nVidia's Nurien tech demo benchmark - What are your framerate results?

the tech demo can be downloaded here.

Having run the stress test several times, my results have always been around:

Minimum: ~27
Average: ~35
Maximum: ~58

Specs are in my sig. So, what are your results (min, average, max)? Keep in mind that you'll need an nVidia 8 series card or better with the latest 177.83 drivers to run this at all reasonably.

MIn-34
avg-57
max-95

have it runing on 2 zotac amp 8800gt in SlI MODekillerx12

Wow... I get like 32 avg.

is there an ATI tech demo?xid32

As far as I know, it should work on ATI cards, but your framerate will be crap as they have no PhysX support, so all the physics will be on the processor.

I get about the exact same fps you get tc, I have a e8400 oc'd to 3.3 ghz and an oc'd 8800 gt dackchaar

Hmm... Now that I think about it.

http://firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_geforce_physx_performance/page7.asp

The GTX 260 is getting exactly 35 average there with the CPU doing the physics (although they're using a QX9770). So I must not getting the PhysX performance boost for some reason.

Alright, I'm going to uninstall my drivers then reinstall the 177.83's, and perform the test over again.

Min-24

Average-30

Max-66

Hm. Still getting the same results after uninstalling and reinstalling my drivers (uninstall, restart, Driver Cleaner Pro, restart, install drivers, restart). Perhaps Nurien both utilizes quad core (which would explain why Firingsquad got such better results) and is very CPU dependent (which would explain why a 3.3GHz E8400 increases performance as much as it did)? Perhaps it runs better in a 64-bit OS (I have 32-bit XP)? Perhaps Nurien is very bandwidth hungry, or PhysX working on the GPU needs more bandwidth to run optimally, so PCI-E 1.1 decreases the performance boost on it? Perhaps a combination of them all? Not sure.JP_Russell

I'm on 32 bit xp, I dunno, did you check to see if it was enabled on the nvidia option menu thing. go to start>all programs>nvidia corporation>nvidia physx properties then the settings tab, then see if it's enabled

Hm. Still getting the same results after uninstalling and reinstalling my drivers (uninstall, restart, Driver Cleaner Pro, restart, install drivers, restart). Perhaps Nurien both utilizes quad core (which would explain why Firingsquad got such better results) and is very CPU dependent (which would explain why a 3.3GHz E8400 increases performance as much as it did)? Perhaps it runs better in a 64-bit OS (I have 32-bit XP)? Perhaps Nurien is very bandwidth hungry, or PhysX working on the GPU needs more bandwidth to run optimally, so PCI-E 1.1 decreases the performance boost on it? Perhaps a combination of them all? Not sure.JP_Russell

I hope you're right because my 8800GTs freaking suck at this benchmark.

Having an SLI setup will increase performance immensely since the drivers shoot the Phys-x processing to the second card (by default), this frees up the first card to render the graphics. This tech is specifically meant to show how the GPU can handle the processes, not the cpu, so the difference in CPU's shouldn't be creating such a large gap. There has been reporting that the GTX200 series unfortunately suffers from a new bug introduced with the new 177.83's - that bug cause the GPU to stop doing the Phys-x calculations and offshoot it to the CPU. These things might account for the lower scores.

Side Note - I was blown away after installing the 177.83's, I had to UNDERCLOCK my cards from thier default speed to avoid complete system lockups in all my games, also there is no way to add exe's under the game profiles - the CP crashes. I am using 32bit XP by the way.

Having an SLI setup will increase performance immensely since the drivers shoot the Phys-x processing to the second card (by default), this frees up the first card to render the graphics. This tech is specifically meant to show how the GPU can handle the processes, not the cpu, so the difference in CPU's shouldn't be creating such a large gap. There has been reporting that the GTX200 series unfortunately suffers from a new bug introduced with the new 177.83's - that bug cause the GPU to stop doing the Phys-x calculations and offshoot it to the CPU. These things might account for the lower scores.spank_thru101

Really? Well, ain't that nice. Hope nVidia gets their crap together and fixes that soon.

