So, that's 15%...

Have you tried it, or just using us as guinea pigs?

http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=264100 <---Mentions some stuff about the increase and problems with the driver.

Ignore

So an overall score increase of about 2000 to which the "artificially increased" (PhysX) score contributed for 1850. I was hoping for more.

Yest, but only CPU score really gets a boot and I believe the increased Benchmark score becomes misleading because it does not reflect reality in any way.

During real gameplay, there is no way the CPU will be able to offload that much processing to the GPU because the GPU will be busy processing the game. To me the PhysX demonstration is only relevant for people who has CPU intensive tasks (rendering, encoding, ...?), but want to use their GPU power as well when not playing games. It is a cool way to put to contribution components that would otherwise just be idle (who wants to pay 500$ for an idle GPU???). To some extend, it could also be useful in games that do not benefit from multiple GPU as the 2nd (idle) GPU could be used for in-game PhysX.

actually that's not a bad Idea, I'll do it tonight when my gf watches The Intervention Show

I wouldn't count on it. Why should game developers use physx which only work on nvidia cards, when they can use in-house physics engine that works on everything? With multithreading and 8 core Nehalem coming, it makes even less sense to adopt physx. There is already a significant number of games running physx, due to Nvidia's bribing. But most of them, such as Age of Empires 3, don't actually make much use of it. So you play through the whole game without even noticing anything. The only game that really use physx is UT3.

Of course, if everything cost the same, having something extra is certainly better. But I wouldn't pay one cent extra just for Physx, it's been dying a slow death since its birth. Developers who took the bribe basically throw a token amount of physics effect in. Developers who don't want to tarnish their images of future blockbuster games, like crytek or blizzard, aren't willing to put it in crysis2 or starcraft2. It's just not working out for Nvidia.

PhysX enabled

The PhysX lol it stays around 40, but when Items fall down it goes down to 33 and there something broke so it went to 27 LMAo

yeah it seems more realistic, kinda feels like when i layed eyes on HL2 for the first time

I'm making a video you'll see

Lol, I didn't notice anything different.

I just don't get it. Generic physics engines, used by Crysis and nearly all other physics-heavy games, runs off spare cores in a current quad or octo Nehalem without any performance hit. The idea of running physics off graphics card is just foolish. Graphics is in nature parallel, physics processing isnt, and should be handled by cpu instead. ATI and Nvidia are just pushing those because they make gpus and not cpus. That graphics card is under enough stress as it is, it doesn't need to try to run something that it's not good at.

ATI is AMD so they make both CPUs and GPUs. I think they try to offload part of the Physic processing to the GPU because the GPU already has physic instructions as the CPU has more "all purpose" instructions. There used to be a time when graphics were processed by the CPU as well, but it changed. Overall, I don't reject the physic idea, but as things are now, I wouldn't pay extra for it either.