Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 88

Thread: Futuremark: NVIDIA GPU PhysX not allowed

  1. #1
    Xtreme Legend Sampsa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,711

    Futuremark: NVIDIA GPU PhysX not allowed

    Hi,

    I've changed a couple of e-mails between Futuremark CEO Tero Sarkkinen who quickly commented current confusing situation in ORB and Hall of Fame.

    NVIDIA's GPU PhysX was launched in the middle of summer and most of FM's staff are on holidays (Most people are here in Finland). Tero said timing couldn't have been worse but they have updated filtering system coming up which will handle the runs which are not following Futuremark's guidelines.

    When I asked more specific about NVIDIA's GPU PhysX, he confirmed that it won't be allowed. (Since Vantage's CPU test 2 is designed to measure CPU physics calculations and it is clearly stated in the rules that GPU or driver can't affect the result significantly).

    So from now on if you want to run offical 3DMark result or Hall of Fame result with NVIDIA gfx you have to use Futuremark approved WHQL driver and do not install NVIDIA PhysX System Software.

    I'm not sure if disabling GeForce PhysX will help (download NV PhysX Tweaker 1.0) since it is reported that GPU PhysX installation will replace some 3DMark Vantage's files (source VR-Zone: Nvidia PhysX Driver Overwrites Vantage Files?).
    Favourite game: 3DMark
    Work: Muropaketti.com - Finnish hardware site
    Views and opinions about IT industry: Twitter: sampsa_kurri

  2. #2
    Diablo 3! Who's Excited? [XC] gomeler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Boulder, Colorado
    Posts
    9,440
    Very interesting. Perhaps this will be a move in the right direction towards seeing Vantage adopted by HWBot. Thanks for the heads up, glad to see Futuremark taking a stand

  3. #3
    Xtreme Member fubarswe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    359
    we all know how physX affect Vantage.., benching it without it feels very strange to put it mildly...
    Thx for info Sampsa :-)

  4. #4
    OC Jedi (on stand-by) Fr3ak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,610
    I somewhat like their decision, but on the other hand, having the lower results for extreme overclockers after benching with the PhysX driver might be disappointing.

    For the competition between Nvidia and AMD it surely is a step to a fairer battlefield.
    オタク
    "Perfection is a state you should always try to attain, yet one you can never reach." - me =)

  5. #5
    Xtreme Addict George_o/c's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    1,702
    Quote Originally Posted by Fr3ak View Post
    For the competition between Nvidia and AMD it surely is a step to a fairer battlefield.
    That's right, competition should be fair
    The only disadvantage is that, scores are going to be a little lower now ...

  6. #6
    PIfection youngpro's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,002
    i guess it comes down to personal preference,

    ive never really cared too much about orb and i will just bench whatever gives me the BEST scores, in this case the physx driver is very innovative for that gpu test and I will be using it

  7. #7
    Registered User DonBanana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Good Old Germany
    Posts
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by Fr3ak View Post
    For the competition between Nvidia and AMD it surely is a step to a fairer battlefield.
    Yeah, that is right, but shouldn´t we do it either in an equal way with all the other Benchmarks so that AMD Processors can compete with Intel CPUs
    do it bananstyle

  8. #8
    Xtreme Addict George_o/c's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    1,702
    Quote Originally Posted by youngpro View Post
    i guess it comes down to personal preference,

    ive never really cared too much about orb and i will just bench whatever gives me the BEST scores, in this case the physx driver is very innovative for that gpu test and I will be using it
    What is hwbot's policy on nVidia PhysX drivers ?

  9. #9
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Potosi, Missouri
    Posts
    2,292
    Quote Originally Posted by George_o/c View Post
    What is hwbot's policy on nVidia PhysX drivers ?
    I would think the same as Futuremark's since the top 20 need to have a valid ORB link.

