legacy physx game runs super slow on Ryzen laptop

zalazin

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 12, 2000
Messages
1,655
I installed an old physx game Warmonger and the current Nvidia physx software with the legacy 604 physx on my Hp Envy x360 Ryzen r 2500 u vega 8 laptop w 16gb ram nvme 960 250, and 960 Sandisk SSD. Now I have run this game on far lesser laptops including an I5 haswell with only Intel HD 4200 graphics. NO problem, but on my Ryzen it is a super slow dog. I can even run games like Borderlands 2 at medium settings for physx and Doom with Vulkan. What is going on here? Does Ryzen mobile have a problem with cpu physx? I know it is only using the cpu but I mean dead dog slow and that's even dropping resolution down to 640.
 
Last edited:
physix scores for that apu are on par with the built in intel stuff, so pretty low. but it should still work so its prob an issue with the game not liking the apu. as you said it is old.
 
This is the only game so far that does not like vega 8. Maybe I can tweak the engine ini file.. just a challenge to pass the time....
 
maybe try using the PhysX that comes with the game instead of the newest. that could be an issue. have you installed all the redist stuff that usually come with games?
 
I did exactly that and no difference. Maybe game doesn't like memory being shared. Reserved for vega is only 250 meg.....rest is borrowed from main ram....also was designed for actual Ageia card. Of which i have two desktops I5 6500 and a10-7870k that have real Ageia cards installed. Game runs fantastic on Ageia cards... It's always a crap shoot with older games anyway......
 
win 8.1 and win 7 pro, I dropped screen res down to 1280 720 and run warmonger in a 640 480 window almost playable but when stuff starts happening it really slows down... There's only so much you can do.
 
I just watched a vid of doom running ogl, completely borked. this game inst ogl by chance?
 
no dx9. I can't play Doom at all in Opengl it just stops at 99 percent but runs great in Vulkan...By the way the Vega 8 driver on the desktop Apu works on R2500u and does not crash so far, but you have to install through the device manager...dated first week of Feb 2018. Now what gets me is the driver is available WTF doesn't AMD release it as part of big driver package.
 
no dx9. I can't play Doom at all in Opengl it just stops at 99 percent but runs great in Vulkan...By the way the Vega 8 driver on the desktop Apu works on R2500u and does not crash so far, but you have to install through the device manager...dated first week of Feb 2018. Now what gets me is the driver is available WTF doesn't AMD release it as part of big driver package.
oooooh so like I said in your other thread...
 
Opp my bad desktop apu drivers won't let me play DoomVK went back to 3072 from Acer site. Now doom vk works again.
 
no dx9. I can't play Doom at all in Opengl it just stops at 99 percent but runs great in Vulkan...By the way the Vega 8 driver on the desktop Apu works on R2500u and does not crash so far, but you have to install through the device manager...dated first week of Feb 2018. Now what gets me is the driver is available WTF doesn't AMD release it as part of big driver package.

because it's been a long running problem with HP and them forcing their customers to update using drivers they provide instead of just getting them from the manufactures of the hardware.. amd and nvidia don't really care though and release them anyways for the advanced users that don't rely on HP's updating software.
 
It's the same deal with Lenovo too. I once tried to update to an Intel ssd on an Ideapad intel based even, and the machine would not allow it because Lenovo had blacklisted all but Samsung ssds. In this case The problem is the fact that HP only set aside 250 meg for a frame buffer on Vega 8. Even though you can use more from main memory it over taxes the system to do so. This unfortunately is the nature of integrated GPUs even if they are Radeon based. All things considered it's amazing that the r2500u can play the games it does. I can actually play New Colossus ,Rise of the Tomb Raider and other newer games it seems older titles want more vram on tap.. but I can run firestrike and Timespy benchmark without issue not very high scores though and I am warned not enough vram and I have 16gb..........
 
16GB is RAM not VRAM. Dedicate more than 250MB if you can - I am assuming this is a setting in BIOs.
 
I DO know the difference. There is NO setting in BIOS to change the amount of ram allocated for video. This is HP having crappy BIOS. By the way the Vega 8 can borrow I think up to 4gb from system memory with 16gb on board. Now here's the thing even though it reserved 250 mb for video it still is just ddr4 2400. I can run Doomvk, Hellblade, 3dmark etc with no problems this is an issue with a poorly done older game I can run everything else with no issue so far. It would be nice if HP gave user options like frame buffer size, but not going to happen.....
 
2g max shared. You can't increase the 250mb anywhere? Have you ever tried contacting hp to se if they have a beta to allow more bios control. Or at least to tell them to get on it...
 
Ha ha ha this is HP not Asus.They have Intel bios mixed in with Amd bios. they posted a f16 bios and f07 bios then yanked the Amd f16 bios. I originally had to do a complete install because HP botched the factory install so bad. this was the second one of these I got and I am lucky it works as well it does. No thanks to HP. Again HP a beta bios LMFAO..........
 
yeah I know ive seen all your threads...
email/call them and say WTF?! if enough people do they may actually do something. ive seen them provided new bioses via their forum before so its worth a try.
 
