• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

6850 w/8800GT physX Batman: AA bench

biostud

biostud

Lifer
So I got my 6850, and I had to try to run physX with my old 8800GT.

I installed drivers and tried Batman AA. Drivers nvidia 260.99 and Catalyst 10.12
@1680*1050 4xAA 16xAF vsync off

w/physX high min: 47 avg: 85 max: 117

w/physx off min: 78 avg: 120 max: 159

And with that tested I'm going to take out the 8800GT because of power and noise, and from the benchmark it doesn't seem like I'm missing much not being able to enable physX.
 
PhysX seems overhyped considering the performance hit it takes. 30-40% hit is a lot to pay just for some extra eye candy.
 
Since both setting was very playable that would have been ok, but the noise was not.

...annoying PCIe locks, I had to remove the 6850, to be able to reach the PCIe lock on the 2nd PCIe x8 port, to get the 8800GT out.

When the 8800GT was in could hear the fan speed increase 3 or 4 times during the benchmark, without it didn't increase at all as far as I could hear.
 
Last edited:
The point with PhsyX, is what it adds in eye candy. In that game, its a huge amount of content on screen. And you didn't comment on it, lol
Just the fps #'s.
 
notty22 said:
The point with PhsyX, is what it adds in eye candy. In that game, its a huge amount of content on screen. And you didn't comment on it, lol
Just the fps #'s.
Click to expand...

did you read the last line in the first post?

I know I'll miss some eye candy, but I doubt it will affect my gaming experience that much.
 
don't older 8600 cards support physx? would that add some nice eye candy with the same hit, or is it just too damn slow to give you anything worthwhile?
 
toyota said:
8600gt is too slow for physx.
Click to expand...

slow physx would be worse than no physx? assuming of course you're running an AMD setup. not being a smartass, i seriously don't know if the slowest possible physx card would be not worth bothering with over nothing at all with a radeon. i have a 9600GT collecting dust i was thinking about throwing in my wife's desktop that has a 6970.
 
biostud said:
So I got my 6850, and I had to try to run physX with my old 8800GT.

I installed drivers and tried Batman AA. Drivers nvidia 260.99 and Catalyst 10.12
@1680*1050 4xAA 16xAF vsync off

w/physX high min: 47 avg: 85 max: 117

w/physx off min: 78 avg: 120 max: 159

And with that tested I'm going to take out the 8800GT because of power and noise, and from the benchmark it doesn't seem like I'm missing much not being able to enable physX.
Click to expand...
that seems pretty low for those runs at 1680. even with my slower gtx260 I can average that.

EDIT: oops I misread the min as average. 😳
 
Last edited:
almighty.peanut said:
slow physx would be worse than no physx? assuming of course you're running an AMD setup. not being a smartass, i seriously don't know if the slowest possible physx card would be not worth bothering with over nothing at all with a radeon. i have a 9600GT collecting dust i was thinking about throwing in my wife's desktop that has a 6970.
Click to expand...
using an 8600gt would be slower than letting a gtx260 handle both graphics and physx. the faster your graphics card is then the faster the card needs to be for a dedicated physx card or you might as well let your graphics card do both.

now if using ATI cards for graphics then an 8600gt for physx would be better than nothing since the cpu would be doing physx otherwise. a 9600gt or faster would still be better though.
 
Are those older drivers you had to use to enable an nvidia Physx card with an AMD primary or did they finally remove the driver lock? I have an 8800GTS 512 sitting around doing nothing and it might be fun to give PhysX a try with that and my 6970.
 
my poky old gtx260 does really good without physx on.

1680x1050 4xAA 16xAF vsync off

w/physX high min:24 avg:45 max:66

w/physx off min:62 avg:110 max:147
 
Last edited:
Spike said:
Are those older drivers you had to use to enable an nvidia Physx card with an AMD primary or did they finally remove the driver lock? I have an 8800GTS 512 sitting around doing nothing and it might be fun to give PhysX a try with that and my 6970.
Click to expand...

