So where's the PhsyX drivers?

[

BTW Do you think that my 600 Watt SLi PSU will be able to support the 260GTX and 8800GTS 320MB or do I need to get myself a bigger PSU?[/QUOTE]

I would go to SLI zone and see what PSU is required for:

1. two 8800 GTS's
2. two GTX 260's

Then try to figure out an appoximation for one of each. Who knows how much power the card is going to use running physx as opposed to running graphics.

http://www.slizone.com/object/slizone_build_psu.html

The "unknown" factor of all this GPU/PHYSX stuff is also exciting. Who knows what is going to be required until early adopters start trying it out and posting on forums.
 
1 more 12 hour shift tomorrow, then it's 5 glorious days off...

I will do every possible thing, to gey my 280 and 8600 GT working.

I plan to fire up Warmonger (working great BTW), and record my FPS standing in the starting spot. This should give me 1 constant number. If I walk around, my FPS go from about 49 to the upper 70's. (1920 x 1200 max eyecandy settings on everything, but vsync off.)

Once I get my 8600 GT working as a dedicated PPU, I will fire Warmonger up again and standing in the starting spot record my FPS number again. I have a need to know if it will help, or hurt my systems performance. ;)

If it does help, in the more shader intensive games, it has the potential to help even more...
Keeping all shaders open on the 280 for non-PhysX functions, while letting the 8600 only calc PhysX, may turn out to be well balanced system? :cool:

Will the dedicated PPU be responsible for ageia and Nvidia PhysX calculations?

I believe it will, but just checking.
 
Hmmm...looks enticing. I don't like the part about having to extend the desktop over the second card though - wouldn't that result in the mouse moving out of sight at times? Hopefully they can fix that soon. Also, does anyone know what happens when you use this with a P35 chipset - do I end up taking away PCIE bandwidth from my primary card when I put the second card in there - or is that only on older chipsets?
 
I'm not big on the 'extend the desktop thing', or having to plug a second monitor in either...

Let's hope they get that resolved soon.

They said it was a bug with Vista, so if Bill Gates reads this, put some of your brightest and best on this one for us... :D
 
 
As mentioned there's some games out now. I think if PhysX takes off you'll see more and more... give it time.
Click to expand...

Buying video card for future purposes is an awful strategy.
Current video cards can barely run the latest games at highest settings so I doubt that they will be able to elegantly handle PhysX.
Some may remember that SM 3.0 was supported by the NVIDIA 6800 serie but the few compatible games were unplayable since of lackluster video card performance.

Support is useless if the performance is not there.
It is only marketing hype.
 
RadXge said:
Current video cards can barely run the latest games at highest settings so I doubt that they will be able to elegantly handle PhysX.
Click to expand...

Try reading the articles first - before you comment, OK? You will save yourself a lot of embarrassment in the future that way.
 
RadXge said:
Buying video card for future purposes is an awful strategy.
Current video cards can barely run the latest games at highest settings so I doubt that they will be able to elegantly handle PhysX.
Some may remember that SM 3.0 was supported by the NVIDIA 6800 serie but the few compatible games were unplayable since of lackluster video card performance.

Support is useless if the performance is not there.
It is only marketing hype.
Click to expand...


Don't be mad.
 
FYI - AgeiaSniffer is up. It's a small utility that ensures your system can successfully process ageia calculations. ;)

Note: The demo's that come with the program PhysX, test your systems ability to calculate Nvidia PhysX.

Now you can verify your system can handle both types correctly.

http://www.evga.com/forums/tm.asp?m=492182&mpage=4

touche

Ok, AgeiaSniffer v.1 is up!

I just got it done, haven't had time to debug. I think it works, but I'm not really sure.

Please give me feedback!!


Ageiasniffer (x64)

Ageiasniffer (x86)
Click to expand...

 
I've got my 8800GT doing PhysX for my 260. I had to connect it to my monitor and extend my desktop.



