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.

The Unreal Tournament 3 PhysX Mod Pack: Finally, a Major Title CUDA - Oh there’s More
Comments Locked

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.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now