PhysX in Warmonger: Fail

Cryostasis is a title due out this year, unfortunately there is no playable demo. Just a tech demo. Next.

Metal Knight Zero, MKZ for short, was another game on NVIDIA’s list. Once more, no playable demo, just a tech demo. We need real games here people, real titles, if you’re trying to convince someone to buy NVIDIA on the merits of PhysX.

Warmonger, ah yes, now we have a playable game. Warmonger is a first person shooter that uses GPU accelerated PhysX to enable destructible environments. Allow me to quote NVIDIA:

The first thing about Warmonger is that it runs horribly slow on ATI hardware, even with GPU accelerated PhysX disabled. I’m guessing ATI’s developer relations team hasn’t done much to optimize the shaders for Radeon HD hardware. Go figure.

The verdict here (aside from: I don’t want to play Warmonger), was that the GPU accelerated PhysX effects were not very, well, impressive. You could destroy walls, but the game itself wasn’t exactly fun so it didn’t matter. The realistic cloth that you could shoot holes through? Yeah, not terribly realistic looking.


Look at the hyper realistic cloth! Yeah, it looks like a highly advanced game from 6 years ago.

Warmonger itself wasn’t a triple A first person shooter, and the GPU accelerated PhysX effects on top of it weren’t going to make the game any better. Sorry guys, none of us liked this one. PC Gamer gave it a 55/100. Looks like we weren’t alone. Next.

PhysX in Sacred 2: There, but not tremendously valuable The Unreal Tournament 3 PhysX Mod Pack: Finally, a Major Title
Comments Locked

294 Comments

View All Comments

  • SiliconDoc - Monday, April 6, 2009 - link

    Don't worry, it is mentioned in the article their overclocking didn't have good results, so they're keying up a big fat red party for you soon.
    They wouldn't dare waste the opportunity to crow and strut around.
    This was about announcing the red card, slamming nvidia for late to market, and denouncing cuda and physx, and making an embarrassingly numberous amount of "corrections" to the article, including declaring the 2560 win, not a win anymore, since the red card didn't do it.
    That's ok, be ready for the change back to 2560 is THE BESt and wins, when the overclock review comes out.
    :)
    Don't worry be happy.
  • tamalero - Thursday, April 9, 2009 - link

    SD, you seriously have a mental problem right?
    I noticed that you keep bashing, being sarcastically insultive (betwen other things.) to anyone who supports ati.
  • SiliconDoc - Thursday, April 23, 2009 - link

    No, not true at all, there are quite a few posts where the person declaring their ATI fealty doesn't lie their buttinski off - and those posts I don't counter.
    Sorry, you must be a raging goofball too who can't spot liars.
    It's called LOGIC, that's what you use against the lairs - you know, scientific accuracy.
    Better luck next time - If you call me wrong I'll post a half dozen red rooster rooters in this thread that don't lie in what they say and you'll see I didn't respond.
    Now, you can apologize any time, and I'll give you another chance, since you were wrong this time.
  • Nfarce - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link

    I just finished a mid-range C2D build, and decided to go with the HD 4870 512MB version for $164.99 (ASUS, no sale at NE, but back up to $190 now). This was my first ATI card and it was a no-brainer. While the 4890 is a better card, to me, it is not worth the nearly $100 more, especially considering I'm gaming at either 1920x1200 on a 40" LCD TV or a 22" LCD monitor at 1680x1050.

    Nvidia has lost me after 12 years as a fanboy for the time being, I suppose. What I will do here when I have more time is determine if buying another 4870 512MB for CrossFire will be the better bang for my resolutions or eventually moving up to the 4890 when the price drops this summer and then sell the 4870.

    Thanks for the GREAT review AT, and now I have my homework cut out for me for comparisons with your earlier GPU reviews.
  • Jamahl - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link

    Good job with tidying up the conclusion Anand.
  • Russ2650 - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link

    I've read that the 4890 has 959M transistors, 3M more than the 4870.
  • Gary Key - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link

    That is correct and is discussed on page 3. The increase in die size is due to power delivery improvements to handle the increased clock speeds.
  • Warren21 - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link

    Maybe the tables should be updated to reflect this?
  • Gary Key - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link

    They are... :)
  • helpmespock - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link

    I've been sitting on my 8800GT for a while now and was thinking about going to a 4870 1GB model, but now I may hold off and see what prices do.

    If the 4890/275 force the 4870 down in price then great I'll go with that, but on the other hand if prices slip from the new parts off of the $250 mark then I'll be tempted by that instead.

    Either way I think I'm waiting to see how the market shakes out and in the end I, the consumer, will win.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now