Is it worth keeping a card for Phsyx anymore?

[Bman123]

PhysX is a waste, not worth spending money for a second card at all

 

[nenforcer]

I have 2 x 9800GT's in SLI and a GT 240 running as my PhysX card, which seems kind of awkward because the GT 240 supports DX10.1 and is the new card although it has slightly fewer SP's compared to the 9800GT's.

GRAW -> Mirrors Edge -> Batman:AA -> Mafix ][

This setup is quite solid right now and when I do upgrade to a DX11 card I will probably also get a low end Fermi DX11 card for PhysX but those obviously aren't even out yet.

 

[Keysplayr]

In games that employ a lot of PhysX content, (Mafia II may) offloading PhysX calculations to another Nvidia GPU would yield improved results. For games with very little PhysX content, you won't notice much at all, if anything.

 

[jvroig]

In games that employ a lot of PhysX content, (Mafia II may) offloading PhysX calculations to another Nvidia GPU would yield improved results. For games with very little PhysX content, you won't notice much at all, if anything.

What about the bottleneck mentioned that may occur when the PhysX card used is slow like an 8600?

 

[Keysplayr]

What about the bottleneck mentioned that may occur when the PhysX card used is slow like an 8600?

Then you would get a more powerful card. My previous PhysX benchmarks have shown that the sweet spot is a GPU with 96sp's or better (9600GSO with 96sp's).

8600GT is actually the bare minimum supported by PhysX. 32sp's with a minimum of 256MB memory on card. So, it makes sense that a 8600GT wouldn't be the best choice for a dedicated PhysX card.

 

[jvroig]

Then you would get a more powerful card. My previous PhysX benchmarks have shown that the sweet spot is a GPU with 96sp's or better (9600GSO with 96sp's).

I already have an 8600GTS as I stated in an earlier post in this thread. I do not wish to get a more powerful card simply for PhysX. I wanted to see if I could keep the 8600GTS as a PhysX card (instead of throwing it away like all old equipment) without it being a bottleneck. Seeing as to how you confirmed it (being only 1/3 of the sweet spot), I suppose it will do more harm than good and it is best just forgotten.

 

[Grooveriding]

I already have an 8600GTS as I stated in an earlier post in this thread. I do not wish to get a more powerful card simply for PhysX. I wanted to see if I could keep the 8600GTS as a PhysX card (instead of throwing it away like all old equipment) without it being a bottleneck. Seeing as to how you confirmed it (being onlt 1/3 of the sweet spot), I suppose it will do more harm than good and it is best just forgotten.

Smart move.

Getting a card just for physx is like getting a card just to do anti-aliasing, and AA adds more to each game you play than gpu physx has ever added to any of the about five games it works in.

 

[toyota]

I already have an 8600GTS as I stated in an earlier post in this thread. I do not wish to get a more powerful card simply for PhysX. I wanted to see if I could keep the 8600GTS as a PhysX card (instead of throwing it away like all old equipment) without it being a bottleneck. Seeing as to how you confirmed it (being onlt 1/3 of the sweet spot), I suppose it will do more harm than good and it is best just forgotten.

yeah don't even bother. anything faster than a gtx260 can handle both graphics and physx better than having the 8600gts as a dedicated physx card.

 

[jvroig]

Yeah, well, wasn't exactly excited to experience PhysX with a dedicated card. Too bad, I hate throwing out a perfectly good video card.

I guess that answers the thread for my concerns. I suppose the story would have been a lot different if my old card was an 8800GT, but all I could buy back then was an 8600GTS.

 

[toyota]

Yeah, well, wasn't exactly excited to experience PhysX with a dedicated card. Too bad, I hate throwing out a perfectly good video card.

I guess that answers the thread for my concerns. I suppose the story would have been a lot different if my old card was an 8800GT, but all I could buy back then was an 8600GTS.

I know how you feel since I have a perfectly good 8600gt that I have just as a back up card. I knew it would be almost useless for physx but I tested anyway and sure enough the gtx260 was better at handling both graphics and physx.

 

[Obsoleet]

I have an 8800GT that I could run with my 5870 for Physx, but Nvidia restricted their hardware so I stopped buying their products. Well, at least anything new. I don't think it's worth it, Physx is not important and creates more noise/heat.

 

[max347]

Yeah, well, wasn't exactly excited to experience PhysX with a dedicated card. Too bad, I hate throwing out a perfectly good video card.

