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

Thread: Futuremark: NVIDIA GPU PhysX not allowed

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Xtreme Legend
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,707

    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?
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Boulder, Colorado
    Posts
    9,412
    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
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    357
    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)
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,576
    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
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    1,692
    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
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    989
    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
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    1,692
    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 ?

  8. #8
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Potosi, Missouri
    Posts
    2,296
    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.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    165
    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
    too bad it's a CPU test

  10. #10
    Registered User
    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

  11. #11
    Xtreme Legend
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Connecticut (woodchipper State)
    Posts
    1,391
    Quote Originally Posted by DonBanana View Post
    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
    Very important point made here....
    Q6600 (8x401FSB 1.28Vcore)
    2x FX-74
    Gigabyte P35C-DS3R
    Asus L1N64-SLI
    Corsair DDR3-1800 2GB
    Geil DDR2-800 4x1GB
    BFG 8800Ultra
    Leadtek 7950GX2 DD GX2
    Tuniq 1200W
    NZXT 1200W
    Storm WB 775
    2x Swiftech Microdrive Socket-L

  12. #12
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    2,977
    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.
    Asus Maximus SE X38 / Lapped Q6600 G0 @ 3.8GHz (L726B397 stock VID=1.224) / 7 Ultimate x64 /EVGA GTX 295 C=650 S=1512 M=1188 (Graphics)/ EVGA GTX 280 C=756 S=1512 M=1296 (PhysX)/ G.SKILL 8GB (4 x 2GB) SDRAM DDR2 1000 (PC2 8000) / Gateway FPD2485W (1920 x 1200 res) / Toughpower 1,000-Watt modular PSU / SilverStone TJ-09 BW / (2) 150 GB Raptor's RAID-0 / (1) Western Digital Caviar 750 GB / LG GGC-H20L (CD, DVD, HD-DVD, and BlueRay Drive) / WaterKegIII Xtreme / D-TEK FuZion CPU, EVGA Hydro Copper 16 GPU, and EK NB S-MAX Acetal Waterblocks / Enzotech Forged Copper CNB-S1L (South Bridge heat sink)

  13. #13
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    494
    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



  14. #14
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,834
    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.

    ..

  15. #15
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    494
    Quote Originally Posted by Yukon Trooper View Post
    You'd definitely have an argument if PhysX was used in all games. Considering it's not, it shouldn't be used in benchmarks.
    Well from going by what your saying, if it's not in all games. They should just remove the PhysX test all together from the test....
    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



  16. #16
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,834
    Quote Originally Posted by DaMulta View Post
    Well from going by what your saying, if it's not in all games. They should just remove the PhysX test all together from the test....
    No, no. If you want to run a separate Physx test that's fine. However, in a "competitive" environment where benchmarks are compared and documented, Physx should be disallowed. I agree with their decision 100%.
    Last edited by YukonTrooper; 07-18-2008 at 10:40 AM.

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

    ..

  17. #17
    Xtreme 3D Team
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
    Posts
    445
    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.

  18. #18
    Xtreme X.I.P.
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Chile
    Posts
    4,151
    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?

  19. #19
    I am Xtreme
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,594
    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.

  20. #20
    Xtreme X.I.P.
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Chile
    Posts
    4,151
    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.

  21. #21
    I am Xtreme
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,594
    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.

  22. #22
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    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


  23. #23
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    Posts
    2,219
    At least the rules are clear now.
    MB Reviewer for HWC
    Team OCX Bench Team

  24. #24
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,005
    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

  25. #25
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    276
    Quote Originally Posted by CraptacularOne View Post
    About time. Artificially inflating their scores is all Nvidia was doing.
    How is it artificial? They are doing physics work with the driver and hardware implemention in their new GPUs right? Maybe I'm not understanding this whole physX situation properly.
    Ultra Aluminus/Silverstone SUGO 05/Thermaltake SPEDO
    Asus P6TD Deluxe/Zotac Mini-ITX GeForce 9300
    Core I3 3ghz/Core i7 920 D0
    TRUE Black/CM Hyper 212 Plus
    G.Skill 4GB PC8500/3GB Corsair DDR3-1866/6GB G.Skill DDR3-2000
    ATI HD4850 1GB/ATI HD4890 1GB/ATI HD5850
    Samsung 305T Plus
    Asus Xonar HDAV 1.3/Creative X-Fi PCI-E
    4 Intel X-25M 80GB SSD RAID-0/Areca 1231ML
    LG 8X Blu-Ray Burner/LG 10X Blu-Ray Burner/Sony Slimline Blu-Ray Optical
    Ultra X3 1600W/Ultra X3 1000W

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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