• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Nvidia PhysX 8.07.18 Driver

Status
Not open for further replies.
Im definately confused then, as he said you get a boost not a frame drop. so how come the 280 is struggling with it, and the 9600 GT is getting crippled. :confused:
 
Last edited:
"Something odd there then, everyones saying PhysX gives no hit on performance."
It depends on the map and settings. Sometimes its a boost sometimes its a drop. If you turn the physics up to extreme level you get a performance drop. Leave the physics at normal level and you get a boost.
 
What, where on earth did you get that from? If the physics level stays the same you get a boost. Pretty much all if not all the benchmarks show that. There are no benchmarks showing a drop the GPU is always faster then the CPU when the CPU is at the same deatil settings as the GPU.
 
Totally confused me, i agree theres no benchmarks showing a drop in performance, but how come someone with a 9600 GT is taking a big hit and someone with a 280 is taking a hit, surely a hit = drop.
 
Last edited:
willhub is obviously making stuff up again, there is no benches showing a a drop in performance when physx is enabled.

have a look here: http://www.hothardware.com/Articles/NVIDIA-GPU-PhysX-Pack-Preview/?page=3

especially at warmonger, going by those results a 8600gt with physx enabled will be around the same speed as a 4850hd.

im very excited about all this cuda stuff, waiting on the video encoding now.

i can see how this physx stuff has got the ati users all stressed up ;)
 
Pottsey said:
What, where on earth did you get that from? If the physics level stays the same you get a boost. Pretty much all if not all the benchmarks show that. There are no benchmarks showing a drop the GPU is always faster then the CPU when the CPU is at the same deatil settings as the GPU.
Click to expand...

Guru3d, GRAW 2.

Mav is a ******* TW@T.
 
"Totally confused me, i agree theres no benchmarks showing a drop in performance, but how come someone with a 9600 GT is taking a big hit and someone with a 280 is taking a hit, surely a hit = drop."
Look at it like this.

Normal mode CPU physics 60fps
Normal mode GPU physics 70fps
Extra physics CPU 10fps
Extra physics GPU 50fps.

But then again another game might be
Normal mode CPU physics 60fps
Normal mode GPU physics 70fps
Extra physics CPU 55fps
Extra physics GPU 65ps.
 
I can't see how ATi users would get stressed, if they want Nvidia's PhysX then they just download the drivers, whats the big deal when Nvidia users have to download drivers to get it as well.
 
I dont think its as simple as that someone had to make it work on ATI cards (think it was actually a Nvidia peep).

ATI have been offered it freely, that's up to them to implement it though.

BTW, I would like this thread to stay on topic of the new drivers due not a Dedicated PPU or ATI cards, thanks. :)
 
" Guru3d, GRAW 2.
Mav is a ******* TW@T."
The CPU score is at normal physics while GPU has been pushed past high up to extreme physics.

If you put the CPU to the same physics level as the GPU the GPU is much faster.

They said "The first thing I noticed, much more tree movement based on wind, loads of crap (debris) flying through the air again based on wind direction. Also dust clouds, which might even be soft particle based, were moving over the ground. Immediately the game got a little more immersive, though our framerate dropped a little overall, the experience is much richer than what we are used to. There's just much more happening on that screen. "

So your loseing a few FPS to gain all of the above. Or you can skip the above and gain more fps. Its your choice. I dont know why they put the CPU on normal and GPU on extreme physics. It should have been CPU and GPU normal, CPU and GPU extreme physics
 
Now I want a reply to this, but not a reply from mav.

So before PhysX support, the 9800GTX was slower but quite abit than say a 4870, once this PhysX support is enabled, if I moved to a 9800GTX would it be an upgrade now?
 
"So before PhysX support, the 9800GTX was slower but quite abit than say a 4870, once this PhysX support is enabled, if I moved to a 9800GTX would it be an upgrade now?"
Its not worth upgrading due to PhysX yet. There just are not enough games with support. The speed increase only works in 2 full games right now. With 10 due soon. You might gain FPS in those two games but you will lose FPS in other games. I dont know much about the 4870 I will take your word for it that its faster then a 9800GTX.

So yeah it's an upgrade for those 2 games. it's a downgrade for all other games.
 
helmutcheese said:
I dont think its as simple as that someone had to make it work on ATI cards (think it was actually a Nvidia peep).
Click to expand...

Its no big deal though, so what if you want PhysX drivers for your ATi card you gota get them from NGO, its exactly the same as Nvidia users having to get their graphics drivers from Xfastest.
 
Pottsey said:
"So before PhysX support, the 9800GTX was slower but quite abit than say a 4870, once this PhysX support is enabled, if I moved to a 9800GTX would it be an upgrade now?"
Its not worth upgrading due to PhysX yet. There just are not enough games with support. The speed increase only works in 2 full games right now. With 10 due soon. You might gain FPS in those two games but you will lose FPS in other games. I dont know much about the 4870 I will take your word for it that its faster then a 9800GTX.

So yeah it's an upgrade for those 2 games. it's a downgrade for all other games.
Click to expand...

From reviews the 4870 is faster than a 9800GTX+, GTX260. I guess if I downgraded to upgrade to a 9800GTX, and then the 4870 got PhysX then I'd be back to square one no?
 
Lets wait and see what happens. The 4870 might get support yet, untill there are more games its best to just wait. I dont know enough but how and if ATI cards will get support. Perhaps they will get support and be faster, or perhaps the support is bad and they get slower. Who knows.
 
what willhub fails to understand is this:

ut3hr.png


with physics turn off in the game you get up to 66fps. results will be same ish for ati card since no cards are doing physics since its completly turned off.

now, if you turn on the ingame physics to run software based, as all ati cards currently do the fps plummets down to 11.4 in that benchtest.

now if you have hardware physics processing e.g cuda physx, enable that and your fps shoots from 11.4fps up to 40.1fps.

all of a sudded an 8600gt using cuda physics ends up around the same speed as a 4870 doing software physics.
 
The 4870 has support for cuda support, all it takes is someone to make drivers which proberbly will happen but due to the fact you're such a **** you wont take it in.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom