New PhysX thread.

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
Hookay, back to the good stuff. I'll be doing a lot more testing tomorrow night. Just been a little busy. Most of what I needed to do taken care of.

I'll add GTX280 as the dedicated card as well. Sticking with Win7 for the tests for now.

I really want to see a single gpu card used along with an 8600gt 256mb if possible. I have an 8600gt 256mb gddr3 in another pc and I really am debating if it would be worth the trouble to put in my gaming pc for physx with my gtx260 for the main card. although I am no big fan of physx it is in some games I have so I would like to go ahead and use it when possible.

I can certainly try out with something similar. I have the GTX280 (no GTX260 available, sorry), and the 8600GT 512MB GDDR3. Bout as close as I can get to what you wanted to see. The 8600GT 256 meets the absolute minimum requirements for PhysX to be enabled on it. 32 shaders and 256MB memory. It has been shown that in some games such as Cryostasis, even an 8400GS 256MB shows marked improvement in performance. But in other games such as GRAW2 and Batman Arkam Asylum, performance is actually degraded. In fact, the recommended cards for the high PhysX setting are a GTX260 primary + 9800GT PhysX.

I have a feeling the 8600GT won't be enough for BAA. Seems plenty for Cryostasis. We need to get through quite a bit of combinations and benching to find the "Sufficient" all around PhysX GPU. But this could change depending on the Primary card being utilized.

The two primaries I'd use are the GTX295 and the GTX280. For PhysX, I'd use 8600GT 512, 8800GTS 640 and an 8800GTS512. I was even considering picking up a 9600GT for the 64 shader segment.

At any rate, I'll have more info for everyone tomorrow, later in the evening. Look in the 2nd post for updates as well.

Nite all.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
Hookay, back to the good stuff. I'll be doing a lot more testing tomorrow night. Just been a little busy. Most of what I needed to do taken care of.

I'll add GTX280 as the dedicated card as well. Sticking with Win7 for the tests for now.

I really want to see a single gpu card used along with an 8600gt 256mb if possible. I have an 8600gt 256mb gddr3 in another pc and I really am debating if it would be worth the trouble to put in my gaming pc for physx with my gtx260 for the main card. although I am no big fan of physx it is in some games I have so I would like to go ahead and use it when possible.

I can certainly try out with something similar. I have the GTX280 (no GTX260 available, sorry), and the 8600GT 512MB GDDR3. Bout as close as I can get to what you wanted to see. The 8600GT 256 meets the absolute minimum requirements for PhysX to be enabled on it. 32 shaders and 256MB memory. It has been shown that in some games such as Cryostasis, even an 8400GS 256MB shows marked improvement in performance. But in other games such as GRAW2 and Batman Arkam Asylum, performance is actually degraded. In fact, the recommended cards for the high PhysX setting are a GTX260 primary + 9800GT PhysX.

I have a feeling the 8600GT won't be enough for BAA. Seems plenty for Cryostasis. We need to get through quite a bit of combinations and benching to find the "Sufficient" all around PhysX GPU. But this could change depending on the Primary card being utilized.

The two primaries I'd use are the GTX295 and the GTX280. For PhysX, I'd use 8600GT 512, 8800GTS 640 and an 8800GTS512. I was even considering picking up a 9600GT for the 64 shader segment.

well using any 8600gt with single gpu I guess will at least give me an idea of what to expect. if you get decent results with the 8600gt 512mb then I will at least be motivated to give my 8600gt 256mb a shot with my gtx260.

actually I think that they recommend a gtx260 and 9800gtx for high physx settings in Batman. that seems a little over the top since even at 1920x1080 with very high settings, no AA and physx on high my old 192sp gtx260 can average 35-40fps even during the most intense action. at no point is it unplayable or even sluggish even if I add 2x AA.

your improvement in Cryostasis with the gtx295 and 8400gs was a little odd and may have had more to do with sli issues with that game. those performance numbers were just not logical for adding such a wimpy card to offload physx.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
Hookay, back to the good stuff. I'll be doing a lot more testing tomorrow night. Just been a little busy. Most of what I needed to do taken care of.

I'll add GTX280 as the dedicated card as well. Sticking with Win7 for the tests for now.

I really want to see a single gpu card used along with an 8600gt 256mb if possible. I have an 8600gt 256mb gddr3 in another pc and I really am debating if it would be worth the trouble to put in my gaming pc for physx with my gtx260 for the main card. although I am no big fan of physx it is in some games I have so I would like to go ahead and use it when possible.

I can certainly try out with something similar. I have the GTX280 (no GTX260 available, sorry), and the 8600GT 512MB GDDR3. Bout as close as I can get to what you wanted to see. The 8600GT 256 meets the absolute minimum requirements for PhysX to be enabled on it. 32 shaders and 256MB memory. It has been shown that in some games such as Cryostasis, even an 8400GS 256MB shows marked improvement in performance. But in other games such as GRAW2 and Batman Arkam Asylum, performance is actually degraded. In fact, the recommended cards for the high PhysX setting are a GTX260 primary + 9800GT PhysX.

