• 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

Wile E

Power User
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
24,318 (5.00/day)
System Name The ClusterF**k
Processor 980X @ 4Ghz
Motherboard Gigabyte GA-EX58-UD5 BIOS F12
Cooling MCR-320, DDC-1 pump w/Bitspower res top (1/2" fittings), Koolance CPU-360
Memory 3x2GB Mushkin Redlines 1600Mhz 6-8-6-24 1T
Video Card(s) Evga GTX 580
Storage Corsair Neutron GTX 240GB, 2xSeagate 320GB RAID0; 2xSeagate 3TB; 2xSamsung 2TB; Samsung 1.5TB
Display(s) HP LP2475w 24" 1920x1200 IPS
Case Technofront Bench Station
Audio Device(s) Auzentech X-Fi Forte into Onkyo SR606 and Polk TSi200's + RM6750
Power Supply ENERMAX Galaxy EVO EGX1250EWT 1250W
Software Win7 Ultimate N x64, OSX 10.8.4
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.
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.
 
Joined
Apr 21, 2008
Messages
5,242 (1.22/day)
Location
IRAQ-Baghdad
System Name MASTER
Processor Core i7 3930k run at 4.4ghz
Motherboard Asus Rampage IV extreme
Cooling Corsair H100i
Memory 4x4G kingston hyperx beast 2400mhz
Video Card(s) 2X EVGA GTX680
Storage 2X Crusial M4 256g raid0, 1TbWD g, 2x500 WD B
Display(s) Samsung 27' 1080P LED 3D monitior 2ms
Case CoolerMaster Chosmos II
Audio Device(s) Creative sound blaster X-FI Titanum champion,Creative speakers 7.1 T7900
Power Supply Corsair 1200i, Logitch G500 Mouse, headset Corsair vengeance 1500
Software Win7 64bit Ultimate
Benchmark Scores 3d mark 2011: testing
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
 
Joined
Apr 21, 2008
Messages
5,242 (1.22/day)
Location
IRAQ-Baghdad
System Name MASTER
Processor Core i7 3930k run at 4.4ghz
Motherboard Asus Rampage IV extreme
Cooling Corsair H100i
Memory 4x4G kingston hyperx beast 2400mhz
Video Card(s) 2X EVGA GTX680
Storage 2X Crusial M4 256g raid0, 1TbWD g, 2x500 WD B
Display(s) Samsung 27' 1080P LED 3D monitior 2ms
Case CoolerMaster Chosmos II
Audio Device(s) Creative sound blaster X-FI Titanum champion,Creative speakers 7.1 T7900
Power Supply Corsair 1200i, Logitch G500 Mouse, headset Corsair vengeance 1500
Software Win7 64bit Ultimate
Benchmark Scores 3d mark 2011: testing
Joined
Sep 26, 2006
Messages
6,957 (1.43/day)
Location
Australia, Sydney
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.
 

Wile E

Power User
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
24,318 (5.00/day)
System Name The ClusterF**k
Processor 980X @ 4Ghz
Motherboard Gigabyte GA-EX58-UD5 BIOS F12
Cooling MCR-320, DDC-1 pump w/Bitspower res top (1/2" fittings), Koolance CPU-360
Memory 3x2GB Mushkin Redlines 1600Mhz 6-8-6-24 1T
Video Card(s) Evga GTX 580
Storage Corsair Neutron GTX 240GB, 2xSeagate 320GB RAID0; 2xSeagate 3TB; 2xSamsung 2TB; Samsung 1.5TB
Display(s) HP LP2475w 24" 1920x1200 IPS
Case Technofront Bench Station
Audio Device(s) Auzentech X-Fi Forte into Onkyo SR606 and Polk TSi200's + RM6750
Power Supply ENERMAX Galaxy EVO EGX1250EWT 1250W
Software Win7 Ultimate N x64, OSX 10.8.4
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.
 
Joined
Sep 26, 2006
Messages
6,957 (1.43/day)
Location
Australia, Sydney
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.
 

