Sunday, July 20th 2008

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

With NVIDIA releasing their GeForce PhysX drivers, users of the PhysX accelerating GeForce cards were at an advantage over their Radeon counterparts, reason being that in a certain CPU test routine of the 3DMark Vantage benchmark, the physics processing abilities of the computer are tested, and since the physics API used happens to be PhysX, users of GeForce get higher scores despite not having a physics processor device such as an Ageia PhysX card. This differs from a real-life scenario where a GeForce accelerator does both graphics and physics and the overhead of physics processing affects the graphics processing abilities.

The relation of GPU acceleration for gaining higher 3DMark scores in physics tests has been controversial to say the least. Futuremark has now decided to update its Hall of Fame to exclude all results using PhysX on a GPU, simply because this was not how they intended it to work. It has also been updated to organise the results better for easier comparison. You will be able to use GPU physics processing to get a 3DMark score, you will not be able to make it to the Hall of Fame using it. You can use an Ageia PhysX card to assist your 3DMark score to make it to the Hall of Fame, as that's how Futuremark intended PhysX processing scores to assist your final scores. Source: NordicHardware
Add your own comment

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

#51
Hayder_Master
ati cards now is very good and have high score in 3d mark , so nvidia find the weak point in vantage and they took it and develop software like hacking on 3d mark to increase the score , and we must not forget the 3d mark 2006 score Affected with high cpu , so it is weak point too
Posted on Reply
#53
tkpenalty
Wile E, post: 894553"
Well, my system doesn't suffer from high latencies and low read/write speeds. But that's neither here nor there, I'm not speaking purely from my own personal experience. I'm speaking about the multitude of benchmarks available in the wild that do not support your claims. The only 2 exceptions are games like SupCom, and where your res is so low the gpu isn't fully stressed.

If you are running at that low of a res, your framerates are gonna be so high to start with, that the frames given by OCing your cpu won't be noticeable at all, unless you are specifically measuring them. AKA: Going from 200fps to 240fps.
I'm running at 1280x1024.

I see you're running at 1920x1200, and there ya go.
Posted on Reply
#54
Wile E
Power User
tkpenalty, post: 894595"
I'm running at 1280x1024.

I see you're running at 1920x1200, and there ya go.
Even at 1280x1024, if you are cpu limited, your frames are so high that the OC will not make one iota of difference in playability.

To put it in perspective, even on my 6400+ X2 at 1440x900, there is no difference from 2-3.4Ghz. The cpu just doesn't play that important of a role in modern games.
Posted on Reply
#55
tkpenalty
hayder.master, post: 894558"
pci-e 1 , so that mean physics card don't take high bandwidth , but core speed run at 733 :ohwell:
Clockspeed doesnt equal bandwidth therefore I doubt its anywhere near enough to saturate the PCI-E 1x bus. I honestly think that GPUs are better off for PhysX though... (not for benching; for real world) GPUs provide far more processing power in comparison to Dedicated PPUs and CPUs.

Just to remind you ladies and gentlemen, the PPU is technically a GPU that lacks output for Graphics.

Aegia really need to drop their manufacturing process of the PPU core.
Posted on Reply
#56
Millenia
exodusprime1337, post: 893846"
it tells which on is better because this card that i have does physx and amd's cards don't, which is not my problem, i pay foir performance and my 2 8800gts's beat out most crossfire 4870??
It doesn't really reflect a realistic scenario since the physics test is meant for the CPU and the GPU is just idle..

It's not like you can have free physics calculation when you're actually PLAYING something
Posted on Reply
#57
Wile E
Power User
Millenia, post: 894601"
It doesn't really reflect a realistic scenario since the physics test is meant for the CPU and the GPU is just idle..

It's not like you can have free physics calculation when you're actually PLAYING something
But then again, I thought that wasn't the case on the G200 series cards. I was under the impression that they had a dedicated section of the gpu that does no gfx processing, and is dedicated entirely to CUDA.
Posted on Reply
#58
Wshlist
Daft

The whole thing is a bit daft since they themselves put in the PhysX test, and use it while not rendering graphics, and it took them long enough to get the benchmark software out so they had plenty of time to think about it.
So what they are saying is that their 3dmark is flawed, but if that's so their solution should be to fix it with a patch that does the physx test WITH graphics I'd say, and release a few apologies for being so stupid in their original design.

Incidentally I never tried vantage (I avoided vista so far) but in the 2006 CPU bench there are graphics during the test of the CPU, low res but still, so if vantage doesn't have graphics during the CPU/PhysX test as I read here it means they actually deliberately made the test worse, and now moan about themselves, pfft.
Posted on Reply
#59
Wile E
Power User
Wshlist, post: 895047"
The whole thing is a bit daft since they themselves put in the PhysX test, and use it while not rendering graphics, and it took them long enough to get the benchmark software out so they had plenty of time to think about it.
So what they are saying is that their 3dmark is flawed, but if that's so their solution should be to fix it with a patch that does the physx test WITH graphics I'd say, and release a few apologies for being so stupid in their original design.

Incidentally I never tried vantage (I avoided vista so far) but in the 2006 CPU bench there are graphics during the test of the CPU, low res but still, so if vantage doesn't have graphics during the CPU/PhysX test as I read here it means they actually deliberately made the test worse, and now moan about themselves, pfft.
There are gfx during the test. Just nothing that will stress a gpu, just like the cpu tests in 06.
Posted on Reply
#60
Wshlist
Wile E, post: 896066"
There are gfx during the test. Just nothing that will stress a gpu, just like the cpu tests in 06.
Oh I see, so they think it's a cheat because the GPU can't be used if it were to have to do PhysX AND graphics at the same time, although with the processing power of the current and future GPU's you must wonder if there isn't room to spare for doing both, but I guess you'd have to have a fair test for that.
Posted on Reply
#61
Wile E
Power User
Wshlist, post: 896086"
Oh I see, so they think it's a cheat because the GPU can't be used if it were to have to do PhysX AND graphics at the same time, although with the processing power of the current and future GPU's you must wonder if there isn't room to spare for doing both.
That's what I figure. I know that the G200 cards have a reserved area for only CUDA. But people are complaining because the whole gpu is being used to process the physx in the test, instead of the same amount that would be used during normal gaming.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment