Here is the Megaupload link Enjoy
Its the Beta for the July drivers
Windows Xp 32 bit
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=56D40EW3
or
http://rapidshare.com/files/121890 [...] 2.rar.html
Windows Xp 64 bit
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=9J311LI3
or
http://rapidshare.com/files/121990 [...] 4.rar.html
Windows Vista 32 bit
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=DH19VO3W
or
http://rapidshare.com/files/121993 [...] 2.rar.html
Windows Vista 64 bit
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=ALCWFRND
or
http://rapidshare.com/files/121998 [...] 4.rar.html
Good Luck!
EDIT: The files were leaked from Asus and modified to be compatible with all cards, apperently adding 5-15% increase in games such as Mass Effect, Crysis Vantage etc.,,,

So, that's 15%...
Have you tried it, or just using us as guinea pigs?
No I have it installed, there are no errors, but theres nothing too loose
I'm installing Vantage right now to see if theres a difference. I had to reformat my computer so I can install the OS and games on the Raptors in Raid 0

Anyone got comparative benchmarking between the 175.16 (latest official) and 177.26 for 8800GTS or 9800GTX (pretty much the same thing)? I just want to know if Nvidia is trying to do the 9800GTX trick again (release the new cards claiming 15-20% increase over the generation before and it ends-up the driver is responsible for 15% of it, leaving 0-5% for the card that cost 50%+ than the one before).

http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=264100 <---Mentions some stuff about the increase and problems with the driver.
k Well I tried it, I think it took alot of strain off my CPU, but I'm not sure how good my score is
My CPU was clocked at 3.2 for the test and ram at 1066 running on 2 raptors in RAID 0.

Ignore
Here are some benchmarks with out the new drivers 175.19:
So the 177.26 might actually have the PhysX enabled, check out the results of the CPU test.

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

Remember technically its not made for my card, the official drivers should post more, remember THG tests? 12000 to 40,000 CPU score. We'll have to wait and see

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.

Can you run something like Crysis demo or World in Conflict benchmark instead? I'd rather know about how much it contribute to in-game fps instead.
If you want to make Physx count, there's always UT3 demo to test on.
actually that's not a bad Idea, I'll do it tonight when my gf watches The Intervention Show

and btw taking stress of the CPu could benefit for heating and life wear on the CPU, its always better to have the feature than to have nothing at all.
Remember when SLI was new nothing supported it almost, games adapted, PhysX since it belongs to Nvidia might get a bigger boost, especially in Nvidia sponsored games

| L1qu1d wrote : and btw taking stress of the CPu could benefit for heating and life wear on the CPU, its always better to have the feature than to have nothing at all. Remember when SLI was new nothing supported it almost, games adapted, PhysX since it belongs to Nvidia might get a bigger boost, especially in Nvidia sponsored games |
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.
Fair enough, but there are many different ways they could approach the situation look at Assasin's Creed and DX 10.1, they could have a certain patch for PhysX, i'm not saying its amazing, i'm just saying its useful.

| L1qu1d wrote : Fair enough, but there are many different ways they could approach the situation look at Assasin's Creed and DX 10.1, they could have a certain patch for PhysX, i'm not saying its amazing, i'm just saying its useful. |
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.
well its still young we'll see

PhysX enabled

It's hard to see how things move on a screenshot. And what's with the 27fps... on UT3?
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

| L1qu1d wrote : 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 |
Ouch... So does that "item" fall down any differently?
yeah it seems more realistic, kinda feels like when i layed eyes on HL2 for the first time

| L1qu1d wrote : yeah it seems more realistic, kinda feels like when i layed eyes on HL2 for the first time |
Like it dance around a couple times midair? When an item falls, it falls. What's the difference?
I'm making a video you'll see

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7boA-9G1GA
I dunno if you'll witness anything but give it a shot

| L1qu1d wrote : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7boA-9G1GA I dunno if you'll witness anything but give it a shot |
Lol, I didn't notice anything different.
I think the addition of physic engines (PhysX or else) is promising, but right now the big performance hit makes it a hight-end feature only; much like AA and AF when they were first introduced. I think many people will remember that is used to yield much better results to just increase resolution than enable AA and AF. With time I think it will slowly be introduced into more games, but I think it might require some "consortium" to standardize the programming API so game programmers don't have to code for every physic engine flavor (ATI, Nvidia, ...).

| Zenthar wrote : I think the addition of physic engines (PhysX or else) is promising, but right now the big performance hit makes it a hight-end feature only; much like AA and AF when they were first introduced. I think many people will remember that is used to yield much better results to just increase resolution than enable AA and AF. With time I think it will slowly be introduced into more games, but I think it might require some "consortium" to standardize the programming API so game programmers don't have to code for every physic engine flavor (ATI, Nvidia, ...). |
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.
Here are my vantage scores using updated drivers, 177.39 and PhysX.

| dagger wrote : 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.

There are 997 identified and unidentified users. To see the list of identified users, Click here.
You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months.
If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.

