GeForce PhysX for all GF8/9 with FW175.16

Discussion in '3D Hardware, Software & Output Devices' started by AnarchX, Jun 25, 2008.

  1. Scali

    Regular

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,127
    Likes Received:
    0
    I buy reasonably high-end cards aswell.
    Ironically I use onboard for gaming, because my high-end cards are semi-professional cards for Digital Audio Workstation usage, and as such deliver little more than just a very high quality stereo signal. They don't support 5.1 or EAX or any other 3d/sound processing effects.
    However, I did specifically select a motherboard with a Soundmax chip and DTS Connect, which I connect to my amp via spdif :)
    At the time there weren't many other ways to even get DTS Connect, common Soundblasters didn't support it.
     
  2. trinibwoy

    trinibwoy Meh
    Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    Messages:
    10,430
    Likes Received:
    433
    Location:
    New York
    For gaming?

    I still have the Audigy 2 I bought years ago but don't know if I would do the same today if I were in the market for a new card given all the issues with EAX support in Vista.
     
  3. Mintmaster

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2002
    Messages:
    3,897
    Likes Received:
    87
    This is the key. Not only do NVidia/AGEIA have absolutely no motivation for optimizing the CPU code (as Nick has shown), but the rigid body physics in these demos is way below the capability of todays CPU, so there's nothing special there.

    The only things that slightly impressed me were the cloth and soft-body effects. Even the fluid simulation, which is one case I will fully accept would be slower on a CPU even when optimized, looked rather cheesy. All the other stuff was decidedly lame and gimmicky.
     
  4. SirPauly

    Regular

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2002
    Messages:
    491
    Likes Received:
    14
    This is the key to me:

    Tend to look at this as adding value and to try to add more immersion with more dynamic game-play.
     
  5. zealotonous

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2007
    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wasn't it Walt who wrote the same kind of "prose" when SLI first was introduced by Nvidia? :roll:

    I agree though. Why would we be against another possible enhancement to the gaming experience? The correct answer is noone in their right mind would look at this negatively.
     
  6. ShaidarHaran

    ShaidarHaran hardware monkey
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2007
    Messages:
    3,984
    Likes Received:
    34
    I don't think anyone here is against enhanced and accelerated physics - what people are against are lack-luster physics implementations coughPhysXcough that add little to nothing to overall immersion and detract significantly from framerates.
     
  7. Florin

    Florin Merrily dodgy
    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,648
    Likes Received:
    219
    Location:
    The colonies
    Because it's 'gratuitous' and because of some absurd conjecture about the possible negative effect of some thick sheets of hail in some as of yet undefined future game. Obviously.

    I wish people would just be honest and say they don't like it because it's Nvidia pushing it. What if ATI doesn't have the manpower to put a team of coders on it, it's still cool.

    Similarly, all this gameplay over graphics stuff is just hogwash too. We wouldn't be on this forum if we weren't interested in cutting edge virtual reality, and physics is just a part of that. Just face it, the future is gonna be full of gratuitous and downright gaudy over the top physics, and we're gonna love it.
     
  8. pjbliverpool

    pjbliverpool B3D Scallywag
    Legend

    Joined:
    May 8, 2005
    Messages:
    7,583
    Likes Received:
    703
    Location:
    Guess...
    I agree that what we have seen make use of hardware accelerated physics so far has been pretty poor. But to translate that into PhysX on a GPU being rubbish is no different than saying the GTX280 and 4870X2 are rubbish because what we are seeing from them graphics wise is crap compared to what they are capable of producing.

    PhysX on a GPU simply adds tons more raw processing power to your PC and it does so for free (if your on an upgrade path like myself). That can only be a good thing. Whether the devs use it properly is almost a seperate issue. Fact is, if its not there in the first place they definatly can't use it. At least now they have the option.
     
  9. Scali

    Regular

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,127
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just the usual story: we're waiting for that 'killer-app' that makes PhysX something that no gamer wants to be without.
     
