Directx11 and a physics card Q

[englandr753]

Since the new release of Nvidias drivers to allow a nvidia card to be used as a physx card with an ATI card as the primary, does anyone know if its beneficial to use a directx10 or directx11 card as the physx card? I tried to do a lookup and found nothing on this. I currently have the AMD 1090T cpu, AI 5770 video card. I know that I will better benefit going crossfire with a 2nd 5770 and am planning to do that 1st. But I am also eyeing the idea of getting a used/cheap nvidia card on ebay to impliment and take advantage of the physx engine as well.

Any thoughts?...

 

[Mousemonkey]

It was a bug in the beta that has since been fixed and will not be a feature present in future versions of the 265 series drivers, apparently. Sorry mate but it's only the "original" 257.15 betas that will work for you, not really reason enough to buy a card if you ask me.

 

[englandr753]

I see. Thanks for the info. I had read an article somewhere that stated nvidia was making this as an available option. I guess that was a blunder, thats too bad.

I also had an 8800GTX ACS3 card lying around and wont be in use for a while. Do you think its worth trying that with the 257.15 beta?

 

[Mousemonkey]

You might as well, what do you have to lose? This is where you might still get the unfixed drivers.

 

[englandr753]

Downloading now. =) Thanks bro!...

 

[Mousemonkey]

No worries, I would be interested to hear whether it works or not so please post back with results.

 

[englandr753]

No problem. I just got back home from work and I think I will install now. I'll post some feedback between now and Sunday...

 

[englandr753]

Interestingly enough, I dont see any settings in the nvidia control panel to enable physx. Any suggestions?

 

[Mousemonkey]

I wonder if you got the "fixed" version of the driver? What does the digital signature of the .exe say?

 

[englandr753]

It says:

Version: V3
Signature Algorithm: sha1RSA
Key Usage: Digital Signature (80)


Theres a lot of info but I'm unsure of what else you need to identify.

The version is 1.0.0.0
Original filename: 7ZSfxNew.exe

In the general tab, the file name list as:
257.15_desktop_win7_winvista_64bit_international_beta

Under the digital signature details/advanced tab it says version v2.

Let me know if theres anything else I need to look up...

 

[englandr753]

I found this link and am downloading now. Its 3mb larger so its obviously a different file and hopefully the right one. I will let you know. I'm thinking I got the "fixed" file as you said...

http://www.overclock.net/nvidia-drivers-overclocking-software/744227-257-15-beta-physx.html

UPDATE: This is the correct download, it has the physx file with it as a separate program. The first file I downloaded didnt have that. You probably gave me the right link and I may have just selected the incorrect version to download. Nonetheless I have it now and will post some results a little later today after I get it installed and run some benchmarks...

 

[englandr753]

How do you post pics on here again? I can never remember, lol. I don't want to paste links to other sites if I can help it...

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

There really isn't an option to posit a picture, linking to some other hosting resource is how the site is designed. There are a bunch of hosting options if you don't like something like imageshack.

Love the bug btw, makes you think they are obviously working on it behind the scenes and for their favoured sons.

 

[bystander]

If these drivers do not work, there are other methods to accomplishing what you want. The GenL hack is one of them.

 

[Mousemonkey]

It says:

Version: V3
Signature Algorithm: sha1RSA
Key Usage: Digital Signature (80)


Theres a lot of info but I'm unsure of what else you need to identify.

The version is 1.0.0.0
Original filename: 7ZSfxNew.exe

In the general tab, the file name list as:
257.15_desktop_win7_winvista_64bit_international_beta

Under the digital signature details/advanced tab it says version v2.

Let me know if theres anything else I need to look up...

That looks like the one I've got but I was more wondering if the timecode would be different seeing as I've got one stamped 22nd May and the articles about the "fixed" drivers didn't appear until the 28th.

 

[JofaMang]

Has the "fix" to enable PhysX with an ATI/nvidia combination not kept up with the driver releases?

 

[Mousemonkey]

I don't know, I haven't been following that because I have no need of it myself.

 

[Kewlx25]

PhysX is such marketing BS. A medium to high modern Quad core could crunch all the data needed for "PhysX". It's a great API, but they tie it down to their cards for marketing reasons.

They should just remove the single CPU thread limit, optimize it a bit and sell it. In a year or two, we're going to see 6 core CPU coming out and they're going to have nothing to do anyway.

Heck, they could EASILY re-write it as DX11, then it's be useful on ANY DX11 card.

 

[JofaMang]

PhysX is such marketing BS. A medium to high modern Quad core could crunch all the data needed for "PhysX". It's a great API, but they tie it down to their cards for marketing reasons.

