485m (3d/physX) or 6990m (performance)?

Ok, so I know the 6990m is not out yet, but it is somewhere close in the near future. I am about to order my Sager laptop, but I am in a dilemma where I like the idea of having 3d/physX, but at the same time, not sure if it's worth it over the performance that the 6990m will bring. 580m is out of the question, as it is a lot more expensive than the other two cards. (basing the price of the 6990m to mythlogic's prices.)

I really like the idea of 3d and would like to try it out and I'd love to use it for movies too. I've seen videos of physX and I have to say it is pretty cool. But I've heard it cuts down performance a lot, but how much does 3D on the 485m effect it? Are games still playable? This would be mainly for SP mode only, but if i like it, i'd use it in MP mode too. Same question with physX, how much of a performance hit are we talking about? If using 3D and physX, will games become unplayable on the 485m?

I know AMD has HD3D, but it's not as polished as nvidia, so I'm a little concerned with going that route if I wanted to do 3D. The only thing the 6990m has going for me, is that it will perform better than the 485m.

For those that have tried physx/3d or who has the 485m cards, would you say it's worth going for the 485m, or you think I should skip the eye candy stuff and go for the 6990m?

I'd be playing most of the pretty popular games you can think off out there, like Witcher 1/2, Battlefield Bad company 2, Crysis 2, Metro 2033, Batman AA, etc.

 

Sincerely so little games support physx that at this point as it was before, its a gimmick. mafia 2 and batman aa comes to mind that supports it, I think maybe alice, but Im not sure.

3d is going to cut in half your fps.

and so far we can assumer that the 6990m is going to be better than the gtx 485m, however that model is going to be phased out due to the launch of the 580m

 

Don't forget about the price difference. You're going to pay out the butt for the "upgrade" to the Nvidia card just because it's what they do. Go AMD.

 

I realize that 3D does cut FPS in half, but is it playable on the 485m? It'd be useless if I can't play it on 485m with hopefully at least medium. Would be sweet if it can do high settings.

Is it that bad to buy a phased out card?

actually the 485m is pretty cheap now and considering the 6970m is not offered anymore on Sager laptops, it's the cheapest one i can get (besides 560m, but i don't want that). It has been discounted by $200. So price-wise very similiar. Just one has physx/3d and the other has better performance.

 

I think pricing is the same, Sager is currently offering the 485m at 295$ which is what they will charge for the 6990m.
EDIT: No it is not bad to buy a phased out card. And yes 3d should be playable on the 485m at med- high depending on the game.

 

The 485M and 580M are essentially identical gpu's with the 580M being on a smaller form factor (which manages heat better and as such simply has slightly higher clocks - 45Mhz increase on Core and 90Mhz increase on Shaders - everything else is the same)?

To be honest, the ridiculously small performance bump (about 10%) from Nvidia's overclocking isn't a deal-breaker by any stretch of the word, and definitely NOT worth the severe jump in price).

physX and 3d are BOTH a gimmick, and in my personal opinion, not really worth it.
Besides, why waste much more money on aspects you will hardly notice in the first place?

If I was in your position, I would probably get the 6990M.
But the 485M is a valid choice as well (and an economically sounder one over the 580M), provided it's not MORE expensive than the AMD offering - if 3d and physX are that important to you.

Still the 6990M is cheaper and faster than both Nvidia cards.
Playing games in 1980x1200 resolution (on a 15" or even 17" screen) will hardly require extra settings such as AA and AF (though you will likely be able to enable them either way and still run games smoothly because AMD optimized their drivers for such use if I'm not mistaken).

But fundamentally speaking, I seriously consider 3d and physX to both be gimmick, with what ultimately are small and barely noticeable visual gains that will hamper the performance of mentioned 'high-end mobile gpu's'.

Nvidia is a joke with their constant re-badges and upping the price to astronomical values without offering real gains.

 

Also, doesn't the 6990m have Open CL and HD3D Open CL is somewhat like CUDA. No Physics processing though

 

The problem with OpenCL is that I think that there are still major companies that refuse to support anything but CUDA for unified architecture. Adobe comes to mind.

Basically the only reason to go Nvidia if you have the choice is that Nvidia is better at selling their soul to software developers.

 

Lol, So true... So true.

 

Well, PhysX is just a gimmick, very few games support it and even fewer use it with anything meaningful.

