So... The sum of this topic is you get to lose FPS by doing physics on the GPU and leave the CPU to just idle away.
Amazing technology this is, I'd like to thank Nvidia... The $400 that bought my card back in the day... The academy...
Yeah, what a joke, Intel+Havok plz.
I guess no one else is interested in using a separate GPU as a physx card....
Luka, I ran lighthouse....
Here's the skinny.
I decided not to do any screenshots (forgot, I don't feel like uploading anything now.). I blew up all the barrels I could find. My ram usage never went above 2.76 gigs. My frames suffered tremendously. As I would shoot the barrels, my frames dropped from 55 substantially as I played until I was getting 5 frames / sec. I don't see the memory leak you are talking about. How much ram was used while playing lighthouse?
It's a bit too soon to actually rate what this can do (esp on a leaked beta driver). Potentially (and theoretically) it can mean that you have a physix card with your graphics card. With a beast like the 280GTX and future multi core gpu's (seems to be where it's heading) i doubt very much that many cpu's or games for that matter can REALLY utilise the entire gpu. So set aside some of it and let it offload some calcualtions off the cpu.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Fox
I think the older gens will struggle with it, but the newest and future gens may make it work.
The main thing is that this is a 'nice addition'. Just remember that nvidia users aren't having to upgrade or pay for this...
Let's wait and see.
I agree. I'm just discussing my experiences with this driver. I do see potential in this, espeically with multi gpu/multicard set ups.Quote:
Originally Posted by takamishanoku
I could see it being useful if the cards had some sort of integrated PhysX CPU that shares the RAM and just works along with the card.
That seems like a solid idea to me, but this... Current implementation just seems flawed. Why not just use your CPU for physics? It has nothing better to do in games these days.
I should be able to do one tomorrow or tuesday.Quote:
Originally Posted by fireice2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Fox
Doesn't the vantage physix bench show that CPU's are just plain too slow though? We aren't talking about P4 here. Q6600 are getting slaughtered with any gfx card, almost (fps) 10x.
bummer, so apart from an artificial score, it doesnt really work?Quote:
my frames dropped from 55 substantially as I played until I was getting 5 frames / sec
I am planing to buy one 9800GTX+ for physXQuote:
Originally Posted by fireice2
wouldnt a cheapo separate physx card do it just as well?
underutilised if it's just doing physx...?Quote:
buy one 9800GTX+ for physX
Well Then, Physics and Folding? :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by adamsleath
your missing that this really isnt meant for a single GPU thing, you can do that if you want, but its obvious your gonna take a frame hit. Its more meant for the multi GPU setups, both on one card and in multi card setup. Why is everyone so surprised it takes a huge performance hit on a single GPU, i mean, Nvidia is good but they cant work miracles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Fox
I assumed there was a memory leak because of extreme ram usage, guess I was wrong about it :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Synthetickiller
I have 2GB ram and set a 4GB page file, it used 1.8GB physical+2,6GB page file, if my rivatuner readings are correct, while playing lighthouse.
I really can't see what the problem is, the weird thing is that it also happens without the physx driver installed, so I would assume something is not working correctly with current PhysX GPU driver + UT3 PhysX maps, hope some kind of fix comes soon.
I think the best thing now is to wait to see if something new comes out from nVidia's labs in order to re-test this issues and hopefuly get a solution...
About PhysX on GPU vs CPU, I think Vantage scores speak from themselves, so anyone claiming physics should be done on CPU, maybe should look at them with open eyes and re-think the whole picture...
I'll see if tomorrow I can make some more testing with different PhysX versions, in order to know if GPU Physx are working or not (I really don't think so, I just want to get a confirmation about it...)
One midrange+ gpu will outperform the PhysX cards performance-wise.Quote:
Originally Posted by adamsleath
I hope some benchmarks using PhysX will show exactly that, but none has so far. Does Vantage allow for multiple benchmarks using the free version, yet?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sr7
Single GTX280 kills skulltrail with physx ppu installed in Vantage Entry.
Skulltrail with ppu 33796
GTX 280 alone 53394 (no ppu installed)
I have a GTX280 as primary card. If i buy a 9800GTX will the 9800GTX work for physics if i have a Intel chipset.Quote:
Originally Posted by BobyTT
Could this be where nVidia's integrated chipsets come into play? The ones with unified architecture, that is....have the onboard GPU doing the PhysX and the main GPU doing its job?
Good to know :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by FUGGER
How does the same setup do, with the PhysX GPU driver and no PhysX PPU? Just curious :)
The 53k score was without the PhysX PPU. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Seraphiel
hi guys
for GTX280 + Windows Vista 64bit its only the 177.39 + PhysX driver 8.06.12 right??
with 177.35 also works??
regards
Its working for me with the 177.35's...
I think 177.39 are a bit better than 177.35. (at least my GPU score has raised 64 points LOL...)Quote:
Originally Posted by Kai Robinson
so everybody is speaking about using two cards from which one is doing the physx and the other the graphics. is it really that seperated? or is it more like both cards do physx and graphics?
until now i didn't see an indication of how it'll be done. blame me if i missed something... ;P