Score of my rig,

NvidiaPhysX Disabled

Average: 22.xx

Max: 40.xx

Min: 20.xx

Nvidia PhysX Enabled

Average: 44.xx

Max: 59.xx

Min: 34.xx

Specs: Processor: C2D E8400 @3.6Ghz (stock voltage) on air stock HSF

GPU: Inno3d 8800 GT OC 512MB (Core 720/Shader 1780/Mem 2000)

Memory: 2GB DDR2 800

Seems kinda low :? maybe it is cpu dependent?

Score of my rig,

NvidiaPhysX Disabled

Average: 22.xx

Max: 40.xx

Min: 20

Nvidia PhysX Enabled

Average: 44.93

Max: 59.xx

Min: 34.xx

Specs: Processor: C2D E8400 @3.6Ghz (stock voltage) on air stock HSF

GPU: Inno3d 8800 GT OC 512MB (Core 720/Shader 1780/Mem 2000)

Memory: 2GB DDR2 800

Seems kinda low :? maybe it is cpu dependent?

buwiset

No, your scores are pretty normal. Go to the FiringSquad link I gave.

Seems I can't install drivers...

Once my windows is loading, 30 secondes later, my screen turns blacks and flickers... I'll wait for better drivers...

I'll go ahead and chek my score. My gaming rig mobo blew a week ago (WAY to much abuse over the past 8-9 months) so I'm down to a dual SLI rig on an older backup board with my thrid card sitting off to the side. Curious as to my score in a few weeks when I get a new mobo to replace this one and get my third card back up. Thinking about the EVGA 780i FTW, but I want a few more weeks of reviews on it before I do it since I'm really harsh on my mobo's.

I'll just edit my scores to this post in a bit.

***EDIT***

Hmm, the CPU seems to make a noticeable difference in this demo if you are not running a PhysX card.

Running two 9800GTX's in SLI I get and no OC'ed CPU (Q6600 at stock 2.4 GHz) I get this:

Min: 24

Max: 53

Avg: 48

With the CPU OC'ed to 3.0 GHz I get this:

Min: 31

Max: 62

Avg: 54

I didnt bother to list the fractions and used the numbers rounded down. Again, I'm curious as to what difference I will get when I get a new mobo in a few weeks and get my third 9800 up and going. I also know that that this CPU can do 3.6 on air and this current NB is limiting it to 3.0 as that is what it was running on the now dead board. So if I remeber I'll post back with new board and thrid card results in a few weeks.

Yes, and it defaults to the second GPU.spank_thru101

so your saying it dose show the (Select GPU for Gefroce PhysX) because it dosen't for me, or are u saying yes with SLI it will be on second GPU by Defult. Because i did some testing, with SLI on and off and PhysX on and off and got these results.

With SLI off, and PhysX on, i got:
Average: 38 FPS
Max: 62 FPS
Min: 24 FPS

and with SLI on and PhysX on i got:
Average: 40 FPS
Max: 73 FPS
Min: 24 FPS

and with SLI or without SLI and PhysX off i got:
(both had no effect on FPS)
Average: 14 FPS
Max: 44FPS
Min: 11 FPS

[QUOTE="spank_thru101"]Yes, and it defaults to the second GPU.Plo_Koon_basic

so your saying it dose show the (Select GPU for Gefroce PhysX) because it dosen't for me, or are u saying yes with SLI it will be on second GPU by Defult. Because i did some testing, with SLI on and off and PhysX on and off and got these results.

With SLI off, and PhysX on, i got:
Average: 38 FPS
Max: 62 FPS
Min: 24 FPS

and with SLI on and PhysX on i got:
Average: 40 FPS
Max: 73 FPS
Min: 24 FPS

and with SLI or without SLI and PhysX off i got:
(both had no effect on FPS)
Average: 14 FPS
Max: 44FPS
Min: 11 FPS

The options for the Phys-x control was NOT under the GPU Control Panel, it was avaible by going to : Start Menu/ All Programs/ Nvidia / Nvidia Phys-X Properties.

