NVIDIA Shows PhysX Comparison

[Archer75]

8800 series or higher. 9400/9500 cards might work but they are bad enough cards as is I don't know if you would be doing your frame rate any favors.

Processing physx isn't like processing video. You don't need a high end card to do it.

Like I said, I use a 9800GTX for video and the 8500GT for physx. You don't even need an SLI board. Mine is a crossfire board.

These are the supported cards:

GeForce GTX 280
GeForce GTX 260
GeForce 9800 GX2
GeForce 9800 GTX+
GeForce 9800 GTX
GeForce 9800 GT
GeForce 9600 GT
GeForce 9600 GSO
GeForce 9500 GT
GeForce 9500 GS
GeForce 9400 GT
GeForce 9300 GS
GeForce 9300 GE
GeForce 8800 Ultra
GeForce 8800 GTX
GeForce 8800 GTS 512
GeForce 8800 GTS
GeForce 8800 GT
GeForce 8800 GS
GeForce 8600 GTS
GeForce 8600 GT
GeForce 8600 GS
GeForce 8500 GT
GeForce 8400 SE
GeForce 8400 GS
GeForce 8400
GeForce 8300 GS
GeForce 8300
GeForce 8200
GeForce 8100 / nForce 720a
GeForce 8100 / nForce 720a

 

[alg7_munif]

the none-PhysX portion looks dull like hell, agreed.



Better that than.....NOTHING...which seems to be your "flavour"



Try running those on your CPU then...



It's PHYSCIS, not 3D...but try the other options..and report your FPS back to us *chough*

But I would love to see you fantastic havok physcis...I dare you!




Because tearable cloth makes you FPS go into single digits(if even so lucky) on a CPU-based system...slideshow vs. video would make the anti-physcis crowd cry at nights.



I guess you are impressed by nothing then...or speaking out of ignorance.



Good find...the all people that can't read and think "ARGGHHH slowdowns" can be eased....untill they try running the game in their none PhysX PC's

I rather have nothing than spending money to have curtains in games.

 

[Atech]

I rather have nothing than spending money to have curtains in games.

Rather curtains than missing profiles...sure NES isn't more your platform...more of the static world that dosn't scare you so much eh?

 

[alg7_munif]

I don't know about you but I think that people without a dedicated PhysX card or a second nVidia GPU would rather use a higher AA than having curtains in the games. I'm not saying that hardware accelerated PhysX is bad but it means nothing without good games and even if there is a good game available, it should do better than just having curtains in the game.

Btw a dedicated PhysX card is only $90 at Newegg. I would buy the card in a blink of an eye if there are more games out there that can benefit from it.

 

[Archer75]

I don't know about you but I think that people without a dedicated PhysX card or a second nVidia GPU would rather use a higher AA than having curtains in the games.

Using a second card is not going to improve AA unless it's an identical card and you are using SLI.
The advantage to the physx thing is you can use an old card you may not be using anymore such as what I have.

I'm not saying that hardware accelerated PhysX is bad but it means nothing without good games and even if there is a good game available, it should do better than just having curtains in the game.

It does do better. You are looking at one demo and a crappy one at that. It does do far more.

 

[alg7_munif]

Using a second card is not going to improve AA unless it's an identical card and you are using SLI.
The advantage to the physx thing is you can use an old card you may not be using anymore such as what I have.



It does do better. You are looking at one demo and a crappy one at that. It does do far more.

I don't think you understand me correctly. What I said was, for people who don't have a second card or a dedicated hardware for PhysX, using PhysX on their single GPU would mean a higher load on the GPU. This could result to a lower AA or a lower graphic setting to get the same fps count as without PhysX. I think that most people would rather have a higher AA than curtains in the game.

I know that hardware accelerated PhysX can do better but without good games, I'm not buying a hardware just to watch the demos.

