better power lines. It's just ok upgrade like Phenom 2 was compared to original Phenom (though 4870 was and still is better GPU than Phenom was as an CPU...)
Nvidias 275 offers good upgrade over the 260, so not so bad if those rumors about shady preview samples turns out to be false. If the preview parts really are beefed up versions... Well Nvidia would be in some trouble, and I really think that they would not be that stubid, would'n they? All in all the improvement from 260 to 275 seems to be bigger than 4870 to 4890, so the competition is getting tighter. So far so good.
In real life both producers are keen on developing their DX11 cards to be ready for DX11 launch, so this may be guite boring year in GPU front untill the next generation comes out...
knutjb - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link
Both cards performed well and the performance differences are small. I can buy the 4890 today on newegg but not the 275. I know the 4890 is a new chip even if it is just a refined RV770 it's still a NEW part. It falls within in an easily understood hierarchy in the 4800 range. Bottom line I know what I'm getting. The 275 I can't buy today and it appears to be another recycled part with unclear origins. Nvidia's track record with musical labeling is bothersome to me. I want to know what I'm buying without having to spend days figuring out which version is the best bang for the buck. Come on Nvidia this is a problem and you can do better than this. The CUDA and PhysX aren't enough to sway me on their own merits since most of the benefits require me to spend more money, yes they add value, but at what expense?.SiliconDoc - Monday, April 6, 2009 - link
nutjob, you're not smart enough to own NVidia. Stick with the card for dummies, the ati.Here's a clue "overclocked 4870 with 1 gig ram not 512, not a 4850 because it has ddr5 not ddr3 - so we call it 4870+ - no wait that would be fair, if we call it 4870 overclocked, uhh... umm.. no we need a better name to make it sound twice as good... let's see 4850, then 4870, so twice as good would be uhh. 4890 ! That's it !
There ya go... So the 4890 is that much better than the 4870, as it is above the 4850, right ? LOL
Maybe they should have called it the 4875, and been HONEST about it like NVidia was > 280 285 ...
No ATI likes to lie, and their dummy fans praise them for it.
Oh well, another red rooster FUD packet blown to pieces.
knutjb - Saturday, April 11, 2009 - link
Dude you missed the whole point, must be the green blurring your vision. Nvidia takes an existing chip and reduces it's capacity or takes one the doesn't meet spec and puts it out as a new product or they take the 8800, then 9800, then the 250, then... that is re-badging. The 4850 and 4830 same same. Grading chip is nothing new but Nvidia keeps rebadging OLD, but good, chips and releases them as if they are NEW which is where my primary complaint about Nvidia gfx cards comes from.4890 might not be an entirely new core but they ADDED to it, rearranged the layout, in the end improving it, they didn't SUBTRACT from it. It is more than a 4870+. It is a very simple concept that apparently you are unable to grasp due to your being such a fanboy. So you don't like ATI, I don't care, I buy whoever has the best bang for the buck that meets my needs not what you think.
ATI looked at the market and decided to hit the midrange and expand down and up from there. They went where most of the money is, in the midrange, not high end gaming. They are hurting and a silly money flag ship doesn't make sense right now. If Nvidia wasn't concerned with the 4890 they wouldn't have released another cut down chip. Put down the pipe and step away from the torch.... Seek help.
SiliconDoc - Thursday, April 23, 2009 - link
So your primary problem is that you think nvidia didn't rework their layout when they changed from G80, to G92, to G92b, and you don't like the fact that they can cover the entire midrange by doing that, because of the NAME they sue when they change the bit width, the shaders, the mem speed etc - BUTWhen aTI does it it's ok because they went for the mid range, you admit the 4850 and 4830 are the same core, but fail to mention the 4870 and fairly include the 4980 as well - because it's OK when ati does it.
Then you ignore all the other winning features of nvidia, and call me names - when I'M THE PERSON TELLING THE TRUTH, AND YOU ARE LYING.
Sorry bubba, doesn't work that way in the real world.
The real horror is ATI doesn't have a core better than the G80/G92/G92b - and the only thing that puts the 4870 and 4890 up to 260/280 levels is the DDR5, which I had to point out to all the little lying spewboys here already.
Now your argument that ATI went for the middle indicates you got that point, and YOU AGREE WITH IT, but just can't bring yourself to say it. Yes, that's the truth as well.
Look at the title of the continuing replies "RE: Another Nvidia knee jerk" - GET A CLUE SON.
lol
Man are you people pathetic. Wow.
Exar3342 - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link
These are both basically rebadges; deal with it.knutjb - Friday, April 3, 2009 - link
If 3,000,000 more tranistors is "basically a rebadge" you are lost on how much work goes into designing a chip as opposed to changing the stamper on the chip printing machine. I would speculate ATI/AMD has made some interesting progress on their next gen chip design and applied it to the RV770 it worked so they're selling it now to fill a hole in the market.It sounds like you are trying to deal with Nvida's constant rebaging and have to point the finger and claim ATI/AMD is doing it too. Where did the 275 chip come from? Yes it is a good product but how many names do you want it called?
I have bought just as many Nvidia cards as I have ATI/AMD based on bang for the buck, just calling it like I see it...
SiliconDoc - Monday, April 6, 2009 - link
Well, they worked it for overclocking - and apparently did a fine job of that - but it is a rebadging, none the less.It seems the less than one half of one percent "new core" transistors are used as a sort of multi capacitor ring around the outside of the core, for overclocking legs. Not bad, but not a new core. I do wonder as they hinted they "did some rearranging" - if they had to waste some of those on the core works - lengthening or widening or bridging this or that - or connections to the bois for volt modding or what have you.
When eother company moves to a smaller die, a similar effect is had for the cores, some movements and fittings and optimizations always occur, although this site always jumped on the hate and lie bandwagon to screech about "rebranding" - as well as "confusing names" since the cards were not all the same... bit width, memory type, size, shaders, etc.
So I'm sure we would hear about the IMMENSE VERSATILITY of the awesome technology of the ati core (if they did the same thing with their core).
However, they've done a rebranding a ring around the overclock. Nice, but same deal.
Can you tell us how much more epxensive it's going to be to produce since derak and anand decided to "not mention the cost" since they didn't have the green monster to bash about it ?
Oh that's right, it's RUDE to mention the extra cost when the red rooster company is burning through a billion a year they don't have - ahh, the great sales numbers, huh ?