9600gt, 9800gt or 9800gtx for PhysX?

M

MorgothPl

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
3,020
Will there be any difference in PhysX processing between those 3 cards, or just get the cheapest?
 
I don't know about the 9800GT or the 9600GT, though my roommate just recently built his new computer which has an I7 2.66 (not over clocked) and the 9800GTX. Mirror's Edge, which uses PhysX was crashing like crazy (like every 5 minutes) on his computer.

The fix he found on a forum someplace was to disable PhysX (I'm not sure what it uses in leu of PhysX).

Sorry, I'm no gaming nor video card expert, but just letting you know of my roommate's experience with PhysX and one of those cards. With that said, I would never not get the GTX if I was building a top of the line gaming machine. The GTX is still regarded by many as the best nvidia card for gaming (without going SLI of course).

EDIT:
He was using Vista 64bit, and later 7 64 bit, both did it.
 
The GTX would be the better choice for sure based on some tests Ive seen around...heck some people recommend getting a 260! :)
I got the GTX+ and I am very happy.
 
Syndacate said:
I don't know about the 9800GT or the 9600GT, though my roommate just recently built his new computer which has an I7 2.66 (not over clocked) and the 9800GTX. Mirror's Edge, which uses PhysX was crashing like crazy (like every 5 minutes) on his computer.

The fix he found on a forum someplace was to disable PhysX (I'm not sure what it uses in leu of PhysX).

Sorry, I'm no gaming nor video card expert, but just letting you know of my roommate's experience with PhysX and one of those cards. With that said, I would never not get the GTX if I was building a top of the line gaming machine. The GTX is still regarded by many as the best nvidia card for gaming (without going SLI of course).

EDIT:
He was using Vista 64bit, and later 7 64 bit, both did it.
Click to expand...

Note: your roommate's experience shouldn't necessarily be taken as given. ME had some notable software issues that caused the PhysX implementation to crash like hell, like you said. However, EA's patches have since fixed the issue (at least for certain hardware configurations). The crashing problem isn't problematic of nvidia's cards, AFAIK.

Though yes, nowadays I'd gun for a cheaply priced 216 GTX260 even as a baseline card.
 
Yes ME is freezes every 5 minutes if you don't apply the patch but after that is beautiful.
 
Yeah, get the best card possible. Moving from an 8600GTS 256MB card to a 9500GT 1GB for physx made a big difference in performance. So getting more (faster) memory on the card will help too.
 
I went for 9800GT. Unluckily I can't fit 3rd dual slot card into my case (way to go Antec, really :p, if you make the ultra gaming case, at least allow the tri-sli :p)... and that's the fastest 1 slot card I could found.
 
shaolin95 said:
It's not and that test is not apple to apple thus the results are deceiving.
Click to expand...

?? What is wrong with that test?

If you are playing a game that uses PhysX, you are better off running two cards in SLI and dedicating a card to PhysX than running Tri SLI. If you are running a game that doesn't use PhysX then Tri SLI will of course be faster.

Having 3 cards multi tasking both graphics and physics isn't as efficient as having one card handle all the physics and leaving the other two to concentrate on Graphics. This doesn't surprise me.
 
But that's not the point you were trying to make.
I agree with that but you tried to use that test to prove that a 9600 is enough for Physx when it's not.
 
shaolin95 said:
But that's not the point you were trying to make.
I agree with that but you tried to use that test to prove that a 9600 is enough for Physx when it's not.
Click to expand...

Ah, that may be. I haven't seen a pure PhysX comparison and how much GPU is needed to accelerate it. Just that a 9600 dedicated to PhysX is better than PhysX spread across 3 280GTXs.

Hmm, anyone know of a pure PhysX review + benchmark?
 
There have been several tests, a lot more detailed and with more games and demo material done by users on this same forum that showed that the faster the card the better the performance you will get for physx.
It's your call but pretty much for us Physx users it's clear that the very least should be a 8800gt.
Regards
 
9600 is more than enough for ANY PhysX enabled game curently on the market, why? Because 9600 gives you at least twice the performance of an Ageia PPU. But Anything lower than 64 stream processors is not that good.
 
Vlad_13 said:
9600 is more than enough for ANY PhysX enabled game curently on the market, why? Because 9600 gives you at least twice the performance of an Ageia PPU. But Anything lower than 64 stream processors is not that good.
Click to expand...

If you want the most performance it's not enough, not even a high o/c one. Then factor in the resolution.
 
Vlad_13 said:
9600 is more than enough for ANY PhysX enabled game curently on the market, why? Because 9600 gives you at least twice the performance of an Ageia PPU. But Anything lower than 64 stream processors is not that good.
Click to expand...

No it's not enough so please stop confusing other users.
 
Last edited:
Let me clear up my post above, as for stand alone/dedicated PhysX card I mean. Not a GPU and PhysX. If a person wants to run both he/she needs 9800GTX+ or above. But for PhysX only, a dedicated PhysX card, 9600 is capable handling any enabled PhysX game on the market (which there aren't that many...)
 
