No. When the display shows "CPU" the driver doesnt offload any load to the GPU.
This game doesnt support any GPU accelerated effects at this time.
This game doesnt support any GPU accelerated effects at this time.
You can't say that the reporting tool is accurate or even if forcing Physx via the control panel does override things in the game in the way you'd expect. I agree with the lets see how this plays out approach. I know there is a PhysX3Gpu_x64.dll in the game folder. Whether it's naive to assume that means some GPU based Physx is going on I don't know.
People seem quick to jump on anything that confirms their pre-conceived notions and call it "proof". I'd be hesitant to call anyone a liar or anything of the sort until more concrete info comes out.
No. When the display shows "CPU" the driver doesnt offload any load to the GPU.
This game doesnt support any GPU accelerated effects at this time.
Do you have proof of that?
Because when he forced physx on the CPU the fps was higher, which happens when there is a GPU bottleneck, light CPU load and mostly important GPU accelerated physx.
His first image: 84.3 fps --> physx on the CPU
His second image: 76.6 fps --> physx on the GPU
If there is a gpu bottleneck, physx running on the GPU will make it worst, which can be what happened on the second image.
Except in the screenshots you've posted above both the games load Phyx libraries, don't theyYou can read into random numbers all you want, but the physx indicator and process explorer doesn't lie.
If they are using physx in a more integral way would it really show up like a regular physx implementation would?
I don't even know who's trolling who at this point, but there are blatant liars in this thread and on the steam forums just looking to make trouble. The fact is mikk was right and is owed some apologies.
As you can see, there's negligible GPU usage drop when I force PhysX onto CPU because there are no GPU accelerated Physx happening... Well, at this point I know SOMEONE is blatantly lying.
This is what it looks like when there are GPU accelerated physx features turned on:
I did two quick bench runs with my main setup (5960X + original Titan). One with auto detect CPU/GPU physX and one with forced CPU physX from the Nvidia control panel:
i7 3770k 4.5 GHz, MSI GTX770 4 GB (Specs from Sig)
Conditions:
24 AI cars
Weather set to Clear
Map: Nordschleife
Pagani Zonda R
3:00PM
FRAPS benchmark log for one lap each. Though the max seems off.
My settings:
http://i.imgur.com/58QGrhy.png
Everything maxed besides motion blur off and SMAA was left on low. Honestly the game felt smooth both ways, but doesn't excuse the fps loss.
I think that you're thinking about this in a wrong way, or I worded my posts earlier in a way that didn't convey my thoughts. At any rate it's cool; I'll try to explain.
The game runs PhysX version 3.2.4.1. It is a CPU based PhysX. Some features of it can be offloaded onto Nvidia GPUs. Naturally AMD can't do this.
In Project Cars, PhysX is the main component that the game engine is built around. There is no "On / Off" switch as it is integrated into every calculation that the game engine performs. It does 600 calculations per second to create the best feeling of control in the game. The grip of the tires is determined by the amount of tire patch on the road. So it matters if your car is leaning going into a curve as you will have less tire patch on the ground and subsequently spin out. Most of the other racers on the market have much less robust physics engines.
Nvidia drivers are less CPU reliant. In the new DX12 testing, it was revealed that they also have less lanes to converse with the CPU. Without trying to sound like I'm taking sides in some Nvidia vs AMD war, it seems less advanced. Microsoft had to make 3 levels of DX12 compliance to accommodate Nvidia. Nvidia is DX12 Tier 2 compliant and AMD is DX12 Tier 3. You can make their own assumptions based on this.
To be exact under DX12, Project Cars AMD performance increases by a minimum of 20% and peaks at +50% performance. The game is a true DX11 title. But just running under DX12 with it's less reliance on the CPU allows for massive performance gains. The problem is that Win 10 / DX12 don't launch until July 2015 according to the AMD CEO leak. Consumers need that performance like 3 days ago!
Evidence #1
Evidence #2.
