Mirrors Edge preformance

Hello,
Im looking into buying Mirrors edge but was wondering how the game was running for people who bought it. I have a 8600m gt do you think it would run good?

If you have it, what are you specs and how does it run for you. What resolution and graphics setting?

-klok

 

Runs 60FPS solid in 1920x1080 with both my 8800GT 512mb, and single HD4850 completely maxed out with physX off. I don't have any weaker cards to test it on, but it runs fantastic, better than most recent games.

I'm guessing you'll be able to run the game maxed out, with physX ON, in something like 1280x800 with no AA pretty well. I'm sure someone else who has that exact same card can tell you for sure though.

 

maxxed? bloody hell... i might yet have a chance of it running on a 9200 then...


YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!!!!!

 

Awesome, at least graphically, this was what I was expecting. I bet with PhysX on, it's still stable where the PhysX is implemented in terms of percentage of GPU usage. I bet Nvidia has it set to use no more than a given percentage of GPU power, no more than 50% at the most.

 

Remember, he is running it on a desktop GPU. That 8800GT is equivalent to an 9800M GTX.

 

Physx kills fps for me

 

... it should still run on low though. HL2 runs maxxed, CoD4 runs near maxxed with AA, soft smoke and shadows off. its only crysis ive had problems with so far. even that i can now get 16-18fps on low (not modded) at a lowered res with the dox drivers.

 

ye right a 8600gt is much more faster then a 9200gs.

Look to the second number of your graphics card.

the first number represents a new line with new technoligies and the second numer (at nvidia or ati) represents if its multimedia, gaming, or high end.

multimedia is 2 to 4 like 7300 or 9200
gaming is 6 like 8600 or 9600
high end is 8 like 9800
all same with ati cards.

it will become a little faster when the first number is higher but its mostly little difference

 

I run it maxed out on the 9600M GT with PhysX on, so you'll be fine too.

 

You misread his post. If the 8600 can possibly run the game maxed, then he has a chance of running it on a 9200.

[sarcasm]Cause everyone knows that the 9200m is the single most powerful GPU ever created[/sarcasm]

 

running 1440x900 on my go 7900 gs I get 20fps average with textures and graphics set to medium. From what I heard, A 7900 gs is just about or a bit more powerful than an 8600 gt, so expect these results. I havent tried overclocking though.

 

run good?

preformance?

personally, im only concerned with postformance.

...

what has happened to the world?

 

It's a very subjective comparison. I think older games tend to equalize the two, but newer games are so shader heavy, the shear need of unified shaders from an efficiency point of view I think makes unified shader GPUs very favorable among newer games.

 

That's good to hear. What resolution?

 

I'm guessing WXGA or WXGA+...

 

Wasn't the 7900 series once the really high end?

Well, from my point of view, I play much better on my 9700m GT than my old 7900 GT (desktop) so I'm guessing the 8600m GT should be better if only slightly

That's just a tiny huge bit different.

 

Mirrors edge on m860tu.

Specs:
p8600
9800gts
2 gig ram
windows 7 beta
unknown video drivers

Maxed out 2 x AA physX off 1680x1050: 23-25 frames. Unplayable
High settings no AA physX off 1680x1050: 29-32 frames. Still unplayable

Ill try updating my drivers now. I don't see any way I can run this game @ 60 fps Well there are the dreaded low settigs but... Nah

 

Umm... forget that.. after alt-tabbing back in game i get 50-60 frames on high settings.. Dunno why lol. But I'll keep you updated after i install nw drivers

 

I ran it maxed with my desktop 8800GT and PhysX kills the FPS depending on the situation.

 

You do realize that the human eye is able to perceive no more than 25 frames per second, right?
So if you get 25 to 30 FPS in games, that's GOOD.
Of course having higher fps in games on a constant basis is also good because it means you can play with maxed out details without problems and still get great fps.

Resolution also plays it's part in this.
In any case, update your drivers

 

Who cannot see the difference between 25 and 60 fps? My god there is a world of difference

 

Can't Physx also be run in software so older Nvidia GPUs and ATI GPUs can still render the effects of course at a performance hit? Or if there's a way for current ATI GPUs to be able to run Physx?