 

[Archer75]

I don't think you understand me correctly. What I said was, for people who don't have a second card or a dedicated hardware for PhysX, using PhysX on their single GPU would mean a higher load on the GPU. This could result to a lower AA or a lower graphic setting to get the same fps count as without PhysX. I think that most people would rather have a higher AA than curtains in the game.

I know that hardware accelerated PhysX can do better but without good games, I'm not buying a hardware just to watch the demos.

You wouldn't use it on a single GPU system. I certainly wouldn't.

There are several good games that use it. Not many though.

 

[alg7_munif]

You wouldn't use it on a single GPU system. I certainly wouldn't.

There are several good games that use it. Not many though.

Good games such as?

GRAW? I've done playing it long time ago.
UT3? Meh...

 

[Archer75]

Good games such as?

GRAW? I've done playing it long time ago.
UT3? Meh...

Gears of War, Mass Effect I would call good. More will be coming now that the technology is here for people to use any old card for physx.

 

[trinibwoy]

I don't know about you but I think that people without a dedicated PhysX card or a second nVidia GPU would rather use a higher AA than having curtains in the games.

Curtains, realistic breaking glass and cloth destruction, more realistic explosions/debris are in the same category as soft shadows, HDR, GI, DOF. We don't buy separate cards for those things do we. Your argument isn't really making sense....

 

[necrophile]

People have been saying wait and see from the very start of this physx crap, as of now it is still wait and see.

Most of the time, for things like cloth moving it is a case of won't rather than can't on the dev's part. Take source or the engine bethesda use, both can do cloth that moves and reacts to your body but you don't see it that much. why? because it doesn't really matter.

 

[Silus]

People have been saying wait and see from the very start of this physx crap, as of now it is still wait and see.

Most of the time, for things like cloth moving it is a case of won't rather than can't on the dev's part. Take source or the engine bethesda use, both can do cloth that moves and reacts to your body but you don't see it that much. why? because it doesn't really matter.

Source or Gamebryo do not have "real" cloth simulations and they definitely do not react realistically to movement around them. There's a difference between realistic physics and physics that can be achieved without a large performance hit. Source and Gamebryo use Havok, which is CPU bound and thus enabling complex physics simulations, like cloth, hair or fire, would make the games a slideshow. With PhysX and the ability to run these calculations on a piece of hardware other than the CPU, complex simulations are available in real-time.

 

[necrophile]

Please, don't patronise me with this accelerated BS. The reason they keep them simple is because they have no gameplay value.

I still remember ageia, and YES, they are relevant to this discussion as they knew fine that hardware acceleration was not needed for the stuff they showed and would fix things so that certain things magically would run badly or not work at all but when someone worked out how to bypass certain checks they magically did.

Complex physics is fine and well if there is a need for it and even then, anything which cannot be independantly tested is BS, so unless someone uses an open standard to create realistic physics and inconclusively shows that realistic physics cannot be done on a cpu then it is not worth mentioning.

oh and by realistic physics i mean done in such a way that it does the job, i do not mean throwing in needless amount of calculations just for the sake of it. Everyone knows cpu's cannot do the same work as gpu's in this department but whether or not you need that sort of power for acceptable physics is another matter.

 

[Silus]

Please, don't patronise me with this accelerated BS. The reason they keep them simple is because they have no gameplay value.

Do complex shader effects add value to gameplay ? I say yes. They create a more realistics environment to where we look at when we play that game.
Do realistic physics add value to gameplay ? I say yes. They provide more realistic action/reactions to how we interact with the world where we are playing the game, which in the end creates immersion.

Among other things, these are some that tech evolution provided. We just never could have all of them in real time. Now we can! If you answer no to any of the questions I posed above, then you should go back to playing Wolfenstein or Doom, because:

1) You are obviously against tech-evolution.
2) Apart from realistic graphics and complex/realistic physics simulations, you'll still be shooting at a nazi or monster/alien in most games out there.

