Batman: Arkham Asylum and PhysX Gameplay @ [H]

FrgMstr

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
55,774
Batman: Arkham Asylum and PhysX Gameplay - In Batman: Arkham Asylum, the Dark Knight pummels an endless stream of thugs, but will the game deliver the same two-fisted brutality to your video card? Find out as we examine gameplay performance and image quality on nine of today's video cards. Extensive testing of NVIDIA's PhysX and what it means to your gameplay experience!

Batman is a great game, I’ve been playing it recently and I am having a LOT of fun with it. Mark has stated to me that the game is "Epic" and that really explains it well. I agree that the PhysX effects are cool to look at, and I do like them, I just wish I could easily run an ATI Radeon HD 5870 as my graphics accelerator and use a GTS 250 as a dedicated PhysX card with the latest drivers, or, have the PhysX effects run on my Quad-core CPU at the highest settings without the need for a PhysX card.
Click to expand...
 
Excellent read. However, the statement on page 9, below the 6th graph doesn't seem to match the graph.

"Without a GPU running PhysX, performance is just plan terrible. But with the 3rd-party patch to enable PhysX with an ATI GPU running graphics and the GTS 250 running PhysX, everything was smooth and quite playable."

I believe the two labels on the graph are switched. It doesn't make any sense that a standalone 5870 is faster than a 5870 + GTS250 for PhysX and doesn't match the statement below.
 
Is the Physics + 5870 graph backwards? The text reads that the performance is good with the 5870 + GTS 250, but the graph shows it tanking with the 250.
 
Thanks for the review Kyle! I'd LOVE to see numbers with 2x & 3x SLI but I know that's work.
 
Very good read!!!

Specially the PhysX section.

I will have to get it now.

I wonder how it will play on 1080p LCD with PhysX on HIGH, and my 5870+9800GT.

Cant wait to try, but according to the article, it is looking like it will be awsome.
 
J Macker said:
Excellent read. However, the statement on page 9, below the 6th graph doesn't seem to match the graph.

"Without a GPU running PhysX, performance is just plan terrible. But with the 3rd-party patch to enable PhysX with an ATI GPU running graphics and the GTS 250 running PhysX, everything was smooth and quite playable."

I believe the two labels on the graph are switched. It doesn't make any sense that a standalone 5870 is faster than a 5870 + GTS250 for PhysX and doesn't match the statement below.
Click to expand...

I see what you are saying. Waiting for corrected graphs. You can however see it right above though.

Now isn’t this interesting! In Batman: Arkham Asylum, PhysX, which was officially disabled on AMD graphics cards, runs better with a Radeon HD 5870 graphics card than a GeForce GTX 285 when using a GeForce GTS 250 as a dedicated PhysX accelerator. Performance in general is slightly lower using the Radeon for graphics, but at least it did not suffer the debilitating performance hit.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Awesome game, I enjoyed it very much and the PhysX wasn't too bad either.
 
wish ati picked up physx aswell, because it can only be used for graphic enhancements and never for gameplay that will advance the game, other than that, prolly my #1 for 2009, very metal gear solid the way it plays and presents itself.
 
Liked the part with the CPU numbers for Physx, shows nvidia isn't even trying on that front.
 
kllrnohj said:
This is the graph in question: http://hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTI1NTg4NjU5MDdkSGZvS05ZZ21fOV84X2wuZ2lm

I'm pretty sure those labels are reversed. The "Min FPS" is also wrong for the one box, as I do believe its impossible to have a minimum of 30 with an average of 13 ;)
Click to expand...

Good eye, I was legit looking at this graph everywhich way trying to figure out what was wrong. It is a little crossed up and has a few typos, no biggie, I'm sure it will be edited.

Either way, the graphs speak for themselves in terms of GPU performance, thanks for all the testing/research. I can't wait to pick this game up.
 
Great work on the conclusions section. Even though I happen to run all nvidia cards I completely agree with what you guys have to say about them trying to lock out ATI/nvidia interoperability with Physx. Unnecessary crap.

And as for the game, it is amazing, way better than I went in expecting it to be. If it wasn't for Uncharted 2 coming out last week (IMO the best action game since Half Life 2) then Batman Arkham Asylum would be my GOTY, easily.
 
I don't suppose you could possibly run a comparison of having the 9800 GTX+ (aka GTS 250... aka... aka...) as a dedicated PhysX card vs. a few of the lower-end nVidias? (For example, I have a 9600GT SuperClock lying around 'spare' that I would like to know if it's worth using it as a PhysX card for this or not.)