I have a feeling the 8600GT won't be enough for BAA. Seems plenty for Cryostasis. We need to get through quite a bit of combinations and benching to find the "Sufficient" all around PhysX GPU. But this could change depending on the Primary card being utilized.

The two primaries I'd use are the GTX295 and the GTX280. For PhysX, I'd use 8600GT 512, 8800GTS 640 and an 8800GTS512. I was even considering picking up a 9600GT for the 64 shader segment.

well using any 8600gt with single gpu I guess will at least give me an idea of what to expect. if you get decent results with the 8600gt 512mb then I will at least be motivated to give my 8600gt 256mb a shot with my gtx260.

actually I think that they recommend a gtx260 and 9800gtx for high physx settings in Batman. that seems a little over the top since even at 1920x1080 with very high settings, no AA and physx on high my old 192sp gtx260 can average 35-40fps even during the most intense action. at no point is it unplayable or even sluggish even if I add 2x AA.

your improvement in Cryostasis with the gtx295 and 8400gs was a little odd and may have had more to do with sli issues with that game. those performance numbers were just not logical for adding such a wimpy card to offload physx.

You're right. GTX260 + 9800GTX. I agree that's overkill. I would think that a 9600GT would be more than enough, but that's what these tests are for. To see a point of diminishing returns. If there is no performance improvement going from a 9600GT to a 9800GTX.

Cryostasis was odd, but that doesn't mean the results are inaccurate. Best way to try it out again would be with the GTX280 + 8600GT combo. Removes SLI issues (if any) out of the equation.

Tonight.

 

[apoppin]

Anyway Keys you are willing to try out the "ultimate" PhysX system ?
- GTX 295 + GTX 280

that would set benchmarks

finally. which benchmark are you using for Cryostasis?
- custom made or using the built-in one from the tech demo?

 

[SirPauly]

It may be odd seeing the configuration recommendations for PhysX for the Batman demo but maybe this is also for the finished product of Batman as well -- which may offer much more content -- just a thought!

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: apoppin
Anyway Keys you are willing to try out the "ultimate" PhysX system ?
- GTX 295 + GTX 280

that would set benchmarks

finally. which benchmark are you using for Cryostasis?
- custom made or using the built-in one from the tech demo?

Yes, I had that in mind to.

Ok gang, I'm about to update the 2nd post with a weblink that'll take you to my new benchmarks. I think it makes for easy understandability in the layout. Like an excel spreadsheet. Take a look, tell me what you think. The numbers will be flowing in for the next few hours. Just keep updating if you wish to keep up.

Here is the link: PhysX Testing Results CLICK HERE

 

[soccerballtux]

Rah, rah rah!

 

[Qbah]

This will be excellent Can't wait for the results to be finished Thanks again Keys!

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Rah, rah rah!

Shish Booom Bahh???

More numbers added.

 

[lavaheadache]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Rah, rah rah!

Shish Booom Bahh???

More numbers added.

seems like 860o gt for prysics is a waste. 8800 looks nice. I wonder how much card you can throw at it

 

[thilanliyan]

Booo so the 8600 isn't sufficient sometimes? Damn I just bought a 8600GT which fits better into my case compared to my 8800GT. I can do some testing with my 4870+8800GT/8600GT later on if nobody objects?

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: thilan29
Booo so the 8600 isn't sufficient sometimes? Damn I just bought a 8600GT which fits better into my case compared to my 8800GT. I can do some testing with my 4870+8800GT/8600GT later on if nobody objects?

Yeah. It would seem the 8600GT just about has the same effect, or slightly less than if you just ran PhysX on the main card (GTX280, GTX295).

I would hazzard a guess that a 9600GT/GSO would fair MUCH better. I'm picking up that 40.00 AR ASUS 9600GSO. 96 shaders. See how that goes.

And absolutely no objection to your 4870+8800GT/8600GT benches. Love to have them. :thumbsup:

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
And absolutely no objection to your 4870+8800GT/8600GT benches. Love to have them. :thumbsup:

Cool...I'm traveling for the next 2 weeks so I'll get to it when I get back home...in the mean time if somebody else with an ATi+nV Physx configuration wants to contribute...they should.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
And absolutely no objection to your 4870+8800GT/8600GT benches. Love to have them. :thumbsup:

Cool...I'm traveling for the next 2 weeks so I'll get to it when I get back home...in the mean time if somebody else with an ATi+nV Physx configuration wants to contribute...they should.

SSChevy had some numbers for us as well. Maybe he can do some more.

P.S. Just bought that 9600GSO from the egg. Hopefully it will be here by Saturday so I can mess with it for the weekend.