I still remember ageia, and YES, they are relevant to this discussion as they knew fine that hardware acceleration was not needed for the stuff they showed and would fix things so that certain things magically would run badly or not work at all but when someone worked out how to bypass certain checks they magically did.

Yes, that was their whole line of their business, but they thought it wasn't necessary

Complex physics is fine and well if there is a need for it and even then, anything which cannot be independantly tested is BS, so unless someone uses an open standard to create realistic physics and inconclusively shows that realistic physics cannot be done on a cpu then it is not worth mentioning.

It can be done on a CPU, the problem is the huge performance hit.

oh and by realistic physics i mean done in such a way that it does the job, i do not mean throwing in needless amount of calculations just for the sake of it. Everyone knows cpu's cannot do the same work as gpu's in this department but whether or not you need that sort of power for acceptable physics is another matter.

Which is entirely up to the user, since PhysX runs on CPUs, GPUs and PPUs, so your point is moot. If he/she doesn't want to spare graphics card power to physics, then just disable the option in the drivers. If he /she has power to spare, then enable it and have access to realistic physics effects in real time.

 

[necrophile]

No, ageia thought they could con people into thinking it was necessary, also you response to the last two points completely missed...sorry, ignored and swept under the carpet the point i was making.

Have you got a decent response to my post or just going to faff about making diversionart comments.

Your point about the shader effects and physics makes a good point in a way, why do you need to have cloth physics for immersion when with today's tech you can make it appear cloth is moving realistically without have to calculate the physics for it. No immersion is lost and no need for needless physics.

 

[Silus]

No, ageia thought they could con people into thinking it was necessary, also you response to the last two points completely missed...sorry, ignored and swept under the carpet the point i was making.

Have you got a decent response to my post or just going to faff about making diversionart comments.

No worries. I didn't expect you to have an answer to those anyway, because there isn't one. Everyone already knows that CPUs (no matter how many cores they have), can't compete with the highly parallel nature of a GPU, for these sorts of calculations. Everyone also knows (well...almost everyone...) that PhysX is the more flexible Physics API there is, because it can be done on a multitude of hardware compnents. Havok, which is still probably the most used physics API, is limited to CPUs only.

Your point about the shader effects and physics makes a good point in a way, why do you need to have cloth physics for immersion when with today's tech you can make it appear cloth is moving realistically without have to calculate the physics for it. No immersion is lost and no need for needless physics.

Appearances and reality are quite different. And tech evolution in these markets, strive for realism. Everyone can play X game without complex shader effects and realistic physics, but can you honestly say (without fanboyism into the mix), that if you've seen them in Y game, that you'll play X game the same way, without thinking how cool it would be if X game had it too ?

 

[necrophile]

This is pointless, you are too entrenched to have a decent discussion and to an extent, so am I.

You are ignoring what i say for your own ends, every topic i have been in with you has been the same.

On the point of missing things, i have played vampire bloodlines, a pretty old game. The thing is it has a glitch that if a comp has over 3gb's it will default to low textures. I managed to play the game fine, i then booted up my xp install and played that without the low textures. Yes it looked better but tbh, it didn't bother me.

I can easily play a new game with all the eye candy like crysis or play an older game like that without the eye candy and enjoy it just the same.

Now until games actually use physics for things that are not superficial it will be exactly the same thing.

 

[alg7_munif]

Physics in games is good but having curtains and moving clothes in the game is pointless.

 

[Silus]

This is pointless, you are too entrenched to have a decent discussion and to an extent, so am I.

You are ignoring what i say for your own ends, every topic i have been in with you has been the same.

What have I ignored again ? I covered absolutely every point where you trashed PhysX "because it's pointless", with examples of how it's not pointless. How exactly is that ignoring anything ?

But you're right in one thing. This IS pointless. Your complete unwillingness to remove your fanATIc goggles for a second and acknowledge that although not perfect, this is a step in the right direction. Just imagine for a second that this is not NVIDIA's tech, which you seem to hate so much (for whatever reason) and think of the benefits it can yield in the quality of future games.

