Guru3D.com Forums

Go Back   Guru3D.com Forums > Videocards > Videocards - AMD - ATI Drivers Section
Videocards - AMD - ATI Drivers Section In this section you can discuss everything Catalyst related. AMD Catalyst drivers are for all AMD ATI based graphics cards. This is also the place to discuss modified Catalyst drivers.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old
  (#26)
snaipo
Newbie
 
Videocard: 780
Processor: 2500k
Mainboard:
Memory:
Soundcard:
PSU: tx650
Default 05-01-2012, 10:48 | posts: 22



my cfg: 2500k/6970 12.4whql and i have 20-60fps in fight against boss-spider. gpu usage 99%. its not physx
   
Reply With Quote
 
Old
  (#27)
Valagard
Maha Guru
 
Videocard: Asus DirectCU II 7970 Top
Processor: i7 4770K 4.3Ghz
Mainboard: ASUS Z87-Pro
Memory: 16Gig Corsair Vengeance
Soundcard: Sound Blaster Z
PSU: Corsair TX750
Default 05-01-2012, 14:24 | posts: 1,068

Quote:
Originally Posted by sykozis View Post
Figured it was a typo, but wanted to make sure people have the right info.



Older PhysX is limited to a single CPU core as it's bound by the restrictions placed on the x87 instruction set by Intel....which only allows for a single thread using x87 instructions to run at a time.

x87 was actually moved to "legacy support" prior to Ageia coming into existance. They chose to use x87 for PhysX to give their PPU an advantage due to having the intent of selling PhysX after it was established. nVidia actually had no part in gimping PhysX when run on CPU....that was done by Ageia. nVidia was just in no hurry to correct the situation.
I remember running PhysX tests on my Phenom, PHENOM, not Phenom II, using a Phenom and having it max out all 4 cores, and it was physx 1-2

PhysX has always been able to multi-thread, its just older versions were limited by the amount of logical cores, newer versions 3.0 and up can make unlimited threads

And that's lawyer double talk "They were in no hurry to to correct the situation" my ass, they never intended to fix it, they knew this was an issue -YEARS- ago, its only when they were caught fudging the results did they actually give a damn and fix it

Last edited by Valagard; 05-01-2012 at 14:37.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#28)
Valagard
Maha Guru
 
Videocard: Asus DirectCU II 7970 Top
Processor: i7 4770K 4.3Ghz
Mainboard: ASUS Z87-Pro
Memory: 16Gig Corsair Vengeance
Soundcard: Sound Blaster Z
PSU: Corsair TX750
Default 05-01-2012, 14:33 | posts: 1,068

Quote:
Originally Posted by kn00tcn View Post
just cuz something uses physx doesnt mean it's designed for gpu physx with a ton of particles, that's only a (relatively) small amount of games

most physx usage in games is on the cpu for both nv & ati, identical to the console version of such a game (just like havok, etc)
False, versions of PhysX on computers is not the same as PhysX on consoles, which is actually written for multi-threading like 3.0+ PhysX CPU for PC's

That's where the huge scandal came from, some tech site decompiled and monitored the physx code, and versions older then 3.0 for PC/Mac would only run as many threads as you had logical cores. This would absolutely cripple it.

The tech site then went into physx on Consoles (PS3/360) and found out that they freely run physx on the CPU, not GPU like nvidia said. That and the CPU was having no problems running the high levels of PhysX which was crippling games in the PC versions running the same amount of effects

Further picking apart physx they found out why, it was using x87 code, it was limited by as many threads as logical cores, it capped itself on memory use etc etc etc. The whole thing blew up in Nvidia's face

Nvidia said "We are not purposely crippling PhysX" and then two months later Physx 3.0 launched, and GPU advantage of PhysX vanished entirely, a four core Phenom II can run PhysX 2-3x as fast as a GTX 580 now

And for those of you saying Nvidia wasn't purposely crippling physx on CPU, try to explain why Batman Arkham City, which uses the newest versions of Unreal 3.5+ engine, got shackled with a older outdated version of Physx? Several developers have already admitted they were forced to use the older PhysX at Nvidia's demand since they were sponsering the game, if they weren't trying to push PhysX GPU to try and sell videocards, why didn't they allow Rocksteady to use the newest versions of PhysX?