I got

39 avg

65 max

22 min

By GokuNeo

although it was different every time, sometimse higher sometimes lower. Oddly enough the first time was the fastest, as if some sort of memory leak not clearing even restarting demo (not from within program)

Interesting effects, the Kulu is kinda cool too, and I like the atmosphere of Warmonger, even if the gameplay is off, but it's just a demo right?

Specs:

Q6600 G0 @ stock 2.4Ghz

OCZ 2x2GB DDR2 @ 800Mhz

ABS Tagan BZ 800 Watt PSU

ABIT IP35 PRO MOBO

EVGA 8800GT SC

So I pretty happy with the results, I did get better results overclocking, but I like running stock for most things, since most things run well at stock (my mobo allows on the fly & per app overclocking)

Wow, that's what I get with 2x8800GTs 725/975 and a E6600 @ 3.3ghz...

There's no option in PhysX properties to choose which card for SLi so I can only assume that there's an issue somewhere. Control Panel says SLi is enabled and I've noticed increases in several games, but nurien tech demo just blows my cards out of the water.

ya, i see that, i'm guessing that there may be some optimization issues with the initial drivers on various system configs.

like i said, Nurien, was different every time i ran it, though the numbers were similar, I would have expected closer results on a couple of the tests I ran, on one test, I think I got a 36 avg, 61 max, and 21 min then on one I think i got 41 avg, 68 max, and 24 min. this doesn't include when i overclocked to test, that time was higher than the rest.

this leads me to believe that my cpu took a chunk of the load, because I did not change the gpu settings.

in your case, i would expect that the normal gpu load went your primary card, and the physX calcs went to your secondary card, which could be, and my advantage could be my quad core...

i'm sure nvidia will have more info in the next few days after they here about peoples varying experiences

I got:

Average: 57.5514

Max: 172.63

Min: 32.499

Im running the 177.83 drivers and my system is: xfx 8800gt @ 700mhz (1000mhz ram), e8400 @3.8ghz, evga 750i sli FTW motherboard (only got one 8800gt on it so far tho) and 4gb corsair ddr2 ram @ 1022mhz

Everyone here needs to run the same resolution to compare results.primateface

theres only 1 res

Min 39

avg 58

High 102

Ran 3 times. High was obtained on the 2nd run with the avg and min being averaged between the 3 runs.

I got:

Average: 57.5514

Max: 172.63

Min: 32.499

Im running the 177.83 drivers and my system is: xfx 8800gt @ 700mhz (1000mhz ram), e8400 @3.8ghz, evga 750i sli FTW motherboard (only got one 8800gt on it so far tho) and 4gb corsair ddr2 ram @ 1022mhz

deviance87

With that spec? BS.

[QUOTE="deviance87"]

I got:

Average: 57.5514

Max: 172.63

Min: 32.499

Im running the 177.83 drivers and my system is: xfx 8800gt @ 700mhz (1000mhz ram), e8400 @3.8ghz, evga 750i sli FTW motherboard (only got one 8800gt on it so far tho) and 4gb corsair ddr2 ram @ 1022mhz

f-a-d-3

With that spec? BS.

how do you get pictures in here? :s http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u150/deviance87/Nuuuuuuuuurien.jpg

On an 8800GTS 640mb OC 640/960/1482 (E6600 @ 3.0Ghz + 3GB DDR2) with Physx enabled I got:

Min 21.4 / Max 93.3 / Avg 30.6

Really not too shabby for a nearly 2 year old card.

[QUOTE="deviance87"]

I got:

Average: 57.5514

Max: 172.63

Min: 32.499

Im running the 177.83 drivers and my system is: xfx 8800gt @ 700mhz (1000mhz ram), e8400 @3.8ghz, evga 750i sli FTW motherboard (only got one 8800gt on it so far tho) and 4gb corsair ddr2 ram @ 1022mhz

f-a-d-3

With that spec? BS.

