9600gt, 9800gt or 9800gtx for PhysX?

AMD_Gamer said:
Is a 8800GS on a X8 PCIE slot good enough?
Click to expand...

Anything with 64 or above stream processors is good. Even on 8x my setup is on 8x, both GPUs :p

Play a game like Mirror's Edge and Shadowgrounds: Survivor (a very nice looking game i might add, with impressive physics) Also run Warmonger, those all 3 games will lag if you do not have sufficient spu power, but 8800gs got 96 spus, so you will be fine.
 
Last edited:
Cool discussion, I am in a similar boat, though a bit above. My choices are a 9800 GTX, or a 260 GTX for dedicated PhysX, would I be fine for now and the foreseeable future? I know its overkill compared to the 9600 GT, so I am hoping for a yes, but if I buy now, I would like for it to be enough for 2+ years (hopefully). I really don't want to shell out more than what I need to. Ill take any card but I need it for it to have a water block available to it.

This is dedicated PhysX only, my main SLI configuration would be 2x 295 GTX, or 3x 280/285's.

Mobo X58 Classified,

Thanks!
 
Funny you mention this because I currently have a 9800 GTX+ and I am about to exchange it for a GTX260 (even trade...long story). I need to drive two hours to do so an I am trying decided if its worth it! :)
 
shaolin95 said:
Funny you mention this because I currently have a 9800 GTX+ and I am about to exchange it for a GTX260 (even trade...long story). I need to drive two hours to do so an I am trying decided if its worth it! :)
Click to expand...

Cool let me know how that goes :)
 
GTX260 definitely is more future proof. As PhysX-enabled games get more demanding on the hardware, requirements will keep going up. Even with current PhysX-enabled games people are already seeing (FPS) gains with GT200-level GPUs over G92(b) cores.
 
O right! I totally forgot, some one said that he will put an end to this discussion!

shaolin95 said:
Let me see what I can try over the weekend to put and end to this discussion.
Click to expand...

So yeah how was the weekend research on PhysX? shaolin95, I thought you were going to show us something... remember, i was Dying to see your "homework"
 
Let me see what I can try over the weekend to put and end to this discussion.
Click to expand...
Key word there... ;)
I was not able to find a 9600gt only the 8600gt I mentioned before which is not enough for a fair comparison.
I was going to get a GTX260 to compare to my 9800gtx+ which could have been interesting too but again, the guy never showed up.
Hopefully I will have better luck this weekend.
 
Nah, hold on. The main topic of this thread is 9600gt 9800gt and 9800gtx. If i remember correctly you said 9600gt is not enough or not good enough for PhysX calculations. And from my understanding you were going to prove that 9600gt is not enough or bad or w/e. Everybody knows that 9800+ cards are more than enough for physx.... so a comparison between 9800GTX and 260 a little different category, has nothing to do with the topic i think.

Lets stay on the topic, shall we?
 
I dont like your attitude my friend. Why dont you find a 9800gtx+ and test yourself instead of waiting for me to do all the work?
If I get a GTX260 and it shows improvement then we can interpolate the results and think that a 9800gtx+ will do better than the 9600GT as well.
Of course I prefer to find a 9600GT to make a more accurate comparison, at least when it comes to the topic but its not like I am rushing to Best Buy to buy one just to make you happy.
If I can fiend a local user willing to help by loaning one 9600gt for the test I would be more than happy to do it.
Oh and by the way:
Everybody knows that 9800+ cards are more than enough for physx
Click to expand...
Actually more like everybody, I would say YOU and a few others as there are another big bunch of guys including me, that think otherwise.
Let's keep fact separated from opinions while we get some real numbers shall we?
 
lol....hate it when normal threads end up like this lol.

Anyway

The GTS250 and the 9800gtx+, which one is better for physx. Because I heard that the GTS250 is a rebranded 9800gtx+
 
They're the same thing. Except the GTS 250 has 756Mhz clock (at least it does on my vanilla EVGA GTS 250) whereas the 9800GTX+ has 738Mhz core speed. The shader and memory remains the same.
 
wow. wasted my time reading that whole damn thing thinking it was going to be positive input/results/experience for fellow [H]ers. :) turns out physx still equals great debate.
 
Vlad_13 said:
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:

Click to expand...


I matched your settings... :)

Q6600@ 3.81GHz
(1) 295 for Graphics set to C=602, SH=1458, M=1188
(1) 280 operating in Dedicated PhysX Mode set to C=756, SH=1512, M=1269.

st1280.jpg


st1280bench.jpg



At 1920X1200 Max Settings... (With Motion Blur)

st1920.jpg


st1920bench.jpg
 
Last edited:
MorgothPl said:
Will there be any difference in PhysX processing between those 3 cards, or just get the cheapest?
Click to expand...

Sorry to jump back to the OP here, but keep in mind that the GT is single card height vs the GTX dual height.
I couldn't fit a GTX in my board with SLI 295s plus sound card, so 9800GT went in.
 
TalonMan said:
I matched your settings... :)

Q6600@ 3.81GHz
(1) 295 for Graphics set to C=602, SH=1458, M=1188
(1) 280 operating in Dedicated PhysX Mode set to C=756, SH=1512, M=1269.