I did what you said put in a request for new vram option in bios. The forums at HP about the is machine are hot about the lack of new graphic drivers and Hp doesn't even have the right BIOs posted. They have an Intel insyde bios listed and several people including myself have mentioned this to HP, This machine has AMI bios and HP have not posted the correct Bios yet, its been this way since Feb 1, You think HP is going to post a new bios giving us a Vvram option? If they can't post the right BIOS after 5 weeks how can they even do any mod to existing BIOS? It sure as hell doesn't look as if their support cares or even functions. When I see this kind of crap I can not help but be cynical
 
Ha ha ha this is HP not Asus.They have Intel bios mixed in with Amd bios. they posted a f16 bios and f07 bios then yanked the Amd f16 bios. I originally had to do a complete install because HP botched the factory install so bad. this was the second one of these I got and I am lucky it works as well it does. No thanks to HP. Again HP a beta bios LMFAO..........

What's the deal with HP? For a decade or two it was you get the same shit as dell for 2x the price but the case is metal and shiny and not plastic

But Dell has been using more metal now. Is HP cheaper?
 
pendragon1 Pretty sure this mess also involves something MS has thrown into their updates(probably API related and that being related to the path NV took with PhysX). My situation is very different than yours but then end result is pretty close to the same.

I'm a big fan of the Metro's and at one point the 4930k rig in my signature had 2xG1 OC 970's in SLI(both PCIex16) and a dedicated EVGA SC780(PCIex8). This had been verified thru TechPowerUp GPU monitor. At the time I'd just upgraded to a 4k monitor and LL was still able to hold 40-55fps if I kept AA at .5 or 2x(honestly can't remember now). Later on I upgraded to 2x G1 OC 1080's in SLI but was unable to fit a 3rd card still. Most recently upgraded to a 2080TI and tried leaving one of the 1080's in there for PhysX. Re-tested all my old GPU accelerated games and none of them used the dedicated card more than 0-2%. Verified settings every which way and both cards showing x16 and PhysX indicator showing GPU. It was a shame since this combo should've allowed well over 60fps with AA maxed but I still couldn't go beyond x2 at 4k in LL.

Like I said, my situation is very different but I'm confident that MS has also had something to do with this since it's a common denominator between our experiences. I'd be curious if someone installed a 1st gen version of 10(1800?) and a similarly aged display driver what would happen? If I had a spare rig of similar abilities laying around I'd do it but otherwise not going to go thru the hassle with my current setup since it's performing optimally for current games.
 
Have you checked whether appropriate drivers are installed to help the app run better?
It seems that HP has not posted the updated firmware for your specifications.
That is the reason why you face sluggish performance.
You better start writing your own drivers to use the hardware better and for your purpose.
 
I had this same issue with Mirror's Edge on my GTX 960M a while back. The solution was to delete PHYSXCORE.dll and PHYSXDEVICE.dll from the game binaries folder and leave PHYSXEXTENSIONS.dll. The older .DLLs would collide with the new ones and cause problems, but you gotta leave the extension DLL for game-specific effects I believe.
 
I've never quite understood the dislike of reviving old threads. I think it is great for posterity and search-ability if stuff like this gets posted in context to the original thread, even if that thread is a little older. As long as it is still relevant that is. Necroing old irrelevant threads is annoying.

I - too - may benefit from this, as I ahve been having PhysX related performance issues in Borderlands 2 on my modern high end system which should run it just fine.

Enabling PhysX at any level above "low" (the lowest setting) results in frequent frame drops down to ~20fps, and this is on my Threadripper and 6900xt...

I am going to try removing those DLL's and see if it helps.

I know I still won't get the GPU assist, but maybe - just maybe - the CPU performance is better on more recent versions?
 
Last edited:
I've never quite understood the dislike of reviving old threads. I think it is great for posterity and search-ability if stuff like this gets posted in context to the original thread, even if that thread is a little older. As long as it is still relevant that is. Necroing old irrelevant threads is annoying.

I - too - may benefit from this, as I ahve been having PhysX related performance issues in Borderlands 2 on my modern high end system which should run it just fine.

Enabling PhysX at any level above "low" (the lowest setting) results in frequent frame drops down to ~20fps, and this is on my Threadripper and 6900xt...

I am going to try removing those DLL's and see if it helps.

I know I still won't get the GPU assist, but maybe - just maybe - the CPU performance is better on more recent versions?

Come to think of it, without an Nvidia GPU installed, I'm not going to have a system wide PhysX install to fall back on if I remove the dll's in the game folder.

I wonder what would happen if I just replaced the dll's in the game directory with the ones from Nvidia's latest PhysX package?

I doubt it would install properly on a system without an Nvidia GPU, but if you open the executable in an archive program that is able to read it, the "\PhysX\files\Common" folder contains the following DLL files:

Code:
cudart32_65.dll
cudart32_90.dll
cudart64_65.dll
PhysXDevice64.dll
PhysXDevice.dll
PhysXLoader64.dll
PhysXLoader.dll
PhysXUpdateLoader64.dll
PhysXUpdateLoader.dll

I wonder what would happen if I delete the DLL's currently in the game folder and just drop the pertinent ones here in there instead?

The cuda ones would probably not be appropriate (since I don't have an Nvidia GPU installed) and the 64bit ones probably arent relevant either, as the game engine for Borderlands 2 is 32bit, but this leaves:

Code:
PhysXDevice.dll
PhysXLoader.dll
PhysXUpdateLoader.dll

Notably absent are the folllowing files which are currently in the game folder:

Code:
PhysXCooking.dll
PhysXCore.dll
PhysXExtensions.dll

It is suggested that the extensions one is game specific, so it should probably be left in place, but I'd still be missing "Cooking" and "Core" which is concerning, but maybe those are no longer needed in later versions of PhysX?
 
Back
Top