@Snaipo: Binary Domain uses PhysX, its just written into the game code itself

Last edited by Valagard; 05-01-2012 at 14:41.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#29)
TwL
Maha Guru
 
TwL's Avatar
 
Videocard: 2x5850 2x6950 + 9800GTX
Processor: I7-980 + I5-2500K
Mainboard: UD7+ROG & P8Z68-V Deluxe
Memory: Elpida Hyper
Soundcard: RealTek
PSU: OCZ GXS 850w+1200w
Default 05-01-2012, 15:04 | posts: 1,828 | Location: Finland

Quote:
Originally Posted by teleguy View Post
Even older PhysX versions have multithreading support however it's up to game developers to implement it.
This is absolutely incorrect information by all means.

Check your facts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Valagard View Post
And for those of you saying Nvidia wasn't purposely crippling physx on CPU, try to explain why Batman Arkham City, which uses the newest versions of Unreal 3.5+ engine, got shackled with a older outdated version of Physx? Several developers have already admitted they were forced to use the older PhysX at Nvidia's demand since they were sponsering the game, if they weren't trying to push PhysX GPU to try and sell videocards, why didn't they allow Rocksteady to use the newest versions of PhysX?

and this is heh, so far from truth you have no idea it seems what you are even talking about. As for your information Batman Arkham City was released on a physX platform which as of TODAY haven't yet been implemented on publicly released PhysX which has an physx block reset and has to separately registered as new physx engine(2.8.4.1) to your machine registry to be able to be hacked.

Last edited by TwL; 05-01-2012 at 15:13.
   
Reply With Quote
 
Old
  (#30)
Spets
Maha Guru
 
Spets's Avatar
 
Videocard: GTX780Ti+GTX750Ti+G-Sync
Processor: Intel Core i7 2600k @ 4.5
Mainboard: GA-Z68X-UD7-B3
Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws 16gb 2133
Soundcard:
PSU: EVGA SuperNOVA
Default 05-01-2012, 15:12 | posts: 2,053

Quote:
The tech site then went into physx on Consoles (PS3/360) and found out that they freely run physx on the CPU, not GPU like nvidia said. That and the CPU was having no problems running the high levels of PhysX which was crippling games in the PC versions running the same amount of effects
When did Nv say consoles are running GPU PhysX?
What console game runs "high" PhysX compared to PC? As far as I know they all run on low, which is easily supported on cpu's with the lack of particles.

Quote:
Further picking apart physx they found out why, it was using x87 code, it was limited by as many threads as logical cores, it capped itself on memory use etc etc etc. The whole thing blew up in Nvidia's face
This isn't a surprise, they're using Ageia's original code, PhysX 3.x is a rebuild.

Quote:
Nvidia said "We are not purposely crippling PhysX" and then two months later Physx 3.0 launched, and GPU advantage of PhysX vanished entirely, a four core Phenom II can run PhysX 2-3x as fast as a GTX 580 now
GPU advantage hasn't vanished, and there's a huge difference in the amount of particles a 580 can handle compared a PhenomII, I'd like to see the review on this too.

Quote:
And for those of you saying Nvidia wasn't purposely crippling physx on CPU, try to explain why Batman Arkham City, which uses the newest versions of Unreal 3.5+ engine, got shackled with a older outdated version of Physx? Several developers have already admitted they were forced to use the older PhysX at Nvidia's demand since they were sponsering the game, if they weren't trying to push PhysX GPU to try and sell videocards, why didn't they allow Rocksteady to use the newest versions of PhysX?
This has me interested, I thought certain modules of PhysX 3.x still need a lot of work to run properly, don't think Apex was working on v3 until the more recent months. Don't think it's exactly ready to be in games.
Can you link me to the article?
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#31)
Redemption80
Ancient Guru
 
