• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

good better best?

J

jamhamm

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Messages
1,057
do the different cards rate better or worse as being physx cards?

say... is a 9800 'better' at physx than a 8800?

or does it just require a certain amount of power and everything above just overkill?

as i dont really want to use a high power high noise 8800 or better if i dont have to
 
I assume you are talking about 9800GT, if so, it has absolutely no difference from 8800gt, it's just nvidia's renaming scheme
 
no im not asking about which card is the better video card - i understand the progression there

8xxx to 9xxx to gtx2xx

my question is... say i have a 8600gt, a 8800gts, and a 9800gt - sure they differ in use as graphics cards for gaming

but how do they compare being specifically used for physx and not as the main graphics card?
 
I've read that 8800GT/9800GT is fairly optimal. I'm not sure at which point the diminishing returns start though. I would think that there would be a fairly defined sweet spot at the moment, (though I'm not sure what it is) and then as things progress, higher-end cards would become more and more useful. I run a single 295, and just enable physx on that. Works pretty well with everything I've tried so far.
 
At this point we lack data. I think Firingsquad did a test to see which of these cards did PhysX better awhile ago, which seemed to suggest that a 9600GT was enough for PhysX, but I'm not sure I trust that, especially with new PhysX drivers out and new, more mainstream games out.

I would love to see a new review, using newer games like Mirror's Edge, and a wider range of cards to get a sense of how much is enough for a PhysX card, and when it makes sense to have a PhysX card, because I can't answer that question with any certainty.
 
So far an 8800 series card seems to be the bottomline for 'good' performance with PhysX. Above this is a matter of diminishing returns. Anything below will bottleneck you at points. Original stand-alone PhysX cards (not GPUs) are pretty much worthless at this point as they'll heavily bottleneck any modern game employing PhysX.
 
Elledan said:
Original stand-alone PhysX cards (not GPUs) are pretty much worthless at this point as they'll heavily bottleneck any modern game employing PhysX.
Click to expand...

Is this a fact?

I have a 4870x2, using Vista Ultimate. I'd love to grab a dedicated physics card, be it a Nvidia card or an original Ageia PPU. However, since I can't use two graphics adapters with Vista, I was considering picking up a dedicated PPU.

They are cheap enough, usually under 60 bucks on eBay.

Considering the system I have (sig) an Ageia PPU would only make things worse?
 
Its probably like all video cards and varies from game to game.
X game might max its capability with an 8500gt, where as Y and Z games both need a gtx295 and even then struggle a little.
 
Grimspoon said:
Is this a fact?

I have a 4870x2, using Vista Ultimate. I'd love to grab a dedicated physics card, be it a Nvidia card or an original Ageia PPU. However, since I can't use two graphics adapters with Vista, I was considering picking up a dedicated PPU.

They are cheap enough, usually under 60 bucks on eBay.

Considering the system I have (sig) an Ageia PPU would only make things worse?
Click to expand...


If you play games with PhysX, getting the old ageia card is better than nothing if you want to see an increase. It won't be as much as the newer Nvidia cards, but it's better than nothing.

Keep in mind the key point "If you play games with PhysX", if you don't play games that use the hardware PhysX than it's a waste.
 
Good info.

I think being able to "waste' ~60 bucks just for the hell of it isn't so terrible. i know some people are on a tight budget, but 60 bucks isn't going to break the bank.

The only game I play with PhysX is UT3 (I think) but it would be nice to have it when/if I need it instead of not have it at all.

I might hold off until Win7 is out, and take advantage of the ability to use two graphics cards (and drivers). I'm not 100% sure either way though.
 
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1376657

While a PPU card beats running it on the CPU, running PhysX and the graphics tasks on the same GPU is faster than with the PPU. I would get a cheap 8/9-series card if you want a dedicated PhysX card, but a PPU is a waste of money.
 
Thanks for that link Elledan. That pretty much settles it for me, I'll be laying my Ageia PhysX PPU dreams to rest!
 