Millenia

New Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2008
Messages
98 (0.02/day)
Location
Turenki, Finland
System Name PixelCruncher Mk. II
Processor AMD Phenom X4 965 @ 3,92GHz
Motherboard MSI GD70-790FX
Cooling Noctua NH-U12P
Memory 2x Patriot Viper DDR3-1600MHz Extreme
Video Card(s) Sapphire Radeon HD4870 1GB
Storage Samsung SpinPoint T166 500GB + Samsung SpinPoint F2 1,5TB
Display(s) Samsung SyncMaster 226BW 22" widescreen
Case CM Storm Scout
Audio Device(s) Creative X-FI XtremeGamer
Power Supply LC-Power Ozeanos 650W modular
Software Windows Vista Home Premium 64-bit (Finnish)
Benchmark Scores 1337 in lulzmark
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
 

Wile E

Power User
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
24,318 (5.00/day)
System Name The ClusterF**k
Processor 980X @ 4Ghz
Motherboard Gigabyte GA-EX58-UD5 BIOS F12
Cooling MCR-320, DDC-1 pump w/Bitspower res top (1/2" fittings), Koolance CPU-360
Memory 3x2GB Mushkin Redlines 1600Mhz 6-8-6-24 1T
Video Card(s) Evga GTX 580
Storage Corsair Neutron GTX 240GB, 2xSeagate 320GB RAID0; 2xSeagate 3TB; 2xSamsung 2TB; Samsung 1.5TB
Display(s) HP LP2475w 24" 1920x1200 IPS
Case Technofront Bench Station
Audio Device(s) Auzentech X-Fi Forte into Onkyo SR606 and Polk TSi200's + RM6750
Power Supply ENERMAX Galaxy EVO EGX1250EWT 1250W
Software Win7 Ultimate N x64, OSX 10.8.4
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.
 
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Messages
236 (0.06/day)
Location
EU
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Wile E

Power User
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
24,318 (5.00/day)
System Name The ClusterF**k
Processor 980X @ 4Ghz
Motherboard Gigabyte GA-EX58-UD5 BIOS F12
Cooling MCR-320, DDC-1 pump w/Bitspower res top (1/2" fittings), Koolance CPU-360
Memory 3x2GB Mushkin Redlines 1600Mhz 6-8-6-24 1T
Video Card(s) Evga GTX 580
Storage Corsair Neutron GTX 240GB, 2xSeagate 320GB RAID0; 2xSeagate 3TB; 2xSamsung 2TB; Samsung 1.5TB
Display(s) HP LP2475w 24" 1920x1200 IPS
Case Technofront Bench Station
Audio Device(s) Auzentech X-Fi Forte into Onkyo SR606 and Polk TSi200's + RM6750
Power Supply ENERMAX Galaxy EVO EGX1250EWT 1250W
Software Win7 Ultimate N x64, OSX 10.8.4
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.
 
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Messages
236 (0.06/day)
Location
EU
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Wile E

Power User
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
24,318 (5.00/day)
System Name The ClusterF**k
Processor 980X @ 4Ghz
Motherboard Gigabyte GA-EX58-UD5 BIOS F12
Cooling MCR-320, DDC-1 pump w/Bitspower res top (1/2" fittings), Koolance CPU-360
Memory 3x2GB Mushkin Redlines 1600Mhz 6-8-6-24 1T
Video Card(s) Evga GTX 580
Storage Corsair Neutron GTX 240GB, 2xSeagate 320GB RAID0; 2xSeagate 3TB; 2xSamsung 2TB; Samsung 1.5TB
Display(s) HP LP2475w 24" 1920x1200 IPS
Case Technofront Bench Station
Audio Device(s) Auzentech X-Fi Forte into Onkyo SR606 and Polk TSi200's + RM6750
Power Supply ENERMAX Galaxy EVO EGX1250EWT 1250W
Software Win7 Ultimate N x64, OSX 10.8.4
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.
 
Top