Also, any possibility of running tests with a dedicated PhysX card on a slower PCIe bus? For example, the x16 slots on my board are full, but I have an 'open-ended' PCIe 2.0 x4 slot left available. Between my 9600 GT being slower than 9800 GTX+, and being on that slower slot, I wonder if it would do me any good... (Oh, and I'm on a dual-ATI card setup, as well, so I'd have to run the hack anyway. Not sure I want to go through all that hassle if it isn't going to matter.

I'm out of power connectors on my modular PSU using the cables in there, so I'd either have to plug in another molex (which I have) and go to a molex-to-PCIe adapter, or go buy another 'native' PCIe adapter for my PSU. In short: Using my 'spare' 9600 GT as a PhysX card would be a *LOT* of work, so I want to know if it's worth it before going through the trouble.

edit: Although I suppose this request would make a metric eff-ton of extra work for you. :-D
 
I don't think physx makes the game any better at all. I ended up removing the 9600gt I was using as a dedicated physx card and I'm now rendering with only a 5850.

If you're on the fence about whether or not to invest in a dedicated physx gpu then I suggest you save your money. I really don't understand how a few papers flying around has gotten hyped up so much. Nvidia's marketing team deserves a pat on the back for this one.

Great game btw, with or without physx.
 
Very informative review!
It would have been nice to see the Extensive PhysX Testing extended to using faster gfx cards at 1920 res and lower res as PhysX becomes far more usable.
Also instead of using 8xAA at 1920 res on the GTX275, use 4xAA and PhysX on highest, this was not tested - except at 2560 res which wasnt playable.

I'm running a single GTX260-216 (+15% clocked) and nearly all the game runs fine with just this "one" card at 1080p: PhysX on highest, 4xAA, 16xAF, everything maxed.
Adding an 8800GT for PhysX gives a substantial boost to framerates (+50% ish). Clocking it had almost no impact on framerate so looks to be all the game needs for PhysX.
I agree that it is necessary to disable PhysX at one point in the game as it is too slow, but the rest of the game is great with PhysX on highest.

It is fair to say that enabling full PhysX with a single GPU drops to approx 1/2 the framerate.
Adding an 8800GT gives approx 3/4 the framerate.
(from my tests)

CPU tests demonstrate that an E8400 at 3.0GHz is easily enough for my setup at 1080p.
So I agree that the 3.6GHz test CPU is overkill for this game which should make many on older CPUs happy.
 
Great review Kyle:)

ShippingPC-BmGame2009-09-1803-17-55.jpg
ShippingPC-BmGame2009-09-1914-02-47.jpg

ShippingPC-BmGame2009-09-1921-49-53.jpg
ShippingPC-BmGame2009-09-2017-28-24.jpg

ShippingPC-BmGame2009-09-2017-29-16.jpg
ShippingPC-BmGame2009-09-2017-34-27.jpg

ShippingPC-BmGame2009-09-2017-37-24.jpg
ShippingPC-BmGame2009-09-2119-07-15.jpg
 
Last edited:
great review.. and very in-depth.. but i have one question.. either im not reading this right or are the colors mixed up on the graph?

12558865907dHfoKNYgm_9_8_l.gif


As soon as we opened the door to the "outside" where the asylum was disintegrating under the gaze of the Scarecrow, performance tanked. This is the most intensive area for physics acceleration, with hundreds or thousands of bricks and papers rolling around in the wind. That is in addition to the already serious amount of GPU power used to render the many static objects, complex shaders, large draw distance, and full-screen effects.

Without a GPU running PhysX, performance is just plan terrible. But with the 3rd-party patch to enable PhysX with an ATI GPU running graphics and the GTS 250 running PhysX, everything was smooth and quite playable.


(sorry if im not allowed to repost the image..)


crap just realized some one already posted this question..
 
kumquatsrus said:
yep, nvidia should try to optimize some of this physx stuff for their cpus too. wait a sec...
Click to expand...

Actually it is...but it's up to the developers to implement multi-CPU PhysX...question is then, is it worth having mulitple CPU paths, when less than 15% of the market have quadcore CPU's...besides the normal CPU path and a GPU path.
 
Atech said:
Actually it is...but it's up to the developers to implement multi-CPU PhysX...question is then, is it worth having mulitple CPU paths, when less than 15% of the market have quadcore CPU's...besides the normal CPU path and a GPU path.
Click to expand...


so whats the percentage of the other 85% that dont have quad cores actually have a physX capable card.. or even a card that does support physX that would be able to play a game with physX at a half decent frame rate.. because even though my 8800GT supports physX theres no bloody way in heck my card can even run this game with it on.. while my phenom II 940 would have absolutely no issues doing the physics..
 
So who else actually jaw dropped a little watching Harley's first scene and the intro w/ Poison Ivy. :D

What a fun filled adventure though. I can't think of a game I've enjoyed this much and gone through so fast since...well, since Bioshock.

