PhysX Driver for 8800 cards and up is here!

http://www.nvidia.com/content/forcewithin/us/download.asp

Driver plus the UT3 mod, and 7 or 8 physics demos!
23 answers Last reply
More about physx driver 8800 cards here
  1. Bout time; hope my internet works when i get home...
  2. Wonder what kind of effect this will have on performance, I can't see higher FPS when the video card has even more work to do.
  3. True about performance, but if you have two video cards or a video card combined with integrated graphics you could use the lower GPU to dedicate to PhysX.
  4. San Pedro said:
    Wonder what kind of effect this will have on performance, I can't see higher FPS when the video card has even more work to do.

    You have 3870x2, what know you about performance? :kaola: :lol:
  5. Mousemonkey said:
    You have 3870x2, what know you about performance? :kaola: :lol:

    :lol: Hey now. :non:

    I almost bought one of those..... $200 AR for the OC'ed MSI.
  6. Fairly good job of showing the diff.

    http://www.guru3d.com/article/physx-by-nvidia-review/
    http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/15261

    Still a performance impact but supposedly worthwhile improvement in physics effects. Definitely did not like the TR video footage, the plasma rifle getting all that junk around it sucked in by a shot, not any more realistic than without it. Seemed to still lag in figuring out what to do with the effect.

    It's a nice stepping stone, but a long way to go with such large debris objects.
  7. I'm not happy with the Badaboom video converter, all it can is convert files to .mp4, I hope the full version will be able to convert to more practical formats like .avi (divx and xivd).
  8. i was not impressed with the badaboom player, the options were very limited and it took 35 minutes to convert a dvd where it normally takes me about 25.

    as for performance i went from a maximum of 139fps with a 82fps average to a max of 60fps and an average of 41fps with the physics turned on. however the game is still very playable and it looks a whole lot better, more things are destructible, there are particles of debris flying everywhere and the gravity wave canon is a nice addition.

    i posted a comparison video on youtube and there are lots of other ones on there too.

    cant wait for them to make some more maps for it.
  9. pauldh said:
    :lol: Hey now. :non:

    I almost bought one of those..... $200 AR for the OC'ed MSI.

    An uncalled for, unwarranted and childish swipe I know but I couldn't resist, sorry. :ange:
  10. I played around with the demos last night. I'm happy with the free PhysX capability, but the effects aren't totally mind-blowing. I just don't see many developers spending the extra time and money adding PhysX into games right now, especially when ATI cards can't use PhysX, yet.
  11. Lord Gornak said:
    I played around with the demos last night. I'm happy with the free PhysX capability, but the effects aren't totally mind-blowing. I just don't see many developers spending the extra time and money adding PhysX into games right now, especially when ATI cards can't use PhysX, yet.

    Surely the best reason to push ahead with PhysX heavy coding in each and every game. heh heh :lol:
  12. It seems to me that this is just a fad - quickly multicore processors will take care of that, dont you think? It seems like a waste of GPU power to me
  13. leckig said:
    It seems to me that this is just a fad - quickly multicore processors will take care of that, dont you think? It seems like a waste of GPU power to me


    Not really the video card tends always to be quicker then the CPU so your better using the video card.
  14. JeanLuc said:
    Not really the video card tends always to be quicker then the CPU so your better using the video card.


    Only when you're not using just one GPU.

    The best application of GPU physics is when you take a card you otherwise would've discarded and turn it into your physics engine.

    Running PhysX on even a GTX280 IMO is a bad Idea, however adding an old GF8600GT to your GTX260 to give you better physics and let your GTX260 dedicate itself to just your graphics makes alot of sense IMO.

    The only 2 things bad about PhysX is that it's being used as a barganing chip instead of an open API or controlled by a 3rd party. I'd trust Microsoft with the API over any of the 3 major hardware makers. And the other issue is that even for the titles that support it, it's a tack on glossy ting and not the underlying physics engine. Flak and bullets still drop and bounce in the usual predetermined CPU path based on the underlying Epic and Havoc physics engines that actually power UT3 and GRAW.
  15. i played warmonger.. the only thing that came out of my mind was "this is it? this is physX?" im extremely dissappointed. it left a bad taste on my mouth that i didnt even bother to download the other demos.

    sadly, the idea of having a separate 8 series card is quite broken, because enthusiasts would rather have 2 cards of the same model with their multi pci-e mobos = xfire/sli. if only nvidia would release a pci (the old one) card, like ati, then it would be a necessity.

    im curious though, what about the 8200/8300 chipsets, will the igp of those card have physx support as well?
  16. My understanding is that any 8 series card with 256MB RAM or more can run Physx.
  17. Graw 2 does look much better with the physX applied, the effects are very pronounced vs the old stuff.
  18. Yeah, but it's still very limited and very artificial. If PhysX were the underlying engine, then you could hope for changes in bullet drops, and alot more than what essentially is bejewlling the experience. Oooh Shiny rhinestones. :sol:

    Until it becomes the core of a game, and it makes enough of a difference other than making it feel like every game is played in a hurricane surrounded by brittle construction materials, it's not quite what most of us were hoping for 4-5 years ago when these discussions started during the early Brook GPU days.
  19. i got this drivers and on 3dmark vantage i went from 5120 to 8160.

    i thought (as normal) oh ok, just another program to tweak a 3d mark program. but i actually have increased FPS on a lot of things i'm playing. i'm now running crysis at over 30FPS average.
  20. spac13 said:

    i thought (as normal) oh ok, just another program to tweak a 3d mark program. but i actually have increased FPS on a lot of things i'm playing. i'm now running crysis at over 30FPS average.


    If the game isn't using the PhysX engine in software mode before, then there's going to be no increase due to the PhysX driver.
  21. Hey guys I'm looking to buy a new computer.

    So if I buy a GeForce 260 and a GeForce 9400GT I'm all set?
  22. thats a trash card, a waste for your money. buy a 9500gt (crippled by todays standards) instead of a 9400gt(uber crippled).
  23. TheGreatGrapeApe said:
    Yeah, but it's still very limited and very artificial. If PhysX were the underlying engine, then you could hope for changes in bullet drops, and alot more than what essentially is bejewlling the experience. Oooh Shiny rhinestones. :sol:

    Until it becomes the core of a game, and it makes enough of a difference other than making it feel like every game is played in a hurricane surrounded by brittle construction materials, it's not quite what most of us were hoping for 4-5 years ago when these discussions started during the early Brook GPU days.


    Hit the nail on the head: This is the example I give on how PhysX COULD be used in a game.

    In CoD 4, if you shoot at a wall, one of two things happens: the bullet goes through and keeps going at the same velocity/angle, or it does not.

    With PhysX, you could actually calculate wether or not an individual bullet makes its way through the wall, and adjust its velocity/angle appropriatly. At the same time, the bullet itself has an effect on the wall, causing parts of it to break off, and becoming potentially deadly objects in their own right, each one interacting with the environment, and capable of killing you.

    See where PhysX can go? If you try this on a CPU, all the calculations for every object (one grenade could spawn hundreds) will cause even the mighest of Quads to choke under the strain. The GPU, however, with its hundreds of cores, can handle this type of application with much more ease.


    It is a way off till we get this far, I admit (probably at least a decade), but Havok has given us all that it can, and it needs to step aside.
Ask a new question

Read More

Nvidia Physx Graphics