Vlad_13 said:
Let me clear up my post above, as for stand alone/dedicated PhysX card I mean. Not a GPU and PhysX. If a person wants to run both he/she needs 9800GTX+ or above. But for PhysX only, a dedicated PhysX card, 9600 is capable handling any enabled PhysX game on the market (which there aren't that many...)
Click to expand...

That's what we(?) are talking about..my post still stands. There's like a 100 or so games that support Phsyx.
Blazemore said:
If you want the most performance it's not enough, not even a high o/c one. Then factor in the resolution.
Click to expand...
 
If by "most performance" you mean 3000 FPS and big e penis then yes. Knock yourself out!

Show me ONE game that will not work "oh so well" with 9600GT standalone PhysX (reference nVidia design not some basement crap by Sparkle...) Not including UT3 maps, that shit was poorly and forgotten coded in a first place.

100 or so forgotten games you mean like warmonger?
 
Vlad_13 said:
If by "most performance" you mean 3000 FPS and big e penis then yes. Knock yourself out!

Show me ONE game that will not work "oh so well" with 9600GT standalone PhysX (reference nVidia design not some basement crap by Sparkle...) Not including UT3 maps, that shit was poorly and forgotten coded in a first place.

100 or so forgotten games you mean like warmonger?
Click to expand...

Your remarks are not needed in a general discussion :rolleyes: I've only tried this with crysis and cryostasis demo so far but systems of even specs I could not match the average / min frames when a 280 and 285 were used phsyx. I'm not talking about some hughe e-pin fps award, I'm talking about staying above 30fps. Will a 9600 work, yes I'm using one.

As for the games there's 100, more than your many.
 
Crysis? ahahahah Crysis is using tweaked Havok not PhysX... genius.

100 what hundred, please SHOW me. I'm dieing here to see/play them. Or maybe we will find long buried "Physx games, list, links, comments." post to show me the games that i already know?

There are only hand full of PhysX enabled games, good games... not some freeware. And i got most of them, and to my experience all of them play above 40-60FPS with 9600GT.
 
Nivida has the list for the ones your dying to see. As for Crysis your right must have been GOW, been awhile back.

Run Cryostasis Tech Demo on high at 1680 an lets see 40 fps min.
 
GOW? as of Gears of War? That game got no physics effects at all... Can you get your shit straight?

nVidia got squat! You telling me that there are 100 PhysX enabled games, I'm asking you to show them to me, and you telling that nVidia got the list? man gtfo please

And I'm not going to download the tech demo just to prove you wrong, i got the full game and it runs above 30 FPS. We talking about Physics not Graphics so High settings don't play any role here...
 
http://www.nzone.com/object/nzone_physxgames_home.html physx support games. Didn't say there all great just said around 100 supported...lazy

So now your at 30fps and your telling me to get my shit straight?, ok...doesn't matter you won't be able to run the demo at those settings 40fps or above.

Here's the thread that shows some numbers http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1420948 If you can bring better average or have helpful info then please post. I'm done arguing

Vlad_13 said:
We talking about Physics not Graphics so High settings don't play any role here...
Click to expand...
:p
 
Last edited:
Vlad_13 said:
Let me clear up my post above, as for stand alone/dedicated PhysX card I mean. Not a GPU and PhysX. If a person wants to run both he/she needs 9800GTX+ or above. But for PhysX only, a dedicated PhysX card, 9600 is capable handling any enabled PhysX game on the market (which there aren't that many...)
Click to expand...

Then let me clarify my point. It depends on what your main card is.
If you have say a GTX280 then a Physx intensive game or demo (cause yeah there but handful of games available but thats not the point) will perform better by letting the 280 do Physx compared to the 9600gt trying to do so. Now, if you had a 8800gt that would change.
Of course it also depends on what resolution you are gaming at and how much eye candy you are asking you main, more powerful card to run.
Why don't you just check the other threads on this forum that have all the evidence you need instead of insisting on something totally wrong...once again no its not enough.
Somehow I dont think you are really interested in finding that out anyway....
Regards
 
Blazemore said:
So now your at 30fps and your telling me to get my shit straight?
Click to expand...

Yeah I'm telling you to get your shit straight, first you telling me that you ran Crysis with PhysX and then you telling me you ran GOW, Geras of War with PhysX?
What next... you gona tell me you ran Super Mario with PhysX enabled?


nVidia list huh... so ammm.... Mass Effect got PhysX? and the game like Heavy Rain which is fucking exclusive PS3 game? Yeah you are genius alright. 90% of those games are software PhysX and got nothing to do with the argument, half of those are freeware that no one plays or cares and useless to bring up to the table, not to mention half of those games are a dead beat, canceled or are in "Duke Nukem Forever" development.
There are only hand full of HARDWARE PHYSX enabled games right now. My point still stands.
As for Cryostasis is a joke of a game... i get the same frame rate PhysX ON or OFF... it got to be the hardware you will say...
 