  10. #10
    Xtreme Member DaMulta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    489
    Boooo if games can use it to off set the CPU in games, then it should be shown inside the benchmark that is SUPPOSED to show how well a video card will do in tomorrows games.....They even said AMD could use it freely which could solve the problem of being unfair.
    Ryba's Ver 4 DryIce/LN2 pot"
    Cryo-Z Phase-R-507A
    AMD 955
    GD70FX
    Crucial2GB kit (1GBx2),DDR3 PC3-16000(2Ghz)
    2 x 4890 MSi OC Cards
    Maze5, Maze4, 120 Black Ice EX, one 240 Black Ice EX
    Fixed speed pump powered by a 17v meanwell



  11. #11
    Xtreme 3D Team NBF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
    Posts
    444
    I can fully understand Futuremark, the main issue is that PhysX replaces a few Vantage files.

    If they allow 3rd party file changing in their benchmarks they will open the doors for all kind of cheats.

    Only FM may change bench files if it's needed.

  12. #12
    Xtreme X.I.P. metro.cl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Chile
    Posts
    4,237
    So what about the PPU cards? those shouldnt be allowed either from what he said.

    Could you ask him Sampsa, what would happend to all the guys that bought a separate PPU and now it wont improove the score? arent allowed?

  13. #13
    I am Xtreme
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,718
    PPU should be allowed, as any system can install one, and it doesn't break FM rules, whereas nV phys-X only allows nV cards to use it.

  14. #14
    Xtreme X.I.P. metro.cl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Chile
    Posts
    4,237
    Quote Originally Posted by Sampsa View Post
    Hi,

    I've changed a couple of e-mails between Futuremark CEO Tero Sarkkinen who quickly commented current confusing situation in ORB and Hall of Fame.

    NVIDIA's GPU PhysX was launched in the middle of summer and most of FM's staff are on holidays (Most people are here in Finland). Tero said timing couldn't have been worse but they have updated filtering system coming up which will handle the runs which are not following Futuremark's guidelines.

    When I asked more specific about NVIDIA's GPU PhysX, he confirmed that it won't be allowed. (Since Vantage's CPU test 2 is designed to measure CPU physics calculations and it is clearly stated in the rules that GPU or driver can't affect the result significantly).

    So from now on if you want to run offical 3DMark result or Hall of Fame result with NVIDIA gfx you have to use Futuremark approved WHQL driver and do not install NVIDIA PhysX System Software.

    I'm not sure if disabling GeForce PhysX will help (download NV PhysX Tweaker 1.0) since it is reported that GPU PhysX installation will replace some 3DMark Vantage's files (source VR-Zone: Nvidia PhysX Driver Overwrites Vantage Files?).
    Quote Originally Posted by cadaveca View Post
    PPU should be allowed, as any system can install one, and it doesn't break FM rules, whereas nV phys-X only allows nV cards to use it.
    1st the Owner words are pretty clear.

    2nd PhysX doenst block ATI cards is AMD who has to invest in making the work just like NVIDIA did.

  15. #15
    Xtreme Enthusiast YMAA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    849
    Good for Futuremark. You level that playing field!

    • i7 920 D0 // eVGA X58 SLI // 12GB G.Skill Ripjaws // HD6950 (6970 BIOS)
    • Apogee XT // MCP655 // Thermochill PA120.3 // CM HAF 932
    • OCZ Vertex 3 MI edition // ASUS Xonar DX // Corsair TX850
    • HTC Incredible - Uber Kingdom Revolution ROM


  16. #16
    I am Xtreme
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,718
    Quote Originally Posted by metro.cl View Post
    1st the Owner words are pretty clear.

    2nd PhysX doenst block ATI cards is AMD who has to invest in making the work just like NVIDIA did.

    Well, current nV phys-X driver breaks PPU function(nessecary files needed only found in VGA driver), so it's a two-sided street ATM. Unless you have nV VGA, no Phys-X functionality can be used, period. nV needs to fix that before ATI can do ANYTHING. But yeah, I totally agree...I said thing would be like this when this issue first came up, for the smae reason we hear now...no real suprise here.
    Last edited by cadaveca; 07-18-2008 at 07:32 AM.