 

totally not true. not even close.

human eye and brain can detect hundreds of frames per second, depending on the situation.

most laptop monitors output no more than 60fps, so if you want to say "more frames don't matter at all", 60 fps might be a good area to start.

with sharp lines and fast motion, you can detect MANY fps.

with motion blur and fast motion, the number goes down. hard to say how far. its still way above 25 fps.

if you are looking at a still image, or an almost still image, the number goes way way down. 5 fps, possibly down to 1 fps or even less.

and there is the truth.

25 or a little more (more like 30 fps) is a good approximation of the point at which the human brain (not directly related to the eye) begins to perceive fast motion scenes with blur on a flat monitor as fluid motion. it is by no means the limit of detection. more frames will still seem more fluid.

there is a link that explains all of this in scholarly detail. perhaps someone will post it.

 

Sorry dude, I can clearly see a difference even between 45 and 60 fps, let alone 25-60

For ATI , no. PhysX was aquired by Nvidia and implemented starting with the 8th series...

Now, I have a dedicated PPU, wonder what good it will do...

 

I'm with deks, 25fps... 60fps... All the same to me and I have 20-20 vision.
I never understand these people with superhuman eyes..

 

The point of what I wanted to say was that to human eyes, anything above 25 fps will just have more motion blur applied to it (even though yes we can perceive hundreds of FPS).
In games, I personally didn't really notice a difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS.
True, 25 FPS is the 'limit' of relatively smooth playability in games, but 30 and above are virtually indistinguishable to most human eyes.
Sure, if you concentrate enough, you can see even more differences (I know I can if I concentrate), but when people play games, to most people these differences aren't really noticeable.

30 FPS with everything maxed out would be considered VERY playable in my personal opinion and virtually no different if I was achieving 60 FPS with same settings.
25 FPS with everything maxed out ... playable limit.

Then again, each individual has their own preferences.
For me, 30 FPS is more than enough.

 

Does anyone else here have the Asus M50VM-B1? I've been trying to run the game on that, but it gets really laggy when I get shot at. I turned off Anti-Aliasing and it still quite laggy, I'm going to try turning off the physx, but that's going to be disappointing as I was hoping to play with it on. Any ideas?

 

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

That also doesn't take into account the fact that a lot of engines perform much better at higher framerates, the Quake engine allowing higher jumps when locked at specific framerates for example.

Personally I could spot the difference between 25 and 60 FPS from a mile away.

 

Yeah, turning off the physx fixed the lag. It sucks that I can't play with it on.

 

Sorry I forgot to mention, 1440x900 (my native res)

 

There is definitely a large visual difference (for me at least) when looking at games that are locked at 30 fps, rather than a smooth 60.

 

This was about Mirror's edge performance, how did it turn into a discussion about how many FPS the eye can see? The answer to that is simply.. no one knows. The only proven fact is that the eye CAN detect the difference of a single frame in a set of thousands, which is enough to prove that the number is is very high.

PhysX is a system killer if the PC doesn't support it. Running PhysX on my desktop HD4850 caused the framerate to drop from 60fps solid, to 3-5fps, a complete slide show once only a few windows were shattered. Shattering just ONE window caused the framerate to instantly drop to 23fps, and that's with a 3GHz Q6600, so I'd have to say they did that intentionally, not even the UT3 physX pack maps dropped the frames that bad..

 

I'm sure you know this, but you sound like you don't PhysX is not officially supported by your Ati videocard, only by Nvida. However, I do remember reading about a hack for Ati cards enabling PhysX acceleration. Since I don't have an Ati card I won't bother Googling it, but you may feel differently.

 

I'm only playing this game at 15-20 fps, but it is surprisingly smooth. It plays as good as COD4 does at 50 fps.

 

The game is interesting and looks great, got it today.
Don`t have time to play it though, exams...

 

Plays great at max settings (smooth even with 16xQ AA) but on my Nvidia GPU (9800M GS 512) it lags to hell when it comes to window breakage physics >:|

I need to try the latest driver from Nvidia, and see if that helps, because I wouldn't think the GPU accelerated physics would be that much of a lag on a such a potent GPU. Perhaps the PhysX software on Mirror's Edge defaults to the CPU and not the GPU? I'll try the newest Nvidia driver because it has added PhysX and Cuda support.

