Go Back   TechArena Community > Hardware > Monitor & Video Cards
Become a Member!
Forgot your username/password?
Tags Active Topics RSS Search Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #1  
Old 28-01-2011
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 75
Performance Rating of Nvidia PhysX and CUDA

Let us finally take look at the performance rating, which includes, apart from all the PhysX 3DMark Vantage tests. For a detailed overview of the performance of the graphics card but we strongly recommend to look at the individual results.


Until recently, the question of who has to calculate the physics was easy to answer. Regardless of whether you use the PhysX or Havok libraries: the physical effects were always calculated by the CPU. After it has been quite some time every now and then smaller (and never finished) trips of physics to the GPU, Nvidia has now, however, PhysX on CUDA ported by the graphics card. Some current and especially future appears in games - this year it will probably be 14 - the physics, in consequence, can by PhysX on a current Nvidia GPU can be calculated to represent the more details without much performance penalty can.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 28-01-2011
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 67
Re: Performance Rating of Nvidia PhysX and CUDA

Without question, the currently marketed contain PhysX (Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2, Warmonger, Unreal Tournament 3) crack a not necessarily graphically from the stool. That is what matters PhysX but not primarily because the physics representations only indirectly involved with the graphic on the hat. In the games on show at the physics plays a crucial role. Whole houses can destroy, flying debris can cause damage, storms ravage the landscape and new ways to (intended) points can blow up the levels. Graphically not necessarily impressive, but was so much interaction with the physics, there has never been before.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 28-01-2011
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 79
Re: Performance Rating of Nvidia PhysX and CUDA

The PhysX implementation on the GeForce graphics cards seems to be successful. Even a not truly fast GeForce 9500 GT PhysX rendering in applications faster than average significantly more expensive quad-core CPU from Intel. A Core 2 QX9770 have to have four gigahertz overclock, so you get the same performance. With a faster video card like a GeForce 9600 GT you will reach the performance of a GeForce GTX combined 280 with the Ageia PhysX card and can play then all PhysX-liquid applications. With a GeForce GTX 200 card is then possible without high quality settings.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 28-01-2011
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 76
Re: Performance Rating of Nvidia PhysX and CUDA

But looks like GPU physics into games that are not primarily designed for Nvidia PhysX on the GPU, PhysX use but the way to improve performance - such as the early alpha version. Even if you can still make any definitive statements on the final version, the game runs significantly faster with GPU physics. Lets take an example that, a GeForce 9600 GT enough already sufficient to achieve anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering, the same performance as with a GeForce GTX 280, the CPU is ready to physics. Nvidia PhysX on the GPU lies without doubt currently in its infancy and still has much work in to assert itself against the competitors. A further complication is that AMD is currently supports the Havok interface and probably change at a later date on GPU physics. Thus, the software developer forced a relatively high proportion of buyers (with ATI hardware) at a disadvantage when they want to use Nvidia PhysX on the GPU. Because of the many in circulation CUDA GeForce card but there is still a big buyers who can respond it.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 28-01-2011
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 78
Re: Performance Rating of Nvidia PhysX and CUDA

And although the real benefits can only be estimated at present, may show the alpha version of Nurien, go to where most games. Performance is to increase significantly with GPU physics without the optics are not suffering from CUDA performance hardware. A fast CPU is expensive and without proper Nvidia GPU probably also be necessary. Certainly in the minority will be the games that will improve by Nvidia PhysX on the GPU as the Ageia Iceland levels in GRAW 2, the physical effects. But this will give it and there you can probably look forward to some nice and novel interactions with the environment.
Reply With Quote
Reply

  TechArena Community > Hardware > Monitor & Video Cards
Tags: , , , , ,



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads for: "Performance Rating of Nvidia PhysX and CUDA"
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Which card is better Dedicated PhysX or CUDA Card Javesh Monitor & Video Cards 4 05-04-2011 10:34 AM
Nvidia CUDA and PhysX Taarank Monitor & Video Cards 13 25-02-2011 07:20 PM
Performance index rating does not start on windows 7 Wahab4 Operating Systems 5 07-01-2011 10:48 AM
Performance difference of CUDA in Windows and Linux Roasted Operating Systems 6 17-05-2010 09:48 AM


All times are GMT +5.5. The time now is 06:11 AM.