It didn't make a large difference in "Nurien" @ 1280x. I moved from 66FPS to 72 with 4xAA|16xAF.

My old FPS in "Warmonger" at the tutorial start was 63FPS, that went to 79 @ 1920x. That's with all sliders to the right, or details maxed.

177.79 + PhysX 8.07.18 GTX 260 = 63FPS
http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/646/wmgamephysix260rq3.jpg


As above but GT PhysX = 79FPS
http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/1235/wmgamegtphysxms4.jpg

So ya this will even work in an ancient Intel i975x board.
 
Thanks for the post!

I keep wondering if i should just buy a new GPU and scrap my 8600 GT as my dedicated PhysX card. I just re-visited some speed charts, and the 8600 GT is pritty well down at the bottom of the stack...

If a GTX 300 gets produced, I would use my 280 for PhysX and the 300 for GPU. :D

I'm sure using a 280 just for PhysX would be a megga overkill... But I would never wonder if my PhysX processor was fast enouigh.

Tough decissions. ;)
 
TalonMan said:
Thanks for the post!

I keep wondering if i should just buy a new GPU and scrap my 8600 GT as my dedicated PhysX card. I just re-visited some speed charts, and the 8600 GT is pritty well down at the bottom of the stack...

If a GTX 300 gets produced, I would use my 280 for PhysX and the 300 for GPU. :D

Im's sure using a 280 just for PhysX would be a megga overkill... But I would never wonder if my PhysX processor was fast enouigh.

Tough decissions. ;)
Click to expand...

You'd definitely be set with a 280 as PhysX :p

I've got an 8800GT @ 700|2000 1750 doing my PhysX currently. Time well tell how "good" it is at said duty.

I wish nVidia could get this working in Crysis.
 
Has anyone seen any specs or benchmarks on how much card is needed to let the PhysX work properly? Is an 8600 good enough, or do you need something better? Does it make any difference at this point how fast the PhysX card is?
 
Rockblaster13 said:
Great post thanks, it definitely answers all my questions.

BTW Do you think that my 600 Watt SLi PSU will be able to support the 260GTX and 8800GTS 320MB or do I need to get myself a bigger PSU?
Click to expand...


FWIW, I'm running almost that same setup on an OCZ GameXtreme 600w. 260 doing graphics, 8800gts640 doing physx. I do plan on upgrading the PSU soon though, so I'm not running both and taking the chance of over-stressing the PSU. Should work for a short time though...maybe longer but I'm not going to take the chance :p
 
nst6563 said:
FWIW, I'm running almost that same setup on an OCZ GameXtreme 600w. 260 doing graphics, 8800gts640 doing physx. I do plan on upgrading the PSU soon though, so I'm not running both and taking the chance of over-stressing the PSU. Should work for a short time though...maybe longer but I'm not going to take the chance :p
Click to expand...

Yeah I am kinda scared too to take the chance haha.
 
Forceman said:
Has anyone seen any specs or benchmarks on how much card is needed to let the PhysX work properly? Is an 8600 good enough, or do you need something better? Does it make any difference at this point how fast the PhysX card is?
Click to expand...

I can't spead to that directly, but think an 8600 GT -vs- the official ageia PPU card, the 8600 GT would win that race...

I would love to see a GPU usage meter, like we do for the CPU's.

When XXXX game runs, what % usage would register on an 8600 GT operating as a dedicated PPU.

I guess I want a dedicated PPU % usage meter! :)
 
nst6563 said:
That link doesn't look to compare an 8600gt used solely for physx vs a ppu. Only way to validate the comparison is if someone used say a GTX260/280 for the graphics and compared results when using a PPU and also from an 8600GT (or similiar lower level card) for the physx work.
Click to expand...
I don't have a PPU or I would test performance.
------

The computerbase.de GPU PhysX review shows the AGEIA PPU (+ GTX 280) is a bottleneck vs most single cards w/GPU PhysX enabled (start here): http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/.../#abschnitt_ghost_recon_advanced_warfighter_2 I know there are other benchmarks run at 30" LCD resolution (25x16) which show the PPU helps, but take that for what it's worth in your case, especially if you only have a 1600x1200/1680x1050 or 1920x1200 display.
 
