• 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.

PhysX & CUDA

B

badboyeee

n00b
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
60
Can someone give me some Physx & Cuda 101? I dont know much about it and what its used for. All I know Physx has to do with some FPS games and Cuda with videos?

I use the CoreAVC codec and it says it supports Cuda. But my 7600GT doesn't have Cuda although it runs 1080p movies just fine without it.

Well I guess that main question should be, is it worth getting a Nvidia card over an ATI card because of these two features? I'm buying a new video card soon, I'm well due for an upgrade.

Thanks
 
8000 series onwards nvidia cards have CUDA. Physx runs off CUDA so you wont have one without the other.

Physx is method that some games use to calculate physical things. Like when things explode or something shoots cloth they move realistically, It adds to the realism of games basically. Normally this is done with the CPU, but with cards with physx support (nvidia) this is done on the card. Not all games use this, and use similar things for physics using the CPU, but with physx games your only goings to see the physical things with a physx card (mafia II, batman arkham asylum, mirrors edge etc etc.) without one things will look lifeless.
for example
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vINH6Z9kqgI
This is only in physx titles. Other games do similar things with havok etc.

Cuda is another currently nvidia only feature a way of using a GPU kind of like a second CPU to run code on. Not many games use this other than Just cause (for the water) and a few others. It is more for processing tasks on the GPU. For example Adobes video software uses CUDA to render video effects using the GPU, instead off the CPU which is much faster. Basically its a way of offloading tasks from the CPU.

Basically, if you like the way physx looks, or can't stand how some games look without it, then get a nvidia card. If you use programs that have CUDA features, such as video editing or some 3d modeling software, then get a Nvidia card. If neither of these things matter to you, get either.
 
DeathPrincess, if the op has a modest pc then getting just any Nvidia video card will not mean he gets to run physx smoothly. even a gtx460 isn't capable of running graphics and hardware physx at very high settings and res in all cases. for most people physx is a joke and should be the least of their concerns especially when building or upgrading a modest budget pc.
 
cannondale06 said:
DeathPrincess, if the op has a modest pc then getting just any Nvidia video card will not mean he gets to run physx smoothly. even a gtx460 isn't capable of running graphics and hardware physx at very high settings and res in all cases. for most people physx is a joke and should be the least of their concerns especially when building or upgrading a modest budget pc.
Click to expand...

A 460 would probably run AA in high settings on a medium monitor with physx, its not that much of an overhead, depends on the game really. If it's mafia II then hell no. But I didn't specify which games would run smoothly on what, I just said what physx and CUDA do. So I thought a video of the difference physx can make was an easy to understand example. I can't think of one for cuda... Anyway, physx probably isn't the biggest concern on a budget built because your not going to be going for maximum eyecandy, but knowledge is power.
 
badboyeee said:
Can someone give me some Physx & Cuda 101? I dont know much about it and what its used for. All I know Physx has to do with some FPS games and Cuda with videos?

I use the CoreAVC codec and it says it supports Cuda. But my 7600GT doesn't have Cuda although it runs 1080p movies just fine without it.

Well I guess that main question should be, is it worth getting a Nvidia card over an ATI card because of these two features? I'm buying a new video card soon, I'm well due for an upgrade.

Thanks
Click to expand...

GTX 460 and up can handle low PhysX and graphics at the same time, smoothly. However, that alone isn't a reason to choose between the two. CUDA is something I'd have a hard time living without. vReveal and video transcoding make it a must. Simplistically, CUDA turns your GPU into a separate computer that is multiple times faster than your CPU at encoding video, audio, and most other math. If you have no interest in encoding video, audio, CAD programs, Folding, or anything else that would take advantage of CUDA, then it is of no use to you.

All that aside, the GTX 460 currently delivers the best bang for the buck. SLI GTX 460's deliver even more impressive bang for the buck, for a lot more bucks. :)

Give us your budget for a tailored recommendation.
 
Currently, unless you do a fair amount of video encoding, CUDA is probably worthless to you.

GPU PhysX is only used in a very, very small number of games - in fact, the 3 DeathPrincess listed (mafia II, batman arkham asylum, and mirrors edge) are basically the only 3 of any interest whatsoever. I would consider PhysX to be a very small and minor perk, not something to base the decision of a video card off of. Basically, if you have two cards you can't decide between, PhysX could be the tie breaker, but I wouldn't consider it any more important than that.
 
kllrnohj said:
Currently, unless you do a fair amount of video encoding, CUDA is probably worthless to you.
Click to expand...

Since there's no High Profile CUDA h.264 encoder, it's worthless for any type of archival encoding. All you get is really fast Baseline encoding.

Converting a movie to fit it on your portable media player, that's a good use for it. The quality just isn't there for storing your content permanently though.
 
Adobe also has made claims about shifting to OpenCL. I've heard rumors of MS & Intel throwing their lot into Direct Compute. Eitherway the big players seem to not be embracing CUDA so it's probably going to end up like PhysX.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top