I used this little program and the drivers stated in the first post:

http://www.ngohq.com/graphic-cards/17706-hybrid-physx-mod-v1-03-v1-04ff.html

Main reason for not using the 8800GT, is that I have a mATX board in a mATX case, and temp + noise got very high, and the power consumption is not worth it to me.
 
that makes 2 games, Batman and Just Cause 2, that are only 20% faster with an overclocked 6850 over an overclocked 192sp gtx260. not exactly impressive gains in 2 years imo. I guess a gtx570 level of card is the only thing that will be worthwhile for me.
 
Insomniator said:
What about a GTX 470 and 9600GSO 92sp? I just got my 470 in the mail today... replacing 9600.

Guess I'll test it out...
Click to expand...

Yes, let us know, also try the Mafia II benchmark.
With my setup, I score higher in Mafia II with disabling SLI and dedicating the 2nd card to physX. Thats on High PhysX , all high quality.
 
toyota said:
that makes 2 games, Batman and Just Cause 2, that are only 20% faster with an overclocked 6850 over an overclocked 192sp gtx260. not exactly impressive gains in 2 years imo. I guess a gtx570 level of card is the only thing that will be worthwhile for me.
Click to expand...

the 68xx is midrange while the gtx260 where high, and it's always last gen high ~ next gen mid.
 
biostud said:
the 68xx is midrange while the gtx260 where high, and it's always last gen high ~ next gen mid.
Click to expand...
its still not much of an improvement at all for two years. even low end cards like a 6600gt or 7600gt matched the previous years high end cards. the gtx260 was really 3 or 4 slots(gtx295/gtx285/gtx280/gtx275) down from the high end card and same goes for the 6850(6990/6970/6950/6870). the only way to get a noticeably faster card than mine is to go very high end and put up with way more power consumption and heat. progress has been lame for those of us with gtx260/4870 level cards.
 
toyota said:
its still not much of an improvement at all for two years. even low end cards like a 6600gt or 7600gt matched the previous years high end cards. the gtx260 was really 3 or 4 slots(gtx295/gtx285/gtx280/gtx275) down from the high end card and same goes for the 6850(6990/6970/6950/6870). the only way to get a noticeably faster card than mine is to go very high end and put up with way more power consumption and heat. progress has been lame for those of us with gtx260/4870 level cards.
Click to expand...

probably because TSMC had to drop 32nm.
 
toyota said:
its still not much of an improvement at all for two years. even low end cards like a 6600gt or 7600gt matched the previous years high end cards. the gtx260 was really 3 or 4 slots(gtx295/gtx285/gtx280/gtx275) down from the high end card and same goes for the 6850(6990/6970/6950/6870). the only way to get a noticeably faster card than mine is to go very high end and put up with way more power consumption and heat. progress has been lame for those of us with gtx260/4870 level cards.
Click to expand...

That's right, your only good upgrade would be the HD 5870 which is nearly twice faster than a single HD 4870 and consumes less power than an HD 4890, or GTX 470 which performs an unnoticeable notch below the HD 5870 quite often. If you can get another GTX 260 and do SLI, that would be a good boost in performance.
 
toyota said:
its still not much of an improvement at all for two years. even low end cards like a 6600gt or 7600gt matched the previous years high end cards. the gtx260 was really 3 or 4 slots(gtx295/gtx285/gtx280/gtx275) down from the high end card and same goes for the 6850(6990/6970/6950/6870). the only way to get a noticeably faster card than mine is to go very high end and put up with way more power consumption and heat. progress has been lame for those of us with gtx260/4870 level cards.
Click to expand...

Whoa, negative there ghostrider. I upgraded to a 6970 from a 4870 512 and the difference is HUGE. I'm talking having to run games at low settings at 1920x1200 (BC 2 and borderlands as some examples) to get acceptable frames where as now I'm maxing them out and they are so smooth... except for that occasional stutter that I think is my hdd.

I completely understand what your saying in the small performance improvements last gen to this (5870/480) but from the previous one the jump was gifreakingnormous. Now, if your looking at the midrange cards then that makes more sense, they don't see to improve much over the high end from before but high to high... dang.... 😀
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top