AFAIK at the moment, there's no option to choose which card will do what.
You can run Single & SLI with all cards doing physics & normal rendering.
AFAIK at the moment, there's no option to choose which card will do what.
You can run Single & SLI with all cards doing physics & normal rendering.
I don't think you even need the lastest drivers for it to work. When i had 169.44 drivers installed, it had the same Geforce PhysX selection enabled just like with these 177.39, so for me i didn't see any difference with the driver update. Dunno does it run in games tho with the older drivers... :)
I won't be able to do a test like I said, these drivers caused my HDDVD and Blu-ray movies not to play. So back to the last WQHL for me :(Quote:
Originally Posted by lowfat
even with the latest WHQL you will be able to test it, I guess ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by lowfat
The latest 8800GT WHQL drivers are from May 18. 175.15. In the PhysX properties it shows both options greyed out. The new 177.35 WHQL for the 260/280 are the ones that cause my high-def playback issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by Luka_Aveiro
Sorry, I didn't know that :(Quote:
Originally Posted by lowfat
EDIT: I finally got UT3 PhysX maps to run sweet as candy :), thanks to Charlie's latest article :ROTF:
This is what you gotta do:
http://images.vnu.net/gb/inquirer/ne...ia_ppu_ut3.jpg
Works like a charm, no more lagging, PhysX maps are sweet :)
I tried this and PhysX maps are much faster.
http://images.vnu.net/gb/inquirer/ne...ia_ppu_ut3.jpg
nice1
it would be nice if UE based games would provide a physx patch. hehehe
I have a GTX280 as primary card. If i buy a 9800GTX will the 9800GTX work for physics if i have a Intel chipset.
It should work according to PhysX's documentation. IMHO, I don't think you need such a power GPU for physics. Just wait for professional testing on this so that we can choose the cheapest and the most optimum card for physics. I think a 8600 or a 9600GT should be more than enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by X.T.R.E.M.E_ICE
Wow so it DOES increase framerates on your GT? I'm still at a miss how GPU + GPU physix is faster? Is the cpu a bottleneck?Quote:
Originally Posted by Luka_Aveiro
When running lots of physics calculations, the CPU is a major bottleneck.Quote:
Originally Posted by takamishanoku
*Cue the parallel nature of the GPU*
I get that. What i don't get is how could it run the graphics and the physics and also be higher?
I'm glad if that's the case btw but just interested.
GTX 280 has arrived. will test in tandem with 9800GTX and 8800GT
The graphics work in the traditional CPU and physics tests is very light, specifically to keep the application from being unintentionally GPU-bound. So the GPU has lots of spare cycles.Quote:
Originally Posted by takamishanoku
Quote:
Originally Posted by fireice2
I wonder would it be possible to have 2xGTX280 in SLI for graphics, then throw a 9800GTX in the third slot for Physics?
i think it would be possible. since sli is treated as one unit.
...so i can keep my gt for a physx card later on, hopefully. :)
http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g1...280reduced.jpg
Sweet card! :up:
cool thanks can't wait to see the outcomeQuote:
Originally Posted by fireice2
I hope so, maybe a 9600GT is what i will get as a second card.Quote:
Originally Posted by wyemarn
Umm... They're talking about with UT3, now that they figured out how to get it to work properly with GPU physics, and it definitely runs faster than it did with CPU physics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sr7
So there goes the nay-sayers who thought it would absolutely kill frame-rates currently.
p.s. Those still bringing up havok, PhysX has one huge advantage over it. You see, it costs money to license the havok engine(thus, why we haven't seen it used by anyone recently that wasn't on the source engine, and there's only maybe one title coming that does use it), while the novadex api(what PhysX runs off of) is absolutely free.
You guys can keep saying this "if 100% of the market" spiel, but that really isn't how things work. 100% of the market would mean games are playable on old williamettes with TNT2 Ultra's. We know UBISoft has no problem leaving people out, with splinter cell: chaos theory they didn't even add a SM2 path for the x800's for almost 6 months after release while the 6800's had the SM3 path! Besides, using the novadex api doesn't mean leaving anyone out, as it still works on cpu's just fine, and is very well multi-threaded to boot. Especially considering if havok ends up working on ati cards but not nvidia cards, that would be leaving out a much larger section of the market, which these same people claim developers wouldn't do.
I'll end with this...Novadex(physx) is built in to UE3. Think about that, they got put into the most widely used engine so far "this generation" when the PPU was in less than 2% of "the market". To say it won't be used because it presently can only be done on NVidia cards, PPU's, and cpu's is merely being naive, because that now IS 100% of the market. Especially since it's free to use for game developers, which saves them a lot of money in the end. :up:
If you just want a card to run PhysX you can get the Asus PhysX P1 card. It's designed to just do that =)
Before I try mixing the two... would a Corsair HX620 be capable enough for a GTX 280 and a 9800GTX? :D
Yap, I would think so, because those maps are really very physics intensive, especially lighthouse, you can destroy almost every wall and ground and you have the Gravity Wave cannon, that passes through walls and it pulls many objects due to it's magnetic field, really cool to see it fly with bricks behind, and, the most important thing, nice framerates to appreciate it :)Quote:
Originally Posted by takamishanoku
I would love to try it and see the difference between using PPU+GPU vs GPU, but I don't have a PPU. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo83