1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

GPU PhysX Doesn't get you to 3DMark Vantage Hall of Fame Anymore

Discussion in 'News' started by btarunr, Jul 20, 2008.

  1. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    28,750 (11.14/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,683
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    I think he means that his 2x 8800 GTS + score increase due to PhysX > 2x HD4870 ?
     
  2. mullered07

    mullered07 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,648 (0.93/day)
    Thanks Received:
    204
    Location:
    UK
    the whole point futuremark are making is that the physX test in 3dmark vatage were made for the cpu not a gpu and it doesnt represent real world gaming as the nvidia gpus are only being used for the physx in the test and not for rendering graphics at the same time which is what would happen in a real world scenario (ie gpu would be rendering graphics and physx at the same time)

    and ati gpu are fully capable of doing physx only they would have to create there own api as cuda belongs to nvidia (who didnt create it either before the nvidia fanboys start)
     
  3. Kursah

    Kursah

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2006
    Messages:
    7,884 (2.68/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,715
    Location:
    Missoula, MT, USA
    This is what dissapointed me most of FM...they knew this was coming, couldn't have been completely blind to it and should've done another physX test that stressed modern GPU's on the PhsyX and Rendering at the same time for a more proper score...sure it might've been headscratching at release, and maybe they didn't know or didn't have the proper tools...if not then an update will hopefully truly be in the works to alleviate this. I'd like to see a test just for simultaneous Rendering and PhysX GPU...I don't care as much about benches or scores, but to tout a bench that should be better at predicing modern performance, it should have this test in it.

    Hopefully we'll see that happen! :toast:
     
  4. candle_86 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2006
    Messages:
    3,916 (1.37/day)
    Thanks Received:
    233
    personally whats the issue, the GPU was designed to act as a Physx card, so whats the issue you dont have to spend 100 bucks for the card now?
     
  5. Darknova

    Darknova

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2006
    Messages:
    5,037 (1.73/day)
    Thanks Received:
    535
    Location:
    Manchester, United Kingdom
    That's not the issue.

    The issue is that a CPU physics test is being offloaded onto the GPU. In Futuremarks rules this is NOT allowed. Therefore its technically cheating.
     
  6. Megasty New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,263 (0.52/day)
    Thanks Received:
    82
    Location:
    The Kingdom of Au
    I don't care about the cheating. I just want them to get it right for the games.
     
  7. Darknova

    Darknova

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2006
    Messages:
    5,037 (1.73/day)
    Thanks Received:
    535
    Location:
    Manchester, United Kingdom
    Same lol, but that's the topic of this discussion is it not? :)
     
  8. Megasty New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,263 (0.52/day)
    Thanks Received:
    82
    Location:
    The Kingdom of Au
    Yeah, but that is FM's problem. Its plain to anyone to see who is using PhysX & who isn't. The GPU score isn't affected by it but the overall score is. FM turned a blind eye to it at first but its still cheating, so they had finally step in, especially when it was making such a ridiculous difference with the CPU score :shadedshu
     
  9. H82LUZ73

    H82LUZ73

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2008
    Messages:
    1,784 (0.74/day)
    Thanks Received:
    267
    Location:
    Cobourg,Ontario
    this is from Driver Heaven`s R700 preview test setup pic.......notice the blue card?
    [​IMG]
     
  10. mullered07

    mullered07 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,648 (0.93/day)
    Thanks Received:
    204
    Location:
    UK
    read my last post :slap:

    no one is moaning the gpu can do physics but in the cpu physx test the gpu is soley using physx, its not rendering anything else like it would do in game so therefore doesnt represent real gaming/benchmarking(in a game the gpu would be used to render the game aswell as using physx thus taxing it more ), if people are to stupid/ignorant to actually read the article and understand what fm are on about they really shouldnt be commenting on the topic at hand
     
  11. Hayder_Master

    Hayder_Master

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2008
    Messages:
    5,177 (2.17/day)
    Thanks Received:
    638
    Location:
    IRAQ-Baghdad
    guys i just want to ask what is the last physics card release , last one i see it is asus p1 , anything new , and i see someone say the physics on nvidia gpu better than physics card is that true
     
  12. Bytor

    Bytor New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,051 (0.39/day)
    Thanks Received:
    109
    Hayder_Master says thanks.
  13. Hayder_Master

    Hayder_Master

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2008
    Messages:
    5,177 (2.17/day)
    Thanks Received:
    638
    Location:
    IRAQ-Baghdad
    as i told before , only a program can help physics on ati , just like some guy do it before and go more than p22000 score in vantage with 4870 , and nvidia got the guy and he work with nvidia now , aslo i sure for something which is it my frien want to buy a program from nvidia to help him render 3d max projects on gpu , we now it is more fater than cpu , and am sure physics is same thing
     
  14. 1c3d0g

    1c3d0g

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2007
    Messages:
    699 (0.28/day)
    Thanks Received:
    59
    This is why I dislike Futuremark and their stupid benches so much. It's just some rabid fan boys trying to measure who's e-penis is the biggest, but at the end of the day, what did they really "win"? Even if they get the highest score, they're still retarded...nobody with an ounce of sanity wastes so much time and energy into such a pointless benchmark.
     
