Nvidia Forceware 177.39 + NVIDIA physX 8.06.12

Discussion in 'Videocards vs General Purpose - NVIDIA Ageia PhysX' started by me3850, Jun 20, 2008.

  1. Dublin_Gunner

    Dublin_Gunner Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,642
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Gigabyte Rx 460 4GB
    Its not enabled, the driver merely lets him 'tick the box' as it were.

    If any of these people with non G92 or GT200 based boards would actuallt TEST it they would see its not working.
     
  2. nighty

    nighty Member

    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Gainward 8800GTS 512
    177.39 and physX are updated at nvidia.com
     
  3. MrHydes

    MrHydes Member

    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    EVGA GTX280 SLI
    who's running physx allready on G92?

    do we only need to download the driver or any *.*inf tool?
     
  4. BrainDedd

    BrainDedd Master Guru

    Messages:
    210
    Likes Received:
    7
    GPU:
    ASUS Strix 1070 OC
    To anyone trying to get any games running with Geforce PhysX ... you need to manually copy the matching version of PhysXCore.dll from the AGEIA directory to the game's directory for it to work at this point.

    Edit: Oh and the 177.35 beta and 8.06 drivers are now officially available on the nVidia main pages as noted.
     
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2008

  5. MrHydes

    MrHydes Member

    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    EVGA GTX280 SLI
    this is bad...

    _______________________________________

    with this drivers 175.19
    in NV control panel doesn't appear any programs in manage 3D advanced mode, anyone knows why?
     
  6. anth_15

    anth_15 Master Guru

    Messages:
    352
    Likes Received:
    10
    GPU:
    Gigabyte RTX 3080
    Played Grid with these drivers and they run fine. Going to try Gears Of War to see if a change.
     
  7. eRa`

    eRa` Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,825
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Palit GeForce GTX 570
    What kind of issue do you have with GoW? Plays fine here with this set.
     
  8. Shleed

    Shleed Member

    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    eVGA 9800GTX SC 512mb
    Crysis gets a driver crash at random intervals, but everything else seems fine. Probably because it was overclocked at the time.
     
  9. MrHydes

    MrHydes Member

    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    EVGA GTX280 SLI
    175.19 didn't work 177.39 the same

    i'm giving to 177.35!!!
     
  10. ztorm

    ztorm New Member

    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    XFX 8600 GTS 512
    has anyone tested the 8600 G84 on vantage with physX drivers already?

    I've tested it with UT3 physx modpack and it seems to work but i would like someone else to test it and confirm it.
    I only got XP 32bit so i cant test vantage.

    It only worked with the drivers 175.16 and 175.19 WHQL in combination with PhysX_8.06.12 non WHQL driver.

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     

  11. Gembel

    Gembel Master Guru

    Messages:
    780
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Asus GTX660 DirectCU 2

    Wow Is that true? Amazing for just an 8600GTS:)
     
  12. 3NF

    3NF Member

    Messages:
    39
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    EVGA 8800 GTS 512MB @ 780
    But even if the finish the "feature" - PhysX, there isn't anything meaningful for us to use it with right? Just a couple of UT3 maps??
     
  13. Octavean

    Octavean Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,087
    Likes Received:
    1
    GPU:
    GTX960 / GTX670 / GTX760
    The logical way to address this so called issue would be to have Futurmark add HavoK Physics (Intel owned intellectual property) support to Vantage when ATI (AMD) has something feasibly working with respect to their implementation of GPU accelerated Physics. Until such time no one can be blamed other then perhaps ATI (AMD) for not having their full advertised feature set ready at launch of the actual hardware.

    If Futurmark refuses to release or unduly delays a HavoK Physics (Intel owned intellectual property) supported version of Vantage or unified update then issue can be taken with Futurmark.

    Seriously though, with respect to nVidia’s impromptu acquisition of Ageia and subsequent unsolicited announcement of GPU accelerated PhysX support over CUDA for series 8 and 9 (and obviously future cards), ATI’s announcement of HavoK support seemed delayed, unplanned to any degree and a little desperate since they had to essentially go to Intel for a functioning solution. Its not surprising that ATI (AMD) seems a little late with their Physics implementation and that they are taking issue with a feature that they cannot yet compete with. This dosnt take anything away from the HD 4K series though because they are still very respectable products.

    http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=584

    As for CellFactor Revolution and other Ageia PhysX games being supported with nVidia PhysX consider this: The original CellFactor tech demo was hacked some time ago to run without the hardware and it actually ran faster in software but this was likely due to some effects not being rendered properly if at all. Nevertheless this was an embarrassment for Ageia so its not out of the question that they might have mandated a hardware check before enabling PhysX in many games. Therefore, if true, a patch may be needed for some PhysX games to overcome this artificial limitation.

    As for evaluating nVidia GPU PhysX in this very early stage it may be worthwhile to contrast it with legacy Ageia PPU PhysX in order to quantify performance when it actually works in Unreal Tournament 3:

    http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=491&type=expert&pid=3

    There are a lot of things that you can take away from the above excerpt from the Ageia PPU hardware review. One very key point though is that in Unreal Tournament 3 you will likely take a big performance hit in terms of PhysX maps with respect to non-PhysX maps. So someone might get ~120 fps on an average non-PhysX UT3 map and on an avrage PhysX enabled UT3 map they might see ~40 fps. This would be about a third of the performance in a best case situation using an Ageia hardware PPU and one shouldn’t expect much better then that currently with beta nVidia GPU PhysX implementation. Even when nVidia goes final with there PhysX over CUDA implementation one shouldn’t expect much better then this at least not in the short term with UT3.