  17. #17
    Xtreme Addict Eldonko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    Posts
    2,252
    At least the rules are clear now.
    MB Reviewer for HWC
    Team OCX Bench Team

  18. #18
    Xtreme Addict CraptacularOne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,007
    About time. Artificially inflating their scores is all Nvidia was doing.
    Core i7 3770K
    EVGA GTX780 + Surround
    EVGA GTX670
    EVGA Z77 FTW
    8GB (2x4GB) G.Skill 1600Mhz DDR3
    Ultra X3 1000w PSU PSU
    Windows 7 Pro 64bit
    Thermaltake Xaser VI

  19. #19
    Xtreme Member Marios's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    427
    How about running 3DMark Vantage with an Ageia physics card?
    This does affect the outcome and the physics test is intentionally put there by Futuremark.
    In the meanwhile, an Nvidia driver does the same job by using the GPU.
    There is no difference between an ageia card doing physics or the GPU doing physics.
    Why is there a physics driver installed on our PCs with 3DMark Vantage anyway?
    Something is fishy I think and you know what I mean.

    On the other hand I expect to see larrabee GPU cores integrated on the nehalem CPU. Well .... define the term CPU now.
    This measure discourages AMD to include Ageia and or Havok physics hardware acceleration on their GPUs.
    Though we are going to see real word improved gaming from those technologies in the near future from all three rivals (Intel - AMD - Nvidia)
    Last edited by Marios; 07-18-2008 at 08:51 AM.

  20. #20
    Xtreme Legend Sampsa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,711
    Why are you guys asking about AGEIA PhysX physics card over and over again?!?! 3DMark Vantage has been supporting it since the beginning and will continue supporting it in the future. We are talking here about PhysX on GPU which is being banned!
    Favourite game: 3DMark
    Work: Muropaketti.com - Finnish hardware site
    Views and opinions about IT industry: Twitter: sampsa_kurri

  21. #21
    Xtreme Member Marios's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    427
    There is no difference. In both cases we get hardware physics acceleration.

  22. #22
    I am Xtreme
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,718
    The difference is that Physics on the gpu does not seperate gpu/cpu performance into seperate categories. A PPU cannot render graphics on it's own, so it is considered part of the cpu sub-system.

    The whole point of that test is to measure CPU sub-system performance in rendering physics, and to isolate it from gpu performance. It says so right in the design documents, as I posted in the first thread we had here, when they started to pull the scores.

  23. #23
    Xtreme Member DaMulta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    489
    I'm going to buy a AGEIA PhysX physics and be done with it.

    That way I can do physX and not be pissed about them taking it out.
    Ryba's Ver 4 DryIce/LN2 pot"
    Cryo-Z Phase-R-507A
    AMD 955
    GD70FX
    Crucial2GB kit (1GBx2),DDR3 PC3-16000(2Ghz)
    2 x 4890 MSi OC Cards
    Maze5, Maze4, 120 Black Ice EX, one 240 Black Ice EX
    Fixed speed pump powered by a 17v meanwell



  24. #24
    Xtreme Member Marios's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    427
    Quote Originally Posted by cadaveca View Post
    The difference is that Physics on the gpu does not seperate gpu/cpu performance into seperate categories. A PPU cannot render graphics on it's own, so it is considered part of the cpu sub-system.

    The whole point of that test is to measure CPU sub-system performance in rendering physics, and to isolate it from gpu performance. It says so right in the design documents, as I posted in the first thread we had here, when they started to pull the scores.
    Why is it OK for a CPU to do the job of a PPU and not a GPU?
    Unless we get zero points from a CPU doing the job of a PPU we should allow a GPU doing the job of a PPU. Are we serious now?
    Are we going to define the PPU GPU and CPU terms now?
    Who cares about terms as soon as something out there does the same job?

  25. #25
    Xtreme Mentor YukonTrooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,838
    Quote Originally Posted by DaMulta View Post
    Boooo if games can use it to off set the CPU in games, then it should be shown inside the benchmark that is SUPPOSED to show how well a video card will do in tomorrows games.....They even said AMD could use it freely which could solve the problem of being unfair.
    You'd definitely have an argument if PhysX was used in all games. Considering it's not, it shouldn't be used in benchmarks.

    For my part I know nothing with any certainty, but the sight of the stars makes me dream.

    ..

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •