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
The Unreal Tournament 3 PhysX Mod Pack: Finally, a Major Title
Unreal Tournament 3. Metacritic gives it an 83 for “Generally favorable reviews” and NVIDIA released a PhysX mod pack for it last year. Now we’re getting somewhere.
The mod pack consists of three levels that use GPU accelerated PhysX. The rest of the game is left unchanged. You can run these levels without GPU acceleration, but they’re much slower.
The three levels are HeatRay, Lighthouse and Tornado. Guess what the PhysX does in Tornado?
Ben and I played HeatRay together (aw, cute). First the PhysX enabled level with GPU acceleration turned off, then with it turned on and then the standard level that doesn’t use any GPU accelerated PhysX at all.
Turning the PhysX acceleration on made a huge difference, we both agreed. The game was much faster, much more playable. The most noticeable PhysX effect was hail falling from the sky, and lots of it. You could blow up signs in the level but the hail was by far the most noticeable part. Note that I said noticeable, not desirable.
See all of the white pellets? Yeah, that's what PhysX got us in UT3.
Playing the normal version of the HeatRay map was far more fun for both of us. The hail was distracting. Each of the hundreds of pellets hit the ground and bounced off in a physically accurate manner, but in doing so it sounded like I was running through a tunnel full of bead curtains suspended from the ceiling. Not to mention the visual distraction of tons of pellets hitting the ground all of the time. Ben and I both liked the level without the hail. The point of the hail? Not to make the level cooler, but rather to truly stress the PPU/GPU - particles are one of the most difficult things to do on the CPU thanks but work very well on the GPU. This wasn’t a fun level, this was a benchmark.
Tornado was the turning point for us. As the name implies, there’s a giant tornado flying through this capture the flag level. The tornado is physically accurate, if you shoot rockets at it, they fly around and get sucked into the funnel or redirected depending on their angle of incidence. It’s neat.
The tornado sucks up everything around it but if you’re looking to relive Wizard of Oz fantasies I’ve got bad news: you are immune from its sucking power. You just stay on the ground and lose health. Great.
Ben’s take on the tornado level? “It was neat”. I agreed. Not compelling enough for me to tattoo PhysX on my roided up mousing-arm, but the most impressive thing we’d seen thus far.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
294 Comments
View All Comments
SiliconDoc - Monday, April 6, 2009 - link
Yes, exactly why added value of CUDA, PhysX, badaboom, vReveal, the game profiles ready in nv panel, the forced SLI, the ambient occlusion games and their MODS ( se back a page or two in comments) - all MATTER to a lot gamers.Let's not forget card size for htpc'ers - heat, dissipation, H.264 etc.
Just the frames matter here just for ati - formerly at 2560x when ati had that crown, now of course, just for lower resolutions - the most important suddenly to the same reviewers, when ati is stuck down there.
Yeah, PATHETIC describes the dismissal of added values.
Flunk - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link
I have a CUDA-supporting GPU (8800GTS) and I have rarely used it. Other than to run the CUDA version of folding at home (there is also an Ati Stream version) or to look at the preitty effects in a few games. I don't really think these effects are particularly worthwhile and unless the industry comes together and supports a standard like OpenCL I don't see GPU-based processing becoming important to most uses.SiliconDoc - Monday, April 6, 2009 - link
Here's a clue as to why you're already WRONG.Most "gpu users" use NVidia. DUH.
So while you're whistling in the dark, it's already past that time when your line of crap has any basis in reality.
It takes a gigantic red fanboy brain fart to state otherwise.
Oh well, since when did facts matter when the red plague is rampant?
Hrel - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link
You can get an Nvidia GPU that runs CUDA and Badaboom for $50; the 9600GT. End of page 13.Hrel - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link
You can get an Nvidia GPU that runs CUDA and Badaboom for $50; the 9600GT.punjabiplaya - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link
Just need to some stable OC vs OC results!SiliconDoc - Monday, April 6, 2009 - link
anand doesn't do the overclocked part comparison of the videocard wars - BUT DON 'T worry - a red rooster exception with charts and babbling is no doubt coming down the pike.Keep begging, then they can "respond to customer demands". lol
Oh man, this is going to be fun.
I suggest they start with the gainward gtx260 overclock goes like hell, that whips every single 4870 1g XXX ever made. Sound good ?
Griswold - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link
What I'm really curious about because neither of the cards is what I'm interested in buying, but I like to follow both companies business strategies:Does nvidia really lose money or is looking at a fat zero on the bottom line with this card?
SiliconDoc - Monday, April 6, 2009 - link
Uhh ati is losing a billion a year.If you want card specifics, that's probably difficult to calculate - and loss leaders are nothing new in business - in fact that's what successful businesses use as a sales tool. Seems ATI has taken it a bit too far and made every card they sell a loss leader, hence their billions in the hole.
Now as far as the NVidia card in question, even if Obama takes over the mean greedy green machine - he and his cabal "won't release the information because it's just not fair and may cause those not really needing help at the money window to be expsoed".
So no, you won't be finding out.
The problem is anyway, if a certain card is a loss leader, they calculate how much other business it brings in, and that makes it a WINNER - and that's the idea.
flashbacck - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link
The physx/cuda section was interesting, although it sounded a bit... whiny.I would LOVE it if someone would write an article about all the PR and marketing shenanigans that go on with reviewers behind the scenes. It'll never happen because it would kill any relationship the author has with the companies, but I bet it would be an eye opening read.