Futuremark: NVIDIA GPU PhysX not allowed

[cadaveca]

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?

You got it backwards though. The test is for CPU Physics which the PPU accelerates. It jsut so happens that Futuremark has added to the number of threads of that test when using a ppu, but they have not adjusted for the gpu, and hence the huge score increase.

In other words, that test does what nV thinks it should do on the gpu, not FUturemark, and as such, Futuremark cannot guarnatee the validity of the scores. As Someone said, it's about Futuremark adding the functionality to the app, not nVidia.

There are already GPU Physics test incorporated into the other tests. That specific test merely inflates CPU scores, not gpu scores. If nVidia had used this to accelerate the gpu cloth physics in the Jane Nash test, then there'd be no issue, as that test measures gpu performance, and is coded for such, but the cpu test is not coded to be run properly on a gpu.

[Marios]

I thought FM included a physics test to accelerate physics innovation and wider physics support from games.
Test calibration is not an excuse to allow CPU doing physics and exclude the GPU.
Physics acceleration is not a cheat. It is real and we expect better gaming in the future from this.
I cannot see your point about calibration, since all three rivals are able to include physics hardware acceleration.
3DMark Vantage X (1920x1200) is not greatly affected from the CPU or the PPU score.
This is a graphics card benchmark and should reflect real world gaming.
It is not a CPU benchmark anyway.

[k|ngp|n]

Tell your futuremark friend that they need to do a better job of "banning" the scores sampsa. FM made the decision to remove the scores awhile back but still can't seem to get it right.
The whole point was to make the scores more comparable across platforms and now the scores aren't even comparable across the same platform lol.

[DaMulta]

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....

[YukonTrooper]

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%.

[DaMulta]

Well AGEIA has been bought, and soon you will not be able to buy those cards anymore. The test will still use AGEIA PhysX cards. So for the people that still have them down the road(a year or 2 from now) when it becomes almost imposable to find. Will have an unfair advantage as well because the whole test will not just be done on the CPU for those people.

The only way to really keep the AGEIA PhysX test in the program fairly(because AGEIA PhysX was bought out) would to allow it to be done on the GPU. AMD could implement this into their cards as well if they want to.

[Sampsa]

Tell your futuremark friend that they need to do a better job of "banning" the scores sampsa. FM made the decision to remove the scores awhile back but still can't seem to get it right.
The whole point was to make the scores more comparable across platforms and now the scores aren't even comparable across the same platform lol.

New updated filter should be up and running in couple of days which should recognize PPU PhysX and GPU PhysX. Now there seems to be some results which shouldn't be there. Lets hope they will get all issues fixed soon so we can concentrate to benchmarking

[Sampsa]

The only way to really keep the AGEIA PhysX test in the program fairly(because AGEIA PhysX was bought out) would to allow it to be done on the GPU. AMD could implement this into their cards as well if they want to.

That's not how things work, designing a 3DMark benchmark tool is huge and long process and the "problem" they had with Vantage was that NVIDIA bought AGEIA when benchmark was already on finishing stages.

[DaMulta]

Very true, and I'm not saying that Vantage took them a long time to produce(I know it did). What I'm saying is that your not going to be able to buy AGEIA PhysX cards for very much longer. Then those people that have them will be the only ones to see the advantage if they don't allow GPUs to take the place of those cards.

[Anemone]

They shouldn't be called Futuremark, they should call themselves Ancienthistorymark, because clearly they have absolutely nothing to do with advancing future abilities in hardware. I have a good many reasons to have no love of Nvidia right now, but this decision is ridiculous. Replacing Vantage files? Foul and that should be something no one is allowed to do. But beyond that, if you have hardware to accelerate a process, any process it should be quite useful to do it. How else do you advance the industry? You don't want to know what 5 year old cards could do! You want to know what a card will do someday when the programming becomes common. This should have been pressure on ATI to get some code that could keep up or shut up and deal.

You want comparables? Filter out the test out of the final score, plain and easy. But no, not Futuremark. They don't care in the slightest about the end product, they only care that getting to the end product is done in some ridiculous outdated way, as some demonstration that the future of gaming is being demonstrated by such a test.

Nvidia are idiots, and can dig their own pit (proof is happening right now even). But if there is hardware acceleration available to complete a test faster that's not a foul. Replacing files, that's bad. But the acceleration itself is fine. If you have a wish to keep it fair, or judge "world records" on a fairness basis, just exclude the test and take a score without it.

Heck they are both such smart companies, I'm thinking Nvidia and Futuremark are siblings who just fight all the time and are both dumb as posts.

[STEvil]

Would be better if they just released a patch that ran the physics test twice. Once on CPU once on GPU.

[fireice2]

what about those using dual GPU's where one is used as a physx card?

[Macadamia]

what about those using dual GPU's where one is used as a physx card?

Currently it's not supported, but wouldn't it apply too?

