GT240 as a physics card?

[Knowname]

Anybody seen benchmarks on this? Am I right or is this the first card that can double as a physics card? I have Asus' nifty M3N Deluxe triple sli motherboard.. can't I do that with any nvidia card?? Anyway I might like a 240 anyway as my psu is only 600w. So would there be a difference between a DDR3 version or DDR5? Overclocked or not? I'd like to see benchmarks based around a number of cards if possible. But I've not seen a one :/

At first I wanted Asus' GT240 with it's improved filter and quiet fan, but... this won't make a difference if it's just the ppu will it? (the filter mechanism) I doubt if DDR5 v DDR3 even makes a difference but. would a GTS240 and a GTX275 896mb be faster than a Radeon 5850?

And what's the deal with the 260s v 275 896mb or high end 275 (1792mb?) and 285s? their all virtually the same prices! I game on my 24" 1920x1080 lcd but willing to go down res if it means saving $$.

Phenom2 x3 720
6gb DDR2
Win7 64-bit

 

[happy medium]

Physx has little to do with memory. It has more to do with the amount of shaders.
You must have a 8800gt/9800gt/gt 240 to get good performance with Physx.

I suggest a gtx 260 with a gt240 card.

I looked into this already and allready picked up a gtx 260 used cheap.

 

[Schmide]

I've always heard a 9600(gt/gso) class GPU would be more than enough for physx.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/physx-by-nvidia-review/1
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=239242

 

[HeXploiT]

Physics, just as in other graphics, perform better with a better card. A gts240 will beat a 9600gt but by less than 1000 points in vantage so the price performance ratio peaks quickly. For the average person it's not worth it. An end user will spend the $$$ however to add 2000 points on to their vantage score.
Personally I went with an 8600gt as it was cheap but enough to give me a bump.

 

[Zogrim]

Anybody seen benchmarks on this?

Yep, there are some - http://physxinfo.com/news/1278/gt-240-as-dedicated-physx-card-benchmarks/

 

[Keysplayr]

I have some benchmarks here if you want a reference. The closest I have to a GT240 is this 9600GSO.

http://jkamassociates.com:8880/PhysX/index.htm

 

[happy medium]

I couldn't remember where I got my information from.
96sp's seems to be the sweet spot.

Keysplayr's link is it.

 

[Knowname]

Thanks! However I'd also be interested to know what their power output would be? Does Physx really stress the card? I'd imagine the gt240 would be undisputed king in this area.
96sps looks like a good medium for yesterday's games but for today and tomorrows games (ie Batman and Darkest of Days) it looks like 128 is needed IMHO. And if it only really accelerates Physx than.. how many Physx games do I really play? I was hoping it'd up my fr rate in COD or something. :/

 

[cusideabelincoln]

COD doesn't use Physx. The link by Keysplayr basically contains the biggest PhysX titles, so there aren't very many out right now.

 

[toyota]

I've always heard a 9600(gt/gso) class GPU would be more than enough for physx.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/physx-by-nvidia-review/1
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=239242

a 9600gt isnt close to enough for a game like Cryostasis especially at lower res as it could slow you down more than having your primary card do both physics and graphics. if you have a gtx275 or faster then I would say the 9800gt would be the lowest to go if you really want to get good performance in all physx titles. http://www.egielda.com.pl/?str=art&id=5447-6

 

[Keysplayr]

a 9600gt isnt close to enough for a game like Cryostasis especially at lower res as it could slow you down more than having your primary card do both physics and graphics. if you have a gtx275 or faster then I would say the 9800gt would be the lowest to go if you really want to get good performance in all physx titles. http://www.egielda.com.pl/?str=art&id=5447-6

Well, I didn't have a 64 shader 9600GT to test, but I did have a 96 shader 9600GSO. My findings have shown me that there isn't much difference at all between the 96 shader GSO and a 128 shader 8800GTS 512. That is why I will agree that 96 shaders appears to be the sweet spot. GT240 should do nicely as a dedicated PhysX card. But, this is all probably moot at this point. It seems the OP thought that PhysX cards would speed up even non PhysX games.

 

[tweakboy]

Do it, the GT240 has 112 stream processers . It performs on par with 8800 GT and 9800 GT .

A physic board, it would work and you would gain some FPS that would have been lost otherwise. Just matters which game your playing etc.

Do it with that GT240 . rare board too. its spec is like a 8800 or 9800 which btw perform the same. gl on your journey let us know.

 

[toyota]

Do it, the GT240 has 112 stream processers . It performs on par with 8800 GT and 9800 GT .

As a pysic <<<< I can never spell that word sorry" as a physic board, it would work and you would gain some FPS that would have been lost otherwise. I have no idea, I mean it matters which game your playing etc.

Anyhow Do it with that GT240 . rare board too. its spec is like a 8800 or 9800 which btw perform the same.

what? it has 96 sp not 112 and in most cases is slower than even a 9600gt. for physx it probably will perform slightly better than the 9600gt though.

also could you maybe drop the font down a bit on that sig?

 

[Keysplayr]

Do it, the GT240 has 112 stream processers . It performs on par with 8800 GT and 9800 GT .

A physic board, it would work and you would gain some FPS that would have been lost otherwise. Just matters which game your playing etc.

Do it with that GT240 . rare board too. its spec is like a 8800 or 9800 which btw perform the same. gl on your journey let us know.

GT240 has 96 shaders. Is slower than an 8800GT. More in line, or closer to a 9600GT and that is with a GT240 using GDDR5 memory. That is for gaming. PhysX is another matter.

 

[Schmide]

also could you maybe drop the font down a bit on that sig?

+1 wall of text.

The oem gts 240? aka 8800gt aka 9800gt