Thursday, August 28th 2008

Radeon and GeForce Share Work, PhysX Applications Win

The functionality of CUDA and its implementation of GPU-accelerated PhysX processing has benefited many a GeForce user. Users of ATI accelerators lacking this incentive either use Ageia PhysX card or avoid it altogether. It has been verified by Hardspell that in an environment where Radeon accelerator(s) do graphics processing, a GeForce accelerator can be used standalone to process PhysX. Hardspell used a Radeon HD 3850 along with a GeForce 9600 GT on the same system with the display connected to the Radeon, though no form of multi-GPU graphics connection existed, the GeForce card partnered the Radeon well in processing physics, while the Radeon did graphics. Results of the oZone 3D FluidMark, a benchmark that includes routines to evaluate the machine's capability in processing physics, showed a greater than 350% increase in scores, showing that the GeForce accelerator is doing its job.

This was further proved with game testing of Unreal Tournament III. Provided are screen-shots from the game along with those of the FluidMark windows. The first window shows a score of 759 o3marks, while the second window in which GeForce processed PhysX, the score jumped to 2909 o3marks.

Source: Hardspell
Add your own comment

144 Comments on Radeon and GeForce Share Work, PhysX Applications Win

#1
Mussels
Moderprator
by: R_1
It is better just to buy a quad core CPU and to use it's additional 2 cores for physics in games. In this way you will have more balanced PC.
or not. please at least educate yourself before making blind statements.

I own two quad core systems, and my FPS went from 15-20 in UT3 with physx, to over 70 with the video cards assisting. CPU's have nothing in terms of power, compared to video cards.
Posted on Reply
#2
eidairaman1
ya and Intel thinks X86 is going to be a Good Graphics Engine (Larrabee) this just proves intel is further wrong.
Posted on Reply
#3
Wile E
Power User
What if, in vista, you install the entire nVidia driver package with the Physx app, then just uninstall the gfx drivers and leave Physx on there? Wonder if that would work?
Posted on Reply
#4
kaneda
CUDA is great and all, props to nVidia getting it out there. but where the damned hell is opencl?
Posted on Reply
#5
Tatty_One
Senior Moderator
Thanks Newtekie, what is interesting is that with an ATI card it runs in purely software mode through the CPU as opposed to hardware thru the GPU, but I gather thats just for the bench, you cant actually run GRAW2 in software?

It will be interesting to see how the other cards do with the bench, I am just about to take over the bench's thread so am looking forward to updating your scores!
Posted on Reply
#6
renegade1990
КросСли рулира, продължавайте само така! :rockout:
Posted on Reply
#7
eidairaman1
by: kaneda
CUDA is great and all, props to nVidia getting it out there. but where the damned hell is opencl?
that Macntrash language, it wont see fruitition until people start working with it in games, just like open GL of its time. btw Translate that Cyrilic or dont use it at all.
Posted on Reply
#8
MrMilli
by: Tatty_One
Thanks Newtekie, what is interesting is that with an ATI card it runs in purely software mode through the CPU as opposed to hardware thru the GPU, but I gather thats just for the bench, you cant actually run GRAW2 in software?

It will be interesting to see how the other cards do with the bench, I am just about to take over the bench's thread so am looking forward to updating your scores!
I don't know why people are mixing up these stuff.
Physx is just an API. If you don't have Physx hardware, it just runs on software (ie CPU). If you have hardware (Physx card or Geforce), it will use it.
The only thing that some developers have done is create a couple of special levels with higher level of physics and locked it so only people with Physx hardware can play it. That doesn't mean it can't run in software mode, it would just be to slow. Most aren't even locked actually.
Except of Cellfactor, i don't know any other game that really requires Physx hardware.
(You can even hack Cellfactor to run without hardware!)
Posted on Reply
#9
chron
Hey what kind of cooling are they using? It looks like they have the same vga cooler on both cards...
Posted on Reply
#10

by: Wile E
What if, in vista, you install the entire nVidia driver package with the Physx app, then just uninstall the gfx drivers and leave Physx on there? Wonder if that would work?
that would uninstall the nvidia control panel and cuda files, which are needed to select the physX settings .
#11
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: Wile E
What if, in vista, you install the entire nVidia driver package with the Physx app, then just uninstall the gfx drivers and leave Physx on there? Wonder if that would work?
Well, in Vista, the nVidia graphics driver isn't activated when your primary card is an ATi, so uninstalliing it wouldn't really do anything really. The graphics driver has to be installed and activated for the card to be recognized by the PhysX drivers and be used as a PhysX card.

