Yeah they do.Do 32bit PhysX/CUDA applications run on 40 series cards with the newest driver?
Yes, old drivers also work on Kepler cards but new ones don't. Your point?Except that it still works on every other NVIDIA card. 32-bit CUDA and PhysX didn't disappear anywhere, only RTX 50 support for them did.
New drivers support Maxwell and up including 32-bit CUDA & PhysX. Driver support didn't disappear anywhere either.Yes, old drivers also work on Kepler cards but new ones don't. Your point?
And new CUDA support only 64 bit starting with Blackwell. If I were to guess driver support for everything pre-Turing will also stop at some point in the near future. What is so new about that?New drivers support Maxwell and up including 32-bit CUDA & PhysX. Driver support didn't disappear anywhere either.
Nothing? That's not the point, as you know. The point has been made clear already in this threadAnd new CUDA support only 64 bit starting with Blackwell. If I were to guess driver support for everything pre-Turing will also stop at some point in the near future. What is so new about that?
So what is the point? A company must support a deprecated API for eternity even if the platform it runs on is unsupported now so that a dozen (and I'm being generous) of 10YO+ games would still work with all features they have?Nothing? That's not the point, as you know. The point has been made clear already in this thread
Actual versions 4-5 are, these older ones which were bought with Ageia (v2) or launched soon after (v3) are not however.Is Physx open sourced enough for a wrapper to be written?
Definitely agree with the general sentiment and I say that it really extends beyond PhysX itself and should include 32-bit CUDA in general.I think Nvidia needs to open source all GPU PhysX up until the cut off date which is no longer supported by RTX 5000. I am going to push hard for that publicly.
As the backward compatability performance on RTX 5000+ into the future is completely unacceptable in these classic PC titles.
View attachment 13188
While it is completely ironic that this makes dedicated physX GPUs a real option again, it is not good for Backward Compatability in general. We should want these games preserved as much as possible in a forward looking way without massive compromises to playability. That is the PCs strength as a platform and we should push its caretakers (Nvidia, AMD, Intel, Microsoft) to make sure that is the case.
The same reason people should light fires underneath intels feet when its drivers are poor in DX11 or DX9 titles.
How does GPUZ determine things like ROP count?![]()
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 Spotted with Missing ROPs, Performance Loss Confirmed
TechPowerUp has discovered that there are NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 graphics cards in retail circulation that come with too few render units, which lowers performance. Zotac's GeForce RTX 5090 Solid comes with fewer ROPs than it should—168 are enabled, instead of the 176 that are part of the RTX...www.techpowerup.com
At least some of Zotac 5090s are missing 8 ROPs
My GTX970 is peeking at me from it's box in the corner of my room.Update 17:36 UTC:
Just to clarify, because it has been asked a couple of times. When no driver is installed, GPU-Z will use an internal database as fallback, to show a hardcoded ROP count of 176, instead of "Unknown." This is a reasonable approximation, because all previous cards had a fixed, immutable ROP count. As soon as the driver is installed, GPU-Z will report the "live" ROP counts active on the GPU—this data is read via the NVIDIA drivers.
![]()
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 Spotted with Missing ROPs, Performance Loss Confirmed
TechPowerUp has discovered that there are NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 graphics cards in retail circulation that come with too few render units, which lowers performance. Zotac's GeForce RTX 5090 Solid comes with fewer ROPs than it should—168 are enabled, instead of the 176 that are part of the RTX...www.techpowerup.com
At least some of Zotac 5090s are missing 8 ROPs