No, that's plausible, given that his processor OC'd by 800MHz and his 8800GT is OC'd by 100MHz core and 500MHz (effective) memory. FiringSquad shows his card at stock with a 9770 giving 46.4 average, and the amount of OC'ing he's done could feasibly give him an extra 10. My results would probably be slightly better than his if my 260 was using PhysX acceleration like it's supposed to. :?

On an 8800GTS 640mb OC 640/960/1482 (E6600 @ 3.0Ghz + 3GB DDR2) with Physx enabled I got:

Min 21.4 / Max 93.3 / Avg 30.6

Staryoshi87

PhysX must not be working properly on your card for Nurien, either, then. You should be getting in the 40's for average FPS.

Mmm I think Nvidia has a lot of problems with its drivers, check this out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOK1L0Uo8KM

The guy running the test uses a PC in Quad SLI mode using two 9800 GX2 card, it run at 32.893 fps avg.

In my case I have a 9800GX2 on Win XP. In SLI mode Nurien runs at 30.820, in single mode it runs at 33.428 fps avg.

Mmm I think Nvidia has a lot of problems with its drivers, check this out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOK1L0Uo8KM

The guy running the test uses a PC in Quad SLI mode using two 9800 GX2 card, it run at 32.893 fps avg.

In my case I have a 9800GX2 on Win XP. In SLI mode Nurien runs at 30.820, in single mode it runs at 33.428 fps avg.

whitee

by the way I'm using the new Nvidia driver with PhysX

Mmm I think Nvidia has a lot of problems with its drivers, check this out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOK1L0Uo8KM

The guy running the test uses a PC in Quad SLI mode using two 9800 GX2 card, it run at 32.893 fps avg.

In my case I have a 9800GX2 on Win XP. In SLI mode Nurien runs at 30.820, in single mode it runs at 33.428 fps avg.

whitee

Well, the first thing that means is Nurien doesn't scale well with the 9800GX2 (basically two 8800GTS 512's in SLI). The second thing it means is you aren't getting the PhysX acceleration from the drivers, much like me, which seems to be a problem with these 177.83's. Hopefully the next drivers fix this.

[QUOTE="Staryoshi87"]

On an 8800GTS 640mb OC 640/960/1482 (E6600 @ 3.0Ghz + 3GB DDR2) with Physx enabled I got:

Min 21.4 / Max 93.3 / Avg 30.6

JP_Russell

PhysX must not be working properly on your card for Nurien, either, then. You should be getting in the 40's for average FPS.

No, these are the correct results. Fluids demo runs at 20+FPS with Physx enabled, 4 FPS without. This performance is expected, correct, and satisfactory.

[QUOTE="JP_Russell"][QUOTE="Staryoshi87"]

On an 8800GTS 640mb OC 640/960/1482 (E6600 @ 3.0Ghz + 3GB DDR2) with Physx enabled I got:

Min 21.4 / Max 93.3 / Avg 30.6

Staryoshi87

PhysX must not be working properly on your card for Nurien, either, then. You should be getting in the 40's for average FPS.

No, these are the correct results. Fluids demo runs at 20+FPS with Physx enabled, 4 FPS without. This performance is expected, correct, and satisfactory.

No, it isn't. I too can run the fluid demo fine with PhysX and only barely without, but I'm not getting the proper performance in the Nurien test. But the drivers seem to such that, for some people, they don't provide the PhysX acceleration in all apps that they're supposed to, one being Nurien.

The reason I say your performance isn't normal is because of the FiringSquad benchmark I posted further up. If you look at the 8800GTS 640MB score without PhysX acceleration, it gets a bit below what you got with the processor doing the physics calculations, which is about right with your card being highly OC'd. You should be getting in the 40s (higher, actually, since you're OC'd) for average FPS, just like I should be getting around 60. I'm getting averages of, lo-and-behold, about 35, the exact amount they show there with the 260 for CPU physics.