 

[Sylvanas]

Well, to cut a long and frustrating story short, I've had to a rebuild so I'm now on a Corei7 setup (installing windows 7 atm ). I thought I'd give the green team a go as I needed a sufficient card to play some MMO's and Empire:TW - I couldn't afford a top of the line card like my 4870X2 so I went and bought a GTS 250. Later down the track I hope to use this GTS250 card as a standalone PhysX card with something like a GT300 or whatever comes- I think It'll suffice . Once I get everything sorted I'll post up some Fluidmark numbers (or whatever that PhysX bench is ). Least I can play around with PhysX now- I'm pleased with my purchases.

Glad to see your results Keys, I'm staying tuned.

 

[Keysplayr]

I was considering upgrading my CPU to a Q9550 the other day while floating through the isles of my local MicroCenter. 169.99 is sweet for this CPU even with tax, considering the very same CPU at newegg is 50.00 more.

Then I just left, and o/c'd my Q6600 to 3GHz for now. The next move I make will be to an i7/i5 system. Not bothering to upgrade the CPU in this rig.

Installing Mirrors Edge now for testing. More numbers coming soon.

EDIT: Giving up on Mirrors Edge. Crashes/Freezes no matter what I do. Patch 1.01 installed. With or without PhysX. Always a crash within minutes, or even seconds. I'm not changing the driver because this also happened using the latest 180 series drivers.
Too annoying to continue with it.

EDIT2: I'll be a sonofabi.... Mirrors Edge does NOT like the GTX295. It loves the GTX280. Not a single crash after swapping out the 295 for the 280. WTF???

Keys

 

[Keysplayr]

Ok, I guess I'll take Mirrors Edge as far as it will let me. GTX280 and 8600GT only for now.
Anyone else have issues with GTX295 and ME? Let me know.

 

[imported_Shaq]

I just tried ME in W7 x86 with 186.18 drivers and it plays okay here. I have the single PCB 295 if that makes a difference.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Shaq
I just tried ME in W7 x86 with 186.18 drivers and it plays okay here. I have the single PCB 295 if that makes a difference.

Seems it was my o/c causing instability. This is why I hate o/c'ing. I'm going to MC later for an i7 setup. I'll sell off this Q6600 rig to recoup some of the expense.

I locked up twice with the GTX280 further into the game.
Went into BIOS and put all settings back to stock. No lockups after than. So, I was a little too quick to blame the GTX295, but I'm not writing it off yet.

After tonight, I'll have a nice new i7 rig to play with. You guys recommend the ASUS P6T?

 

[SickBeast]

Keysplayr, you should forward your findings here to NV; perhaps they could create a GPU with optimal PhysX power that could be integrated into their motherboard chipsets for cheap. :light:

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Keysplayr, you should forward your findings here to NV; perhaps they could create a GPU with optimal PhysX power that could be integrated into their motherboard chipsets for cheap. :light:

Sure, they'll get right on that with my say so. And what happens when you put an ATI card in something like that? Will the integrated PhysX GPU cease to run PhysX? Probably.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Keysplayr, you should forward your findings here to NV; perhaps they could create a GPU with optimal PhysX power that could be integrated into their motherboard chipsets for cheap. :light:

Sure, they'll get right on that with my say so. And what happens when you put an ATI card in something like that? Will the integrated PhysX GPU cease to run PhysX? Probably.

I just think that research like this is useful and it probably would help them somewhat. If their marketing people are stupid enough to disable PhysX with ATi cards, that's their problem.

Integrated PhysX GPUs would be very useful in motherboards and would also serve as a low power extra GPU for running 2D stuff.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Keysplayr, you should forward your findings here to NV; perhaps they could create a GPU with optimal PhysX power that could be integrated into their motherboard chipsets for cheap. :light:

Sure, they'll get right on that with my say so. And what happens when you put an ATI card in something like that? Will the integrated PhysX GPU cease to run PhysX? Probably.

I just think that research like this is useful and it probably would help them somewhat. If their marketing people are stupid enough to disable PhysX with ATi cards, that's their problem.

Integrated PhysX GPUs would be very useful in motherboards and would also serve as a low power extra GPU for running 2D stuff.

I always forward my test results to NV. Usually after it's all completed.

And the conversation above, is for another thread. Not this one.

 

[imported_Shaq]

Up the CPU voltage to 1.55v, up FSB .1v and chipset voltage .1v. That got my q6600 to 3.3 stable with a VID of 1.325. If your VID is less bump the cpu voltage down by the same amount. ie. stay within +.2v of VID.

I would recommend the UD3R but it looks like with the new version (1.6) they neutered it pretty bad. My v1 BIOS is just like the more expensive versions except a lower,but high enough, qpi limit.

 

[Keysplayr]

Ok, ran memtest overnight. Looks like 1 of my 2 2GB sticks has errors. I ran to Microcenter and exchanged them for another set of different memory.
I'll try to o/c the Q6600 again. But Shaq, isn't 1.55v insanely high for the Q6600? Could you give me a hand via PM's o/c'ing this thing properly? If you can spare the time, I'd appreciate it. Thanks

Keys