So where's the PhsyX drivers?

N

number69

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 8, 2003
Messages
1,646
I thought Nvidia was supposed to release WHQL PhsyX drivers today. I saw a few links on other forums to a unofficial release. Where's the official release?
 
Already here..since June 25th actually.

http://www.nvidia.com/object/winxp_177.39_beta.html

Beta release for Windows XP.
Adds support for GeForce 9800 GTX GPUs.
Adds support for NVIDIA PhysX Technology for GPU PhysX hardware acceleration on GeForce 9800 GTX, GeForce GTX 280, and GeForce GTX 260 GPUs. The GeForce v177.39 driver package includes NVIDIA PhysX System Software v8.06.12. The Unreal Tournament 3 PhysX Mod Pack can be downloaded here.
Supports single GPU and NVIDIA SLI™ technology* on DirectX 9 and OpenGL.
Supports CUDA™ Technology.
Supports GPU overclocking and temperature monitoring by installing NVIDIA System Tools software.
Please read the release notes for more information on product support, features, and known compatibility issues.
Users without US English operating systems can select their language and download the International driver here.
 
I think he was referring to support for the 8 and 9 series. which in fact was supposed to come out around now
 
PsychoFanatic said:
I think he was referring to support for the 8 and 9 series. which in fact was supposed to come out around now
Click to expand...

That and a patch for GRAW 2..Im itching to play that one..UT3 is getting long in the tooth..
 
weaksauce.

does anyone have a list of games that would actually benefit from this?
 
I downloaded it this morning. Stoly posted the link here (Physx 8.07.18): http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1332592

The release notes/help state: "The PhysX engine will use an AGEIA PhysX Processor or an 8, 9, or GTX 200 series GeForce GPU with at least 256MB of memory."

I'm going to test it on my 8400GS tonight.
 
pxc said:
I downloaded it this morning. Stoly posted the link here (Physx 8.07.18): http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1332592

The release notes/help state: "The PhysX engine will use an AGEIA PhysX Processor or an 8, 9, or GTX 200 series GeForce GPU with at least 256MB of memory."

I'm going to test it on my 8400GS tonight.
Click to expand...
how can you play any of those games on an 8400gs in the first place? :confused:


also the download link says This driver features support for the GeForce 9800 GTX and GTX+, the GTX 260, GTX 280 and 9500 GT
 
cannondale06 said:
also the download link says This driver features support for the GeForce 9800 GTX and GTX+, the GTX 260, GTX 280 and 9500 GT
Click to expand...
nvidia didn't make the softpedia link. :p I installed the drivers and posted what *nvidia* put in the release notes/help. I'll repeat:

"The PhysX engine will use an AGEIA PhysX Processor or an 8, 9, or GTX 200 series GeForce GPU with at least 256MB of memory."

I was going to try using the 8400GS to do GPU PhysX.

The 8400GS was a GeForce 8 series last time I checked. :p

edit: in case you don't believe it:
8400gsphysxbd0.png


(oh, snap)
 
I wasnt doubting you but was simply going by what it said. well maybe I will try it later for UT3 just too see. I dont see it doing anything on that 8400gs since its so bad at gaming in the first place.
 
pxc said:
Then it's probably not installed. :p
Click to expand...
its installed under programs. also I was able to select hardware physx in the UT3 menu if that means anything.


EDIT: I found it but I can only select no acceleration as the other two options are grayed out. maybe I need the 177.79 video drivers. damn the forums a freaking slow as hell.

EDIT 2: yep its working with the 177.79 drivers :)
 
g1xx3r said:
That and a patch for GRAW 2..Im itching to play that one..UT3 is getting long in the tooth..
Click to expand...

Why does GRAW2 need a patch for NV PhysX? If it uses PhysX, once you add the new drivers allowing PhysX API acceleration it should just work, no? If you had enough CPU power to render the physics effects in software, all it's going to do is offload processing, not necessarily make the game any better...
 
So what would be faster here? An 8800GTS 320MB doing both graphics and physics, or an 8800GTS 320MB dedicated to graphics and a 8400GS dedicated to physics?
 