On the point of missing things, i have played vampire bloodlines, a pretty old game. The thing is it has a glitch that if a comp has over 3gb's it will default to low textures. I managed to play the game fine, i then booted up my xp install and played that without the low textures. Yes it looked better but tbh, it didn't bother me.

I can easily play a new game with all the eye candy like crysis or play an older game like that without the eye candy and enjoy it just the same.

So your answer to my question is "no" ?You never thought that game X would be even better if they remade it using engine Y and all that it supports (including advanced physics) ?

I didn't ask if you could play the game. I actually said quite clearly that anyone can play any game without fancy shader effects or complex physics simulations. But the point was, after actually seeing those fancy effects and physics, do you really NOT think how cool it looks with them on, instead of off ? Having the possibility to have them on, troubles you in any way ?

Now until games actually use physics for things that are not superficial it will be exactly the same thing.

I think you already missed a bunch of them. HL2, Doom 3, Crysis, etc already use Physics for pretty much every gameplay element that is NOT superficial.

The thing is, you just watched glass shatter in a realistic way, and you assume it's superficial. It seems you didn't think of how it can be used as a potential hazard for a player that is being shot at and can get hit by those pieces of glass. Many aspects can be seen as pure eye candy, like hair simulation, which probably has no effect in gameplay, but it sure as hell improves the looks of characters, which will be part of that gameplay experience anyway. How the world reacts to you and your actions is EXTREMELY important to gameplay and game immersion. Physics APIs, is it Havok, PhysX or any other out there, help accomplish that. PhysX is just more advanced at this point.

 

[Silus]

Physics in games is good but having curtains and moving clothes in the game is pointless.

Yes, because there are no curtains in real life (which some games try to mimic) and because we all run around naked too, so what's the point of game characters having clothes ?

Seriously though, if you can get your head out of the sand, you would understand that tech-demos are meant to show the capabilities of that tech. They're NOT meant to show every single gameplay element that can be achieved with it. That's the responsibility of developers and their imagination. This just shows it's possible to have realistic physics effects in real time. The rest comes later. I know that your concept of adopting new tech, means that it must be overnight, but in the real world, that's not what happens and as this is used by more and more developers, games can only get better with it.

 

[Bigbacon]

the funny thing is, it still looks fake and not realistic.

Physics is good but so far, no one has used it except to be annoying (HL2) or pretty things up (like mirrors edge)

Though I'd rather have pretty things that being annoyed to no end with physics because it ends up being over used in some ridiculous way.

 

[g1xx3r]

I don't know about you but I think that people without a dedicated PhysX card or a second nVidia GPU would rather use a higher AA than having curtains in the games. I'm not saying that hardware accelerated PhysX is bad but it means nothing without good games and even if there is a good game available, it should do better than just having curtains in the game.

Btw a dedicated PhysX card is only $90 at Newegg. I would buy the card in a blink of an eye if there are more games out there that can benefit from it.

For 90 bucks you get..
Ageia PPU


Memory Clock 733
Memory Size 128MB
Memory Interface 128-bit
Memory Type GDDR3

The same $90ish gets you

GeForce 9600 GT 512MB

Memory Clock 1800MHz
Memory Size 512MB
Memory Interface 256-bit
Memory Type GDDR3

Far superior to Ageia's PPU

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814145158

The bigger point is,with Nvidia enabling PhysX on a GPU,you dont HAVE to purchase anything based on what you have already.In the event you upgrade your main vide card,you can still use the old one for PhysX..I too would like to see more done with the tech.The "curtains"everyone refers to is most likely just a fraction of what can be done.

 

[necrophile]

Sorry i meant physx, my mistake oh and btw, you ignored my point of how it is whether or not you need all those calculations to make something appear real, never answered that one as you can't.

Also, if you note, i made mention of ageia, trust me when i say i have not supported this since it came out, it is not nvidia, it is not hardware accelerated physics, it is about the type of physics and what it takes to run them that i have issue with.

