Understanding GTX 480 and PhysX

[newtekie1]

No arguments there since at the moment I don't have any numbers (percentage of frame rate drop when Physx is turned "on") for the GTX 470 nor the GTX 480, but I'll search for those.

I've based my search on the GTX 460 since IMO it is the best Fermi to date and since it's GF104 chip will supposedly be the base for the upcoming GTX 490/495, which I'm considering to get.

The GTX490/495 will be a dual chip card, if you choose, you can use the extra chip to dedicated to PhysX. This essentially is what you want nVidia to do.

Also, I did a little test with my GTX470.

GTX470@815/1630/2000

GTX470@815/1630/2000 w/ 8800GTS dedicated to PhysX:

So adding a dedicated GPU to do PhysX like you want doesn't make a difference!

As I said before, a GTX470 is more than enough for PhysX on its own, there is no need for a dedicated PhysX processor.

Fine, but if they wanted us to buy another card for Physx anyway then why did they integrate Physx into their GPUs in the first place!?! They should have left Physx be handled by a separate card as was the case originally!

Having it as a value added feature for all their GPU owners is a good thing. Having the option to either do it with the single card you already have, or buy a second dedicated card is the best solution. Forcing everyone to buy a second card is bad, and why Ageia failed. Despite what you seem to think more options = a good thing.

 

[phanbuey]

The GTX490/495 will be a dual chip card, if you choose, you can use the extra chip to dedicated to PhysX. This essentially is what you want nVidia to do.

Also, I did a little test with my GTX470.

GTX470@815/1630/2000
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/newtekie1/MafiaIIPhysX470.jpg

GTX470@815/1630/2000 w/ 8800GTS dedicated to PhysX:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/newtekie1/MafiaIIPhysX8800GTS.jpg

So adding a dedicated GPU to do PhysX like you want doesn't make a difference!

As I said before, a GTX470 is more than enough for PhysX on its own, there is no need for a dedicated PhysX processor.



Having it as a value added feature for all their GPU owners is a good thing. Having the option to either do it with the single card you already have, or buy a second dedicated card is the best solution. Forcing everyone to buy a second card is bad, and why Ageia failed. Despite what you seem to think more options = a good thing.

Off topic... but what voltage are you using for 815 core?

 

[motasim]

Dear newtekie1, thank you for the effort, but I have the following remarks:

The GTX490/495 will be a dual chip card, if you choose, you can use the extra chip to dedicated to PhysX. This essentially is what you want nVidia to do.

Correct me if I was wrong, but the GTX 490/495 is going to be built with two GF104 chips (i.e. roughly two GTX 460 cards). So, if I choose to dedicate one chip for Physx in games supporting it, then rendering will be done by a single GF104 chip, which translates into a performance of of a single GTX 460 card, just how exactly is that a good deal?

Also, I did a little test with my GTX470.

GTX470@815/1630/2000
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/newtekie1/MafiaIIPhysX470.jpg

GTX470@815/1630/2000 w/ 8800GTS dedicated to PhysX:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/newtekie1/MafiaIIPhysX8800GTS.jpg

So adding a dedicated GPU to do PhysX like you want doesn't make a difference!

This is not my argument, can you please provide us with performance figures (frames-per-second) of the GTX470 handling Mafia II demo both without Physx and with Physx set to high? This is the comparison that I'm looking for.

Having it as a value added feature for all their GPU owners is a good thing. Having the option to either do it with the single card you already have, or buy a second dedicated card is the best solution. Forcing everyone to buy a second card is bad, and why Ageia failed. Despite what you seem to think more options = a good thing.

In theory what you are saying is great, but in real life for a gamer to play the latest games at 1920x1080 with high physx effects he/she will need a dedicated card, which is exactly what nVidia would like us to do; buy two cards instead of one! Meaning that physx is not really an added value, but an added cost.

