New PhysX thread.

[toyota]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Batman bench below for me. Everything high 1920x1200 2xAA. Rig in sig

GTX295 alone
26min/60max/42avg

GTX295+9600GT for physx
27min/63max/57avg

So it would seem the 9600GT helps a good deal. Cryostasis saw about 20fps increase.

edit: 4x AA loses 3fps average in each bench. Still perfectly playable.

what is wrong with the gtx295 in Batman? I have an older 192sp gtx260 I can nearly match your gtx295 numbers with the identical settings except 1920x1080. I did my runs during the entire first fight scene which is pretty demanding and my minimums even match your gtx295 and 9600gt results. even if sli isnt working you still have 48 more SP than my gtx260 so why is your setup that slow.


here are a couple runs on all very high graphics, physx on high, 2x AA 1920x1080. again this was pretty much all fighting so in other parts of the game my framerate is even higher.

192sp GTX260 alone. first run I looked at a wall for just a second so I guess thats why it hit 62fps. lol


Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
2678, 69054, 29, 62, 38.781

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
2321, 59309, 26, 50, 39.134

Look at the averages. I'm way ahead of you, portions of this game simply run slow although not noticably so.

There is nothing "wrong" with my 295 at all.

you call a 3fps average "way ahead"?? a gtx295 way over twice as fast as my 192sp gtx260 and these runs are at a very gpu dependent setting. if this was an official benchmark it would make the $500 gtx295 look horrible compared to my wimpy $180 gtx260.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Batman bench below for me. Everything high 1920x1200 2xAA. Rig in sig

GTX295 alone
26min/60max/42avg

GTX295+9600GT for physx
27min/63max/57avg

So it would seem the 9600GT helps a good deal. Cryostasis saw about 20fps increase.

edit: 4x AA loses 3fps average in each bench. Still perfectly playable.

what is wrong with the gtx295 in Batman? I have an older 192sp gtx260 I can nearly match your gtx295 numbers with the identical settings except 1920x1080. I did my runs during the entire first fight scene which is pretty demanding and my minimums even match your gtx295 and 9600gt results. even if sli isnt working you still have 48 more SP than my gtx260 so why is your setup that slow.


here are a couple runs on all very high graphics, physx on high, 2x AA 1920x1080. again this was pretty much all fighting so in other parts of the game my framerate is even higher.

192sp GTX260 alone. first run I looked at a wall for just a second so I guess thats why it hit 62fps. lol


Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
2678, 69054, 29, 62, 38.781

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
2321, 59309, 26, 50, 39.134

Look at the averages. I'm way ahead of you, portions of this game simply run slow although not noticably so.

There is nothing "wrong" with my 295 at all.

you call a 3fps average "way ahead"?? a gtx295 way over twice as fast as my 192sp gtx260 and these runs are at a very gpu dependent setting. if this was an official benchmark it would make the $500 gtx295 look horrible compared to my wimpy $180 gtx260.

Read my scores again...I'm getting 57avg and you're not even hitting 40. Don't be so quick to jump to conclusions. I'm betting SLI isn't even working in this demo.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Batman bench below for me. Everything high 1920x1200 2xAA. Rig in sig

GTX295 alone
26min/60max/42avg

GTX295+9600GT for physx
27min/63max/57avg

So it would seem the 9600GT helps a good deal. Cryostasis saw about 20fps increase.

edit: 4x AA loses 3fps average in each bench. Still perfectly playable.

what is wrong with the gtx295 in Batman? I have an older 192sp gtx260 I can nearly match your gtx295 numbers with the identical settings except 1920x1080. I did my runs during the entire first fight scene which is pretty demanding and my minimums even match your gtx295 and 9600gt results. even if sli isnt working you still have 48 more SP than my gtx260 so why is your setup that slow.


here are a couple runs on all very high graphics, physx on high, 2x AA 1920x1080. again this was pretty much all fighting so in other parts of the game my framerate is even higher.