Redemption80's Avatar
 
Videocard: MSI GTX 570
Processor: i7-2600K @ 4.5ghz
Mainboard: Asus P8P67 PRO Intel P67
Memory: G.Skill RipJawsX 8GB
Soundcard: ASUS Xonar D2
PSU: Corsair GS800
Default 05-01-2012, 15:26 | posts: 14,812 | Location: Glasgow

Quote:
Originally Posted by Valagard View Post
False, versions of PhysX on computers is not the same as PhysX on consoles, which is actually written for multi-threading like 3.0+ PhysX CPU for PC's

That's where the huge scandal came from, some tech site decompiled and monitored the physx code, and versions older then 3.0 for PC/Mac would only run as many threads as you had logical cores. This would absolutely cripple it.

The tech site then went into physx on Consoles (PS3/360) and found out that they freely run physx on the CPU, not GPU like nvidia said. That and the CPU was having no problems running the high levels of PhysX which was crippling games in the PC versions running the same amount of effects

Further picking apart physx they found out why, it was using x87 code, it was limited by as many threads as logical cores, it capped itself on memory use etc etc etc. The whole thing blew up in Nvidia's face

Nvidia said "We are not purposely crippling PhysX" and then two months later Physx 3.0 launched, and GPU advantage of PhysX vanished entirely, a four core Phenom II can run PhysX 2-3x as fast as a GTX 580 now

And for those of you saying Nvidia wasn't purposely crippling physx on CPU, try to explain why Batman Arkham City, which uses the newest versions of Unreal 3.5+ engine, got shackled with a older outdated version of Physx? Several developers have already admitted they were forced to use the older PhysX at Nvidia's demand since they were sponsering the game, if they weren't trying to push PhysX GPU to try and sell videocards, why didn't they allow Rocksteady to use the newest versions of PhysX?


@Snaipo: Binary Domain uses PhysX, its just written into the game code itself
Which “tech site” ran that article, as absolutely none of that is true, and I’m surprised you were gullible to believe it, as from a logical point of view it makes no sense.

It’s not they could have been mistaken either, they must of went out their way to just lie, and just let the anti Nvidia propaganda machine do the rest for them.

What console games did this site find that had all the PC GPU PhysX effects, but ran them freely on the CPU.

Batman AC uses older versions of PhysX as 3.0 wasn’t out when they started the game, not because Nvidia forced them to use an older version.
What many AMD users don’t know is that, 2.8.x isn’t optimised for the GPU either, so it wouldn’t make any sense to force dev’s to use the older one when 3.0 is much more optimised for GPU use, and would of made Nvidia GPU’s look better.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#32)
teleguy
Maha Guru
 
Videocard: GTX 780 GHz/HD7970
Processor: i7 3770K/Phenom 1055T
Mainboard: P8Z77-V/880G Extreme3
Memory: DDR3 8 GB/DDR3 8 GB
Soundcard: Asus Xonar DS
PSU: Corsair 750W/Coolerm 800W
Default 05-01-2012, 15:30 | posts: 1,115

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwL View Post
This is absolutely incorrect information by all means.

Check your facts.
Really?

Quote:
The main feature of this new version is the support of multi-core CPU. Actually multi-core CPU is a trendy way to tell that PhysX FluidMark is now multi-threaded. FluidMark has several threads: the main app thread (GUI), the rendering thread and one or several PhysX threads. PhysX threads are only created when Multi-core PhysX is checked.

This version of FluidMark has been compiled with the latest PhysX SDK v2.8.3.21

http://www.geeks3d.com/20100521/gpu-...e-cpu-support/
Quote:
Here is the reply of Nadeem Mohammad, NVIDIA’s PhysX director of product management, to AMD’s accusations:

I have been a member of the PhysX team, first with AEGIA, and then with Nvidia, and I can honestly say that since the merger with Nvidia there have been no changes to the SDK code which purposely reduces the software performance of PhysX or its use of CPU multi-cores.