You can goad me into responding if you want as i probably will, all the while you can repeatedly make statements that whilst appear to be on topic, are not in relation to what i am actually speaking about.

 

[alg7_munif]

Just imagine for a second that this is not NVIDIA's tech, which you seem to hate so much (for whatever reason) and think of the benefits it can yield in the quality of future games.

We don't need to imagine that, when PhysX was not nVidia's tech, nobody cared about it.

The PPU subforum is one of the most inactive subforum around here. Why? Because there is not much games available and things haven't changed much since then.

Unless there are more games available in the market and in those games, the PhysX is used for a better gameplay experience, not just for curtains, for me PhysX is still an overhyped tech.

 

[Modred189]

For 90 bucks you get..
Ageia PPU


Memory Clock 733
Memory Size 128MB
Memory Interface 128-bit
Memory Type GDDR3

The same $90ish gets you

GeForce 9600 GT 512MB

Memory Clock 1800MHz
Memory Size 512MB
Memory Interface 256-bit
Memory Type GDDR3

Far superior to Ageia's PPU

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814145158

The bigger point is,with Nvidia enabling PhysX on a GPU,you dont HAVE to purchase anything based on what you have already.In the event you upgrade your main vide card,you can still use the old one for PhysX..I too would like to see more done with the tech.The "curtains"everyone refers to is most likely just a fraction of what can be done.

Good point BUT, there are two issues.
First, mine, is that I have a crossfire board, with 2 graphics cards and no remaining pcie X16 slots left. So I HAVE to use that physx card with it's pcie X1.

Second, the question remains just how much hardware you need for physics. It could be that the performance difference between that 9600 and the physx card is wasted on those calculations...

 

[Atech]

For 90 bucks you get..
Ageia PPU


Memory Clock 733
Memory Size 128MB
Memory Interface 128-bit
Memory Type GDDR3

The same $90ish gets you

GeForce 9600 GT 512MB

Memory Clock 1800MHz
Memory Size 512MB
Memory Interface 256-bit
Memory Type GDDR3

Far superior to Ageia's PPU

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814145158

The bigger point is,with Nvidia enabling PhysX on a GPU,you dont HAVE to purchase anything based on what you have already.In the event you upgrade your main vide card,you can still use the old one for PhysX..I too would like to see more done with the tech.The "curtains"everyone refers to is most likely just a fraction of what can be done.

I'd like to see your benches to prove that statement...you know comparing specs/FLOPS across architechtures is utterly useless.
I could do the same and say the PPU is far superior to any GPU due to the specs:

- Internal read/write memory bandwidth: ~2Tbits/s
- Sphere-sphere collision/sec: 530 Million max
- Convex-convex (complex) collisions/sec: 533,000 max
- Power consumption: chip = 20 watts (peak), entire PhysX card = 26-28 watts

We don't need to imagine that, when PhysX was not nVidia's tech, nobody cared about it.

The PPU subforum is one of the most inactive subforum around here. Why? Because there is not much games available and things haven't changed much since then.

Unless there are more games available in the market and in those games, the PhysX is used for a better gameplay experience, not just for curtains, for me PhysX is still an overhyped tech.

The VIA forum is far more dead...and if there ever was an multi-GPU forum it would be even more dead...and curtains do matter more than you grasp.

That you can see bulletholes og a curtain move due to a sloppy sniper...that is not uneeded...
But let me ask you this?:
- Would HL" have been the same WITHOUT the little physcis thay run ingame?
- Would HL2 have been a better game with more accurate physics?
- Would Crysis have been the same game WITHOUT the little physcis they run ingame?
- Would Crysis have been a better game with more accurate physics?

Comming from a person who own a bunkus x2 card(how are you missing Crossfire profiles helping you?) you are either to much fanboy to see the facts...or just a troll not grasping that this is the biggest change since the GPU

 

[necrophile]

It may be the biggest change, again it all depends on how it is used. Again i ain't against the tech, just it's implementation. Nothing proprietary ever has the end user in mind.