192sp GTX260 alone. first run I looked at a wall for just a second so I guess thats why it hit 62fps. lol


Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
2678, 69054, 29, 62, 38.781

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
2321, 59309, 26, 50, 39.134

Look at the averages. I'm way ahead of you, portions of this game simply run slow although not noticably so.

There is nothing "wrong" with my 295 at all.

you call a 3fps average "way ahead"?? a gtx295 way over twice as fast as my 192sp gtx260 and these runs are at a very gpu dependent setting. if this was an official benchmark it would make the $500 gtx295 look horrible compared to my wimpy $180 gtx260.

Read my scores again...I'm getting 57avg and you're not even hitting 40.

you got 42fps for the gtx295 alone and thats only 3 fps better than my gtx260 alone.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Batman bench below for me. Everything high 1920x1200 2xAA. Rig in sig

GTX295 alone
26min/60max/42avg

GTX295+9600GT for physx
27min/63max/57avg

So it would seem the 9600GT helps a good deal. Cryostasis saw about 20fps increase.

edit: 4x AA loses 3fps average in each bench. Still perfectly playable.

what is wrong with the gtx295 in Batman? I have an older 192sp gtx260 I can nearly match your gtx295 numbers with the identical settings except 1920x1080. I did my runs during the entire first fight scene which is pretty demanding and my minimums even match your gtx295 and 9600gt results. even if sli isnt working you still have 48 more SP than my gtx260 so why is your setup that slow.


here are a couple runs on all very high graphics, physx on high, 2x AA 1920x1080. again this was pretty much all fighting so in other parts of the game my framerate is even higher.

192sp GTX260 alone. first run I looked at a wall for just a second so I guess thats why it hit 62fps. lol


Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
2678, 69054, 29, 62, 38.781

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
2321, 59309, 26, 50, 39.134

Look at the averages. I'm way ahead of you, portions of this game simply run slow although not noticably so.

There is nothing "wrong" with my 295 at all.

you call a 3fps average "way ahead"?? a gtx295 way over twice as fast as my 192sp gtx260 and these runs are at a very gpu dependent setting. if this was an official benchmark it would make the $500 gtx295 look horrible compared to my wimpy $180 gtx260.

Read my scores again...I'm getting 57avg and you're not even hitting 40.

you got 42fps for the gtx295 alone and thats only 3 fps better than my gtx260 alone.

Just drop it because I don't even understand what you're getting at.

 

[SSChevy2001]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Since you don't have an Nvidia card isn't physx off anyhow?

No I'm running my 4870 1GB render and 8800GTS 512 PhysX

PhysX is on high and I using the 4xAA ingame by changing my Vendor ID.

Why are you benchmarking with bsmoothframerate on?

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Batman bench below for me. Everything high 1920x1200 2xAA. Rig in sig

GTX295 alone
26min/60max/42avg

GTX295+9600GT for physx
27min/63max/57avg

So it would seem the 9600GT helps a good deal. Cryostasis saw about 20fps increase.

edit: 4x AA loses 3fps average in each bench. Still perfectly playable.

what is wrong with the gtx295 in Batman? I have an older 192sp gtx260 I can nearly match your gtx295 numbers with the identical settings except 1920x1080. I did my runs during the entire first fight scene which is pretty demanding and my minimums even match your gtx295 and 9600gt results. even if sli isnt working you still have 48 more SP than my gtx260 so why is your setup that slow.


here are a couple runs on all very high graphics, physx on high, 2x AA 1920x1080. again this was pretty much all fighting so in other parts of the game my framerate is even higher.

192sp GTX260 alone. first run I looked at a wall for just a second so I guess thats why it hit 62fps. lol


Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
2678, 69054, 29, 62, 38.781

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
2321, 59309, 26, 50, 39.134

Look at the averages. I'm way ahead of you, portions of this game simply run slow although not noticably so.

