Ageia Reality Mark Test

T

Toytown

Gawd
Joined
Jan 13, 2005
Messages
996
Looks like Ageia have released there reality mark test, you can download it here

http://www.ageia.com/physx/rm.html

The file weighs in around 300+ MB, and when ran plays the cell factor demo, with cloth and 1 -2 players running around shooting. On my E6600, 7800GT and no PPU im getting anywhere between 3-5fps, supposedly i get a 1000% benefit if i installed a ppu (fat chance of that)

To be honest though, is it only the cloth simulation which is giving me the bad FPS? As if i go into the control panel after installing reality mark, i get an Ageia icon, and there i can play a small box demo (very very basic), however that runs absolutely perfect even with hundreds of boxes all flying around (you shoot them with a ball)

Anyways, im still not getting ageia anything.
 
dotK said:
Like 3D Mark, this benchmark is useless.
Click to expand...

Well, sort of. It's about as useless as people who use raw FPS to "benchmark" the impact of a PPU. What realitymark does is show you just how bad a modern dual core CPU is at competing with a PPU. Of course this comparison has absolutely no bearing on any "reality" that any gamer sees, but it's no worse than the comparisons being done by some of Ageia's detractors.

Realitymark is (hopefully) good for shutting up people who say that X-core CPUs will make PPUs unnecessary. Now people who say that avoiding PPU intensive calculations, and tailoring the physics implementaion to be more appropriate for the CPU (a la Alan Wake) may have a case...

But as for being a useful benchmark in the satandard sense, Relaitymark is about as relevant as measuring case height.
 
How absolutely stupid. A marketing benchmark is all they have? There's no games to play, but hey you can run this benchmark and frolick off into PPU fantasy land!
 
I'm posting from ten years ago:

What a bunch of fools those Ageia people are, making benchmarks to demonstrate and quantifiably measure the capabilities of the hardware they produce. Silly, silly Ageia.

Personally I think benchmarks testing any sort of dedicated processing unit is stupid! Recently I downloaded this POV-Ray benchmark BS and ran it in Open-GL software mode on my dual pentium. Guess what, it gave me a bunch of hogwash about how my performance is comperable to that of a computer that's like five years older. What a bunch of marketing propaganda this "3D benchmark" is. I fail to see how a new-fangled dedicated GPU could offer such a huge benefit over a dedicated CPU core doing software rendering.

This GPU stuff is just a bunch of hype, I'm sure once people realize that software rendering can do anything a GPU can these companies will be RIP.

Software-Rendering-D00D
October 10, 1995.
 
It is true that this benchmark does not have much bearing on actual gameplay. But hey, at least they used an actual game demo.

The benchmark, however, does serve a purpose. It shows you how terrible a CPU is at doing the things that a PPU can do. It also give you an estimate of how much better a PPU would be (although the estimate could be way off - we would need someone who owns a PPU to test that).

Guys, stop bashing a somewhat useful tool because it doesn't give you the results you want. A PPU is 1000% more powerful than a CPU. Get over it.
 
Toytown said:
To be honest though, is it only the cloth simulation which is giving me the bad FPS?
Click to expand...
Probably. That and the ugly liquid effects.
 
HOCP4ME said:
A PPU is 1000% more powerful than a CPU. Get over it.
Click to expand...

At this current moment, that doesn't matter. There is no game that's worthwhile, or worthwhile enough to warrant a purchase of a PPU.

Reality Mark is marketing BS, and nothing more.
 
I think there's a rule against releasing benchmarking software for your own hardware.
 
jimmyb said:
I think there's a rule against releasing benchmarking software for your own hardware.
Click to expand...

ding ding ding

This is like Nvidia releasing a benchmark, and saying "OMG LOOK WE ROOL ATI, THIS BENCHMARK IS PROOFS! THIS BENCHMARK IS NOT BIASED WE PROMISE"

Reality Mark fails to generate the hype it was intended to. Instead, it becomes more negative press for Ageia.
 
maybe, but I think, if it catches on half as much as 3dmark did, the worst that can happen is they sell a few thousand more cards to people who think those kinds of things matter. I don't think it'll be enough to cause any sort of snowball effect to get more content right away, but it's probably worth a shot for them.
 
Sure it's another biased statistic in another one of Ageia's marketing attempts. I believe there is very little hope left in this company, some, but not much.

The only way for Ageia to really grab us is if they can show a clear preformance gain with their cards. Sure we get some more particles and spiffy effects that don't have anything to do with gameplay, but it's all rather useless unless it actually raises the fps. That's what gamers care about. FPS first, then extra particles and spiffy, yet useless effects.
 
Volucris said:
Sure it's another biased statistic in another one of Ageia's marketing attempts. I believe there is very little hope left in this company, some, but not much.