In these videos an alpha tester for Project Cars showcases his Win 10 vs Win 8.1 performance difference on a R9 280X which is a rebadged HD 7970. In short, this is old AMD technology so I suspect that the performance boosts for the R9 290X's boost will probably be greater as it can take advantage of more features in Windows 10. 20% to 50% more in game performance from switching OS is nothing to sneeze at.
AMD drivers on the other hand have a ton of lanes open to the CPU. This is why a R9 290X is still relevant today even though it is a full generation behind Nvidia's current technology. It scales really well because of all the extra bells and whistles in the GCN architecture. In DX12 they have real advantages at least in flexibility in programming them for various tasks because of all the extra lanes that are there to converse with the CPU. AMD GPUs perform best when presented with a multithreaded environment.
Project Cars is multithreaded to hell and back. The SMS team has one of the best multithreaded titles on the market! So what is the issue? CPU based PhysX is hogging the CPU cycles as evident with the i7-5960X test and not leaving enough room for AMD drivers to operate. What's the solution? DX12 or hope that AMD changes the way they make drivers. It will be interesting to see if AMD can make a "lite" driver for this game. The GCN architecture is supposed to be infinitely programmable according to the slide from Microsoft I linked above. So this should be a worthy challenge for them.
Basically we have to hope that AMD can lessen the load that their drivers present to the CPU for this one game. It hasn't happened in the 3 years that I backed, and alpha tested the game. For about a month after I personally requested a driver from AMD, there was new driver and a partial fix to the problem. Then Nvidia requested that a ton of more PhysX effects be added, GameWorks was updated, and that was that... But maybe AMD can pull a rabbit out of the hat on this one too. I certainly hope so.
Sorry for being long winded. No edit button so if I made a mistake so be it.
Some great gains we saw from an earlier driver they released have been lost in a later driver they released. So I'd say driver is where we start.
My preliminary results, 2 laps on Dubai with 19 opponents (not sure if that matter since my simulated driver was in the lead the whole time), rain throughout the whole run.
Specs are in my sig.
this would suggest forcing to CPU on nvidia doesn't quite completely do so from my thinking. CPU usage should change a lot more. Even less in some cases
Before labelling people can we be more scientific with your participation jj109? Please list your computer specs and settings. The more data the better.
This game doesnt support any GPU accelerated effects at this time.
Unless there really is no PhysX effects being placed on the GPU in the first place.
I don't think this is the case, these type of calculations are generally always done on the cpu, and use very little cpu time. It runs fine on the console cpu's, so this can't be the problem.
Now it's full tinfoil time. I guess it's better to throwout unprovable and unfalsifiable allegations than admitting that all of your long-winded posts about grr Nvidia were based on false premise.
As you can see there were two conflicting reports before you chimed in. One has a high possibility of being CPU limited with a i7 3770k 4.5 GHz 4C/8T CPU and the other is an i7 5960X 4ghz 8C/16T CPU. That's physically double one test and may be enough to compensate for any driver overhead. And if that is the case, then it would be even more evidence to the PhysX case.
What are your settings 96Firebird?
At the very least I hope some professional site does a lot of investigating and actually does an interview with SMS on this topic, with detailed questions on how PhysX works in the game on NV and AMD/Intel GPUs, etc. Dismissing the topic as falsehood like you want to do quickly isn't getting to the bottom of the truth.
Actually it was already tested by professional sites and nothing was found, german pcgameshardware was investigating it.
http://extreme.pcgameshardware.de/n...test-geforce-top-radeon-flop.html#post7370903
He is writing that he checked Physx. Because of many PhysX Files he thought Nvidia might run GPU Physx and Amd would run on CPU. But he couldn't find any evidence that Physx is running on GPU. With CPU Physx there was no performane disadvantage and by forcing Physx to a second Nvidia card nothing changed, the second card wasn't working at all.
That's the same result which 3 people here already had, but you prefer to believe 1 steampost which might just have driverproblems with nvidia.
You can discuss the effect of Gameworks and Nvidias attitude to proprietary standards, but this game is actually the wrong one for the discussion as only CPU Physx is used and you and AMD can have a look into the source code cause the source of CPU Physx is open.