There is nothing "wrong" with my 295 at all.

you call a 3fps average "way ahead"?? a gtx295 way over twice as fast as my 192sp gtx260 and these runs are at a very gpu dependent setting. if this was an official benchmark it would make the $500 gtx295 look horrible compared to my wimpy $180 gtx260.

Read my scores again...I'm getting 57avg and you're not even hitting 40.

you got 42fps for the gtx295 alone and thats only 3 fps better than my gtx260 alone.

Just drop it because I don't even understand what you're getting at.

whats not to understand? according to you 42fps is what you averaged by using the gtx295 alone. I averaged 39fps using the gtx260 alone. thats 3 fps difference. are you really that lost???

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Batman bench below for me. Everything high 1920x1200 2xAA. Rig in sig

GTX295 alone
26min/60max/42avg

GTX295+9600GT for physx
27min/63max/57avg

So it would seem the 9600GT helps a good deal. Cryostasis saw about 20fps increase.

edit: 4x AA loses 3fps average in each bench. Still perfectly playable.

what is wrong with the gtx295 in Batman? I have an older 192sp gtx260 I can nearly match your gtx295 numbers with the identical settings except 1920x1080. I did my runs during the entire first fight scene which is pretty demanding and my minimums even match your gtx295 and 9600gt results. even if sli isnt working you still have 48 more SP than my gtx260 so why is your setup that slow.


here are a couple runs on all very high graphics, physx on high, 2x AA 1920x1080. again this was pretty much all fighting so in other parts of the game my framerate is even higher.

192sp GTX260 alone. first run I looked at a wall for just a second so I guess thats why it hit 62fps. lol


Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
2678, 69054, 29, 62, 38.781

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
2321, 59309, 26, 50, 39.134

Look at the averages. I'm way ahead of you, portions of this game simply run slow although not noticably so.

There is nothing "wrong" with my 295 at all.

you call a 3fps average "way ahead"?? a gtx295 way over twice as fast as my 192sp gtx260 and these runs are at a very gpu dependent setting. if this was an official benchmark it would make the $500 gtx295 look horrible compared to my wimpy $180 gtx260.

Read my scores again...I'm getting 57avg and you're not even hitting 40.

you got 42fps for the gtx295 alone and thats only 3 fps better than my gtx260 alone.

Just drop it because I don't even understand what you're getting at.

whats not to understand? according to you 42fps is what you averaged by using the gtx295 alone. I averaged 39fps using the gtx260 alone. thats 3 fps difference. are you really that lost???

What's your point? Clearly SLI isn't working, move on...sheesh

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd


What's your point? Clearly SLI isn't working, move on...sheesh

so you cant read your own chart but then you get an attitude with me? settle down because I am just trying to read through everybodys numbers and make sense of them. so yeah it looks like sli isnt doing anything. the 3fps more you are getting are clearly just the advantage one of your gpus would have over a 192sp gtx260.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: SSChevy2001

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Since you don't have an Nvidia card isn't physx off anyhow?

No I'm running my 4870 1GB render and 8800GTS 512 PhysX

PhysX is on high and I using the 4xAA ingame by changing my vendorid.

Why are you benchmarking with bsmoothframerate on?

Turning that off in the ini file gives the same results. What am I missing?

EDIT: After setting the min to 0 max to 999 and turning on physx to the 9600gt

1920x1200 4xAA
27min/114max/65avg

The framerates with the GTX295 doing physx was the same as previously.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: SSChevy2001

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Since you don't have an Nvidia card isn't physx off anyhow?

No I'm running my 4870 1GB render and 8800GTS 512 PhysX

PhysX is on high and I using the 4xAA ingame by changing my vendorid.

Why are you benchmarking with bsmoothframerate on?

Turning that off in the ini file gives the same results. What am I missing?

well I believe it removes the 63 fps cap so your max should go up.

I see you have already edited...