The only way for Ageia to really grab us is if they can show a clear preformance gain with their cards. Sure we get some more particles and spiffy effects that don't have anything to do with gameplay, but it's all rather useless unless it actually raises the fps. That's what gamers care about. FPS first, then extra particles and spiffy, yet useless effects.
Click to expand...

True. All I care about is FPS, that's why I still haven't bought a new game since Descent. The more FPS the better - nothing else matters. Afterall, why else do people build gaming systems but to get as many FPS as possible? Frames are fun and you can never have enough in a single second! :D
 
I dunno...I'd get a physics card if they were about $100 and they actually ADDED to the gameplay's physics. Destructable environments, glass shattering realistically, bullet ricochets calculated in realtime based on the surrounding environment, etc. If it added THOSE types of things to the game while keeping the fps where it's at then I'm all for it.

I think a lot of people are missing the point as to why it's not increasing FPS. It's only processing physics data. The game has to be coded with the ppu in mind in order to see any benefit. A simple patch won't do (unless it replaced the major codebase of the game engine).

It's up to the GPU to accelerate the FPS portion, the PPU to accelerate the physics portion, and the CPU to manage it all.

That's the way I see it...and I know most people don't...so...hehe...flame on ;)

[puts on firesuit]
 
nst6563 said:
I dunno...I'd get a physics card if they were about $100 and they actually ADDED to the gameplay's physics. Destructable environments, glass shattering realistically, bullet ricochets calculated in realtime based on the surrounding environment, etc. If it added THOSE types of things to the game while keeping the fps where it's at then I'm all for it.

I think a lot of people are missing the point as to why it's not increasing FPS. It's only processing physics data. The game has to be coded with the ppu in mind in order to see any benefit. A simple patch won't do (unless it replaced the major codebase of the game engine).

It's up to the GPU to accelerate the FPS portion, the PPU to accelerate the physics portion, and the CPU to manage it all.

That's the way I see it...and I know most people don't...so...hehe...flame on ;)

[puts on firesuit]
Click to expand...


I agree with you if it actually added something to my game play I wouldnt have an issue spending 100 bucks on it.

Though I thought Furturemark was going to put something like this out.
 
Volucris said:
Sure it's another biased statistic in another one of Ageia's marketing attempts. I believe there is very little hope left in this company, some, but not much.

The only way for Ageia to really grab us is if they can show a clear preformance gain with their cards. Sure we get some more particles and spiffy effects that don't have anything to do with gameplay, but it's all rather useless unless it actually raises the fps. That's what gamers care about. FPS first, then extra particles and spiffy, yet useless effects.
Click to expand...

lol

Do you turn all the graphics down and run at 640x480 when you game? FPS comes first... right? :rolleyes:

I think that most people are willing to sacrifice 5fps for some better effects.
 
DeChache said:
I agree with you if it actually added something to my game play I wouldnt have an issue spending 100 bucks on it.
Though I thought Furturemark was going to put something like this out.
Click to expand...
I agree to with nst6563. It's a healty open mind opinion. Others have choosen to be against Ageia.
It feels like they are sure this subjective bench is flawed to put PPU in good light then it realy would be. As a pro PPU guy. Well I don't count it out. But is there hard evidence for it. Curently not. So have to wait what indipendent bench tools show us.
Well Futuremark will be or could be more objective, so if both give the same result with a bit margin. It tell you it have a great chance the bench is good.
If not it's very suspicioius and they must explain why there is so much difference.
Keep in mind.
Pushin around boxes Fluids cloths some mix of this and other Physics effects give a different load to a bench. Wich may make large difference variations between CPU and PPU Phsyics Performance.

As the importance of FPS first. sure you need some decent FPS like a minimum depending on genre and play style. 30 to 60 fps. More is usless. But the FPS you can do depends on your hardware and thus budged. So its a trade off thing.
Make no sense to game at 500fps and some games are Cap at 60fps. Its good if the min avg and max is 60 no dips.
 
Downloading now, will see in a few minutes what the test is like with and without a PPU.

EDIT:

Went to install it, it then asked for dot net 2, aint gunna happen at this moment in time, so the test, well it is staying uninstalled.
 
jAkUp said:
lol

Do you turn all the graphics down and run at 640x480 when you game? FPS comes first... right? :rolleyes:

I think that most people are willing to sacrifice 5fps for some better effects.
Click to expand...

Yeah, are you seriously telling me you don't? Just check the benchies, you can get over 400 frames every second at 640x480 in Quake 3.

Just imagine how much fun each of those frames are when you're playing a game like HL2 at just 60 FPS - now multiply that amount of fun by 8!

400 / 60 = 8.5!!

If you could get your current FPS up from 60 to 400 you would be having eight point five times more fun. Unless this physics card is going to allow me to get 440 FPS (at least a 40FPS gain) in Quake 3 then I'm not buying it.


^Sarcasm :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top