Our PhysX SDK API is designed such that thread control is done explicitly by the application developer, not by the SDK functions themselves. One of the best examples is 3DMarkVantage which can use 12 threads while running in software-only PhysX. This can easily be tested by anyone with a multi-core CPU system and a PhysX-capable GeForce GPU. This level of multi-core support and programming methodology has not changed since day one. And to anticipate another ridiculous claim, it would be nonsense to say we “tuned” PhysX multi-core support for this case.

PhysX is a cross platform solution. Our SDKs and tools are available for the Wii, PS3, Xbox 360, the PC and even the iPhone through one of our partners. We continue to invest substantial resources into improving PhysX support on ALL platforms–not just for those supporting GPU acceleration.

As is par for the course, this is yet another completely unsubstantiated accusation made by an employee of one of our competitors. I am writing here to address it directly and call it for what it is, completely false. Nvidia PhysX fully supports multi-core CPUs and multithreaded applications, period. Our developer tools allow developers to design their use of PhysX in PC games to take full advantage of multi-core CPUs and to fully use the multithreaded capabilities.
http://www.geeks3d.com/20100121/nvid...bled-in-physx/
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#33)
Sr7
Master Guru
 
Videocard:
Processor:
Mainboard:
Memory:
Soundcard:
PSU:
Default 05-01-2012, 15:37 | posts: 246

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwL View Post
This is absolutely incorrect information by all means.

Check your facts.
Actually no he's absolutely correct. NVIDIA has stated exactly what he said in multiple interviews. There was no automagic CPU threading with PhysX versions 2.8 and prior but devs could thread it themselves.

Also after all the x87 complaints, aomeone did a test and confirmed it had negligible effects on perf vs x86. Just because of one article a bunch of people jumped to conclusions.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#34)
XBEAST
Maha Guru
 
Videocard: MSI GTX 770 Gaming
Processor: Intel Core i5 2500K
Mainboard: Gigabyte Z68A-D3
Memory: Patriot 12GB 1600MHz CL9
Soundcard: Realtek On-Board
PSU: Seasonic S12II-620 Bronze
Default 05-01-2012, 17:59 | posts: 1,599 | Location: Unknown

More http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,8...x-und-Co/News/

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4A guy
That's the common misconception that PhysX 2.X cannot be multithreaded. Actually it is internally designed to be multithreaded! The only thing – it takes some programmer time to enable that multi-threading (actually task generation), mostly to integrate with engine task-model and ensure proper load-balancing.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#35)
snaipo
Newbie
 
Videocard: 780
Processor: 2500k
Mainboard:
Memory:
Soundcard:
PSU: tx650
Default 05-01-2012, 19:45 | posts: 22

Quote:
Originally Posted by Valagard View Post
@Snaipo: Binary Domain uses PhysX, its just written into the game code itself
- i can run game without installed physx
- i have huge drop fps when gpu usage 99%. afaik physx uses cpu, not gpu.
so, no physx in binary domain. bad optimisation of ati drivers
   
Reply With Quote
 
Old
  (#36)
kn00tcn
Maha Guru
 
kn00tcn's Avatar
 
Videocard: Sapphire 4870x2
Processor: Intel Q9550 3.6ghz
Mainboard: Asus P5Q-E
Memory: OCZ 2x2gb 5-4-4-15 840mhz
Soundcard:
PSU: Corsair 750TX
Default 05-01-2012, 21:19 | posts: 1,587 | Location: Toronto



-what i should have said by 'identical' was 'lightweight' cpu based, so for example, (excluding the gpu physx games) UE3 has always been physx since 2006, it's not crippled or too slow on non nv cards since it runs on the cpu for everyone+consoles

-some engines just need an adjustment for ati (nfs shift 1 on launch! lost planet 2 currently is quite slower), slowdowns arent always caused by too much physics

-the x87 stuff is curious, since i remember when skyrim came out, someone did some basic recompile to x86 & the minimum fps went way up

-does anyone have railworks+nvidia card?
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#37)
Valagard
Maha Guru
 
