No. The only special sauce here is the Nvidia new-drivers-for-new-cards-first-in-order-to-sell-2006-tech-as-new-tech-to-idiots BBQ sauce.Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnZS
Really jumps my cables that they're shafting 8800 owners like this when we all know that the G92 is just a die-shrink (and a gimped one at that).
I recall recently reading that the 260/280 have much increased registers in the chip, which gives me some speculation now, with the physx thing, that they may have been preparing for a chip meant to do both things at once and not lose "as much" fps.
I know it's too early to tell but I can sure see some games costing you fps just to go off and do your physx calcs. But the question will be how much, or on very high end chips, if at all? Still this thread is like kids in a candy shop :) and much fun to read.
what? O_O :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Lestat
I don't know man... R600 could also do Physx on-die, claimed by ATI...Quote:
Originally Posted by Lestat
Anyway, i hope physx on a single GPU won't cost much performance.
I am waiting UT3 excessive memory usage to get fixed, I am really looking forward to see physx on those maps decently :)
Any of the graphics cards from the last few generations can do physics on the card, it mostly has to do with efficiency and what API is made available for companies to develop with. The PhysX thing from nvidia right now is all marketing and release of a newer client. Whether or not nvidia will allow certain cards to support PhysX is up to them, but lets not kid ourselves here...
8800GT, 177.26, PhysX, Vista Ultimate 64 work fine :D
dsaraolu - what did you install to get it working? Other than the drivers? Is there an x64 physx installer?
Only Vista Ultimate 64 with SP1, 3DMark Vantage with v.101 hotfix, 177.26 driver, Nvidia PhysX 8 06 12 driver.
177.39 Vista 64 driver, this version is OK.
8800GT, 174.74 driver, Nvidia PhysX, Windows XP SP3 :D, need benchmark testing.
is there any modded 177.39 inf for XP 32bit and GX2??
i`ve missed a lot of episodes i see...
I was looking for the same thing , benchmark for XP but i dont thing that it will work because nvcuda.dll is not available with that driver , i have started to thing that 177.XX is a must .Quote:
Originally Posted by dsaraolu
read the first post in the thread, the PhysX's drivers are posted there. I have it enabled in Vista 64-bit without any issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kai Robinson
I *have* read the first post - the drivers do nothing at all. Theres no control panel either.
The control panel is completely separate from the display drivers. It is in the Start Menu, under NVIDIA Corporation, PhysX Control Panel. If it ain't there try reinstall the PhysX driver.
Aaaaah - it looks like it works now....
I shall attempt to play UT3 later on....once i have it :D
As for Vantage, well...erm...i'll go download it, but it'll take me a few hours to get it :(
awaiting results. :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kai Robinson
I tried this in Cellfactor today...
doesnt work.
which is kinda disappointing considering its about the only game I can think of meant exclusivly for physx.
http://img48.imageshack.us/img48/5375/picture1vw8.jpg
http://img48.imageshack.us/img48/537...8ef87d3298.jpg
single 8800Gt stock and a stock E8400. Seems alright.
omg are you serious, that is extremely disappointing being that its really the only game where you actually "use" and "have fun" with the actual physics in the game. Hope support comes sometime soon in the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kunaak
Pretty sure it was stated that the Nvidia PhysX only works with UT3 and Vantage right now.
Finally downloaded and voila:
http://kai.robinson.free.fr/dropbox/.../3dmV-7140.jpg
Thats with the specs as shown in my sig.
8800GT, 177.39 with mod .inf, PhysX, Vista Ultimate 64 work fine
+ overclock 8800GT@700/2000 MHz
+overclock 8800GT@700/2000 & E6750@3800 MHz
Yeah, its pretty weird that just vantage and UT III are now supported, why not other UE3 games? if you look at what installed physX engines are installed, they are all previous, at least demos under demo tab works lol :D
Has anyone tried multiple GPU's for this? Like running one card exclusive for PhysX and the other for display?
Anyone can help me run the 9800GTX for my main, and the 8800GT as my physx card? I cannot see that select GPU as physX tab under settings.
Myabe they need to create a Physx profile for each game? I don't know man, UT3 is supported but it has memory usage problems, and this is one the first Physx driver (afaik) for PhysX on GPU, so maybe later we'll get better support...Quote:
Originally Posted by spajdr
Remember that this is a leaked BETA driver to. I am sure by the time nVidia release official BETA drivers to the public the bugs we have had will be ironed out (hopefully) and maybe even some more game support to.
