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.
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
__________________
Team PURE is about kickass pirates and unicorns defeating ninjas.
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 =)
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
__________________
sell water to a well, and sell slime to a snail, convinced workers at fedex to sell mail to themselves...
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
I would think the same as Futuremark's since the top 20 need to have a valid ORB link.
__________________
#1 Rule Of The Internet - The majority of writing stated as or giving the impression of fact is little more than the author's opinion. And more times than not that opinion is based on little or no knowledge of the topic.
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
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.
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.
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)
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
Hobby: overclocking.fi - Extreme overclocking: Team Finland
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.
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
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?
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.
![[XC] gomeler's Avatar](image.php?u=17665&dateline=1215408777)
![Send a message via AIM to [XC] gomeler](http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/images_black/misc/im_aim.gif)
SPi 32M LCC
do it bananstyle 
.
.
Linear Mode