Unknown-One said:
So what would be faster here? An 8800GTS 320MB doing both graphics and physics, or an 8800GTS 320MB dedicated to graphics and a 8400GS dedicated to physics?
Click to expand...

Good question, I want to know this.
 
I just gave it a shot running both graphics and physX on a single 8800GTS 320MB, works fast enough to run UT3's PhysX levels with graphics settings maxed out at 1680x1050.

I'm downloading cellfactor now.
 
pxc i do not see that selection menu at all, i have the latest physx installed and the 177.79 drivers, but no physx are present
 
PsychoFanatic said:
I think he was referring to support for the 8 and 9 series. which in fact was supposed to come out around now
Click to expand...

I should have clarified, I was referring to the set of drivers set to be released on Aug. 5th(yesterday) not the set that's been up since June 25th.

Anyway over at Anandtech I found out the date is 8/12/08 for the official release.


"The drivers, game demos, and patches for PhysX will be on NVIDIA's site August 12th.

People will be able play PhysX games in six days, I have been for weeks."




"Pack contents:

Full version of Warmonger

Full version of Unreal Tournament 3 PhysX Mod Pack (you will need Unreal Tournament 3 to play)

PhysX patch for Ghost Recon Advanced Fighter

Sneak peek at Nurien upcoming social networking service, based on the Unreal Engine 3 (with built-in benchmark)

Sneak peek at the upcoming game Metal Knight Zero (with built-in benchmark)

All new NVIDIA “The Great Kulu” tech demo

All new NVIDIA “Fluid” tech demo "



http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=31&threadid=2214731&enterthread=y&STARTPAGE=1
 
Unfortunately, I couldn't get the Nv PhysX CP to "see" my 8800GT. So I couldn't assign it PhysX duty instead of my 260. Anyway, here is the opening room in the tutorial in "Warmonger". I used 1920x with all sliders to the right, or max.

177.41 = 20FPs
http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/5793/wmgame17741stocknt6.jpg

177.79 + PhysX 8.07.18 = 63FPS
http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/646/wmgamephysix260rq3.jpg

Cellfactor errors out on me every time I try to start it under Vista HP x64. So I can't test it right now.

Looks like these drivers could make a lot of upcoming games that might be unplayable @ 1920x max settings, playable. That is if the game supports it.
 
I decided to answer my own question regarding using a single 8800GTS 320mb for everything vs. 8800GTS for graphics and a 8400GS for PhysX.

I tossed in a spare 8400GS, set it to dedicated physics, and did some run-throughs. The results are interesting but not unexpected; if the game you're running doesn't overtax the 8800GTS, it's faster at running PhysX all by itself (and since the maximum resolution i can run these games at is 1680x1050 due to my 22" LCD, it's kinda hard to overtax the 8800GTS in any of the current PhysX enabled titles).

The short verions: If you have an 8800GTS 320MB and want to dedicate a second graphics card to PhysX, you'll need something faster than an 8400GS.
 
Unknown-One said:
I just gave it a shot running both graphics and physX on a single 8800GTS 320MB, works fast enough to run UT3's PhysX levels with graphics settings maxed out at 1680x1050.

I'm downloading cellfactor now.
Click to expand...
well either you are exaggerating or firingsquad cant properly run benchmarks then. at 1680x1050 they only got 20.9 fps on an 8800gts 640mb in the UT3 Physx levels and thats a better card than yours. :confused:

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_geforce_physx_performance/page4.asp
 
cannondale06 said:
well either you are exaggerating or firingsquad cant properly run benchmarks then. at 1680x1050 they only got 20.9 fps on an 8800gts 640mb in the UT3 Physx levels and thats a better card than yours. :confused:

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_geforce_physx_performance/page4.asp
Click to expand...
That was run at 1600x1200, I'm running 1680x1050.