Videocard: Asus DirectCU II 7970 Top
Processor: i7 4770K 4.3Ghz
Mainboard: ASUS Z87-Pro
Memory: 16Gig Corsair Vengeance
Soundcard: Sound Blaster Z
PSU: Corsair TX750
Default 05-01-2012, 21:43 | posts: 1,068

Quote:
Originally Posted by kn00tcn View Post


-what i should have said by 'identical' was 'lightweight' cpu based, so for example, (excluding the gpu physx games) UE3 has always been physx since 2006, it's not crippled or too slow on non nv cards since it runs on the cpu for everyone+consoles

-some engines just need an adjustment for ati (nfs shift 1 on launch! lost planet 2 currently is quite slower), slowdowns arent always caused by too much physics

-the x87 stuff is curious, since i remember when skyrim came out, someone did some basic recompile to x86 & the minimum fps went way up

-does anyone have railworks+nvidia card?
The skyrim one was the guy changing the lighting compiler from x86 to SSE2, which gave a huge boost, and he also enabled large block addressing, which further sped things up. Bethdesa put both changes into official skyrim patches and fixed these issues later on.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#38)
Zareph
Maha Guru
 
Zareph's Avatar
 
Videocard: EVGA GTX 670 FTW @ 1241
Processor: Core i7-920 C0 @ 4.01GHz
Mainboard: Gigabyte EX58-UD3R FK
Memory: 16GB G.Skill RipjawZ 2400
Soundcard: X-Fi XtremeGamer + T6100
PSU: Corsair TX650W
Default 05-02-2012, 00:55 | posts: 2,632 | Location: Denmark

Quote:
Originally Posted by thatguy91 View Post
Its not quite as simple as that. AMD would have to pay Nvidia for Physx, that's not going to happen!

The real reason why Phsyx runs so slow if you don't have a Nvidia card is because its running on the CPU, and the code is deliberately written to run crap on CPU. Until very recently it was pure x86 code, no SSE or later instruction sets. Not only that, the x86 code wasn't very optimised. Practically all games that use Physx use this poor Physx code. The very latest Physx does have some SSE2 code, but it still is by no means highly optimised - far from it. If Physx was written properly for CPU its suggested on CPU it would outperform GPU. Sure, GPU is potentially better for this, but the GPU is also doing the graphical side of things! So, you either take away performance from the graphics, or you have specialised hardware for it - which goes unutilised most of the time.
^ This exactly. Couldn't have put it better myself
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#39)
kn00tcn
Maha Guru
 
kn00tcn's Avatar
 
Videocard: Sapphire 4870x2
Processor: Intel Q9550 3.6ghz
Mainboard: Asus P5Q-E
Memory: OCZ 2x2gb 5-4-4-15 840mhz
Soundcard:
PSU: Corsair 750TX
Default 05-02-2012, 01:58 | posts: 1,587 | Location: Toronto

Quote:
Originally Posted by Valagard View Post
The skyrim one was the guy changing the lighting compiler from x86 to SSE2, which gave a huge boost, and he also enabled large block addressing, which further sped things up. Bethdesa put both changes into official skyrim patches and fixed these issues later on.
so if (older) physx is the same, would there be a chance of boosting specific (older) physx on cpu games?
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#40)
sykozis
Ancient Guru
 
sykozis's Avatar
 
Videocard: Radeon R7 240
Processor: AMD Athlon 5350
Mainboard: Asus AM1M-A
Memory: 8gb G.Skill DDR3-1866
Soundcard: Creative SB X-Fi Go!
PSU: Unk 300watt
Default 05-02-2012, 05:01 | posts: 16,495 | Location: US East Coast

So, being written for the x87 instruction set, which is a single-threaded instruction set itself....how exactly is PhysX multi-threaded? Or is Intel lying???


