Printable View
As I already said, the way I understand this is that NVidia PhysX runs a CPU test on GPU, which is just wrong. Simple. It has nothing to do with it being better or worse than Ati.Quote:
Originally Posted by Talonman
Edit: I'll note it here too, before someone comments about this. I had understood this wrong. CPU Test 2 does use Ageia PhysX too so it should also use PhysX on a GPU.
But when Ageia PCI card was running that test, that was fine? Well Ageia PhysX wasn't CPU either... I don't see anything wrong with Physx running on GPU.
NVIDIA just replaced Ageia own PPU with their hardware. What's wrong with that? After all they have all right to do taht since they own Ageia technology now...
Again, as I have understood this (and I may be wrong), Ageia PhysX does not run that test as it is CPU test. Which would still make Nvidias solution wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by RejZoR
But as I said, I may also be wrong.
Edit: And I was wrong. It uses Ageia PhysX.
It's just sad....
The only thing wrong about doing PhysX calculations on a GPU, is the 3D boy's attitude.
3D makers Street Cred is dropping...
They are in bed with ATI...
Nvidia's multi million doller PhysX project is starting to pay off, and upping Vantages score... (Which tests for your systems PhysX speed)
Let's change the rules now, and get them scores back down to ATI level... Hurry!!!
We made sure ATI won the 3DMark06 game, even thow the cards were slower. We can't let Nvidia win the Vantage war...
That is our new baby and everything... Don't worry ATI, we will get you back on top. We know what to do....
I wonder if they asked Nvidia for input, or just ATI on this idea....
My money says they only talked to ATI about this...
Once again we will have Nvidia cards running faster, but ATI scores looking better than they actually are on Vantage...
They are hurting the value of their score... Soon nobody from either camp will want to run Vantage anymore.
We are seeing the beginning of the end for 3DMark right now!
Talor made, to make your systems PhysX speed not count, and ATI cards to appear as fast...
I would rather they delete all PhxsX testing off their benchmark, than to allow a PhysX test to run, but not be allowed to calc on a Nvidia card.
Let us decide what part of our system actually does the PhysX calculations. They should only be in the measureing business. Not picking out our hardware, and deciding what is valid to calc on, and what isn't...
That should be my call only!
Vantage tests both CPU, and GPU scoring both. In the name of 'This is a CPU Test Only', let's bone all Nvidia customers.
Mabey the 3DMark boy's have enouigh clout in the market to have all PhysX code removed from all games too....
That would fix Nvidia's little red wagon!!!
CPU speed depends on so many other components of the system... RAM, GPU, cooling...
Let's not pretend Vantage isn't already effected by your total system specs. Picking on Nvidias PhysX enabled GPU's, and call that cheating just nuts!!
- nevermind -
- nevermind about this either -
Ok, I take my words back, quote from futuremarks test descriptions:
CPU Test 2: Physics The Physics Test features a heavy workload of future generation game physics computations. The scene is set at an air race, but with an unfortunately dangerous configuration of gates. Planes trailing smoke collide with various cloth and soft-body obstacles, each other, and the ground. The smoke spreads, and reacts to the planes passing through it. The physics test takes advantage of the AGEIA PhysX physics accelerator, if found on the system.
So it does use Ageia PhysX and not CPU alone.
This would mean that if NVidia could do this PhysX calculation without modifying 3dmarks files (which at this point it seems not to be able to do), I don't see any problem in it either. Except of course the fact that it might be unrealistic for the GPU to be under such a low load that it could up the scores so much.
Anyway, I don't still see this as favoring Ati, at least if this is accurate:
http://www.techpowerup.com/64042/Phy...k_Vantage.html
http://www.ngohq.com/news/14219-phys...hd-3850-a.html
http://www.ngohq.com/news/14254-phys...on-update.html
So when I run Vantage after the ATI patch is applied, when Crash'N'Burn runs, I am going back to crawl speed in my PhysX enabled Nvidia system. This is due to the 3DMark Boy's calling that cheating, and won't be officially recorded, even though it adds speed to actual games...
But if I have a 3rd party PhysX card like Ageia, and my calculations are not being done on an Nvidia GPU, Crash'N'Burn will run like the wind, and the 3DMark Boy's give it their blessing, and encourage you to submit your score to their database for recording? :shrug:
Sure, That's fair... and not ATI slanted at all... :shakes:
My goodness, they boned the Nvidia boy's so bad on 3DMark06, they aught to let if anything, one round go Nvidia's way. Nvidia did after all give us a PhysX processor as a feature of the GPU. That should count, and does in my book!
What would you be willing to bet if they get the ATI PhysX hack to work, the 3DMark boys would change their test back to the origional again, all in the name of 'Fairness'. :rofl:
When the 3DMark makers officially get into the business of patches designed to hurt the performance of systems only running one brand of GPU, it isn't a good thing for either camp. That's one slippery slope to start down, while still trying to maintain credibility. May the 3DMark rules go to the highest bidder!!
I know we have ALLOT of ATI fans here, but trust me when I say that this won't be received well by the huge Nvidia customer base. As soon as Crash'N'Burn returns to a snails pace on their system, they will be like what happend?
We were just starting to forgive them for putting that test in there in the first place. Suddenly it made sense...
Wait until they find out the 3DMark Boys just didn't want to count Nvidia's calculations... 'Your calculations are no good here!!!' ;)
Never mind that the old score woud better show actual game speed, we just don't want Nvidia GPU's to count... That's gunna play well.
Sweet!! Brace for impact... :D
There will be thousands waiting to throw some heat into this fire...