 

[cmdrdredd]

Yeah I had it set to do physx on the GTX295 when I did my first test. Nothing changed. I still don't believe this is all we should be getting out of this game. Once the engine is slightly tweaked out and perhaps SLI profiles...I don't know, but it doesn't seem to be that demanding in the demo to be getting 60fps avg only.


Oh and does anyone know if ambient occlusion in the launcher for the game overrides the control panel? Normally I have ambient occlusion set to off in the control panel.

 

[imported_Shaq]

There is a SLI profile in 186.18 for Batman but I know setting it to single with my 260 SLI had a higher framerate probably because 1 is doing physx and the other rendering. You could turn the physx to the 295 and set the profile to single GPU and try that and see what the 9600GT gives you above that.

I believe the final scene is the best for testing as it has all the fog and cloth physx happening and I get lower framerates there.

Ambient occlusion in the game should override the drivers as that setting adds AO to games that didn't originally have it. You can try turning it on in the drivers and retesting.

This thread will help with Cryostasis benching:

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1420948

 

[cmdrdredd]

I'm happy with the performance as it is and when the game releases I will purchase.

 

[Wag]

LIST

Here are a list of some of the bigger PC games coming in future months with Physx support:

Batman: Arkham Asylum
Borderlands
Dragon Age: Origins
Mafia II

Looks like nvidia's getting more and more support for it. I think I'll be picking up a secondary card like the GTS250 to go along with my GTX295 and fool around with it.

 

[SSChevy2001]

If you talking GPU PhysX then I would recommend this list instead.
http://physxinfo.com/

 

[soccerballtux]

Hm, I still don't understand the allure of PhysX. I'm really not interested in having a second card just for particle physics. They don't add much realism to a game, to me at least.

At this moment the real barrier to suspension of disbelief when I'm playing a video game is the facial expressions. Your game can have the best voice acting ever, but if I'm looking at a figure who only has 10 different expressions, that voice acting doesn't mean anything because my brain is still having trouble immersing itself in the world due to the terribly unbelievable [game/cg-model] actors.

Half Life 2 / the source engine /whatever it was that they used to automatically map facial expressions and lip/mouth movements based on an audio clip (even different languages worked) was and still is the best I've seen yet. If they could get the models to be able to open their mouths a bit wider, and show a bit more strain/stress on the face (for example when the voice is yelling but the facial expression doesn't appear nearly as strained) then I couldn't ask for anything more. Shoot, some of those G-man videos look better than even pre-rendered clips in games.

I'd buy an extra card if it could add that realism to a game the second it came out. Until then, movies are still better for story telling, and gaming's great for action, but I still haven't seen any action sequences or games that make PhysX look anywhere near essential to me....not to mention that games like Burnout Paradise have shown even a simple dual core machine can handle crash phsyics and tons of showery sparks flying all over the place no problem-- and there's no PhysX required...

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Wag]

Originally posted by: SSChevy2001
If you talking GPU PhysX then I would recommend this list instead.
http://physxinfo.com/

That's a pretty good list, but the Nvidia list is good because if you read in small quotes at the bottom of the page:

To avoid confusion, PC titles that do not take advantage of PhysX hardware acceleration are ommitted from this listing.

So both are helpful.

 

[Zogrim]

Wag

but the Nvidia list is good because if you read in small quotes at the bottom of the page

No, Nvidia list is not so good, because those small quotes are only confusing people.. only 7 released titles currently support GPU PhysX, other are using PhysX SDK on CPU.
I dunno why they haven't corrected it yet

P.S. If you don't believe me, just look at third pic on this page

 

[Keysplayr]

Don't lose sight as to what this thread is about.

I'll tell you what it "isn't" about.

It's not about how PhysX doesn't interest you. It's about how it "does" interest you. This thread is primarily for people who "are" interested in PhysX.

