Circa 2015, GTX 970 with GTX 650 dedicated for PhysX.oh you mean cards like this?
View attachment 118449
Lets bring back Xfire / SLI also...
That was my last system i had with 4 x GPU's... two X2's
ATi at that time, used a PLX bridge to bridge the 2 GPU's on a single PCB.
Nvidia went the funny approach and did this with a internal SLI bridge:
View attachment 118450
That was the GX2 if i recall... and u can see the tiny SLI bridge between the 2 pcb's on the right side of the card.
Wanna hear something even more funny... all 3 of the GPU's i posted combined still did not cost as much as a single 5090.
Ahhh i really miss that case too. It was every so "You are PC eLeeT Lian Li V2200" all Alu, very expensive case, which went head to toe with Silverstones TJ-07. Before cases became all cheap and gamer like it is today.
Imagine if they came out with SLI again for gamers..
They would have a excuse for gamers PCMR elitist to pay for what you could get a used CAR for.
Ho, still pending confirmation...
NV going to reduce 5070Ti BOM by $30 and forcing AIC to maintain 40% SKU @ official prices. Thanks AMD.
That's mean we should be seeing more RTX-5070Ti SKUs @ $749...
Source: Bilibili
Amazing wonderful AMD did it again!That's mean we should be seeing more RTX-5070Ti SKUs @ $749...
That is insane! That's like getting a 5070 Ti when you thought you bought a 5080! That's also like my core running at 2.7ghz instead of 3ghz! This is crazy on all levels!GN Steve unloads both barrels on the 5080 missing rops
0.5% defect rate on a founders edition that nv had to have validated themselves. and the fact that they had the .5 number ready one day after the defect came to light.
1 to 10% improvement of full rop 5080 in the selection of games they tested.
note: you need to install the drivers in order for gpuz to show the rop count, if you dont install it just looks up the default table value(full)
Eh the impact isn't THAT high.That is insane! That's like getting a 5070 Ti when you thought you bought a 5080! That's also like my core running at 2.7ghz instead of 3ghz! This is crazy on all levels!
Shows how important ROPs are for perf and 5090 had same number as 4090, maybe it would have been a lot quicker if they added more.Eh the impact isn't THAT high.
Kind of.Shows how important ROPs are for perf
Then impact is huge, they ordered the best and they received the INFERIOR. It's like buying an Apple phone but having your messages appear in green bubbles to friends and family.Eh the impact isn't THAT high.
The more they buy, the more they learn.Then impact is huge, they ordered the best and they received the INFERIOR.
Overall, the results are somewhat surprising. In each case, the PhysX libraries are executing with an IPC>1, which is pretty good performance. But at the same time, there is a disturbing large amount of x87 code used in the PhysX libraries, and no SSE floating point code. Moreover, PhysX code is automatically multi-threaded on Nvidia GPUs by the PhysX and device drivers, whereas there is no automatic multi-threading for CPUs.
When the author said x87 fp instructions were ancient, he did so in 2010. Keep this in mind.The x87 floating point instructions are positively ancient, and have been long since deprecated in favor of the much more efficient SSE2 instructions (and soon AVX).
PhysX is certainly not using x87 because of the advantages of extended precision. The original PPU hardware only had 32-bit single precision floating point, not even 64-bit double precision, let alone the extended 80-bit precision of x87. In fact, PhysX probably only uses single precision on the GPU, since it is accelerated on the G80, which has no double precision. The evidence all suggests that PhysX only needs single precision.
PhysX is certainly not using x87 because it contains legacy x87 code. Nvidia has the source code for PhysX and can recompile at will.
PhysX is certainly not using x87 because of a legacy installed base of older CPUs. Any gaming system purchased since 2005 will have SSE2 support, and the PPU was not released till 2006. Ageia was bought by Nvidia in 2008, and almost every CPU sold since then (except for some odd embedded ones) has SSE2 support. PhysX is not targeting any of the embedded x86 market either; it’s designed for games.
The truth is that there is no technical reason for PhysX to be using x87 code. PhysX uses x87 because Ageia and now Nvidia want it that way. Nvidia already has PhysX running on consoles using the AltiVec extensions for PPC, which are very similar to SSE. It would probably take about a day or two to get PhysX to emit modern packed SSE2 code, and several weeks for compatibility testing.
Realistically, Nvidia could use packed, single precision SSE for PhysX, if they wanted to take advantage of the CPU. Each instruction would execute up to 4 SIMD operations per cycle, rather than just one scalar operation. In theory, this could quadruple the performance of PhysX on a CPU, but the reality is that the gains are probably in the neighborhood of 2X on the current Nehalem and Westmere generation of CPUs.
So a simple software optimization could have given 2X performance before any multithreading optimization. A modern CPU could multiply this again with modern instruction sets and many more cores available for compute.Not only would this physics solver comparison reveal the differences due to x87 vs. vectorized SSE, it would also show the impact of multi-threading. A review at the Tech Report already demonstrated that in some cases (e.g. Sacred II), PhysX will only use one of several available cores in a multi-core processor. Nvidia has clarified that CPU PhysX is by default single threaded and multi-threading is left to the developer. Nvidia has demonstrated that PhysX can be multi-threaded using CUDA on top of their GPUs. Clearly, with the proper coding and infrastructure, PhysX could take advantage of several cores in a modern CPU. For example, Westmere sports 6 cores, and using two cores for physics could easily yield a 2X performance gain. Combined with the benefits of vectorized SSE over x87, it is easy to see how a proper multi-core implementation using 2-3 cores could match the gains of PhysX on a GPU.
I watched the DF video on Nvidia's removal of 32-bit Physx support, and while they are critical of Nvidia for removing it, they could not resists commenting on how even modern CPU are unable to run PhysX computations in games decades old. They all laughed a bit, letting the viewer come up with conclusions on their own.
Luckily a reddit poster came up with a link to a very interesting analysis of "software" PhysX from... 15 years ago! Back then, David Kanter published a full analysis on Real World Technologies. Here's some of his conclusions:
When the author said x87 fp instructions were ancient, he did so in 2010. Keep this in mind.
So a simple software optimization could have given 2X performance before any multithreading optimization. A modern CPU could multiply this again with modern instruction sets and many more cores available for compute.
I'm not writing this to chastise Nvidia, there's been enough criticism for them already. In the end it's their proprietary tech and they choose to support it as they see fit in their relation with the consumer. However, I am a bit annoyed at Digital Foundry's interpreation of it all. The senior member of their team is old enough to know the things described above. It's his hobby, it's his job, and more improtantly it's his duty as journalist to doubt appearances and check the validity of claim before making it.
We're not all knowing, we all forget, but we should all check or refrain from making assumptions. The first thing to come to mind before claiming modern CPUs cannot run PhysX should be: "Is PhysX made to run on modern CPUs?". it seems to me the answer may be No.
That was lossy compression but I'll take it.-TL;DR modern low density video format corporate driven tech journalism sucks.
I have a TUF arriving tomorrow (fingers crossed, I hear they often go 'missing' during transport, lots of reddit threads about it), its gonna be frustrating (to use polite language) if it has the ROP issue.
Remember. Check GPU-Z AFTER installing drivers. Otherwise you get the ROP count from GPU-Z's default lookup table.its gonna be frustrating (to use polite language) if it has the ROP issue.
A new word has been invented due to this fiasco: ropped, as in robbed of ROPs.Maybe you'll get 104/112% lucky and only some of the ROPs will go missing in transit.