Modifying 3dmarks files? There is no such modification going on by installing latest Ageia drivers, just like installing Beta GPU drivers.Quote:
Originally Posted by MoF
Ageias drivers are now Nvidias property. Technically speaking any benchmarks run with non FM approved drivers should be treated just like the benches run with beta Ageia drivers.
Very important point made here.... :shocked:Quote:
Originally Posted by DonBanana
Makes you wonder if they would have sold as many copies of Vantage, if they told the Nvidia boy's up front that they were going to disable the PhysX abilities of their cards.
About the only thing left to post in this thread. lol
http://fliiby.com/images/_original/clja6gwrke.gifhttp://fliiby.com/images/_original/clja6gwrke.gifhttp://fliiby.com/images/_original/clja6gwrke.gifhttp://fliiby.com/images/_original/clja6gwrke.gif
No use beating a dead horse, but people are still not understanding how this works. So I will make my final statement, not trying to defend ATI or nVidia, just using plain old logic. PhysX test:
1. Uses CPU by default.
2. If you payed extra for a physx card, then you can take advantage of a dedicated physics processing unit, therefore your video card resources are not used when physics is working.
3. Hacking the test to make it run on nVidia hardware in the case where the GPU is idle.
Option 1 by default is valid. Option 2 by default and in collaboration with Futuremark, is valid. You paid extra to get a dedicated physics processor that will handle physics calculations independant of the video card. Option 3, according to Futuremark should not be a valid option because it does not indicate real world physics performance of your CPU, or your physX unit, or your video card!
Unless nVidia made it so if you choose to do it, you could have one card in SLI configuration do the physX, and the other do the GPU.
But in a single card setup, GPU cycles will not be wasted on physics calculations.
Coming out crying saying this favours this or that is illogical, and the bottom line is nvidia is doing whatever they can to get a higher score in vantage, even where it doesn't make sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoF
Funny how if Nvidia is being baned from being able to do PhysX calculations, because "it does not indicate real world physics performance of your CPU, or your physX unit, or your video card", but yet still will give you a better real world idea of how your PhysX games will play on your system.... Odd!! :p:
What if your PhysX processor is your GPU...
Again ... so sad....
Hopefully this "issue" gets fixed in a reasonable way when summer holidays are over...
I wonder if a Class Action Lawsuit could be started for selling us a program that was advertised that it woud measure our system's PhysX processing speed.
Now that feature is being removed....
Can all Nvidia customers get their $20 bucks back?
Let's teach them that applying patches to only hurt Nvidia's cards score is costly, and all just to make ATI look better again...
It's like rooting for the underdog is being taken to an entire new level. I would't even want to win that way.
Shame on them!!! I shouldn't have to buy an Ageia PhysX card, when my Nvidia 280 does that for me already, and does it well!
Good luck on that one. nV modified the software to run on thier vgas, there's no basis for a lawsuit here, unless you want it to go the OTHER WAY around...
This thread has gone from sorry to complete stupidity.
I was thinking strictly from a features standpoint, and false advertising.
They could probably avoid this if they renamed the product to 3DMarkATI. At least we would have known what we were getting... And that Nvidia cards were officially on the out's.
Mabey we can get a new benchmark made that will take into consideration our entire system speed, PhysX included. Even if it runs on a Nvidia card!!!
We need a true Gamers Benchmark, not one in bed with ATI...
They can get nailed for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by cadaveca
I hope so... Big Time!!
I'd love to see it happen. Maybe that's what they all need to shake 'em up a bit.
I could care less about the whole thing really anyway. I'm still gonna bench how I always have, using whatever drivers I think are best, and not what Futuremark thinks is best for me.
I mean really....so what if the scores are not included in the top 10...most people here ocmplaining won't ever be there anyway, so I don't understand the complaints, as it really only affects a few select people WORLDWIDE...
Lawsuit. :rofl: The bench still runs with whatever drivers you install in your system, and you can run whatever version you like. Since they are doing things filtered, you can still compare against other people running the same specs, but any scores using Phys-X on teh gpu for cpu tests are excluding from global ranking. And they havea valid arguement as to why, even had it covered when the software was published. nV is running cpu tests on thier vgas...I mean, it's a great way to compare an nV vga for phys-X vs the cpu, and really has no bearing on ATI users at all.
However when you do that comparison, you have to keep in mind that a vga can run many more threads than a cpu. In order to test how fast a thread is completed, you must run a sufficient number of threads to load the gpu properly. Vantage does this currently when you add a Phys-X card, because it's simple...one single card only means just one additional parameter to worry about.
But change that Phys-X to a nV vga...how can you compare 260 to 280, or 8800GT to 8800U? Do they run the same number of threads? Are they being fully loaded, or are they only partially working becuase they complete the data so fast, and must await cpu for further info?
Anyway, there's no lawsuit against Futuremark here...all they have done really is restored the original functionality of the ORB, and have done NOTHING to change Vantage itself. All the features are there, and they have advertized nothing falsely. Vantage works just as it did when released, and the ORB does too, now.
But Futuremark could possibly sue nVidia for modifying the software, and creating an extra bit of work, and thereby financial setback. I don't see nV losing anything financially here...so they are asking for what sort of comphensation? They lost what?
You lost what?
:stick:
An accurate representation of total system speed, including PhysX.
if you think that's accurate...lol..please go ahead with your lawsuit, and make sure you got some math to back it up.
:horse:
Software liscence agreements don't work like that anyway. They, as publisher/writer, are free to update the program as they see fit.:fact: You don't own it, you merely have a right to use it.
And guess what, they didn't update anything.:poke:so what did they do exactly, that affects you?
And they didn't remove those scores, they can still be viewed, so how'd you lose what you are asking for? Where's the burden for you from not being able to publish in the top 10? I mean guys at the top, ok, but you're just whining about stuff to fit in with the top guys.