SLI boost in game test + PhysX scores in CPU test = same double standard going nowhere.

[TheGoat Eater]

This whole debacle leaves a bad taste in my mouth and I am happy to continue benching the older versions and AQ3 - I am a '01 addicted... I think i am starting to enjoy it more than AQ3.

[Blacky]

Would be better if they just released a patch that ran the physics test twice. Once on CPU once on GPU.

I soo agree with this, it could put a end to this drama finally -_- by other hand I think is lame because nvidia invested alot of money on this technology is not their fault AMD/ATi don't have it, so its unfair to call it "unfair" or "cheating" because nvidia gets a boost with their own technology in my opinion...

[fireice2]

Currently it's not supported, but wouldn't it apply too?

SLI boost in game test + PhysX scores in CPU test = same double standard going nowhere.

Yes not supported for now, but what about if Nvidia already fully implements such solution? It would be unfair to those using Nvidia based Physx solutions.

The situation is different on an intel chipset where SLI not normally possible.

[Kunaak]

just another example of how little 3dmark actually relates to gaming.

if a videocard can be used as a PPU, and games can take advantage of it, and the benchmark has a specific area for PPU testing....

wheres the problem?

[Anemone]

if a videocard can be used as a PPU, and games can take advantage of it, and the benchmark has a specific area for PPU testing....
wheres the problem?

QFT

In my mind this would be like disabling CF or SLI from the scores and say that really, since 99% of the market only has a single GPU, then you shouldn't be able to run two or for to boost scores. At what point does a legitimate hardware ability become something you don't want to allow? ATI could do this. They don't want to spend the resources on it. And frankly, with the bugs in Nvidia drivers sometimes, I think I can see that point of view, hehe. But if hardware can do a think better, then that is ok as long as it's not circumventing the "proper" code paths from operating.

Replacing files in the Futuremark software was a no-no. And that still stands as the thing "done wrong" on this issue. Having a suddenly higher score is like SLI before there was Crossfire. You don't have something comparable tough cookies.

[ACE76]

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.

[Shocker003]

Futuremark´s 3dmark benching is not a true test of system preformance as far as physx is not allowed. While gaming UT3 makes use of physx for example(i thought we run these benches to know how our rigs will fare while gaming or running certain programs)

I presume Intel is flexing it´s powers again... or maybe am wrong. I will bet that Larabee will be accepted by Futuremark for physics rendering(havoc), but Nvidia´s physx ain´t good enough for them. Something fishy is going on. If AMD/ATI is willing to support physx they should only ban the use of gpu physx physics for a while until ATI gpu are fully supported(fair play). I hate the fact that we have upgrade our cpu + motherboard for physics, instead of just installing a free Nvidia´s physx program. I don´t think Nvidia is cheating as they planned using gpu to run physics after taking over AGEIA or should they simiply throw their invested money in a drawer until Intel is thur with their Larabee(HAVOC), so that we can say fair play.

[vladimir]

just another example of how little 3dmark actually relates to gaming.
if a videocard can be used as a PPU, and games can take advantage of it, and the benchmark has a specific area for PPU testing....
wheres the problem?

I whole heartedly agree! According to FM's thinking, the next thing FM should ban will be the first 8-core CPUs since I'm sure one company will have this before the other.

[ahmad]

just another example of how little 3dmark actually relates to gaming.

if a videocard can be used as a PPU, and games can take advantage of it, and the benchmark has a specific area for PPU testing....

wheres the problem?

But isn't there a difference when you run ONLY physx on your GPU, and not intense 3D + physx?

[MoF]

I have understood this like this:

NVidia GPU PhysX is not allowed since it runs CPU tests with a GPU. Not because of unfair advantage etc.

If I am correct, there is just no other way to approach this than to not allow that.


Edit: And I had understood this wrong. It uses Ageia PhysX so it should use GPU PhysX too.

[Praz]

But isn't there a difference when you run ONLY physx on your GPU, and not intense 3D + physx?

Exactly. During the CPU test if the card had to render game-like graphics the score would be nowhere close to what we are seeing. As such the score is completely artificial as the card would not be capable of the same performance in a gaming environment.

[Talonman]

Where was all the crying when ATI cards produced a higher score in 3DMrk06, but slower in actual game play. Why didn't the 3D makers fix that...

That violated everything that was just in the Universe...

Now Nvidia spend millions to get our GPU's to do PhysX calculations, to aid in Game speed, and the 3DMark boys cry unfair?

To add insult to injury if your PC can do Physx calculations on another card, it counts, and is considered fair....

LOL

We seem to be always waiting for ATI to catch up in speed or features...

If your CPU is allowed to farm Physx calculations off to another card, don't call it cheeting if Nvidia is doing ours as a feature of the GPU.
We don't care if the card starts with an A or N!!

looks Vantage is for benching tomorrow's games, as long as ATI can do it too.