That is what leads me to believe that there are really only 2 work arounds for nVidia at this point.

1.) Develope a driver for their graphics cards, that isn't a graphics driver. So the card appears to the OS as just a PhysX card and not a Graphics Adapter.
2.) Get PhsyX working on ATi hardware, so that people running all ATi setups can use PhysX.
Posted on Reply
#12
Darkrealms
Great for sales of high end ATI and low end Nvidia cards.

Let the frankensteining begin ; P
Posted on Reply
#13
Wshlist
So why so late and why only hardspell and why relatively little info on drivers and motherboard/chipset used and such?
Why doesn't techpowerup do this test and confirm it?
Posted on Reply
#14
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
by: Wshlist
So why so late and why only hardspell and why relatively little info on drivers and motherboard/chipset used and such?
Why doesn't techpowerup do this test and confirm it?
It's irrelevant which motherboard you use. 2 PCI-E slots is all you'd need.
Posted on Reply
#15
Wshlist
by: btarunr
It's irrelevant which motherboard you use. 2 PCI-E slots is all you'd need.
That's what we think, but is it? It would be what you expect but personally I'd also expect to not need any SLI or crossfire board for that sli/crossfire to work but just 2 16x PCIe slots, and yet..
Posted on Reply
#16
chron
by: Wshlist
That's what we think, but is it? It would be what you expect but personally I'd also expect to not need any SLI or crossfire board for that sli/crossfire to work but just 2 16x PCIe slots, and yet..
Well you're talking about two video cards working together. Currently what they're talking about here is the equivalent of throwing in a PCI physx card. You're simply adding a processor that takes care of the physx code. You could run it at 16x/4x on older boards also. The PCI-e x16 slots dont always need to be used for video.
Posted on Reply
#17
Wshlist
by: chron
Well you're talking about two video cards working together. Currently what they're talking about here is the equivalent of throwing in a PCI physx card. You're simply adding a processor that takes care of the physx code. You could run it at 16x/4x on older boards also. The PCI-e x16 slots dont always need to be used for video.
I see the logic of course, there's no flaw in it except that it IS a graphics card that reports to the OS/BIOS as a graphics card, and for now even requires graphics card drivers, so although it makes sense and should make sense in practise it might have issues on certain motherboards or chipsets I fear, only testing can tell if it works on any chipset/mobo as you'd expect.
Posted on Reply
#18
Mussels
Moderprator
wshlist: we already know its the same as using the ageia PCI PPU card. SLI and crossfire boards are not required.

The only problems are getting both drivers to work at the same time.
Posted on Reply
#19
Jambul_Er
I put HD4850 (catalyst 8.8) and 9600gso (force ware 177.92 +08.08.18 physX). PhysX does not see 9600GSO.
What to do?
Posted on Reply
#20
Wshlist
If 'we already know' then why is this news and all so vague and only one site tried? If it's the driver I'm sure others can experiment too, in fact I have run a physx demo on my radeon (no nvidia to back it up) which required the cuda.dll. so if it works then the trick is installing some more dll's (if needed) that access the nvidia card, which I imagine is done by separate dll's and you could trace which ones are used by physx surely? In fact don't they have a separate installer for CUDA physx? in that case it must be even less searching for the stuff needed, or perhaps a phone call to nvidia might do it, they like to support cuda on radeon so they'd certainly not mind the idea of people adding nvidia cards to radeon-powered systems I imagine :)

Well either way I think techpowerup should try and write a more detailed report, I'm sure they can lay their hands on a radeon and nvidia card for a moment.
Posted on Reply
#21
Wshlist
by: Jambul_Er
I put HD4850 (catalyst 8.8) and 9600gso (force ware 177.92 +08.08.18 physX). PhysX does not see 9600GSO.
What to do?
Thanks for trying jambul, did you install cuda? or the cuda.dll? in other words did you do some experimentation? If so keep us informed please :)
Posted on Reply
#22
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
by: Jambul_Er
I put HD4850 (catalyst 8.8) and 9600gso (force ware 177.92 +08.08.18 physX). PhysX does not see 9600GSO.
What to do?

Not yet possible on Windows Vista.
Posted on Reply
#23
Jambul_Er
Thanks for your reply. Only from Russia and I do not know English. Translation through GOOGLE.
Posted on Reply
#24

the img is a hidden link to another site
Posted on Edit | Reply
#25
Jambul_Er
by: btarunr
Not yet possible on Windows Vista.
I have Windows XP SP3:cool:
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment