Minimum Card for good Physx

R

rennocneb

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
136
hey fellas im running a tri 280 sli setup. I want to run 3 monitors so i need a 4th video board which sucks cause i dont want to add another to my open ended x4 slot but anyway. So question is if i gotta add another anyway, might as well make it a dedicated physx card too. It must be single slot, and hopefully not draw crazy power(my poor corsair hx1000 cant take much more im sure). Thanks for any guidance you can give.
 
Should move this to the Physics forum. But the short answer is, look at the 9600GT, 9600GSO, or 8800GT/9800GT. More will be overkill, less will not be fast enough and actually reduce your FPS when using PhysX. The 9600GSO may run PhysX faster than the 9600GT due to its faster core clock speed, but I haven't seen any tests that actually confirm that yet.
 
i have big feeling this physics business is going to go the way of the dodo.

i wouldnt buy another card just yet.
 
8800GT/9800GT but hold off till april if you can cause once ATI releases their sub $100 40nm chip then the 9800GT price will plummet.

fromeo85: your running your 260 @ 756?!?! wow, thats nuts. and i thought my Black Edition @ 666 was a pretty high OC :p
 
Greg86 said:
8800GT/9800GT but hold off till april if you can cause once ATI releases their sub $100 40nm chip then the 9800GT price will plummet.

fromeo85: your running your 260 @ 756?!?! wow, thats nuts. and i thought my Black Edition @ 666 was a pretty high OC :p
Click to expand...

i can get it to 783 with the voltage tuner
 
Greg86 said:
8800GT/9800GT but hold off till april if you can cause once ATI releases their sub $100 40nm chip then the 9800GT price will plummet.

fromeo85: your running your 260 @ 756?!?! wow, thats nuts. and i thought my Black Edition @ 666 was a pretty high OC :p
Click to expand...

He's got me by a bit too...

all I really needed was LOTS of case ventilation. like 160 CFM worth for my rig. That keeps me around 70C running FURMARK.
 
I'm doing incremental upgrades, as you might note, the only thing I'm lacking is the CPU.

Just bought a Q9650 off the egg last night.
 
grimreeferx09 said:
anything as fast as the ageia physx card will do.
id say 8500gt is the min
Click to expand...
not even close with the 8500gt. even running an 8600gt for dedicated physx with gtx260 for graphics was slower in some cases than just running a gtx260 for both. a 9600gt is really the minimum but also running anything stronger doesnt help too much.
 
9600GSO seems to be a favourite for PhysX. An 8800 series card is the minimum recommended in the GF8 series. The Ageia PhysX card is okay in some games and worthless in others. Definitely not recommended, also with an eye on future compatibility with PhysX titles.
 
What have you guys seen, gamewise, that really benefits from a dedicated Physx card???

Maybe I'm missing something, but I haven't seen anything jump out and hit me yet???

I'm having a hard time getting the fact that a tri-sli machine would need a physx card anyway.

I do have an XFX 8800 GT extreme sitting around that I could use, but I'd like to see a game that would make a difference.:D
 
magoo said:
What have you guys seen, gamewise, that really benefits from a dedicated Physx card??? Maybe I'm missing something, but I haven't seen anything jump out and hit me yet???
Click to expand...

PhysX Title Support (wikipedia)

I'm having a hard time getting the fact that a tri-sli machine would need a physx card anyway.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I would imagine Tri-SLI would just run PhysX without any performance cost, without needing to dedicate another card for it. Where this will matter most is for a single high-end card.

I do have an XFX 8800 GT extreme sitting around that I could use, but I'd like to see a game that would make a difference.:D
Click to expand...

I think the niche for dedicated PhysX is all those people who had an 8 or 9 series card and have upgraded to a GTX 260, 285 or 295. What do you do with the old card? Used to be you would just sell it, but now you can keep it, use it for dedicated PhysX and have the new main card run PhysX titles 10-20% faster as a result.
 
Ok, I asked for a real game that benefited from physx.

There isn't one on that list that's worth a shit.
I did play through GhostRecon I and II on 7900 GTX cards......that's how old those games are. They were good games, but there was not a thing there that made physx necessary, I even recall some comparisons with and without a physx card......meh.

Face it. There is not a single AAA title that makes a physx card,or recycled nvidia graphics card worth the effort......:D
 
thats your opinion magoo, and while partially true, its also wrong
Some of those games will really apeal to people, some wont
But the Physx effects in some of those titles will apeal to people and make it worth our time
Ya, there isnt a AAA Physx required title out there, but there wont be for a while, the tech is young, not very wide spread yet, and they'd be alienating a huge customer base.

How many AAA titles are there really anyways? I dont get while people are so hostile to Physx. It can only make things better. How long did it take for true surround to add to a game rather than be more than a few noises in the backround? How long did it take until shadows were used as something more than just the thing chasing behind your charecter? Every new design has to go years before IT gets hammered into someting that will expand on the game play. Right now, Physx is already adding to the visual side of things, I think titles like Cryostasis will be what bring Physx to the table and gets dev's onboard.

I dont know why people are rooting against a new tech, every advance in the industry should be encouraged, not shunned because it didnt hit the floor as a AAA title
 
haadij404 said:
as long its only available on nvidia cards it is doomed to fail.
Click to expand...

i don't think so. perhaps when it comes to hardware accelerated physx, there is slow growth. but physx use is quite widespread not only in pc games, but all the consoles as well. so the middleware isn't going anywhere. it's just a matter of the hardware acceleration side of things. yes, it only is applicable to nvidia cards atm (though ati users can add a ppu, or use an nvidia card as a dedicated ppu in xp or w7). that's probably not gonna change anytime soon. doesn't mean devs wont take advantage of the tech. if the opportunity presents itself to make a breakout game. and it doesn't hurt to have hardware that is capable of offloading physics processing from the cpu, especially if it provides a nice visible fps boost. who knows, instead of looking at the big dogs, we might see a small indie dev produce an amazing killer app that utilizes gpu physx in a meaningful way. it would be nice if there was a killer app out right now that started to grow the market exponentially, though. look at what the halo franchise did for microsoft and the xbox.
 
anyways, it can run on ATI, all it will take is a nice game that uses it for ATI to pony up the license money to run it on their cards

even with just NV, they already have what, 60+% discreet grfx market? Plus its free for console devs to use (last I knew it was anyways)

indie dev team? Look at cryostasis, some bad ass water effects in game, and plenty of other ideas from a small russian group
 
my 9500gt ddr3 model...cuz most are ddr2...

anyways that 9500gt and my bfg phys-x card actually perform about the same and in some scenarios the phys-x card performs better...

i also tried just running it on my 9800gtx+ and yea it is better on there than both the 9500 and dedicated card. so yea....

either way i need the 9500 for tri dispolay and i keep the phys-x card in there too
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top