PhysX on nvidia 8-series card?

just curious if this is possible. new forceware drivers:
http://www.laptopvideo2go.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=19159

 

I really hope it's possible . But it's a little late right now so I'll try it tommorow morning.

 

imagine the dramatic performance boost for flight sim and FPS like crysis.

 

many have got it to work with g92 based 8 series cards but i dont think they work for the g80 cards yet, will have to wait a week or two longer, but nvidia said they will eventually support physx on the 8, 9, and 200 series cards for sure

 

For things 'like' those, but not those two as neither uses PhysX.

As for the boost in performance, it won't boost performance much, it should boost effects at less of a penalty, because since it's nV only it will be like with Ageia, one path for PhysX and one path without, anything else would kill sales of a title.

We needed an IHV agnostic API like DirectPhysics open to all, not proprietary ones.

 

i would imagine enabling more physics in these gpu's would hurt frames right? its just stressing the gpu out more and taking stress of the cpu

 

It might, like in GRAW, but it doesn't have to if it reduced the CPU physics load enough and just increased the load for objects by enough to offset each other.

But the CPU is still the thing that stitches everything together so having more interactive objects and more objects to draw, occlude, texture/materials manage means more work for both the CPU & GPU. So where it was CPU bottlenecked or nearly bottlenecked it would show noticeable drops compared to without.

The best scenario is when you have a game that can't use anywhere near all it's CPU power, if it had a free core then it might not experience a performance dip.

 

Flight simx don't use physX. But I'm pretty sure Cuda would boost perfs.

 

I installed 177.39, and it gave a little performance boost. I also installed the PhysX driver just to see what would happen, and well, here is the result.

 

I'd love to play those AGEIA PhysX Unreal Tournament 3 maps with actual supported hardware.... can't wait for the driver!

 

well i have some friends who could enable Physx on Mobile cards, but still dont know about the performance gains

 

well having using the gpu for physics rendering on top of everything else it does will impact performance on the lower end 8 9 series, no ?

 

I ran ran i on my 8600GT and i got the same results on directx2006demo before and after PhysX with the same driver 177.35

directx2006demo shows the PhysX logo when the benchmark starts!

 

One common misconception (don't know why) is that a PhysX card or a PhysX enabled video card will improve performance.

Well, truth is, they do not. They will make objects on screen look and act more real life like but won't improve framerates at all. That includes more realistic looking fire, smoke, particles or object interaction such as characters on screen not moving like a rag doll when flying through the air.

It MAY hurt framerates, yes, but that won't matter if you're not playing the benchmark numbers game or are strained on system resources. The purpose of Physx is not to improve framerates but to make things act more realistic.

 

it can improve the FPS in some cases, like some UT3 maps, where there isnt that much load on the GPU anyway, but if Physx was in a game lets say Like Far Cry 2 or Crysis, it will murder the GPU performance., anyways, lets say Physx did improve performance, then a single Core CPU will do for the heaviest game in the planet in the next 10 years aint i right?

 

You're right. Although some games may show a small improvement in performance, the main purpose of PhysX is physics execution, not graphics acceleration.

 

It says that the drivers enable it only for the GT2x series.

If it works,I`ll let you guys know as soon as my Dell arrives.

 

There's no PhysX support in Crysis, Crytek use their own physics API not Novodex/PhysX.

 

Yes and no.

If all it's doing is amplifying the Physics load, then yeah it won't improve performance, however if it were a more universal API then if the game was relying on multi-core CPUs to achieve the same task then adding a resource that did that workload would help framerates,maybe even significantly because it would do it more efficiently than the CPU.

However since this is still a niche product, it's not taking over for an already stressed CPU, instead just adding things to the workload.
That will be the biggest drawback, as long as it's not some universal API like DirectPhysics, then it will be an add-on feature not a core item, which keeps it demo-like with gimmicky sort of add-ons than something integral to the game.

 

i'm not trying to hijack the topic, but Grats which one?

 

It should come later for the rest though. DX10 has physics done by the GPU so they can do physics randering.

I believe the case where physX boosts performance is when the CPU is the bottleneck

 

XPS 1730...

All the 8th series were rumored to be able to simulate physX after Nvidia aquired Ageia , with a software patch.
Sounds like this could be it,in the near future.

 

I don't mine framerate goes down, as long as trees fall down like the way it should be.

 

The first physX that I saw used on gpu for graphics and another for the physics, it was because there is a overhead when changing from graphics mode to gpgpu mode. Does someone knows if they fixed it?

Also, there will be framerates drops if the game is already gpu limited.