 

[DrPepper]

Dear newtekie1, thank you for the effort, but I have the following remarks:



Correct me if I was wrong, but the GTX 490/495 is going to be built with two GF104 chips (i.e. roughly two GTX 460 cards). So, if I choose to dedicate one chip for Physx in games supporting it, then rendering will be done by a single GF104 chip, which translates into a performance of of a single GTX 460 card, just how exactly is that a good deal?




This is not my argument, can you please provide us with performance figures (frames-per-second) of the GTX470 handling Mafia II demo both without Physx and with Physx set to high? This is the comparison that I'm looking for.



In theory what you are saying is great, but in real life for a gamer to play the latest games at 1920x1080 with high physx effects he/she will need a dedicated card, which is exactly what nVidia would like us to do; buy two cards instead of one! Meaning that physx is not really an added value, but an added cost.

I think what newtekie is saying is that a dedicated card is not required at all. Infact it isn't but if you want to get the absolute most frames per second a second card would be ideal but you'd be better off with two cards in SLI than one slaved to physx. The benefit of physx though is you can upgrade from an nvidia card to say a GTX4xx and still be able to use your old card aswell instead of repurposing it or throwing it away which is very good.

 

[erocker]

Here's a single 5850 with a GT 240 for PhysX. All settings on high/PhysX on high. Cloth PhysX has been tweaked to only use Vito's clothes.

Having cloth PhysX for everything in this game is just poorly implemented.

 

[motasim]

I think what newtekie is saying is that a dedicated card is not required at all. Infact it isn't but if you want to get the absolute most frames per second a second card would be ideal but you'd be better off with two cards in SLI than one slaved to physx. The benefit of physx though is you can upgrade from an nvidia card to say a GTX4xx and still be able to use your old card aswell instead of repurposing it or throwing it away which is very good.

Here's a single 5850 with a GT 240 for PhysX. All settings on high/PhysX on high. Cloth PhysX has been tweaked to only use Vito's clothes.

http://i403.photobucket.com/albums/pp112/erocker414/single5850.jpg

Having cloth PhysX for everything in this game is just poorly implemented.

You know; I finally got it : I think that I am giving way too much importance to Physx while every thing I read about it and all your replies indicate that this is wrong. The more I read about it the more it seems to be a failure. I believe that the future is going to be for Open CL based physics which is supported by both nVidia and AMD/ATI GPUs. I've made up my mind; I'll wait till December and pick up the best GPU at that time, regardless if it was Red or Green.

Thanks everybody!

 

[newtekie1]

Dear newtekie1, thank you for the effort, but I have the following remarks:



Correct me if I was wrong, but the GTX 490/495 is going to be built with two GF104 chips (i.e. roughly two GTX 460 cards). So, if I choose to dedicate one chip for Physx in games supporting it, then rendering will be done by a single GF104 chip, which translates into a performance of of a single GTX 460 card, just how exactly is that a good deal?

And having another chip dedicted to PhysX is a good deal how? Or you could have the SLi enabled, getting the graphical performance of both, and a minor hit for PhysX. I was just saying you could dedicate an entire core to PhysX, I'm not saying it was ideal. That is after all what you wanted in your first post, a dedicated chip on the card that does PhysX, well that is what you get. A GF104 dedicated on the card for PhysX. It isn't my fault you idea doesn't work when really implemented.

This is not my argument, can you please provide us with performance figures (frames-per-second) of the GTX470 handling Mafia II demo both without Physx and with Physx set to high? This is the comparison that I'm looking for.

Why? Again, it is your idea that a dedicated chip should be added to each card to allow PhysX. Well I just showed you the results of adding a dedicated chip(all be it on a different card in my case). What happens when you add a dedicated chip? Nothing, performance is the same.

Yes, disabling PhysX improves frame-rates. However, your idea that the reason for this is because PhysX is using a lot of the GPU's power is wrong. PhysX takes next to nothing to run, rendering all the extra particles that PhysX created is what causes the frame-rate drop. PhysX=More Particles=More Graphic load on the GPU.