Your consideration would be if you want 3D gaming (not sure if it is worth, but personally I am not interested in it). The other point is CUDA... if you have any use for it.

And in regard to your implication in the title: I'd go for performance any day.

Hope it helps.

 

DirectCompute (Windows) and OpenCL (All platforms) are good alternatives to the Nvifia only Cuda and AMDs Stream.

Its just that some buisnesses have trouble adopting newer and/or superior alternatives.
I know this is a bad example but my old school dident want to migrate to Vista or Win7 because the guy in charge of networking only knew XP.
But my time tinkering with Server 2007 and the R2 version i did not find it all that hard.

 

They're very good alternatives. Unfortunately, Nvidia pays Adobe good money to ignore them.

There's a reason why you see "Nvidia - The way it's played" stickers on boxes and hear that creepy kid's voice whisper "Nvidia" when you start up most games, and it's not because the game publishers just think Nvidia is swell, gee golly gosh.

 

I'm normally the first person to poo-poo Physx, but I was playing Batman yesterday on my desktop (ATI 6970s) and kept thinking "wow, I miss the moving ground debris and more natural cloth movement".

I'd say both cards are on pretty even footing... I'd go with the 485 if the price is the same. If the 6990 is cheaper I'd go with that.

 

this is a list of physx supported games: PhysX - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The one I liked more is hot dance!

basically its not much for a thing that was released several years ago, for me its far from worth it

 

That's also a whole lot of games I never heard of

HOT DANCE PARTY!

 

ghost recon is the only game in that list that i ever played

 

I only have mafia 2, and I havent started playing it yet, most of the other games I never heard of, that 300+ titles is just ridiculous.... I cant believe that

 

The enhanced PhysX in Alice: Madness Returns, Batman: Arkham Asylum, Mirror's Edge, Cryostasis and Mafia II were all really good. The fire fights in Mafia II with the enhanced PhysX was just amazing, I have 71 hours played on that game just messing around with the PhysX. I have liked it so much that until the competition come up with something similar I will only be buying Nvidia.

Here are some shots from some PhysX enhanced games, pictures don't do it justice though, you need to see it in action:

 

A note: the competition (AMD) can't do anything so long as Nvidia continues to play dirty.

Bottom line is, AMD gpu's are more powerful and cheaper.
I find it sad that the developers aren't doing more to include AMD into the game (pardon the pun).

 

Competition is called havok, Bullet and Newton ( i think newton is only used by indie but still)

they gives similar result to physix the only diference is they don't auto desactivate them selv when they detect XXX hardware

 

Say what? I'm pretty sure 3DMark11 uses the GPU (OpenCL or DirectCompute, one of those) to do the cloth and particle physics during the combined test. It most certainly is possible, and things will likely head that way as game developers want games playable on the widest range of cards. If they can get physics on ALL gpus it's worth the investment. When only half of your customer's cards run PhysX it's not nearly as worth it. That's why Nvidia has had to pay every title that uses PhysX quite a bit of cash and help them with the programming.

 

Can anyone confirm that the 6990m will be around the same price as the 485m?

How much cheaper are Ati card compare to Nvidia, looking back at history wise?

 

Just to correct some misinformation here, Stream is not a language but the SDK used for development (including OpenCL which I am working with).

 

The 6990m is currently around $300 cheaper than the 580m now at Alienware and about the same difference will likely hold true when they arrive at Clevo/Sager retailers.

 

Glad to hear some positive reviews for physX. I've seen videos of Mafia/Baman AA and it gives it a very nice touch!

For those that are calling 3d/physX a gimmick is this from your own personal experiences? If so, what was it that you didn't like about it?

Looking at Newegg and Amazon it gets positive reviews for the 3D experience.

I've always thought that the point of having a high end GPU (for a gamer) is to well...be able to play with better graphics, no? Isn't features like 3D and physX trying to accomplish that by giving the users better gaming/movie experiences?

I've seen some of the demos at Best Buy and the 3D looks great. Things really pop out. But for some reason when watching it at the movie theater the 3D looks so-so. Does this have to do with how much they intensify the 3D?

Anyways, I guess I'm in the minority here, but I'm going to give 3D and physX a try. I would like to see it firsthand what it is all about. Here I come GTX 485m!

I'll let you guys know what I think of 3D and physX after I get my setup.

