PhysX FluidMark results thread

[Kursah]

Nice WileE, that is insane! Single 8800GT pwns ALL! I wonder what I would get in XP Pro SP3 now...lol!

Could you try it in Vista x64 by chance? Or is that a Vx64 run?

 

[Wile E]

XP sp3. Give me a few, and I'll do an V64 run for you. Need to boot over and download and install the new drivers.

 

[Katanai]

Well I just get a black screen from this. PhysX work ok tho and I got the latest driver, so what's up?

 

[Kursah]

Did you let it sit there and finish? Are you on x64? I get a black screen, but the test lasts like 30 seconds or so iirc, just let it run, then you'll go back to desktop with the verifacation/score screen. It's running, just not displaying for some...

 

[farlex85]

Pushed a bit more for 8k. Seems cpu does make a difference, although not huge.

 

[Kursah]

Nice Farlex! You guys are making my GTX 260 shy damn you all! It's all good though, she shines in games!

 

[johnspack]

Ouch, I wanna wing my athlon mobo out the window......

 

[Wile E]

Damn. This bench takes a HUGE hit in Vista x64. This is the whole reason I still keep XP around for benching.

All the same settings

9488

Don't use this bench in Vista x64, if you can help it.

 

[Kursah]

Still 1K up on me Wile E...we're both running procs at 3.6, 400FSB, my 2x2GB is at 1000, your 2x1 is at 1200, my card's OC'd specs for bandwidth, and fillrates are higher, but your clocks except for memory are higher...especially them shaders! So I'm assuming the speed of shaders for PhsyX makes a BIG difference in performance eh?

 

[Wile E]

Still 1K up on me Wile E...we're both running procs at 3.6, 400FSB, my 2x2GB is at 1000, your 2x1 is at 1200, my card's OC'd specs for bandwidth, and fillrates are higher, but your clocks except for memory are higher...especially them shaders! So I'm assuming the speed of shaders for PhsyX makes a BIG difference in performance eh?

I'm guessing shaders. It made a rather large difference in Furmark as well. Oh, and I haven't changed my specs, I run my ram @ 960 4-4-4-12 now.

 

[Kursah]

I'm guessing shaders. It made a rather large difference in Furmark as well. Oh, and I haven't changed my specs, I run my ram @ 960 4-4-4-12 now.

I'll have to keep playing with my OC's, my goal is 1600 on the shaders...I'm pegged on bios vMods for now...1.18v was the highest choosable at this time. But that still pales in comparison to 2250! That's an awesome card you have there man!

It is interesting to see the results here tho..between PhysX performance in benches, and performance in games, I'm curious to see how the 8, 9 and 200 series all pan out and how hard they all get hit.

 

[Wile E]

You have to realize I'm heavily voltmodded and watercooled tho.

 

[farlex85]

I'll have to keep playing with my OC's, my goal is 1600 on the shaders...I'm pegged on bios vMods for now...1.18v was the highest choosable at this time. But that still pales in comparison to 2250! That's an awesome card you have there man!

It is interesting to see the results here tho..between PhysX performance in benches, and performance in games, I'm curious to see how the 8, 9 and 200 series all pan out and how hard they all get hit.

You have quite a few more shaders though, that's gotta count for something. It does seem a bit odd to me that a 2xx series card is around the same as my 8-series for this bench. Especially since I was under the impression that the 2xx cards were specifically made to have cuda optimization and such. I wonder what's causing that here.......

 

[johnspack]

Thats gotta add fps in games, for the first time in 17yrs, I want an intel system bad..

 

[Wile E]

You have quite a few more shaders though, that's gotta count for something. It does seem a bit odd to me that a 2xx series card is around the same as my 8-series for this bench. Especially since I was under the impression that the 2xx cards were specifically made to have cuda optimization and such. I wonder what's causing the score difference here.......

Vista x64 is the culprit. It lost me almost 3000pts.

 

[Kursah]

You have quite a few more shaders though, that's gotta count for something. It does seem a bit odd to me that a 2xx series card is around the same as my 8-series for this bench. Especially since I was under the impression that the 2xx cards were specifically made to have cuda optimization and such. I wonder what's causing the score difference here.......

Yeah that's another part that has me wondering what's going on...I'm guessing the drivers aren't optimized yet...maybe because I'm on PCI-e 1.1? I dunno...but like you said the 2xx cards were designed with Cuda in mind, it's supposed to be the big CUDA representative for NV...if an 8xxx and 9xxx series can keep up...hard saying what's really going on. All I can say is the card is a gaming monster for me!

I guess we'll have to see what happens with other GTX2xx users submitting here with different OC's, chips, MB's, and such..and see what happens in later versions of this bench and newer drivers.

Vista x64 is the culprit. It lost me almost 3000pts.

Yeah, even so, your 112 shaders at 2250 are putting the hurt on my 192 shaders at 1570...but like said earlier, shader speed must be a very important thing here. Wonder if the 200b's have some heavy increases in speeds here with higher clocks than I could reach on my best day? Who knows...I do know even if I went into Xp Pro x86, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't hit your score!

 

[farlex85]

Vista x64 is the culprit. It lost me almost 3000pts.

No we're both using vista x64. So I guess you could add 3000 to each of ours (mine and Kursahs) if we had xp. I'm on stock volts and cooling (w/gpu), yet am able to nearly match a quad w/ a gtx 260, that just doesn't seem quite right....... Although it may not work out evenly, perhaps vista does have much to do w/ it atm.

Yeah that's another part that has me wondering what's going on...I'm guessing the drivers aren't optimized yet...maybe because I'm on PCI-e 1.1? I dunno...but like you said the 2xx cards were designed with Cuda in mind, it's supposed to be the big CUDA representative for NV...if an 8xxx and 9xxx series can keep up...hard saying what's really going on. All I can say is the card is a gaming monster for me!

I guess we'll have to see what happens with other GTX2xx users submitting here with different OC's, chips, MB's, and such..and see what happens in later versions of this bench and newer drivers.

Shouldn't be 1.1, don't think that makes much of a bottleneck yet, I guess yeah we'll just have to wait and see. Maybe pos you can split these by vista and xp or no?

 

[Katanai]

Ah ok. I don't want to run a black screen for more than two seconds, let alone 30. Maybe I'll try it out again when they get it sorted out...

 

[Kursah]

Ah ok. I don't want to run a black screen for more than two seconds, let alone 30. Maybe I'll try it out again when they get it sorted out...

OK, it won't hurt anything...the screen'll just be black while the bench runs...then it pops back into desktop with the score. I don't blame ya tho...I want to see what's going on for the score I'm recieving.

 

[Lionheart]

i got a shit score on me HD4850, I think it was 563 totla, goes to show ya we need some updated drivers.

 

[farlex85]

i got a shit score on me HD4850, I think it was 563 totla, goes to show ya we need some updated drivers.

Ati cards don't have physX yet. As of right now, this bench is pretty much strictly nvidia.

 

[Lionheart]

yeah i thought so, just wanted to give it a go anyways for the heck of it

 

[Mussels]

Vista x64. i saw the images fine and i'm on OLDER drivers. (177.79)
This is my LAN rig (NOT the one in specs)
score of 6402.

What i will do now, is update to the 'required' drivers and see how she goes.

 

[Mussels]

Updated on the 'required' drivers

Score has changed from 6402 to 6415. More or less no difference so i wont bother posting a screeny

i'll go test my 8800GT now...

edit:

8800GT - 6257

 

[Bundy]

Here is mine, Q6700 @ 3300 and XFX 8800 Ultra xxx stock. Not bad for a card getting a bit middle aged I guess.