You're most welcome :)

It'll be nice indeed when Windows 7 allows people to use an AMD & nVidia card simultaneously again (like in WinXP). It hurts to have to choose between best graphics and best physics options :)
 
evilsofa said:
At this point we lack data. I think Firingsquad did a test to see which of these cards did PhysX better awhile ago, which seemed to suggest that a 9600GT was enough for PhysX, but I'm not sure I trust that, especially with new PhysX drivers out and new, more mainstream games out.
Click to expand...

Interesting thread

Seems like out of all the cards discussed in this thread, the 9600GT would use the least amount of power. Is that right?
 
evilsofa said:
At this point we lack data. I think Firingsquad did a test to see which of these cards did PhysX better awhile ago, which seemed to suggest that a 9600GT was enough for PhysX, but I'm not sure I trust that, especially with new PhysX drivers out and new, more mainstream games out.

I would love to see a new review, using newer games like Mirror's Edge, and a wider range of cards to get a sense of how much is enough for a PhysX card, and when it makes sense to have a PhysX card, because I can't answer that question with any certainty.
Click to expand...

Actually, there is an interesting article on PC Games Hardware that did a comparison between Ageia and Geforce card for dedicated Physx on Mirror's Edge. Here is the link:
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,674175/Reviews/Mirrors_Edge_benchmarks_with_Radeon_HD_4870_plus_Ageia_card_-_Alternative_to_Nvidia_Physx/

The good thing about the Ageia cards is that it can work in conjunction with either Radeon or Geforce cards under Vista, has a ~30W power consumption, and comes either in PCI or PCI-E x1 flavor. The 9600gt cards has a ~96W power consumption... also keep in mind that the soon-to-be released 9600gt "Green Edition" will have a power consumption of ~59W.

It would be nice if they do benchmark with other games and different resolutions. The conclusion on that article will probably holds true...
 
Elledan said:
You're most welcome :)

It'll be nice indeed when Windows 7 allows people to use an AMD & nVidia card simultaneously again (like in WinXP). It hurts to have to choose between best graphics and best physics options :)
Click to expand...

Which is why I passed on a 4870. Mirror's Edge is a blast and PhysX offers tangible advantages, and with many more games in development using PhysX I don't want to miss the boat.
 
There has been speculation that a 9600GSO may have specs that allow it to run PhysX faster than a 9600GT, despite the fact that the 9600GT is overall the better graphics card.
 
it has more shaders, CUDA uses shaders mainly, so more shaders on a GSO would infact be faster than a GT

I'm in the act of buying a 9600 GSO to use as Physx with my 8800 GTX doing rendering, If I remember about this thread Ill let yall know what I find using the synthetic demo's and free games, but I dont have Mirrors Edge so I cant say about that...
 
jamhamm said:
my question is... say i have a 8600gt, a 8800gts, and a 9800gt - sure they differ in use as graphics cards for gaming

but how do they compare being specifically used for physx and not as the main graphics card?
Click to expand...

Roughly the performance with PhysX compares similarly to the graphics performance of the cards.

And yes, at this point anything faster than say an 8800GT is pretty much overkill for PhysX.
 
MisterJesseJames said:
Actually, there is an interesting article on PC Games Hardware that did a comparison between Ageia and Geforce card for dedicated Physx on Mirror's Edge. Here is the link:
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,674175/Reviews/Mirrors_Edge_benchmarks_with_Radeon_HD_4870_plus_Ageia_card_-_Alternative_to_Nvidia_Physx/

The good thing about the Ageia cards is that it can work in conjunction with either Radeon or Geforce cards under Vista, has a ~30W power consumption, and comes either in PCI or PCI-E x1 flavor. The 9600gt cards has a ~96W power consumption... also keep in mind that the soon-to-be released 9600gt "Green Edition" will have a power consumption of ~59W.

It would be nice if they do benchmark with other games and different resolutions. The conclusion on that article will probably holds true...
Click to expand...

Very informative. Would you know if ATI is pushing to enable PPU on their cards?
 
well, the 9600 GSO I just bought is very nice for physx, I notice a good jump from using just my 8800GTX for everything. Running the Cryostasis demo is a good indicator, and UT3 plays better now, not like it didnt before, but its even betterer... er now
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top