 

[Silus]

It may be the biggest change, again it all depends on how it is used. Again i ain't against the tech, just it's implementation. Nothing proprietary ever has the end user in mind.

Yes, that's why so many game developers have opted to NOT use DirectX in their games. Because it's proprietary and it's dismissing Linux users or other OS'es other than Windows. The wave of Open GL games is staggering

Anyway, I don't understand how is it that PhysX being proprietary is even a problem. There is NO physics API that ISN'T proprietary, so what's your point ? Havok is proprietary (now owned by Intel) and I don't see you complaining about it, even when it's far more limited than PhysX.

 

[alg7_munif]

I'd like to see your benches to prove that statement...you know comparing specs/FLOPS across architechtures is utterly useless.
I could do the same and say the PPU is far superior to any GPU due to the specs:

- Internal read/write memory bandwidth: ~2Tbits/s
- Sphere-sphere collision/sec: 530 Million max
- Convex-convex (complex) collisions/sec: 533,000 max
- Power consumption: chip = 20 watts (peak), entire PhysX card = 26-28 watts



The VIA forum is far more dead...and if there ever was an multi-GPU forum it would be even more dead...and curtains do matter more than you grasp.

That you can see bulletholes og a curtain move due to a sloppy sniper...that is not uneeded...
But let me ask you this?:
- Would HL" have been the same WITHOUT the little physcis thay run ingame?
- Would HL2 have been a better game with more accurate physics?
- Would Crysis have been the same game WITHOUT the little physcis they run ingame?
- Would Crysis have been a better game with more accurate physics?

Comming from a person who own a bunkus x2 card(how are you missing Crossfire profiles helping you?) you are either to much fanboy to see the facts...or just a troll not grasping that this is the biggest change since the GPU

Lol I'm not saying physics is bad but hardware accelerated PhysX is pointless without any good games. Hardware accelerated PhysX is great but it means nothing without games. I'm not buying a hardware to watch the demos, I'm not buying a hardware to play a limited amount of games to have curtains in those games.

You gave Crysis and HL2 as an example, the truth is a PhysX card or an nVidia GPU didn't help at all in those titles. Those games use physics, not PhysX if you didn't know the difference.

 

[necrophile]

Yes, havoc is owned by intel but is still acting as it's own company is it not?

Before it was bought, whilst propietary it had no interest in who used it, it was just middleware. Indeed it was even developing havocfx for use on any gfx card or compatible device.

Nvidia and ageia before them, whilst having a software portion that can be used on any system, are the ones in control of the physx portion that relies on hardware and have and do no doubt limit it to only be used on their hardware without actually proving you need it.

You can say that they offered it to ATI but we all know the offer for what it is, i.e come onboard and force every developer to have no choice in who to use and forever be dependant on us.

The directx is not even close to the same thing as that was purely developer choice. It may be tied to windows but again it lacks the hardware tie-in that this and other comparable products does.

 

[g1xx3r]

I'd like to see your benches to prove that statement...you know comparing specs/FLOPS across architechtures is utterly useless.
I could do the same and say the PPU is far superior to any GPU due to the specs:

Google,Search and common sense will give you what you seek..

 

[Atech]

Google,Search and common sense will give you what you seek..

Really oh wise one...I would love to hear you explanation?
But let me guess...nothing factual/technical..even if it's only a google-search away?

 

[necrophile]

The only problem was that ageia was crooked and no test could be considered untainted so it is a moot point.

 

[g1xx3r]

Really oh wise one...I would love to hear you explanation?
But let me guess...nothing factual/technical..even if it's only a google-search away?

Too simple..

As you can see, going from the CPU to the PPU netted us a gain of roughly 2.5X. All of the cards generally top out around 32-34 frames per second with the PPU handling physics, versus 13 fps with CPU-based PhysX. The GeForce GPUs then run 16% faster than PPU-based PhysX in UT3.

