GTX 280 for PhysX?

[IdBuRnS]

I recently made the move from a pair of 6870s in Crossfire to a single GTX 660 Ti FTW and, in the process, gave my dad one of my 6870s to upgrade the GTX 280 in his Dell XPS.

I've installed the 280 in my box (see specs below) and set it as the dedicated PhysX GPU but I was wondering if having the 280 is even worth it? I am playing games with PhysX like Hawken and Borderlands 2 but is the 660 Ti powerful enough to do all the PhysX processing or do you guys think it's worth having the 280 installed?

 

[Smoblikat]

It is worth it, especially since you took a performance hit going from the 6870's to a 660Ti.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

It's only not worth it if you care about power used (not enough of a benefit in performance), or it's too slow and holds back your main card (9800GT did it to my 470, just wasn't fast enough).

Whats your concern of "worth", power, performance, noise, heat? Hard to say on these things when we don't know your needs/wants.

 

[alcoholbob]

280 power draw and the amount of heat it throws into your system is crazy though.

 

[IdBuRnS]

It's only not worth it if you care about power used (not enough of a benefit in performance), or it's too slow and holds back your main card (9800GT did it to my 470, just wasn't fast enough).

Whats your concern of "worth", power, performance, noise, heat? Hard to say on these things when we don't know your needs/wants.

I'd say my question in my op is pretty clear, "is the 660 Ti powerful enough to do all the PhysX processing or do you guys think it's worth having the 280 installed". If the 660 can't handle the extra load of PhysX processing than the 280 would be worth it.

I play on a single monitor at 1920x1280.

 

[Gunbuster]

I thought from previous threads that doing phys-x on any card less powerful than your main card ends in a wash or even negative performance due to overhead. Not to mention extra power/heat and config complexity.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

I thought from previous threads that doing phys-x on any card less powerful than your main card ends in a wash or even negative performance due to overhead. Not to mention extra power/heat and config complexity.

That should really only happen in a case where the physx load is bottlnecking on the DPPU.

For instance my 470 with a 9800GT was slower /w than w/o because the 470 could render the game graphics and PhysX faster than the 9800GT could render just the PhysX.

 

[zmhaha]

i believe as of now, the 660ti is more than enough for most of games.
plus i guess a 280 draw a lot of power, problly about the same as your 660ti.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Keep in mind gaming power draw of PhysX will be lower than normal gaming power draw.

PhysX doesn't use all the gpu units, it doesn't use memory, and generally it won't go above 75% gpu usage even when it's maxed out.

 

[tarmc]

I'd say my question in my op is pretty clear, "is the 660 Ti powerful enough to do all the PhysX processing or do you guys think it's worth having the 280 installed". If the 660 can't handle the extra load of PhysX processing than the 280 would be worth it.

I play on a single monitor at 1920x1280.

the 660ti should be more than enough to handle the physx load without the need for a dedicated physx card

 

[tarmc]

It is worth it, especially since you took a performance hit going from the 6870's to a 660Ti.

i went from a 6870 cf to a single 670 and it was a huge improvement, the 660ti isnt very far behind in performance so i do not believe he would have taken a performance hit. just from my own observations/experience with it at least.

 

[notty22]

There is a physX bench, like furmark. You can add threads(amount of particles) to play with your system, to see how it runs.
PhysX FluidMark 1.5.1

 

[tarmc]

There is a physX bench, like furmark. You can add threads(amount of particles) to play with your system, to see how it runs.
PhysX FluidMark 1.5.1

thanks, very cool bench, did the 1080 bench and got 38-40 fps, looks neat