I would imagine Luka is right, perhaps everygame needs a physx profile as it has to intercept the AGEIA PPU calls and port them over the CUDA.
I'm considering modding my G92GTS BIOS so it has the same device ID as a 9800GTX (that way I will not get left out in the cold if nVidia do play some sort of shady Creativelabs style trick).
John
Now that's a good idea :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnZS
A little bit of improving Vantage scores.
http://bulldogpo.wippiespace.com/PhysX/
QX9770@4450MHz + Geforce 9800GX2 std clocks.
so 3dmark vantage has cut its last bonds to reality eh?
the benchmark has absolutely no relevance on actual gaming performance with this driver... :down:
take a crappy netburst celeron and bench it with a gtx 280, and i bet you get a really nice score... so it must be a really awesome gaming system right?
im really dissapointed of both nvidia and futuremark...
this is outrageous... they build a benchmark series as a gaming perf indicator so people decide what system and hardware to buy depending on the perf in that benchmark, and then they sell out and fool their customers... :shakes:
I'm surprised there is no performance hit in Unreal 3. You would think that since the GPU has to handle both graphics AND physics that the fps would take a hit. Apparently the opposite is true. You get a 2x to 3x fps boost by have a gpu handle both tasks. GPUs are truly powerful (and apparently underutilized by graphics workloads alone).
PS: I could probably build a Phenom, 780a based system that would rape an ATI system in these few PhysX games. Sure, that wouldn't make much sense but it would work just fine LOL.
I assume you're talking about the first post in this thread. That test is not GPU bound, so all the power of the GPU is dedicated to physics. 2x and 3x FPS boost :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechromancer
Don't be fooled by marketing ;)
I'll see what I can do to clarify that ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
I will also format & reinstall XP probably today and after that I might give UT3 a try as well with this physx driver and give some before and after comparision. Don't have enough room currently on my C: partition (1.2GB required) to install the ageia mod physx map pack. xD
guys
I've got a 9800GTX......... WinXP SP3..........
already updated the PhysX driver..........
tried the 177.35 and it doesn't install...... should I use other driver for XP?
Do it, in the same maps you usually play. Maybe you should wait to a more mature driver, you said this one sucks, with memory leaks and such.Quote:
Originally Posted by Luka_Aveiro
Either way, even if there is little perfomance hit in this game, if you want great and "complete" PhysX support like the cloth effects and fluid effects in Cellfactor Combat Training you'll need another card dedicated to it. More dust when something explodes is not my understanding of great physics.
For the 177 series, You need a modded nv_disp.infQuote:
Originally Posted by miptzi
Yap, It's really hard to get a good fps estimate with this (physX) driver, hope a more recent one fixes it...Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
I'll see if I can get cellfactor, but if it is really necessary to have a physx profile for each game, then it will be useless :) (unless nVidia sends support for it...)
Just FYI, the Ageia physx UT3 maps are said to run horribly slow without ageia physx card and I hear users on epic gaming forums reporting of around 10 fps or even lower than that on their "decent" (not quite typical XS system but close anyway) with GTS G80 or so on a lower res like 1280x1024 so if I would see even 30 FPS in 1280x960 I use I'd be positively suprised as that would be a huge speedboost although still a low fps but that doesn't matter, the fps difference is what counts.
Just saying in case you didn't try to run it without the physx driver to see how it runs like then so you don't know what to expect.
I don't think there's almost any difference in most other normal maps though, perhaps heatray somewhat but most others I wouldn't expect to see any difference really as they're not using physx, at least not to some higher extent.
well, with vsync off and before the memory problems start to kick in, fps are around 55, 1280x960 with my rig :|Quote:
Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD
I will uninstall the physx driver and see what happens :)
EDIT: Without Physx driver seems like the very same thing, I cannot tell you anything certain...
Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
Yep, I had a bad feeling a couple months ago that this was going to be a TWIMTBP benchmark.
If you need to even fields, you just need to unninstall physX driver and install this one:Quote:
Originally Posted by flippin_waffles
Ageia Physx 7.09.13 WHQL (this version is the one Vantage automatically installs)
And what did you miss in the image? What is the difference between having it enabled or disabled in game?Quote:
Originally Posted by Luka_Aveiro
Actually, I spotted no difference, so I assume UT3 PhysX might be broken :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
(well it is in a way because it has memory issues, that I also have when unninstalled Physx driver, there's something here I don't understand :()
Vantage certainly isn't broken, my CPU test2 score went from 8324 to 27678, although i think it may have memory problems too, because it starts faster and then it slows...