In theory what you are saying is great, but in real life for a gamer to play the latest games at 1920x1080 with high physx effects he/she will need a dedicated card, which is exactly what nVidia would like us to do; buy two cards instead of one! Meaning that physx is not really an added value, but an added cost.

Did you pay attention to what I just showed you? What does adding a dedicated card do? NOTHING! IT DOESN'T EFFECT PERFORMANCE AT ALL! So you are wrong here.

 

[TheLaughingMan]

The GTX490/495 will be a dual chip card, if you choose, you can use the extra chip to dedicated to PhysX. This essentially is what you want nVidia to do.

Also, I did a little test with my GTX470.

GTX470@815/1630/2000
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/newtekie1/MafiaIIPhysX470.jpg

GTX470@815/1630/2000 w/ 8800GTS dedicated to PhysX:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/newtekie1/MafiaIIPhysX8800GTS.jpg

So adding a dedicated GPU to do PhysX like you want doesn't make a difference!

As I said before, a GTX470 is more than enough for PhysX on its own, there is no need for a dedicated PhysX processor.



Having it as a value added feature for all their GPU owners is a good thing. Having the option to either do it with the single card you already have, or buy a second dedicated card is the best solution. Forcing everyone to buy a second card is bad, and why Ageia failed. Despite what you seem to think more options = a good thing.

These results seem....well wrong. I have done this same test using a GTX 260 and an 8800 GTS with Batman: AA. There was a significant difference in frame rate with the dedicated PhysX card especially on the minimum end. Also, I find it odd the ATI card Erocker posted can out perform both your configurations with 1 minor tweak. It just seems implausible. I would double check the config. to be sure the PhysX are set to use the second card.

Edit: After some quick research, the issue seems to be with Mafia II and the implementation of the APEX PhysX. It heavily favors the new Nvidia GPU cores. All of the 9000 and 8000 series GPU's seems to reduce performance or not help, while the GTX 200 and GTX 400 seems to help as they should. Here is a combination of several tests on this system: http://physxinfo.com/news/3728/mafia-ii-demo-physx-benchmarks-roundup/#more-3728

 

[motasim]

And having another chip dedicted to PhysX is a good deal how? Or you could have the SLi enabled, getting the graphical performance of both, and a minor hit for PhysX. I was just saying you could dedicate an entire core to PhysX, I'm not saying it was ideal. That is after all what you wanted in your first post, a dedicated chip on the card that does PhysX, well that is what you get. A GF104 dedicated on the card for PhysX. It isn't my fault you idea doesn't work when really implemented.




Why? Again, it is your idea that a dedicated chip should be added to each card to allow PhysX. Well I just showed you the results of adding a dedicated chip(all be it on a different card in my case). What happens when you add a dedicated chip? Nothing, performance is the same.

Yes, disabling PhysX improves frame-rates. However, your idea that the reason for this is because PhysX is using a lot of the GPU's power is wrong. PhysX takes next to nothing to run, rendering all the extra particles that PhysX created is what causes the frame-rate drop. PhysX=More Particles=More Graphic load on the GPU.




Did you pay attention to what I just showed you? What does adding a dedicated card do? NOTHING! IT DOESN'T EFFECT PERFORMANCE AT ALL! So you are wrong here.

Dear newtekie1, please don't generalize your specific personal experience as a rule for all of us to take for granted since it simply contradicts with dozens of articles and benchmarks concerning this subject. Please refer to what TheLaughingMan wrote above for example.

What I'm saying is simple; if nVidia is offering us Physx as a bonus feature to convince us to prefer their GPU's over ATI's GPUs, then it should at least implement it properly so that it doesn't affect the overall performance of the GPU, even if that means adding a separate chip on their high-end boards to process it. By the way I disagree with you when you said that PhysX takes next to nothing to run, and that rendering all the extra particles that PhysX created is what causes the frame-rate drop, but unfortunately I don't have any evidence to prove my point of view, but do you have any evidence to substantiate your assumption? I don't think so.

