Go Back   Hardware Canucks > SOFTWARE > O/S's, Drivers & General Software

    
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old December 23, 2012, 09:16 PM
IRQ Conflict's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Drayton Valley, AB
Posts: 1,566

My System Specs

Default physx 9.12.1031

Using nvidia driver 310.70 seems to not like working with my GTX 295. I downloaded the two UT3 physx maps that were designed to run with physx enabled cards. However this is not working at all for me. It doesn't even show the Physx running on CPU or GPU text.

Halp!?
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old December 23, 2012, 10:39 PM
great_big_abyss's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,211

My System Specs

Default

This may be a longshot, but try 260.99 WHQL drivers.
__________________



HTPC: Z77A-G45; 3770K; Coolermaster GeminII; 2x4GB Kingston HyperX 1600Mhz; MSI R7-260X; 2x 128GB Crucial M4 SSD; 1TB WD Green, 2x 2TB WD Green; PC P&C 750W PS; Fractal Design Node 605;
Son's Rig: M5A97; 1055T; CNPS20LQ; 2x4GB Corsair Vengeance 1600Mhz; ASUS GTX650Ti Boost; 80GB Intel 520 SSD; 320GB WD Black HDD; SPI 700W; Bitfenix Shinobi;
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old December 23, 2012, 11:09 PM
KaptCrunch's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Ontario
Posts: 2,955
Default

for physx to work need 256ram version or bigger ram on card
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old December 23, 2012, 11:53 PM
IRQ Conflict's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Drayton Valley, AB
Posts: 1,566

My System Specs

Default

Thanks guys! Crunchy, I have 896MB's of vram. I'll give those drivers a shot GBA.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old December 24, 2012, 08:23 AM
KaptCrunch's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Ontario
Posts: 2,955
Default

nv 306.97
physx 09.12.0613

works fine here on 9800

found that the 306.97 puts in lower physx driver

loaded the 306.97 package then removed the physx driver in control panel add/remove programs

then loaded physx 09.12.0613 separately from nvidia site

works the best
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old December 24, 2012, 09:14 AM
IRQ Conflict's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Drayton Valley, AB
Posts: 1,566

My System Specs

Default

Thanks. Yeah, I thought ATI was supposed to be so bad lmao. I went through driver hell last night and still came up short. Tried 310.70 no physx and overscan issues. 260.99 same thing.

So I thought I would get smart and look for older drivers that worked on this card in past reviews with examples of physx running. I started with 181.22. Holy mother of the Almighty!! Wouldn't even install the driver. It was the proper driver but the installer told me the OS wasn't 64bit so it refused to install. So I tried to run it after the files were extracted and the installer told me it couldn't find a compatible card.

So I tried 258.96. Install went well but I was back to having issues with no physx and overscan. These drivers would set my resolution to 800x600 after trying to apply things after choosing a resolution then stretching to fit. I have never seen so many poor drivers before. No, not even from ATI.

I will try 306.97 next lmao. Thanks. I was thinking of going with nvidia and checking out their 3D implementation. But I've changed my mind. I'll stick with ATI and 2D for the next build I think lol.

Edit: On a positive note, the latest driver did run BF3 reasonably well for me. (had to say something good).

Edit#2: Oh I almost forgot. No hardware monitoring in the CP? WTF? How....quaint.

Also, you should be able to deselect the physx stuff during driver install then go to C:/nvidia or wherever you chose to extract and find the physx installer there and run it separately after driver install. Though I don't know why that should have an impact on anything.

Edit#3: Almost forgot to mention. If I choose a resolution from the PC menu (4:3, 16:10) it applies just fine. HD widescreen? (16:9) Fugettaboutit.

Last edited by IRQ Conflict; December 24, 2012 at 10:04 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old December 24, 2012, 10:47 AM
IRQ Conflict's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Drayton Valley, AB
Posts: 1,566

My System Specs

Default

OK, full stop. Installed 306.97 with physx 09.12.0613. Samey as 310's. Runs games well but no Physx. At least not in UT3. I will test Arkham Asylum once I get the chance. To all, thank-you very much for you help.

I do think nvidia needs to rethink their support (or rather lack of) for the 16:9 aspect ratio. Stretching is an unnecessary joke. It's cheap and nasty imho.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old December 24, 2012, 01:26 PM
IRQ Conflict's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Drayton Valley, AB
Posts: 1,566

My System Specs

Default

Update. Installed Arkham Asylum. Looking good. Physx works great and the benchmark with everything maxed at 1080p sans AA.
Min: 31 Max: 103 Avg: 71

So, it appears that nvidia is no longer supporting Physx on UT3? Not sure but it works in newer titles. Isn't Batman based on the UT3 engine?
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old December 29, 2012, 05:19 AM
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Montreal
Posts: 1,581

My System Specs

Default

BTW : the hardware monitoring, you do it with EVGA PrecisionX
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old January 4, 2013, 08:58 PM
IRQ Conflict's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Drayton Valley, AB
Posts: 1,566

My System Specs

Default

Thanks MARSTG. Got a copy of that software. The Classified skin goes good with the ROG theme I have going on!

Anywho, for those that might be interested, I was able to get my UT3 maps working fine. The problem stemmed from the fact that it was an Ageia driver that was supplied and the link libraries didn't accept newer drivers so deleting those dll's from the binary folder fixed it. Runs great at 60+ FPS now instead of 9-10 FPS.

As for the desktop, somehow, re-installing 310.70 seems to have sorted out the resolution problems I was having. Now when I choose 1920x1080p It actually scales properly. Knock on wood.

I am however perplexed at the low FPS I am getting with FluidMark. ~10 FPS and a score of 299 seems a little low doesn't it?
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
PhysX Wurmer Video Cards 9 January 6, 2011 05:16 PM
PhysX r0k0 Video Cards 8 January 23, 2010 08:00 PM
PhysX help Varroa Video Cards 2 December 18, 2009 11:15 AM
Physx kendallcschm Video Cards 0 December 6, 2009 06:29 PM
PhysX with ATI? ToXic Video Cards 43 August 13, 2009 06:42 AM