I have to leave now, but as soon as I get home I will try to do some more tests...
Offtopic: STaRGaZeR, I'm supporting Spain, hope they can send the spaghettis home :D:D:D
Which NVIDIA drivers did you use? Are only the 177.xx drivers supported with physx perhaps? I'm still on 174.12 cuz these works good with UT3. Did a quick run with these but saw no difference in fps either with the physx driver. Don't wanna install 177.xx if it's not gonna work anyway as I'm about to format my XP installation.
I also got good FPS at start like 60+ fps at beginning, then when I put godmode on and type "allweapons" and "allammo" in console and start shooting with deemer widly around so glass shutters etc it slows down quite a bit but I also have that memory problem it seems as after a while it seems to start running constantly at like 15 - 30 fps whatever spot I'm in.
PS, It's fun spamming redeemers into the tornado watching the rockets gets sucked in and sometimes crashing into an object etc. :D Also I summoned vehicles to see how they react with the tornado, especially driving a manta into it is neat. :) Also throwing urself by feigning death into it is nice to see the body fly around the map a bit. :p
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luka_Aveiro
I remember that UT3 only has PhysX support in a couple of maps, Tornado being one of them. And the only thing you can see is a tornado breaking the buildings a bit. Not sure though, I remember it from the initial reviews, I don't like the game. :p:
Don't worry, the spaguettis will go home today (I hope lol) :D
I gave it a whirl but did not end up flashing. Basically I changed the deviceID in my 8800GTS' BIOS to that of the 9800GTX e.g. ID 0612 sub 10DE sub sys 0577 and board B623Quote:
Originally Posted by Luka_Aveiro
However I did not change the "GPU" id to that of a 9800GTX because the 9800GTX uses a different Fan Controller chip (and it messed up my fanspeed profiles when I tried to change the GPU id from 8800GTS to 9800GTX).
So, I kept the GPU ID as 8800GTS but changed the device ID string to match that of a 9800GTX.
All looked good, I even bumped the core and shader clocks up to match a reference 9800GTX (but left the mem @ 972Mhz).
However nvflash threw a wobbly I knew the commands to force it to allow a changed PCI-ID and the SubSys ID (--overridetype and --overridesub)
However when NVFlash instructed me it was going to flash a 8800GTS to a load of wild characters such as £$£"("*%$£& I decided not to proceed.
For now, it's easier to mod the driver inf files, I was just worried nVidia might even have a different driver "path" for the 9 series cards which would be optimal yet the normal "8 series" path would artificially limit physx performance on 8 series cards.
John
PhysX games with no hardware acceleration will not get a performance boost. UT3 does support but it requires the PhysX mod to be activated, and the it only works on the PhysX maps.
Here made by HardOCP users, and only the games with a "+" besides them could se a performance boost:
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1141844
See GPU PhysX as something just as well or badly supported, as the old stand alone PhysX was. In the future however, I suspect it will be pushed hard by NVIDIA.
3DMark01, 05, 06 have little to do with reality as well. This is an old topic, and I would thought that everyone by now knew the obvious by now :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
However, if NVIDIA pushes hard for hardware PhysX support in many future games, Vantage may become the best 3DMark in comparison to games for a long time.
You also just ignore the CPU scores, and just look at the GPU ones, right?
I'm with 177.39, windows vista x64. I test the LightHouse map, you can shoot some flammable barrels in order to destroy the walls, doing that about 5,6 times makes the game unplayable, much faster than Tornado ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD
Yap, Tornado is a nice map, but I prefer LightHouse in order to do the testings, you have much more things do destroy and push PhysX ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
I think I will search for HeatRay PhysX map and test it.
I have a few questions for you about this if you don't mind. Not questioning you, I saw the drop in FPS too. Is there a program (I know these exist) that I can just monitor the fps in game, just a ticker in the corner? I can also just let the task manager run and see how much ram is used. I have 8 gigs, so if it fills that up, CLEARLY, there is a leak. My ram usage never goes about 2.4gigs when running UT3 (non-physx maps).Quote:
Originally Posted by Luka_Aveiro
If you come across any physx maps, mind linking us through the thread? I'm hoping others with different GPUs and hardware can do a few trials as well.
Use Fraps or RivaTuner OSD info Synthetickiller
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
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