It's not about ATI, or Havok, or Intel or Larrabee. It is about Nvidia PhysX

It's not about the amount of games out with PhysX content.

It's not about lists.

It's not about the allure

It's not about the lack of interest of having a second card in your rig for PhysX. It's pretty much exactly the opposite. We are actually trying to find the best level of card for this exact purpose.

This is not the place just to say how worthless or uninteresting you think PhysX is, please don't bother and move on. We've heard from each and every one what their position is on PhysX in uncountable numerous threads. No need to repeat yourselves here.

What it "is" about.
This is for PhysX enthusiasts who are really interested and do see the merits and potential for PhysX games and their interactive content.

For people who "are" interested in PhysX. Who "do" enjoy the extra level of immersion and find it pretty cool.

This thread has been pretty cool so far, please lets keep it that way.
Thanks guys/gals.

keys

 

[Qbah]

Originally posted by: Qbah
I would also like to see how much of a hit PhysX is performance-wise. For example we can run AAx8 and that usually cuts the framerates in half. We know that because we run the test with AAx0 first and then with AAx8 and compare Batman, Mirror's Edge and Cryostasis most likely have an option to disable the PhysX effects altogether - by running a test like that we will know how much performance PhysX uses (both running on the same card or on an extra one). Also, any chance running Sacred 2?

My wild guess is the performance with PhysX completely off should be similar with PhysX running on an extra PhysX card (like a 9600GT+). Though it would be nice to have some numbers on it Thanks in advance!

With a small edit

 

[Zogrim]

Keysplayr
Ok, no more lists)

As for PhysX content, I'd like to link some PhysX comparison videos I've made, if you haven't saw them already:
Batman: AA Demo - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vINH6Z9kqgI
Mirror's Edge - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFio7wMTQ2k
Cryostasis - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kufpPwho9Ec
Sacred 2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JK7BkiNboRU
Darkest of Days Demo - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXfm_Qr6RP8

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Zogrim
Keysplayr
Ok, no more lists)

As for PhysX content, I'd like to link some PhysX comparison videos I've made, if you haven't saw them already:
Batman: AA Demo - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vINH6Z9kqgI
Mirror's Edge - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFio7wMTQ2k
Cryostasis - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kufpPwho9Ec
Sacred 2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JK7BkiNboRU
Darkest of Days Demo - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXfm_Qr6RP8

Yes, most of us have seen those. Very nicely done dude!!!!

 

[Zogrim]

Very nicely done dude!!!!

Thanks)

And, here is latest one - GRAW2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KHakdkKQH4

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: Zogrim

Very nicely done dude!!!!

Thanks)

And, here is latest one - GRAW2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KHakdkKQH4

most of that is hardly a big deal. it sure as hell doesnt take physx for most of that crap in other games. the trees sway and environments are destructible just as fine without it. do people really think that trees dont sway in Far Cry 2 just as well as in that game. do people think that Red Faction doesnt have things blow up and look just as good as that? besides the cloth stuff, its clear they gimp the normal version of the game and then only apply these effects with physx. the idiotic consumer thinks... wow I can have swaying tress now that I have physx. thank you nvidia.

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Zogrim

Very nicely done dude!!!!

Thanks)

And, here is latest one - GRAW2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KHakdkKQH4

most of that is hardly a big deal. it sure as hell doesnt take physx for most of that crap in other games. the trees sway and environments are destructible just as fine without it. do people really think that trees dont sway in Far Cry 2 just as well as in that game. do people think that Red Faction doesnt have things blow up and look just as good as that? besides the cloth stuff, its clear they gimp the normal version of the game and then only apply these effects with physx. the idiotic consumer thinks... wow I can have swaying tress now that I have physx. thank you nvidia.

Toyota this thread is only for people who support PhysX to talk about how awesome it is and how it's the wave of the future. In case you weren't aware, forums are not for discussing opinions, only for hyping and promoting Nvidia's latest product...