  15. mullered07

    mullered07 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,648 (0.93/day)
    Thanks Received:
    204
    Location:
    UK
    i must say 3dMark vantage looks like a piece of shit to me anyway, god knows who they had coding that for them but that first test "jane nash" looks absolutely awful, i think all they have really done is concentrate on sm3/4? shaders and giving everything that gay unrealistic looking glow and thought bollox to the rest. im not impressed and feel its more of a tideover until 3dmark09/10? comes out.
     
    1c3d0g says thanks.
  16. Evo85

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2007
    Messages:
    459 (0.18/day)
    Thanks Received:
    36
    Location:
    Indy, IN
    People get waaaay to bent out of shape over this kind of thing. Must be a E-peen thing.. :slap:

    I have always look at benchmarking as a way to judge changes I make to my system. OC this,
    add a better cooler there, run Futuremark, see what the difference is. What matters to me is real world performance. As long as my system is capable of running what I throw at it, and is rock solid I dont really pay to much attention to the numbers...
     
  17. warhammer New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2008
    Messages:
    204 (0.08/day)
    Thanks Received:
    25
    3dMark vantage is not real world gaming or performance..
     
    ShadowFold says thanks.
  18. farlex85

    farlex85 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2007
    Messages:
    4,830 (1.74/day)
    Thanks Received:
    638
    Real world gaming is just another benchmark, and is subject to the same biases and differences that 3dmark is. I really don't know why that argument always gets brought up. Just b/c a game is popular doesn't make it a better bench than a program like 3dmark.

    I personally find it a little hard to believe fm didn't intend for this sort of effect on scores, as physX is built into the final and difference making test. PhysX being there completely changes the way the test is run. Did they not know nvidia was putting physX on their cards? Did they think this would just be for dedicated physics cards? I doubt it. The bench really is done poorly, and planned very poorly. That last test should be a seperate category for physics, calling it a cpu score is a cause for all the frizzy. I also agree w/ mulder, I think it doesn't look very good at all. They need to figure out something new to accomodate this changing graphics processing arena.
     
  19. mullered07

    mullered07 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,648 (0.93/day)
    Thanks Received:
    204
    Location:
    UK
    its mullered :laugh::toast:
     
  20. farlex85

    farlex85 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2007
    Messages:
    4,830 (1.74/day)
    Thanks Received:
    638
    :laugh: Sorry. I confused you w/ a paranormal investigator. :D
     
  21. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    28,750 (11.14/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,683
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    PhysX driver allows you to use either the Ageia card or GeForce physics, not both. So if they use a test bed with a Ageia card, it makes for an even (fair) ground in which to test R700 against GTX 280 or any other card, since GTX 280's physics abilities won't be used by the driver, in each test, the PhysX card adds to the score.
     
  22. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,324 (8.23/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,778
    I think it's silly to not include the Physx scores, so long as you are using FM approved WQHL drivers.

    Banning gpu Physx in Vantage is like banning quad core cpus in 06. Going from a 3Ghz dual core to a 4GHz quad doesn't change your gaming experience at all, but it sure as hell boosts 06 scores.

    I think if they are gonna ban hardware that gives an "unfair advantage" in their benchmarks because "it doesn't reflect real world scenarios", then they should do it with all of there benchmarks.

    It's not the decision that upsets me, it's their lack of consistency in this. If you apply an "unfair advantage" rule to one bench, you should do it to all of them.
     
  23. tkpenalty New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,958 (2.35/day)
    Thanks Received:
    345
    Location:
    Australia, Sydney
    Think of this. One system with one 8800GT. When you're gaming I doubt the GPU will simultaneously process physics while processing graphics. FM basically are saying that and thats why the GPU score is invalid.

    Okay so lets say you have one 8600GT for Physics and one 8800GT for Graphics.

    Going from 3Ghz to 4Ghz DOES give performance gains with Core 2. GRID goes from moderately smooth 30-40 FPS up to 50-60 FPS.
     
  24. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,324 (8.23/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,778
    I'm sorry TK (and no offense intended), but I don't believe that. I think you are simply mistaken. I would need proof. I've already seen countless benchmarks that say otherwise, even in some of my own testing.
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2008
  25. tkpenalty New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,958 (2.35/day)
    Thanks Received:
    345
    Location:
    Australia, Sydney
    Consider the chipset, and memory that you are using first. This RAM doesn't yield good memory performance; latencies are fairly high with rather weak read/write.

    I take no offense, and in your case its different its like comparing apples to oranges.
     

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page