I played this through on an E8400 @ 4Ghz w/ a GTX 260. Resolution was 1920 x 1200, all details set to high, no AA, and physX on high (which tore my framerate up to shreds). Interestingly, I had to back down the 260's overclock all the way down to stock settings for physx to run properly. Anything higher would result in an automatic clock down to 2d speeds after some gaming. L4D and Crysis have no issues w/ the OC.
 
Outstanding review :eek: so so.. informative really great job !!

I'm truly impressed keep on with great work Kyle, [H]
 
siliconnerd said:
Is the Physics + 5870 graph backwards? The text reads that the performance is good with the 5870 + GTS 250, but the graph shows it tanking with the 250.
Click to expand...

The graph is mislabeled. A corrected version is inbound to Kyle.

Sorry for the confusion!
 
Once again many thanks to the [H] for another quality review. Proves much of what has been said in the forums over the last few weeks and dispels much of the BS being spewed as well.

Now if NV would only stop their bullshit so I can pair something with a 5870X2 in the future without having to hack it...
 
Last edited:
sirmonkey1985 said:
so whats the percentage of the other 85% that dont have quad cores actually have a physX capable card.. or even a card that does support physX that would be able to play a game with physX at a half decent frame rate.. because even though my 8800GT supports physX theres no bloody way in heck my card can even run this game with it on.. while my phenom II 940 would have absolutely no issues doing the physics..
Click to expand...


Not true...try using the CPU PhysX hack..and then run the buildt in benchmark...then you will find you Phenom II 940 is way worse off than a 8800GT...even if you scale the physics down to 1/5th of the load.

Interactive smoke = CPU killer...
 
"I heard P35 mobos may drop to x8 PCI-E speed when two GPUs are plugged in. I wonder if that is causing it.

Do you see the problem with only one GPU? Another platform would also be helpful to crosscheck."

Very interesting, perhaps this is why performance is so up and down on my P35.

Out of interest would this affect any other games, such as TF2? Or only Batman or PhysX only games. Performance has been terrible come to think of it since I installed the second GPU, but that could very well be the recent classless updates
 
my phenom II 940 would have absolutely no issues doing the physics..
Click to expand...
Dude really...are you serious?
An i7 will have lots of issues dealing with it to say the least...
 
this is probably a really stupid noob question.. but how do you calculate the framerate in this game? :eek:
is there an in-game option or do i have to run some outside utility?
 
georgexi said:
this is probably a really stupid noob question.. but how do you calculate the framerate in this game? :eek:
is there an in-game option or do i have to run some outside utility?
Click to expand...

they record the frame rate using fraps i believe..


spicey said:
"I heard P35 mobos may drop to x8 PCI-E speed when two GPUs are plugged in. I wonder if that is causing it.

Do you see the problem with only one GPU? Another platform would also be helpful to crosscheck."

Very interesting, perhaps this is why performance is so up and down on my P35.

Out of interest would this affect any other games, such as TF2? Or only Batman or PhysX only games. Performance has been terrible come to think of it since I installed the second GPU, but that could very well be the recent classless updates
Click to expand...


has more to do with the bandwidth required when running 2560x1600 so if you are running 1920x1200 then it shouldnt have that much of an effect.. but still doesnt make sense why it happens.. dual 8x slots should be enough for 1 rendering card and 1 physX card..
 
Last edited:
Its a great review. BUTT I would have liked to see older video cards being used, like an 8800 GT or GTS.. I think it would have better simulated the real world situation where a recent upgrader has some semi-old parts.

I'm now SERIOUSLY looking at a 5870... I want to wait for nvidia but damn its gonna be a long 3 months.. (assuming its not longer or something). I can still use physX with ATI as long as I have an extra nvidia card.

I just watched the infernal engine test and that is AWESOME.
 
sirmonkey1985 said:
so whats the percentage of the other 85% that dont have quad cores actually have a physX capable card.. or even a card that does support physX that would be able to play a game with physX at a half decent frame rate.. because even though my 8800GT supports physX theres no bloody way in heck my card can even run this game with it on.. while my phenom II 940 would have absolutely no issues doing the physics..
Click to expand...

I am running it at 1600x1200 full detail, with Physx set to HIGH with 8800GTs in SLI. FPS averages around low 30s. Completly playable for me with these older vid cards!
 
I'm very surprised to hear [H]ard say they think physx can be done on a CPU.
 
Atech said:
Actually it is...but it's up to the developers to implement multi-CPU PhysX...question is then, is it worth having mulitple CPU paths, when less than 15% of the market have quadcore CPU's...besides the normal CPU path and a GPU path.
Click to expand...

No, it actually isn't. Everything from creating to using multiple threads is handled *entirely* by PhysX. All the developer does is say how many threads they want
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top