   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#41)
kn00tcn
Maha Guru
 
kn00tcn's Avatar
 
Videocard: Sapphire 4870x2
Processor: Intel Q9550 3.6ghz
Mainboard: Asus P5Q-E
Memory: OCZ 2x2gb 5-4-4-15 840mhz
Soundcard:
PSU: Corsair 750TX
Default 05-02-2012, 10:46 | posts: 1,587 | Location: Toronto

isnt the game the wrapper for it all? so an x86 multithreaded game can just load up instances of physx?
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#42)
Redemption80
Ancient Guru
 
Redemption80's Avatar
 
Videocard: MSI GTX 570
Processor: i7-2600K @ 4.5ghz
Mainboard: Asus P8P67 PRO Intel P67
Memory: G.Skill RipJawsX 8GB
Soundcard: ASUS Xonar D2
PSU: Corsair GS800
Default 05-02-2012, 13:06 | posts: 14,812 | Location: Glasgow

Quote:
Originally Posted by sykozis View Post
So, being written for the x87 instruction set, which is a single-threaded instruction set itself....how exactly is PhysX multi-threaded? Or is Intel lying???
Just download FluidMark and run it, and you will see that it uses all 8 threads of your CPU.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#43)
Zogrim
Member Guru
 
Zogrim's Avatar
 
Videocard: GTX 470 + GTS 450
Processor: C2Q 9400
Mainboard: Gigabyte X48-DS5
Memory: Corsair DDR2 4GB
Soundcard: ASUS Xonar DX
PSU: Thermaltake 850 W
Default 05-02-2012, 13:16 | posts: 65

sykozis
how exactly is PhysX multi-threaded?
2.8 - mostly throught "compartments" (sub-intances of PhysX scene, where the SDK manages interaction between them internally).

As for x87/SSE2 - we have tested it and it was around 10-15 % difference, not 200-400 % as promised in those articles.
http://physxinfo.com/news/4267/fluid...ysx-sdk-2-8-4/

Also SSE reduced amount of supported CPUs, thus - unhappy users
http://forums.developer.nvidia.com/d.../comment/13176

Valagard
Quote:
why Batman Arkham City, which uses the newest versions of Unreal 3.5+ engine, got shackled with a older outdated version of Physx?
Because SDK 3.0 is not integrated with UE3, since it uses completely different API in comparison to current SDK 2.8
Switching UE3 to PhysX 3 is same amount of work as switching to other physics engine.

------
In overall, SDK 2.8 runs on CPU pretty fast - that's why it is widely used in developers, featuring in 340+ released games.

As for "poor" CPU execution of GPU PhysX effects.. read this
http://physxinfo.com/news/7165/getti...-content-team/

NVIDIA has a special group of engineers and technical artists, that are adding extra PhysX effects to games. NVIDIA is investing money in such extra content - and it would be kinda strange to expect them to optimize those effects for concurent products - for their own money.

Consider GPU PhysX effects as exclusive content for NV users.

Developers do not care about any types of GPU physics currently (amount of games - zero - with physics based on "open standarts" such as compute shaders, OpenCL, Bullet, Havok FX, "open physics" with DMM, etc - is a good indicator, for all 6 years hardware PhysX exists)

Last edited by Zogrim; 05-02-2012 at 13:37.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#44)
Redemption80
Ancient Guru
 
Redemption80's Avatar
 
Videocard: MSI GTX 570
Processor: i7-2600K @ 4.5ghz
Mainboard: Asus P8P67 PRO Intel P67
Memory: G.Skill RipJawsX 8GB
Soundcard: ASUS Xonar D2
PSU: Corsair GS800
Default 05-02-2012, 13:37 | posts: 14,812 | Location: Glasgow

Thanks for the info Zogrim, I actually heard that Nvidia were having to go out their way to convince developers to switch to PhysX 3.x since most were more comfortable with 2.8.x and weren’t willing to invest the extra time and money in something new.