*snip*

At 1920X1200 Max Settings... (With Motion Blur)

*snip*
Click to expand...
Hmm, those results with the 295 show some serious gain over the GTX280 + 9600GT combo. Looks like that second massive GPU on the 295 is even better for PhysX than the 9600GT, as I figured ;)
 
I am asking some review sites to do this comparison to put this debate to rest for once.
The closest Ive seen they did it with Cryostatis but incredibly enough used a 9800gtx as the main card so they created the bottleneck right there thus different phsyx cards had no effect.
 
I asked TalonMan if he would post some numbers so we could have something to compare to.

Mine:
Q6600@ 3.6GHz
(1) 295 for Graphics set to C=648, SH=1515, M=1242
(1) 9600GSO (96sp) dedicated PhysX Mode C=750, SH=1875, M=900

Not going to waste time posting pics so here are the numbers.

Average: 54.717
Max: 413.319
Min: 20.3217

So as you can see TalonMan has more oc on the quad but I'am greater on the 295. Still I can't even get near his numbers with a highly oced 9600. These results are following the same path as Cryostatis thread.
 
good to know. looks like i should wait and step up my newest 280 to a 295 in a couple months, then use the old 280 for physx.
 
Can someone with a 9800GTX card set the clocks to equal 9600 bandwidth and test it vs. stock 9800GTX? Or is physx pretty much spu dependent?
 
I got a BFG 9800gtx +, what clocks do you recommend I use?
Not sure if just the clocks would be enough to make a sort of valid comparison.
 
from testing on my system, oc seems to matter very little for ppu. shaders are where its at.
 
TalonMan said:
I matched your settings... :)

Q6600@ 3.81GHz
(1) 295 for Graphics set to C=602, SH=1458, M=1188
(1) 280 operating in Dedicated PhysX Mode set to C=756, SH=1512, M=1269.

http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/3771/st1280.jpg

http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/5400/st1280bench.jpg


At 1920X1200 Max Settings... (With Motion Blur)


http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/8900/st1920.jpg

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/5238/st1920bench.jpg
Click to expand...

And? Am I suppose to see something here?

Unknown-One said:
Hmm, those results with the 295 show some serious gain over the GTX280 + 9600GT combo. Looks like that second massive GPU on the 295 is even better for PhysX than the 9600GT, as I figured ;)
Click to expand...

Yeah you have to be a genius to figure THAT out...
 
uhmm vlad your not really nice in your replies :(, but anyway, the GTS250 comes with PhysX support right?
 
All I did was post a +1 like it's done by some many users so often...wow people is getting quite sensitive here. :(
 
Well I should be getting a GTX260 in the next few weeks (dell) (or I find one at BB) and will post back the demo avgs. and then campare it against the 9600gso.
 
Blazemore said:
Well I should be getting a GTX260 in the next few weeks (dell) (or I find one at BB) and will post back the demo avgs. and then campare it against the 9600gso.
Click to expand...

in the cryostasis tech demo and nvidia demos, the 260 will crush the gso. those demos benefit from high shader counts.
 
Blazemore said:
And the rest benefit from?
Click to expand...

I was trying to only comment on the apps I had used myself. I didn't want to speculate too much, although I would assume that other apps would have similar results. I suppose it depends on how well the shaders are utilized in each instance.
 
shaolin95 said:
All I did was post a +1 like it's done by some many users so often...wow people is getting quite sensitive here. :(
Click to expand...

Yep could tell already where that +1 was at :p.

So is the GTS250 on par with a 9800gtx+ or bit better? I've read in such places (mags and other forums) that if the 9800gtx+ was to be named into a GTX form, it'd be a GTS240.?? <?? Why has nvidia screwed up the naming scheme?
 
Matthew Kane said:
So is the GTS250 on par with a 9800gtx+ or bit better? I've read in such places (mags and other forums) that if the 9800gtx+ was to be named into a GTX form, it'd be a GTS240.?? <?? Why has nvidia screwed up the naming scheme?
Click to expand...

The GeForce GTX250 and the GeForce 9800GTX+ (rev2) are the same card.
 
So how does this all compare with the 50 dollar dedicated Phys-X card I can buy from Ebay?
 
MorgothPl said:
Think I found the test. It's the Firing Squad's Mirror's Edge review
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/mirrors_edge_physx_performance/page7.asp

According to them there ain't no difference between 9600 and 9800 for PhysX. Though, it's nice to see that one vid card + 2nd for PhysX gets as good result as SLI setup

Will have to get me Mirror's Edge and run my tests with/without my 9800
Click to expand...

Well that's good news. I've got a GTX260 coming and was planning to use my 9800GT for dedicated PhysX.
 
I have a 295 for graphics and now I have to choose between a 9600GT and a 9800GT for my dedicated physx card.

I am torn. It looks like the 9800GT will be a little faster from what I'm reading, but it's so darned noisy. Both my 9800 and 9600 are from Galaxy and seem like decent cards with good cooling, but I'm thinking I'd rather have quiet than performance. The 9600GT will still provide me with much better performance in games than using half of the 295 for GPU and half for physx.

Then I read this: "First off, as we&#8217;ve seen in previous PhysX performance articles, the GeForce 9600 GT delivers the best PhysX performance for the dollar among GPUs. PhysX performance was basically on par with the vastly more powerful 9800 GTX+ when both were paired with the GeForce GTX 260 handling graphics."

what to do...:confused:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top