They should just remove the single CPU thread limit, optimize it a bit and sell it. In a year or two, we're going to see 6 core CPU coming out and they're going to have nothing to do anyway.

Heck, they could EASILY re-write it as DX11, then it's be useful on ANY DX11 card.

Are you insinuating that the drastic drop in FPS that occurs on some titles even with a 980x when loading the physX onto the CPU is an intentional crippling of performance on Nvidia's Part?

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/3332/gigabyte_geforce_gtx_480_with_galaxy_gtx_465_as_physx/index6.html
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/3332/gigabyte_geforce_gtx_480_with_galaxy_gtx_465_as_physx/index5.html

 

[Kewlx25]

Are you insinuating that the drastic drop in FPS that occurs on some titles even with a 980x when loading the physX onto the CPU is an intentional crippling of performance on Nvidia's Part?

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/3332/gigabyte_geforce_gtx_480_with_galaxy_gtx_465_as_physx/index6.html
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/3332/gigabyte_geforce_gtx_480_with_galaxy_gtx_465_as_physx/index5.html

I'm not sure if your links are links against my insinuation or examples of my insinuation.

Anyway, PhysX is single threaded even though it can EASILY be multi-threaded. General rule of thumb, if it scales well on a GPU, it's scale well on a CPU.

Those games only use around 75gflops to crunch their physics. An i7 quad peaks upwards of 90gflops, but real world has it more down around 70gflops minus other game overhead. It would not be *as* fast as a dedicated card, but it should no be anywhere near so low as current benches show.

You're still better off with a many core setup like a GPU or something like Intel Larrabee for peak performance and WATTs used, but nVidia has its current form completely un-optimized and un-threaded for CPU usage.

I also remember reading something about PhysX. PhysX is mostly written with CUDA style syntax which is almost transparently translatable to DX11. They would need to tweak a few portions of their code, but it would not take long for them to make it work for any DX11 video card.

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

Actually it would likely be easier (and smarter) to port to OpenCL instead of DirectCompute, however as nVidia already said, they are not pursuing that option at this time (ie, not until they are about to lose a huge chunk of business by not switching).

It's strategically beneficial for them to pretend it's not possible nor feasible to do things at this time (interesting how Beta drivers would do what they said is not possible), however it's still mostly a marketing decision more than anything else, and that will likely remain until there is viable competition out there to make them more flexible.

 

[englandr753]

Sorry, I just got back from a mini vacation at the beach.

If I have the correct driver installed, shouldn't I see a physx menu option in the nvidia control panel? I even tried the GENL download that is suposed to work and I didn't see a menu for it there either. I am recalling this from memory from when I had my 8800GTX ACS3 card as a primary for nearly 3 years. Correct me if I'm wrong to put me out of my mysery, lol...

 

[Mousemonkey]

Sorry, I just got back from a mini vacation at the beach.

If I have the correct driver installed, shouldn't I see a physx menu option in the nvidia control panel? I even tried the GENL download that is suposed to work and I didn't see a menu for it there either. I am recalling this from memory from when I had my 8800GTX ACS3 card as a primary for nearly 3 years. Correct me if I'm wrong to put me out of my mysery, lol...

I would have thought you should be seeing something like this:-

 

[wolfram23]

Just to address the issue of whether a DX11 card would be suitable for a PhysX card, the answer is no... that would be a waste, seeing as the only DX11 and PhysX capable cards are the 4xx series. At most you need a GT 280 for PhysX. GT 240 is awesome... and cheaper. I bet a GT 220 could pull it off alright. So, an 8800GT is great for it. Plus I've never heard of a secondary card being used for DX11 with a non DX11 main, and if you were thinking of getting a DX11 main card, you really wouldn't need a secondary for it (that is if it's possible which I dont think it is).
And for the last question, well mousemonkey answered it but yeah, if it's installed right you should see the PhysX option. You should use Driver Sweeper on your Nvidia drivers and PhysX, reboot, and follow the guide at overclockers. If followed properly it'll work (I know because I did it just this week)

 

[englandr753]

@ Mousemonkey, thanks for that screenie. Thats what I was looking for and don't see that in my menu with none of the drivers I have installed so far. I'm really scratching my head now, lol.

@ Wolfram23, I already have a directx11 card installed as a primary (ATI 5770) and my question was would there be a benefit of the secondary (physx enabled card) to also be directx10/11 or would that have any bearing on a performance/feature standpoint? My thought would be no, but we know what it can get you when you ass-u-me something. It just crossed my mind when I created this thread and maybe I didn't word it clearly enough.