 

Seeing as everyone that has replied here has had a card by nVidia I thought I would add my two cents from someone with ATI. My initial performance was not very good but then I was told that I should turn off catalyst A.I. in the Catalyst Control Center and that did make a significant change. PhysX is off but I might give it a try and see how well it runs. My cards are everything are in my sig btw.

 

Download the official patch for the game, and the latest PhysX software, both available here

Forgot to add, on the desktop 8800GT, 2.3GHz core 2 duo, 4GB 800Mhz, the game runs maxed out, 0 AA, physX on, 1880x1440 50-60fps avg, the physX effects are quite stunning at points, and the framerate loss when TONS of glass breaking, physics objects everywhere etc, is minimal, It'll drop to 35fps at the minimum when a TON of glass windows are shattered at once. It's disappointing that ATI video cards don't have PhysX support yet, and that ATI is intentionally making sure their cards don't work with Cuda. And those drivers that were supposed to add physX support for ATI cards last year won't ever be coming out

The only problem with the PhysX for mirrors edge is like every other game that supports PhysX, the physics objects and particles are not interactive, you can't float a boat on simulated water, a simulated cloth can't catch a ragdoll and bounce back, it's all just eye candy, and until it's an open standard and supported by all companies, it will never effect game play like this.

 

Oh sweet, thanks for the heads up. I already tried with just new beta Nvidia video driver, and it seemed to help a bit (haven't experienced any high-physics during my last bit of play using the driver newly installed). I really hope this PhysX driver helps, because the freezing during the glass parts, as well as a couple other areas is kinda ridiculous >:|

UPDATE: The PhysX driver worked wonderfully! The framerate dips like according to your experience, but at least it's playable and not a slideshow. Easily runs at 60 Hz, dipping to the 20s at the most heavy moments I've encountered so far. Running the game at max details + 1366 x 768 + x2 AA w/ PhysX on

 

Runs flawless here on my desktop 1440x900 all maxed out 4xAA. Even with glass shattering etc there is around 2-3 fps framedrop for me. Smooth as butter with PhysX enabled.

 

What are you talking about!?
Human eye can detect 16 FPS.
Its just that sharpness simulates stuttering, and then you need higher FPS in the case of a PC. But get out of town, not over 30 FPS!

 

Cmon conejeitor, we just got this thread back on track, no need to derail it again.

The game plays pretty smooth on my notebook maxed out with physx off but some cut scenes get a little choppy. I'm going to dl and install the patches unknown linked to and try out physx for a bit and see how that goes.

Has anyone else felt that the mouse gets a bit sluggish (especially in the menu)? Or is that just me :/

 

I usually get between 40-60FPS throughout gameplay (1680x1050, all highest, No AA), but that's with PhysX off.
Also, I use the 360 Controller, which seems much more fluent than using a keyboard + mouse in my opinion.

 

Really? I played on the 360 and was totally bummed that the controls were so clunky. I was similarly stoked when I tried the PC version and felt the Keyboard+Mouse controls were buttery smooth. Meh, to each their own.

 

Same here, but the only thing I liked about using a controller was the up and down actions were easy use the first time; it took a little longer for me to get used to keyboard but now I can react faster.

My FPS hovers around 25, I don't know why but I can pick out details easily so tuning AA off annoys me. 25 FPS is still very playable but I have to turn AA off to use physx or the game will become a slide show during intense scenes.

 

No, the mouse does get sluggish on the menu on all the PC's I've tested it on. When the pointer shows up, it's almost as if your using a wireless mouse, but thankfully the actual game has no mouse lag.

 

The 1.01 patch fixed it for me.

So I've found a good middle ground for using physx and AA at the same time on my notebook. I use 4x AA and my usual FPS is around 50 but drops to the high 20's and low 30's in intense combat.

Can I pick up weapons off the ground? I always run out of ammo killing people but I can't take the guns from the people I kill .

 

Right click to drop AND pick up weapons. Also I do have that patch, but still get the mouse lag on the menu screens.

 

How about Mirror's Edge on XPS M1530 (8600 GT) what framerate should I expect ?

 

Tested it on my XPS M1730, 1920x1200 all Very High I have 62 fps, drops sometimes of course but nothing serious.