PhysX in Sacred 2: There, but not tremendously valuable

The first title on the chopping block? Sacred 2.

This was Ben’s type of game. It’s a Diablo-style RPG. It’s got a Metacritic score of 71 out of 100, which indicates “mixed or average reviews”.

I let ben play Sacred 2 for a while, first with PhysX disabled and then with it enabled. His response after it was enabled? “The game feels a little choppier but I don’t really notice anything.”

Derek and I were hovering over his shoulder at times and eventually Derek pointed out the leaves blowing in the wind. “Did they do that before?”, Derek asked. “I didn’t even notice them”, was Ben’s reply.


Sacred 2 without GPU accelerated PhysX


Sacred 2 with GPU accelerated PhysX - It's more noticeable here than in the game itself

We left Ben alone for him to play for a while. His verdict mirrored ours. The GPU accelerated PhysX effects in Sacred 2 were hardly noticeable, and when they were, they didn’t really do anything for the game at all. To NVIDIA’s credit, a Diablo-style RPG isn’t really the best place for showing off GPU accelerated physics.

Ben wanted a different style of game, something more actiony. He needed explosions, perhaps that would convince him (and all of us) of the value of GPU-accelerated PhysX. We moved to the next game on the list.

The Widespread Support Fallacy PhysX in Warmonger: Fail
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