Nvidia GTX280/260 and 9800GTX/+ 177.39 Beta Driver with PhysX-Support

[JohnZS]

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

[Luka_Aveiro]

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

[BulldogPO]

A little bit of improving Vantage scores.
http://bulldogpo.wippiespace.com/PhysX/

QX9770@4450MHz + Geforce 9800GX2 std clocks.

[saaya]

so 3dmark vantage has cut its last bonds to reality eh?
the benchmark has absolutely no relevance on actual gaming performance with this driver...

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...

[Mechromancer]

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.

[STaRGaZeR]

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).

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

Don't be fooled by marketing

[Luka_Aveiro]

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

Don't be fooled by marketing

I'll see what I can do to clarify that

[RPGWiZaRD]

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

[miptzi]

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?

[STaRGaZeR]

I'll see what I can do to clarify that

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.

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.

[Warboy]

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?

For the 177 series, You need a modded nv_disp.inf

[Luka_Aveiro]

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.

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.

Yap, It's really hard to get a good fps estimate with this (physX) driver, hope a more recent one fixes it...

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...)

[RPGWiZaRD]

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.

[Luka_Aveiro]

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) 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.

well, with vsync off and before the memory problems start to kick in, fps are around 55, 1280x960 with my rig :|

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...

[flippin_waffles]

so 3dmark vantage has cut its last bonds to reality eh?
the benchmark has absolutely no relevance on actual gaming performance with this driver...

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...

Yep, I had a bad feeling a couple months ago that this was going to be a TWIMTBP benchmark.

[Luka_Aveiro]

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:

Ageia Physx 7.09.13 WHQL (this version is the one Vantage automatically installs)

[STaRGaZeR]

well, with vsync off and before the memory problems start to kick in, fps are around 55, 1280x960 with my rig :|

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...

And what did you miss in the image? What is the difference between having it enabled or disabled in game?

[Luka_Aveiro]

And what did you miss in the image? What is the difference between having it enabled or disabled in game?

Actually, I spotted no difference, so I assume UT3 PhysX might be broken
(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

[RPGWiZaRD]

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. 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

[STaRGaZeR]

Actually, I spotted no difference, so I assume UT3 PhysX might be broken
(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

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.

Don't worry, the spaguettis will go home today (I hope lol)

[JohnZS]

Now that's a good idea

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 B623

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

[Seraphiel]

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.

so 3dmark vantage has cut its last bonds to reality eh?
the benchmark has absolutely no relevance on actual gaming performance with this driver...

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...

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

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?

[Luka_Aveiro]

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.

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

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.

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
I think I will search for HeatRay PhysX map and test it.

[[XC] Synthetickiller]

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
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).

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.

[BenchZowner]

Use Fraps or RivaTuner OSD info Synthetickiller