Alright, forget about Cryostasis... pretend we don't know this game. Show me one (lets say heavy) Hardware PhysX enabled game that 9600 will not handle.
If you can, I'll agree with your statement.
 
I think you're just wasting money, but ok.

You have a 280GTX, why can't that do physX for you..... I don't think you need a dedicated card.
 
Vlad_13 said:
nVidia list huh... so ammm.... Mass Effect got PhysX? and the game like Heavy Rain which is fucking exclusive PS3 game? Yeah you are genius alright. 90% of those games are software PhysX and got nothing to do with the argument, half of those are freeware that no one plays or cares and useless to bring up to the table, not to mention half of those games are a dead beat, canceled or are in "Duke Nukem Forever" development.
There are only hand full of HARDWARE PHYSX enabled games right now. My point still stands.
Click to expand...

You still can't fucking read....PHSYX SUPPORTED GAMES. I careless if you think the game is crap, I didn't ask for your input of any of those games but for some reason you take it upon yourself to give a review on what you think the list consist of.

I'm saying there are 100 or so games that support phsyx nothing more nothing less.
 
Vlad_13 said:
Alright, forget about Cryostasis... pretend we don't know this game. Show me one (lets say heavy) Hardware PhysX enabled game that 9600 will not handle. If you can, I'll agree with your statement.
Click to expand...

I've already posted http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1420948. Now is this the norm for the rest of the games to follow? Who knows, but I think it is once physx get more advance and starts to be more than eye candy. I do know my 9600 could not beat a 280 under the same settings. When a 280 was changed for physx, fps increased.

If you think differently then prove the thread wrong and post it there.
 
1.
shaolin95 said:
If you have say a GTX280 then a Physx intensive game or demo will perform better by letting the 280 do Physx compared to the 9600gt trying to do so
Click to expand...
2.
AMDXPCottonFire22 said:
I think you're just wasting money, but ok.

You have a 280GTX, why can't that do physX for you..... I don't think you need a dedicated card.
Click to expand...
3.
Blazemore said:
I do know my 9600 could not beat a 280 under the same settings. When a 280 was changed for physx, fps increased.

If you think differently then prove the thread wrong and post it there.
Click to expand...



Here you go, all tests were done with stock clocks on CPU, GPU and dedicated PhysX GPU.
This is an actual nVidia PhysX benchmark called "Star Tales Benchmark" from an Asian game "Nurien". Keep in mind this game was developed on a mature Unreal engine, closely with coordination with nVidia, the people that actually know what they are doing. Not slap-together trough emails like Cryostasis game by devs in Ukraine...

If pictures too to large for you to view hold Ctrl and scroll down with your scroll wheel

Graphics and Physics on 280 GTX @ stock speeds:











Graphics on 280 GTX @ stock speeds, Phisics on 9600 GT @ stock speeds:






 
Last edited:
Wow nice...you proved your point Vlad_13...I was kinda lost halfway what you were saying, but by the physx benchmark I understand now.

BTW. Warmonger Downtown Destruction is pretty hard on a decent system even with Physx on, which the game requires only a physx card to run, or else you cannot run the game smoothly at all.
 
Thanks for the test Vlad but I fail to see how that proves the point that the 9600gt is enough when you did not compare it against any other card but to the gtx280 itself.
Yes, it was enough in THAT case to get you better fps than running the 280 itself but does that make it automatically makes it "enough"?
I wish I could do the tests but I only got a 8600gt to compare to my 9800gtx+ for physx.
Let me see what I can try over the weekend to put and end to this discussion.
 
First of all... I was not proving anything on topic of "enough" or not enough, i was simply proving that 280 GTX is not all "monster kill" when it comes to Graphics + Physics.

Second. Why do you assume that 9600 GT is not enough for the current "hand full" Hardware PhysX enabled games? I played at least four to five games that utilize the Hardware PhysX and it worked beautifully. Except Cryostasis which is a poorly coded game in a first place, or are we going to put this game in a Crysis like category even though this game looks like crap? runs like one too. Nothing eye candy impressive.
shaolin95 said:
Let me see what I can try over the weekend to put and end to this discussion.
Click to expand...
Yes, you do that sir, I can't wait! "put an end to this discussion."

Vlad_13 said:
Show me one (lets say heavy) Hardware PhysX enabled game that 9600 will not handle.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Vlad_13 said:
First of all... I was not proving anything on topic of "enough" or not enough, i was simply proving that 280 GTX is not all "monster kill" when it comes to Graphics + Physics.
Second. Why do you assume that 9600 GT is not enough for the current "hand full" Hardware PhysX enabled games?
Click to expand...
I never said the 280gtx would be a monster kill.
Second, well it all depends on what you mean by enough. If I can get higher FPS by using a more powerful card then it's not enough in the sense that you can still do much better.
Which means, if a game pushes the limits, then you will be pissed off for not getting something faster.
I will do my best to the test or find you the evidence if you REALLY want it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top