  10. Davros

    Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    14,891
    Likes Received:
    2,307
    I was just wondering, not too long ago there was a poll "what is your next gfx card upgrade"
    for those people who voted ati has physx changed your mind at all considering its not really known if it can be done on ati cards
     
    #230 Davros, Aug 16, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 16, 2008
  11. Scali

    Regular

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,127
    Likes Received:
    0
  12. Davros

    Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    14,891
    Likes Received:
    2,307
    From ozone :
    " If you do not have a GeForce graphics card, you have to install the PhysX System Software 8.08.01. You might also need the CUDA DLL (this DLL has to be copied in the benchmark folder if your Forceware drivers are < 177.79 or if you don't have a GeForce"

    does this mean it can be done on radeons ? anyone tried ?
    more importantly to me does this mean i can get physx running on a 7600gt as a second card dedicated to physx ?
     
  13. trinibwoy

    trinibwoy Meh
    Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    Messages:
    10,430
    Likes Received:
    433
    Location:
    New York
    Yep, I have seen nothing that indicates PhysX is inherently rubbish. That's like saying DirectX or OpenGL is inherently rubbish.
     
  14. trinibwoy

    trinibwoy Meh
    Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    Messages:
    10,430
    Likes Received:
    433
    Location:
    New York
    Cool.

    1680x1050 16xMSAA

    (Software) Wolfdale 3.6Ghz: 17 FPS
    (Hardware) 8800GTS (G80) - 600/1600/900: 60 FPS

    Looks pretty shitty though....probably needs a lot more particles than that to make it look like a real fluid.
     
  15. trinibwoy

    trinibwoy Meh
    Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    Messages:
    10,430
    Likes Received:
    433
    Location:
    New York
    Just tried Nurien. We're not quite there yet but I don't care what anybody says. The fact that my two year old video card can now effectively process both 3D and physics workloads with a driver update is friggin impressive. Whether or not PhysX catches on it definitely has brought physics into the limelight and people will start paying attention. I wonder how the folks at Valve feel about it....HL2 was big on physics.
     
  16. Scali

    Regular

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,127
    Likes Received:
    0
    In theory it could work on Radeon, but not in practice (yet?).
    You can only run it on a Radeon with CPU physics, which still requires you to install the PhysX runtime, obviously.
    There are rumours that someone ported the Cuda code for PhysX to Radeons, but other than a screenshot of a modified PhysX control panel and a 3DMark Vantage result screen, nobody has actually seen it in action, and there's nothing to download for anyone to try out.
    Smells like a hoax to me, bit like the Alky DX10-on-XP stuff. Lots of people on forums seemed to be convinced that it actually worked, even though it didn't. All you need is some fake screenshots and some hype, people WANT to believe :)

    No, you must have at least an 8-series card. The 7-series and lower don't have an architecture that supports Cuda, and as such cannot be used for PhysX acceleration. Not now, not ever.
     
  17. Davros

    Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    14,891
    Likes Received:
    2,307
    bah :(

    regarding radeons ozone seem to think physx is working on them or they wouldnt be printing instructions for radeon users
     
  18. Scali

    Regular

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,127
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, they say that you might need to put the Cuda dll in the directory manually, because Radeon drivers don't have Cuda.
    They don't make any claims that Radeons would accelerate PhysX, they just say that it might not run without the Cuda dll (but that's just a dependency, the Cuda dll won't be able to do anything on a Radeon card). Even if it runs, it will use CPU physics.
     
  19. Florin

    Florin Merrily dodgy
    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,648
    Likes Received:
    219
    Location:
    The colonies
    Unfortunately CUDA means 8xxx series and up. I don't think this is going to change.
     
  20. trinibwoy

    trinibwoy Meh
    Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    Messages:
    10,430
    Likes Received:
    433
    Location:
    New York
    Gamebryo adopts PhysX - http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/08/19/physx-gets-integrated-leading.

     
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...