 

[newtekie1]

Dear newtekie1, please don't generalize your specific personal experience as a rule for all of us to take for granted since it simply contradicts with dozens of articles and benchmarks concerning this subject. Please refer to what TheLaughingMan wrote above for example.

What I'm saying is simple; if nVidia is offering us Physx as a bonus feature to convince us to prefer their GPU's over ATI's GPUs, then it should at least implement it properly so that it doesn't affect the overall performance of the GPU, even if that means adding a separate chip on their high-end boards to process it. By the way I disagree with you when you said that PhysX takes next to nothing to run, and that rendering all the extra particles that PhysX created is what causes the frame-rate drop, but unfortunately I don't have any evidence to prove my point of view, but do you have any evidence to substantiate your assumption? I don't think so.

You can disagree all you want, I've tested pretty much every PhysX game with a dedicated PhysX card and a single graphics card, the conclusion is always the same. The GTX470/480 is powerful enough to run PhysX by itself without a dedicated PhysX card, and adding a dedicated PhysX card does nothing. Why does it do nothing? Because the graphics rendering is overloading the GPU and lowering framerates, not PhysX. This has been an issue since PhysX first came out with dedicated Ageia cards. The PhysX calculations aren't slowing down the framerates, the extra graphical load is.

Your idea of "implemented properly" would not affect framerates. It isn't just Mafia that I've experienced this in. Batman:AA showed the exact same behavior. The GTX470 scored the exact same in the Batman benchmark with and without a dedicated GPU. Conclusion: The graphics card simply can not handle the extra graphic rendering required when the PhysX effects are added to the graphical complexity of the game.

 

[motasim]

You can disagree all you want, I've tested pretty much every PhysX game with a dedicated PhysX card and a single graphics card, the conclusion is always the same. The GTX470/480 is powerful enough to run PhysX by itself without a dedicated PhysX card, and adding a dedicated PhysX card does nothing. Why does it do nothing? Because the graphics rendering is overloading the GPU and lowering framerates, not PhysX. This has been an issue since PhysX first came out with dedicated Ageia cards. The PhysX calculations aren't slowing down the framerates, the extra graphical load is.

Your idea of "implemented properly" would not affect framerates. It isn't just Mafia that I've experienced this in. Batman:AA showed the exact same behavior. The GTX470 scored the exact same in the Batman benchmark with and without a dedicated GPU. Conclusion: The graphics card simply can not handle the extra graphic rendering required when the PhysX effects are added to the graphical complexity of the game.

That's fair, I'll take your word for it, but the consequence is that since crunching Physx calculations is not a demanding task as you say, then there is no actual need for a separate chip/card to handle Physx since the CPU can easily do it. So why doesn't nVidia allow this to happen? Why do they cripple CPU Physx? I'll tell you why; because the green fortress lost track of what is important some while back, and they simply don't have the gamers' best interest in mind nowadays. I've made up my mind, screw Physx!

 

[newtekie1]

That's fair, I'll take your word for it, but the consequence is that since crunching Physx calculations is not a demanding task as you say, then there is no actual need for a separate chip/card to handle Physx since the CPU can easily do it. So why doesn't nVidia allow this to happen? Why do they cripple CPU Physx? I'll tell you why; because the green fortress lost track of what is important some while back, and they simply don't have the gamers' best interest in mind nowadays. I've made up my mind, screw Physx!

They do it because if PhysX ran on the CPU, people would have no reason to buy their hardware, and hence nVidia would have no reason to support PhysX. NVidia is a company, and they have to make money, they can't do everything for nothing.

 

[DrPepper]

They do it because if PhysX ran on the CPU, people would have no reason to buy their hardware, and hence nVidia would have no reason to support PhysX. NVidia is a company, and they have to make money, they can't do everything for nothing.