1600x1200 is 156,000 pixels larger than 1680x1050, which would account for a noticeable performance improvement right off the bat. They might also have been using integrated audio, I have a dedicated sound card, which can add up to between a 1 and 5FPS improvement over integrated.
 
cannondale06 said:
or firingsquad cant properly run benchmarks then.
Click to expand...
There is something strange about FS's benchmarks. I can run the UT3 Heat Ray PhysX level at 1920x1200 on a single 8800GT XXX with GPU PhysX enabled and the framerate hovers around 30-34fps in the open areas, with a few dips. Still very playable.
 
Unknown-One said:
That was run at 1600x1200, I'm running 1680x1050.

1600x1200 is 156,000 pixels larger than 1680x1050, which would account for a noticeable performance improvement right off the bat. They might also have been using integrated audio, I have a dedicated sound card, which can add up to between a 1 and 5FPS improvement over integrated.
Click to expand...
well the difference sure wouldnt make more than 2 or 3 fps difference over what there getting. anyway it seems pxc is also getting better results then firingsquad too so who knows. I guess I will test my mighty(lol) 8600gt in those special UT3 levels and see for myself.
 
cannondale06 said:
well the difference sure wouldnt make more than 2 or 3 fps difference over what there getting. anyway it seems pxc is also getting better results then firingsquad too so who knows. I guess I will test my mighty(lol) 8600gt in those special UT3 levels and see for myself.
Click to expand...
Even if their benchmarks weren't suspect of bias, the two differences i noted previously could add up to as high as a 3 to 6 FPS increase.
 
cannondale06 said:
well the difference sure wouldnt make more than 2 or 3 fps difference over what there getting. anyway it seems pxc is also getting better results then firingsquad too so who knows. I guess I will test my mighty(lol) 8600gt in those special UT3 levels and see for myself.
Click to expand...
I just tested it without AA because I don't remember what settings I used before. In Heat Ray PhysX with no AA at 1920x1200 I'm getting around 45-50fps in the outside areas, with dips down to around 40fps. Inside areas are around 55-60fps.

edit: The first set of numbers was with quality maxed but no AA. The other numbers above are with default quality.

I'll be even happier when I get the 9800GTX I ordered yesterday. :D
 
pxc said:
I just tested it without AA because I don't remember what settings I used before. In Heat Ray PhysX with no AA at 1920x1200 I'm getting around 45-50fps in the outside areas, with dips down to around 40fps. Inside areas are around 55-60fps (maxed).

I'll be even happier when I get the 9800GTX I ordered yesterday. :D
Click to expand...
are you sure that you are using the special physx levels because I find that hard to believe. at 1024x768 on the normal Heat Ray map I get in the 45-55fps range the whole time on the Heat Ray Physx level I never went over 23fps and my average was 13fps.
 
cannondale06 said:
are you sure that you are using the special physx levels because I find that hard to believe. at 1024x768 on the normal Heat Ray map I get in the 45-55fps range the whole time on the Heat Ray Physx level I never went over 23fps and my average was 13fps.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it is the physx level. Lots of debris and hail around. I updated the post above. The higher set of scores was with medium (default) quality. The original ones I posted earlier were at max quality. Both scores are with AA disabled and 1xAF.

I have a much faster card too. :p
 
cannondale06 said:
are you sure that you are using the special physx levels because I find that hard to believe. at 1024x768 on the normal Heat Ray map I get in the 45-55fps range the whole time on the Heat Ray Physx level I never went over 23fps and my average was 13fps.
Click to expand...
Your sig says you have an 8600GT...so yeah, it'll be slower than my 8800GTS and his 8800GT.

RadXge said:
Drivers?...
So where's the PhsyX games? ;)
Click to expand...
Cellfactor, Warmonger, UT3 are out now, and I know Mirrors Edge will support it.
 
Unknown-One said:
Your sig says you have an 8600GT...so yeah, it'll be slower than my 8800GTS and his 8800GT.
Click to expand...
well duh. lol. I was going by what Firingsquad said and I was also looking at the huge performance difference I got between the regular Heat Ray and Heat Ray Physx level.
 
so tell me they make an 8 series card on pci so i can stick it in the spare pci slot and use as a physx deal.....they have to make something cool cheap worthwhile now right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top