So as you can see,you can toss your PPU,enable PhysX on your 8800GT and get better performance.
Now..go back to the kids table.

 

[Silus]

Yes, havoc is owned by intel but is still acting as it's own company is it not?

Before it was bought, whilst propietary it had no interest in who used it, it was just middleware. Indeed it was even developing havocfx for use on any gfx card or compatible device.

I'm sorry...what ? Havok had no interest in who used it ? So the company that developed the physics API, had no interest in who used it...they just made it, because they felt like it. No need for profits. We are developing this for the good of mankind

Do you even believe the stuff you write ? I've seen delusional fans, but you're topping almost all of them with these notions...Havok was and still is a money making company, that requires their software to be licensed. When they don't make that money, they either go down or get bought. Which is what happened with both Havok and Ageia's IP: PhysX

Nvidia and ageia before them, whilst having a software portion that can be used on any system, are the ones in control of the physx portion that relies on hardware and have and do no doubt limit it to only be used on their hardware without actually proving you need it.

There's no control over anything. Company X licenses PhysX from NVIDIA so that they can use the PhysX API in their game(s). When the game is released, It's up to the user to decide if he wants (or can) use PhysX on their GPUs, CPUs or PPUs.

You can say that they offered it to ATI but we all know the offer for what it is, i.e come onboard and force every developer to have no choice in who to use and forever be dependant on us.

That's not even in question. Obviously NVIDIA has interests in a possible deal with AMD. But that ship is sailed, since AMD refused. The problem is that AMD chose the worse of both evils to partner with. They chose Intel, that has absolutely no interest in letting AMD port Havok's API, to Brook+ and is AMD's largest competitor. But that's their problem and they'll just need to "accept" whatever deal Intel wants to make with them.

The directx is not even close to the same thing as that was purely developer choice. It may be tied to windows but again it lacks the hardware tie-in that this and other comparable products does.

Uh? It's exactly the same thing. Using the PhysX API is also a developer's choice, as is using any other API out there. There is no "hardware tie-in" to PhysX since it's very flexible and can run on a multitude of hardware components. It's not specific to NVIDIA's graphics cards as you seem to be fixed upon.
Besides that, it's also about proper development tools, which makes life easier for developers (through the tools themselves and also proper support from the company that licensed the software). DirectX provides that and NVIDIA is obviously committed in providing the same in both tools and support they can for this tech, as they have been with their GPGPU efforts.

 

[noobman]

I'm a little confused here. Are you saying that I can buy a cheap nVidia GeForce 9 graphics card and use it as a dedicated PhysX card?

 

[Modred189]

Yes.

 

[alg7_munif]

I'm a little confused here. Are you saying that I can buy a cheap nVidia GeForce 9 graphics card and use it as a dedicated PhysX card?

Yes you can but why?

 

[noobman]

Yes you can but why?

It seems pointless to me too... I was just unaware that you could do that. Do you have to flash your card's BIOS or make any driver tweaks at all, or does your game automatically detect two graphics cards and switch into a mode where it treats the nVidia GPU as a PPU and your other graphics card (IE my 4870 1gb) as the device to use for rendering?

 

[Silus]

It seems pointless to me too... I was just unaware that you could do that. Do you have to flash your card's BIOS or make any driver tweaks at all, or does your game automatically detect two graphics cards and switch into a mode where it treats the nVidia GPU as a PPU and your other graphics card (IE my 4870 1gb) as the device to use for rendering?

It's only pointless, if you don't intend to play a game that uses the PhysX API.

As for your question, you don't need to do a thing. Just enable PhysX support in the drivers and you'll be using your GeForce for physics. Haven't seen it done with cards other than NVIDIA's, but it should work, because PhysX was ported to CUDA, which doesn't require SLI or anything like that to work. Just plug your card in a PCI-e slot, install PhysX drivers, enable the option and you should be set.