Nvidia Forceware 177.39 + NVIDIA physX 8.06.12

I haven't scanned the whole thread, but wondered if anyone here has tried Age of Conan yet? I loaded them up, and I am getting all sorts of weird artifacting that I didn't have with the 177.35.

 

OMG 24/7 all Vista x64
34k+ CPU score

 

Well, it says that G92/G94 is supported. And WinXP 32bits supported too. But I can't make it work.

 

9600 gt = G94

And it doesnt work with g94

 

@rougesniper
yea the software it there alright, but like you said nvidia needs to implement it into hardware - this is done by Cuda as you already know, so i think i made my point there in that post... cuda isn't ageia physx and it will never be, its just a language to talk and give gpu info regarding those physx algorithms...
and UT3 seem to benefit from it, or not..., i still have the old 8.04 ageia drivers - already in the hands of nvidia and 175.16 drivers and i could enable and use ut3 physx maps... so it has nothing to do with this new combo, but i still think it was software based, because it ate too much fps... if i remember correctly you could play those ut3 maps as you could Cellfactor back in the days, i had CellFactor beta and it ran at lousy 20-30 fps on a old 6600gt but now with 8800 it can barely and looks twice as ugly as it was in beta, allot of stuff just gone... i know i saw allot more objects in level and flying around in that beta version as it is now in the final one...

lol well we could debate about this forever but imo its just pointless, let's wait for some true games that really REALLY take advantage of it and we will see it then.

 

177.39 runs great here (Vista32 w/ my own modded inf), i tested GRID (demo), DMC4(Demo DX10) and The Witcher. I saw no fps drop/gain in comparison to 177.26, but HDR looks much better in DMC and The Witcher.

I installed the PhysX Driver, but i was not able to enable it, but it did run the physx test.


btw, first post
..and sorry for the bad english =]

 

Thats why I said this is scandalous for Futuremark. These inflated scores are unrepresentative of GPU performance and gives Nvidia a huge advantage over ATi esp in the eyes of newbie buyers (probably the bulk of the market, lol). ATI should sue.

 

ummmm... no....

That would be the Newbies Own fault...

They ARE representative of the GPUs Performance..

The gpu is doing the work correct??

Games are going to use cuda/physx correct??

therfore its ATIs fault for not releasing there version of physics ...

 

Heh heh. This Vantage gain in score is not reflected in 99.99% of the games out there, so your point is not well made. I think Futuremark will have to do something about this.

 

I bet they wont....

Why else would they make the phsyics via the physx engine??

 

Does anyone tryed AGEIA Reality Mark to test ? I've just cant install it it says to uninstall previous version of something of AGEIAv2 driver to install RealityMark, but I dont have any AGEIA drivers installed just nVIDIA
Plz test someone Reality Mark with nVIDIA PhysX if it possible at all.
thnx

 

Its not so much the technology as it is the timing. You may not be aware of Nvidias history of dirty tricks (one in which they were caught out by ATI who exposed their rigged 44.03 forceware drivers which brought great embarrassment to Futuremark (2001 or 2003?).

We all know ATI is about to release their new cards very soon. When these are reviewed and compared to Nvidias cards with the new drivers (+Physx), it will give Nvidia a huge artificial boost in Vantage. Nvidia are thugs imo, and unfortunately seems they are continuing to operate this way with their competition. I think FM may release a fix or patch or take care of it somehow, this I'm sure.

 

Like i said im 100% sure Futuremark Will SUPPORT this.

Just seems like you have a grudge against nvidia

i wouldnt start the "dirty tricks" part as that has happened on both sides.

 

And the test was intended to measure computers physics calculation performance.

 

Exactly...

Why have the hardware to do something and not use it.

 

Wow, I can see why the Ageia physX UT3 maps were widely ignored...

I just tried "Lighthouse", a CTF map with many physics "events" scripted into the map, most triggered by explosive barrels in convienient places to destroy walls, and I have to say this:

WHAT THE HELL IS THIS? I shoot a barrel to get rid of a wall, and, rather than being greeted by a brilliant demonstration of physics calculation, I see a wall collapse in slow motion, totally unrealistically, with bricks stuttering across the screen for nearly a minute following the initial blast, there was no blast radius, no debris flying, just bricks falling down at a totally stupid rate.

I tried multiple triggers to see if it was a fluke, and then I realised a much more telling flaw, the physics "events" have a memory/resource leak, it is as if the events never turn "off" and with every event, it consumes more power, within a couple of minutes I was staring at 10fps, even though the same scene at the start of the map saw me get 60fps in the same place, the reason? those bricks were still stuttering along.

So, to top off a physics demo map that contained the worst ever physics I have ever seen, the map becomes unplayable within minutes, to nVidias credit, with Hardware Physics acceleration on my FPS did hold up for a bit longer, but GPU assistance isn't enough to save a broken system.

I can see now why Ageia were bought out, for a company that were supposed to be experts in physics tech, they certainly hadn't a clue about physics, heh.

 

Ageia RealityMark plz test someone..

 

I am just downloading the thing (Quite slowly, heh), I will come back here when I test it.

 

lol it kills fps, i hope new drivers will fix this, i think it should not react like that, its not supposed to add feature which make the game unplayable, lets hope for a fix.

 

Thanks for clarifying, just in reading through some of these threads people with 8x00 series cards are claiming PhysX support with this driver set, thus my confusion about it...