Btw, if any of you know what good 3D monitor to get, please do tell. ^^

 

physX is a gimmic because it enforce the use of Nvidia only hardware to endup running on your cpu anyways

while there are other options that allow similar (and in ssome case better) result withou enforcing the use of specific hardware

as for the 3d well i played with it (ys 3d is availible for AMD to) and then got tired of it honestly until there are DLP or glassless 3d notebook the 3d thing will still be a joke

 

Regarding 3D, 95% of people who say "3D is a gimmic" have not played a 3D game or cannot experience 3D due to some medical condition.
3D is awesome.

 

Yep. On a PC you can set the intensity of the 3D effects. In cinemas, they usually keep the intensity down as some people are more sensitive to it.

 

You have NO CLUE what % of people have not played a 3d game or have a medical condition. Ugh, fanboism at its worst.

I personally Love 3d. I think its the best thing to happen to gaming and movies in a long time. But to discount other peoples opinions because you don't like them, sad.

Many people do not enjoy the glasses, and I can see that. And many people have experienced 3d when its don't done well (2d images that are simply layered) and who can blame them for not enjoying it. Some people have experienced 3d the way its meant to be done and still don't like it ... and they are allowed to not like it.

 

But none of that changes the fact that people who say Nvidia for 3d, ... are also committing fanboism ... 3d is perfectly doable through AMD, its easy to setup and runs very well.

 

When I opted for nvidia for 3D, its because nvidia is more polished than iz3d and DDD. Not to mention there aren't many monitors that supports HD3D either. Most of the compatible screens are HDTVs.

I originally had the 6970m card and did a lot of research regarding HD3D. If there were more info/support regarding it, I would have gone with the 6990m route no doubt.

 

Just to clarify, you approve of 3D, but it is the glasses is what turned you down, correct? Taking the glasses out of the equation, your experiences with 3d has been satisfactory then?

Sorry if I'm shoving words in your mouth, just trying to interpret what u are saying. And since there isn't much talk of 3D I've seen on this forum, this would help people in the future.

 

Game developers will have even less incentive to program for PhysX in the not to distant future....

AMD picked up the trifecta for the next gen consoles.

 

seriously? where did you read that? link please, this would be interesting

 

While it may be "awesome", it is totally a gimmick.

 

that is trifectica?

 

trifecta means all 3 of the major console manufacturers.
there were confirmations of Nintendo and Sony going AMD GPU' for the next gen units on one of the gaming sites I look at occasionally ( nintendo made a big deal of it actually ), and Mcrosoft I really cant see them changing as they have used AMD since the beginning

 

I can confirm this, I have read the same article, although I don't want to bother trying to find it again and post, but Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo are all using AMD GPUs in their upcoming next gen consoles ...

Looks like AMD is where its at these days.

 

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! I must say not a fan of this news. Grant I won't be buying a next gen console unless it has AA and AF, those Jaggie hurt my eyes.

 

interesting, I was wondering if I should get the next gen consoles, thus the question, Im still a bit weary about it, since it will most likely force me to game more

 

Well gaming is FUN!!!

 

Sony isn't 100% confirmed yet but HardOCP believes it's a "done deal."

- E3 Rumors on Next Generation Console Hardware | [H]ard|OCP

Wii U and XBox 720 are more certain to be using AMD graphics.

AMD says Xbox 720 to have graphics with Avatar levels of detail - SlashGear

AMD Radeon GPU Powers Nintendo's New Wii U - HotHardware

 

thanks!

Im working 7 days a week, albeit its fun I dont have much available time in my hands, career is something time consuming

 

Is it really going to be the Xbox 720? That's a pretty terrible name.

 

Nah, it is all rumors. Microsoft and no solid sources have confirmed this to be the true or even that they are releasing another console anytime soon.

Anyway, the next gen consoles will not be even close to the Avatar movie graphics. Just look at what it takes to render those movie........there is no way any console or PC today can render that much detail in real time.

Remember what they were saying the PS2 graphics would be like, before it released? Exactly.

 

Probably call Xbox The Third that come with a free copy of Saint Row The Third

 

This has gotten pretty off-topic lol.

On-topic... The 6990m eats the 485m in most games by a solid 5-10fps according to reviews and pure speculation.

 

Is that even a lot?

 

It is if you have working eyeballs.

 

There a source for this? Sony has denied any rumors about speculation on the PS4 hardware. The last rumor about the hardware was that Intel won the contract in 2009, Sony denied that too.

Sony denies PS4 Intel GPU rumour | T3 magazine