Atech said:
Not in the real world:
http://techgage.com/article/nvidias_physx_performance_and_status_report/
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link!

Page 2: "Surprisingly, adding in the AGEIA PPU did little to to increase our score. The boost from 17.09 op/s to 28.50 op/s might seem impressive, until we take a look at the GPU results".

Dosen't an ageia card only have the ability to calc ageia PhysX, and not Nvidia PhysX?

But an ageia card moves a Vantage score too... Mabey ageia cards calc Nvidia and ageia PhysX? :confused:
My vantage score jumped before my GPU had the ability to process ageia PhysX. I was thinking Vantage was only a Nvidia PhysX test... Guess I'm not too sure on that anymore. :p

If the ageia dedicated PPU was actually calcing Vantage, It supports that it was no monster speed wise. I still believe a 8600 GT acting as a dedicated PPU would smoke it. ;)
"The GPU is so efficient at processing physics calculations that it blows away even the dedicated PPU by more than quadrupling the average results".

"So it seems to me that the dedicated PPU is not up to the task of handling the sheer amount of physics that the GPU can handle. The PPU adds extra cost to a gaming machine, yet offers much lower performance that what we can expect from a GPU".
That was with the added responsibilities of calcing the graphics too. Granted it was an ASUS EN9800GTX 512MB, but even a meger 8600 GT only doing PhysX, would beat the ageia PPU.

There is no slower 8 series card correct? I think the 8600 GT is the slowest GPU that can officially operate as a dedicated PPU. :D

Just made the cutt!
 
K just chucked in my 86gt oc'ed to 675 / 800mem 512meg GDDR3 model, lil bit better than the average 86gt

got a nice 10 - 15 fps jumps in places and instantly noticed an overall smoother performance from warmonger

So yeh, go for it :)
I highly recommend

EDIT : Btw this is running alongside an 88gts512, lol damn i remounted that zalman on the 86 with as5 pretty well, 30 idle :) if i remeber it used to get 38 - 43
 
Try this 'controlled' Warmonger test. :)

My Q6600 is currently @ 3.78Ghz, and single 280 set to Core=691, Shaders=1520, and Memory=1323.

Start WarMongers Tutorial, but don't move. Only spin to the left and put your crosshairs centered directly on the Green gun labled 'Sentinel'. Running Fraps, it held constant at 72 or 73 FPS.

So doing this test, a single 280 doing both PhysX, and Graphics, still will get 73FPS.
 
k done the sentinel test

88gts512 stock 177.79 @ 55fps

88gts512 + 86gt 177.79 @ 72fps

These PhsyX drivers appear to be doing there job really well :)
The little tech demos seem to make little difference even with no acceleration
so i wouldnt use them as any kind of reference
 
Thanks... :)

I forgot to mention, that was 1920x1200 max settings, no vsync.

So man, it's probably going to be hard to tell between my single 280, or 8600 GT doing the Physx. :D

72 or 73 FPS will probably be it...
 
Ouch... Sounds like using an 8600 GT for me as a dedicated PPU, wont be doing my system any favors.

Thanks for the info.

I think I need more card for a PPU...
 
TalonMan said:
Ouch... Sounds like using an 8600 GT for me as a dedicated PPU, wont be doing my system any favors.

Thanks for the info.

I think I need more card for a PPU...
Click to expand...

I don't know - has anyone done any comparisons on different GPUs used for Physx? How much card is really needed - the GPU supposedly kicks the dedicated Ageia card's ass, so how much better is a 9600 than an 8600 - does anyone even know? Does memory on the card matter? For $40 the 8600GT with 256MB would have to be pretty bad not to justify picking one up.
 