    Also note that those users with low-end single or even low-end dual core processors (you know who you are ;) ) will likely see lower performance then someone with a entry level, midrange or high-end quad core with respect to PhysX in UT3.

    BTW, it looks as if there was a new release of the Unreal Tournament 3 PhysX Mod pack on 6-27-2008 which may help some performance issue with the new 177.39 drivers:

    http://downloads.guru3d.com/Unreal-Tournament-3-PhysX-Mod-download-1974.html#download

    Even still, don’t expect magical performance boosts in the 100 fps range like you might already be used to.

    http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3171&p=3

    So basically this does NOT look like a GPU vs. PPU phenomena! You don’t simply lose FPS because the GPU is processing PhysX via CUDA in UT3. You will take a performance hit no matter what!

    For what its worth I hope that nVidia and ATI (AMD) can come to some sort of an arrangement whereby both HavoK and PhysX can be enabled on their respective hardware. After all, if ATI (AMD) can wrangle Intel owned HavoK support then why not nVidia too? In all likelihood, CUDA can support HavoK just as easily as it can support PhysX.
     
  14. roguesn1per

    roguesn1per Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    GTX580
    Octavean

    Nvidia Has already stated, that the physx to Gpu is ALLOWED to be ported over to ATIs Hardware, Just THEY have to do it no Nvidia.

    So its upto ATI if they will give havok support to Nvidia...which i doubt.
     
  15. xankazo

    xankazo Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,839
    Likes Received:
    7
    GPU:
    EVGA 1060 SC (6GB)
    sorry, I'm confused. Are these drivers only for people who have a PhysX add-on card installed?
     

  16. bozotheclown

    bozotheclown Master Guru

    Messages:
    859
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    2x8800GTS512@stock
    No, these are regular drivers (177.39) which officially support the 9800gtx(+), gtx260 and gtx280. With a modified inf file, they also support most other Nvidia cards.

    In addition, they offer PhysX support if you also install the NVIDIA physX 8.06.12 driver. The PhysX support only seems to work on g92 and g200 based cards at the moment (8800gt, 8800gts512, 9800gtx, gtx260, gtx280)


     
  17. Octavean

    Octavean Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,087
    Likes Received:
    1
    GPU:
    GTX960 / GTX670 / GTX760
    It looks like ATI (AMD) may already have a foothold on PhysX

    PhysX Runs On RV670, Scores 22,000 CPU Marks in 3DMark Vantage:


    http://www.techpowerup.com/64042/PhysX_Runs_On_RV670_Scores_22_000_CPU_Marks_in_3DMark_Vantage.html

    http://www.ngohq.com/news/14219-physx-gpu-acceleration-radeon-hd-3850-a.html

    I never said nVidia would NOT ALLOW the use of PhysX on ATI (AMD) hardware and it most certainly is not up to ATI (AMD) whether or not nVidia uses HovaK because Havok is owned by Intel not ATI (AMD).

    BTW, anyone try 177.41 WHQL with modified inf for PhysX support?
     
  18. roguesn1per

    roguesn1per Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    GTX580
    ATi will have the rights to havok and make the software for it, If nvidia dont get ATIs software they cant do anything
     
  19. Octavean

    Octavean Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,087
    Likes Received:
    1
    GPU:
    GTX960 / GTX670 / GTX760
    I hear what you are saying but as I said before HavoK is the intellectual property of “Intel” not ATI (AMD):

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havok_(software)

    ATI which is owned by AMD obviously made a deal with HavoK which is owned by Intel or some previous existing agreement due to a court ruling resulted in some sort of technology sharing agreement. Either way ATI (AMD) doesn’t own HavoK in the same way nVidia owns PhysX. For that to happen ATI (AMD) would either have to buy HavoK from Intel or ATI (AMD) would have to buy Intel.

    Now, nVidia my not be able to or willing to broker a deal with Intel for HavoK technology now or ever but the hardware is capable via CUDA. All it should take is a little programming and nVidia is more then capable of doing the program as they have already shown with PhysX over CUDA. nVidia wouldn’t need ATI (AMD) to program anything for them and they wouldn’t need “their” software as you put it. Some sort of agreement with Intel might be necessary though in order to prevent any legal entanglement. Since nVidia makes chipsets for Intel processors there is already some kind of working agreement between nVidia and Intel. Although nVidia’s new agreement with VIA and nVidia’s new efforts in the CPU or system on a chip market might not put Intel in a very agreeable mood.

    If its true that someone has already independently implemented a method to run PhysX on ATI (AMD) hardware or if ATI (AMD) does it themselves it would only mean that more hardware is PhysX capable then HavoK capable. Developers may take notice of that and program more new titles with PhysX then HavoK.

    Nvidia PhysX runs on AMD Radeon 3870, scores 22,000 CPU marks in Vantage
     
  20. Dublin_Gunner

    Dublin_Gunner Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,642
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Gigabyte Rx 460 4GB
    Works like a charm. Slightly lower Vantage score, but other games I tested are smooth as butter.

    (Crysis, BF2, BF2142, WarFront: TP, WiC)
     

Share This Page