Unless they charged people to use it which is rediculous.

 

[motasim]

They do it because if PhysX ran on the CPU, people would have no reason to buy their hardware, and hence nVidia would have no reason to support PhysX. NVidia is a company, and they have to make money, they can't do everything for nothing.

Unless they charged people to use it which is rediculous.

I'm not expecting nVidia to do anything for free. They already have the patent, they can simply charge licensing fees from game developers (as they've done already for some titles) and make their profit out of that. Opening Physx will encourage game developers to adopt it since currently most of them are not simply willing to develop games that can only be enjoyed on a specific brand of GPUs, which is exactly why Physx is not wide spread up till now. Everyone who supports nVidia in this regard is helping them to monopolize the market (although I doubt that they'll ever succeed with such a management) which is definitely not in the best interest of gamers.

 

[newtekie1]

I'm not expecting nVidia to do anything for free. They already have the patent, they can simply charge licensing fees from game developers (as they've done already for some titles) and make their profit out of that. Opening Physx will encourage game developers to adopt it since currently most of them are not simply willing to develop games that can only be enjoyed on a specific brand of GPUs, which is exactly why Physx is not wide spread up till now. Everyone who supports nVidia in this regard is helping them to monopolize the market (although I doubt that they'll ever succeed with such a management) which is definitely not in the best interest of gamers.

This is the argument against PhysX since Ageia first introduced it, long before nVidia owned it.

The fact is that developers do not pay licencing fees to use PhysX, in fact the opposite is true, nVidia is giving developers that use PhysX developement money. This is really the only way PhysX would be used.

As for the games being enjoyed on a specific brand of GPUs, I didn't seem to enjoy any PhysX game I've owned any less on my ATi cards... PhysX is like AA or AF or Tessellation or HDR etc., they are nice features to have, but if they aren't included they won't make a good game any less enjoyable.

Your same argument can be made for DX11. Why would developers develope a DX11 game if it can't be used on every graphics card in use today? You are talking something like 5% of the market right now is running DX11 capable systems. Why develope DX11 games with DX11 features? Because they are nice to have for the few that can use them, but they certainly aren't required to enjoy the game.

Saying PhysX is required to enjoy any game is a very false statement. Remember, you don't have to turn on PhysX, it is an option, not a requirement.

 

[motasim]

This is the argument against PhysX since Ageia first introduced it, long before nVidia owned it.

The fact is that developers do not pay licencing fees to use PhysX, in fact the opposite is true, nVidia is giving developers that use PhysX developement money. This is really the only way PhysX would be used.

As for the games being enjoyed on a specific brand of GPUs, I didn't seem to enjoy any PhysX game I've owned any less on my ATI cards... PhysX is like AA or AF or Tessellation or HDR etc., they are nice features to have, but if they aren't included they won't make a good game any less enjoyable.

Your same argument can be made for DX11. Why would developers develope a DX11 game if it can't be used on every graphics card in use today? You are talking something like 5% of the market right now is running DX11 capable systems. Why develope DX11 games with DX11 features? Because they are nice to have for the few that can use them, but they certainly aren't required to enjoy the game.

Saying PhysX is required to enjoy any game is a very false statement. Remember, you don't have to turn on PhysX, it is an option, not a requirement.

I feel that this thread has turned into a one-on-one dual which definitely not my intent. It's clear that both of us perceive things in completely different ways.

The purpose of games is enjoyment, and additional features (like Physx, 3D Vision, Eyefinity, ... etc) should lead to more enjoyment, clear and simple. I never said that Physx is required to enjoy a game, I said that it'll add to the enjoyment, please don't twist my words.

Physx can never be compared to DX11, since DX11 is the industry standard in PC gaming and all of the new and upcoming GPUs (from both ATI and nVidia) support it, while the same doesn't apply to Physx.

I believe that we've both debated this subject more than it deserves, this is my last post on this matter.