Blacklash said:
If I load the Warmonger tutorial and turn to target the sent gun I get 68FPS @ 1920x. That's doing GPU PhysX on my overclocked GTX 260 and with all the game detail sliders right, or max.

http://members.cox.net/malficar3/WMGame 260senttar.jpg
Click to expand...


If I do the same (load tutorial and turn to target the sent gun). I get between 93 and 96 fps with the GTX260 @ 756c/1512s/1188m and the 8800gts640 @ 700c/1600s/1000m doing the physx.



Now when I disable the 8800GTS and have the graphics AND physx done by the GTX260 I get significantly less...almost 20fps less.




:EDIT: OK...wtf is up with my pictures... going to re-upload them and try again...
:EDIT2: Pix fixed.
 
Forceman said:
I don't know - has anyone done any comparisons on different GPUs used for Physx? How much card is really needed - the GPU supposedly kicks the dedicated Ageia card's ass, so how much better is a 9600 than an 8600 - does anyone even know? Does memory on the card matter? For $40 the 8600GT with 256MB would have to be pretty bad not to justify picking one up.
Click to expand...

Thats what i would like to know, if theres only so many extra frames these phsyx can give you regardless of the card its using

Tell ya what though, took 5-6 seconds to load Tutorial in Warmonger on 88gts512 only phsyx and about 1 -2 seconds with a 86gt as phsyx.
 
nst6563 said:
If I do the same (load tutorial and turn to target the sent gun). I get between 93 and 96 fps with the GTX260 @ 756c/1512s/1188m and the 8800gts640 @ 700c/1600s/1000m doing the physx.

Now when I disable the 8800GTS and have the graphics AND physx done by the GTX260 I get significantly less...almost 20fps less.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the post. :)
 
will the physx demos, nurien, fluid demo and the others also be included in this ?
 
AFAIK the ones on nVidia's site will, or at least have links to the downloads.
 
Trying to keep our data recorded... :)

Member ____ CPU / Speed _______ GPU _____ PPU _________ Res ____ Sentinel Test
TalonMan ------- Q6600@3.78GHz ----- GTX 280 ---- None --------- 1920x1200 ------ 72-73FPS

Acoustique ----- XXXXXXXXXXXXX ------- 8800GTS --- None ---------- 1680x1050 ------- 55FPS
Acoustique ----- XXXXXXXXXXXXX ------- 8800GTS --- 8600 GT ----- 1680x1050 ------- 72FPS

nst6563 ---------- Q6600@3.6GHz ------ GTX 260 ---- None ---------- 1440x900 --------- 79FPS
nst6563 ---------- Q6600@3.6GHz ------ GTX 260 ---- 8800 GTS --- 1440x900 -------- 93-96FPS

Is this correct? ;)
 
TalonMan said:
Trying to keep our data recorded... :)

Member ____ CPU / Speed _______ GPU _____ PPU _________ Res ____ Sentinel Test
TalonMan ------- Q6600@3.78GHz ----- GTX 280 ---- None --------- 1920x1200 ------ 72-73FPS

Acoustique ----- XXXXXXXXXXXXX ------- 8800GTS --- None ---------- 1680x1050 ------- 55FPS
Acoustique ----- XXXXXXXXXXXXX ------- 8800GTS --- 8600 GT ----- 1680x1050 ------- 72FPS

nst6563 ---------- Q6600@3.6GHz ------ GTX 260 ---- None ---------- 1440x900 --------- 79FPS
nst6563 ---------- Q6600@3.6GHz ------ GTX 260 ---- 8800 GTS --- 1440x900 -------- 93-96FPS

Is this correct? ;)
Click to expand...

I migh chime in, just for the fun of it...but need to sort a driver bug on FreeBSD first.
(Because I own a PPU, and with out one of those in the bag, this chart says nothing)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top