I have to laugh at people suggesting that Nvidia spent all this money developing PhysX 3.x, while spending more money bribing developers not to use it, it’s a massive logic fail on the part of many people.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#45)
Raiga
Maha Guru
 
Videocard: GPU
Processor: CPU
Mainboard: Chipset
Memory: RAM
Soundcard:
PSU: PSU
Default 05-02-2012, 13:51 | posts: 1,048

I guess I won't be buying in Binary Domain, judging by the low performance on AMD cards.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#46)
Zogrim
Member Guru
 
Zogrim's Avatar
 
Videocard: GTX 470 + GTS 450
Processor: C2Q 9400
Mainboard: Gigabyte X48-DS5
Memory: Corsair DDR2 4GB
Soundcard: ASUS Xonar DX
PSU: Thermaltake 850 W
Default 05-02-2012, 14:02 | posts: 65

Redemption80
Quote:
convince developers to switch to PhysX 3.x
Well, it won't be that hard, as PhysX 3 was developed to fulfill developers requests - better performance on consoles (that is what matters, not GPU physics capabilities), less memory consumption, more flexible arhitecture, new features like vehicle module, etc.. but its adoption will take some time.

And, of course, don't expect that with PhysX 3 you won't require NVIDIA card to play GPU PhysX games at full speed

Last edited by Zogrim; 05-02-2012 at 14:19.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#47)
AdmiralJanovsky
Newbie
 
Videocard: ATI 6770M 2 GB
Processor: Intel I5
Mainboard:
Memory: 4 GB DDR3
Soundcard: IDT High Definiton Audio
PSU: Battery
Default 05-04-2012, 09:33 | posts: 11

there is no option for PhysX or anything like that in CCC and binary domain already runs on 6770M so the weak intel is not being used.
another thing is that BD is firstly a PS or Xbox game so there are not a lot of options. only graphic card, resolution, shadows, SSAO and thats it. also motion blur, windowed and Vsync so i really dont know what do do now.

can PhysX be manualy shut down or im i just to face the lag when shooting starts?

thanks.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#48)
teleguy
Maha Guru
 
Videocard: GTX 780 GHz/HD7970
Processor: i7 3770K/Phenom 1055T
Mainboard: P8Z77-V/880G Extreme3
Memory: DDR3 8 GB/DDR3 8 GB
Soundcard: Asus Xonar DS
PSU: Corsair 750W/Coolerm 800W
Default 05-04-2012, 11:58 | posts: 1,115

Binary Domain is not a PhysX game.

http://physxinfo.com/index.php?p=gam&f=all
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#49)
Death_Lord
Master Guru
 
Death_Lord's Avatar
 
Videocard: AMD Radeon 6870
Processor: AMD Phenom II 4x 3.2ghz
Mainboard:
Memory: 4GB OCZ Fatal1ty DDR2
Soundcard:
PSU: SilverStone Strider 750W
Default 05-04-2012, 12:30 | posts: 692 | Location: Spain

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raiga View Post
I guess I won't be buying in Binary Domain, judging by the low performance on AMD cards.
Low performance? the game is so optimized that it even runs well on my laptop maxed out, and my laptop is a HD 4650 Mobility.

The game also runs very well on my 6870, so I dont see were the problems comes from, On the last patch notes they explain that they have trouble with Sandy Bridge CPUS and Nvidia cards mostly and that on the Nvidia side is Driver related and Nvidia is working on it.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#50)
AdmiralJanovsky
Newbie
 
Videocard: ATI 6770M 2 GB
Processor: Intel I5
Mainboard:
Memory: 4 GB DDR3
Soundcard: IDT High Definiton Audio
PSU: Battery
Default 05-04-2012, 18:03 | posts: 11

so now i figure out thats is not a PhysX game..strange but i have 12.3 WHQ or whaterever drivers maybe i will get newer but...**** it i will let it lag too much problems with ATI cards. i should have bought a computer with geforce at least new games will always have PhysX in them so this is really mean for ATI.

thanks for information about this any advice in the future?
the biggest problem of my comp is the switchable graphics whis does not allow most driver updates.
   
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
ati and physx, divers, nvidia, physx, physx problem

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com
Copyright (c) 1995-2014, All Rights Reserved. The Guru of 3D, the Hardware Guru, and 3D Guru are trademarks owned by Hilbert Hagedoorn.