I guess that answers the thread for my concerns. I suppose the story would have been a lot different if my old card was an 8800GT, but all I could buy back then was an 8600GTS.

Why would you throw it out? You could probably still get $30 on the FST forum....

 

[toyota]

Why would you throw it out? You could probably still get $30 on the FST forum....

I tried to sell mine for 35 bucks about 18 months ago and got no bites. I put it in parents pc for a while and then decided just to keep it around for a back up card.

 

[Keysplayr]

Yup. Good to keep around for backup or to pass it along to someone you know who could use it for a basic card. I have an 8600GT and an 8400GS as backup cards. Always good to have an extra.

 

[Bman123]

I sold my 8800gs for $30 shipped on here almost 2 months ago.

 

[BFG10K]

I absolutely would not bother with a secondary physics card. I can perhaps think of one or two titles where PhysX is both meaningful and a second card improves performance.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

What about a 9800gt for physx with a 470? Worth the hassle?

 

[bryanW1995]

Sounds like alot, but a used gtx 260 goes for about 115$ now.
SHit, you can get a 9800gtx+ for 80$.

they're going down, I just got one for $97.50 shipped.

edit: @oilfield trash: 9600gt is basically the minimum that keysplayr recommended, and gtx 470 is significantly faster than the cards that he was using when he did his physix review, so, um, no.

 

[nenforcer]

Apparently there must be some overhead associated with having an entirely seperate card for PhysX, passing all of the information about the scence state to another card to process the PhysX effects.

I haven't read keysplayr article but it sounds like if you have a sufficiently fast CUDA card with enough CUDA cores adding another slower card could bog it down and not offer any / enough assistance.

 

[Keysplayr]

Apparently there must be some overhead associated with having an entirely seperate card for PhysX, passing all of the information about the scence state to another card to process the PhysX effects.

I haven't read keysplayr article but it sounds like if you have a sufficiently fast CUDA card with enough CUDA cores adding another slower card could bog it down and not offer any / enough assistance.

Right. If you force PhysX to run on a card that isn't powerful enough, it could actually reduce performance. The fastest setup I've tested was with a GTX295 as the main card and a GTX280 running PhysX. I'll dig up my benches and post em.

Here they are:
http://173.2.167.31:8880/PhysX/index.htm

 

[evolucion8]

When I played Batman AA with my AGEIA card, I experiment some FPS drops in the low 20's for no apparent reason, pretty much in the same areas where CPU PhysX were used to get the same slow downs, like when the PhysX System being loaded in memory or something, the same thing happens in Mirrors Edge.

 

[Keysplayr]

When I played Batman AA with my AGEIA card, I experiment some FPS drops in the low 20's for no apparent reason, pretty much in the same areas where CPU PhysX were used to get the same slow downs, like when the PhysX System being loaded in memory or something, the same thing happens in Mirrors Edge.

AFAIK, the AGEIA card had 16 processors or "pipelines" for PhysX calculations. While we cant directly compare those processors to the sp's in a GPU, we can say from prior testing that before Nvidia upped the minimum GPU/memory requirements for PhysX, even an 8400GS with 16 sp's outperformed an AGEIA processor. Your AGEIA card would then be far inferior to the current minimum spec of 32/256MB which the 8600GT meets.

In Batman AA, using 16x10 res all settings high using a GTX280, I found the following:

GTX280 rendering + PhysX High: Min:28 Avg:40 Max:48
280 + 8600GT PhysX High: Min: 29 Avg:50 Max:85

Minimum remained basically the same, but a dramatic increase in Avg and Max.

Now look when paired with a 96 sp 9600GSO
GTX280 + 9600GSO PhysX High: Min:39 Avg:69 Max:85

Minimum jumped up 33 percent and Avg jumped up 40 percent. Max stayed the same.

Paired with a 8800GTS 512 (128 sp) gave very little improvement over the 9600GSO:
GTX280 + 8800GTS 512 PhysX High: Min:42 Avg:74 Max:89

At that time, the difference in price of the 9600GSO and 8800GTS 512 was very large. On the order of about 70.00 more. I picked up the 9600GSO at Newegg for around 40.00.

This is why IMHO, at that time, the 9600GSO was the sweet spot for PhysX calculations for the money.

Today, that may have changed with newer drivers, PhysX library updates, hardware etc.
And Mafia II may have some surprises in store when it comes to PhysX calculating power requirements. Looks pretty steep.

For Batman AA, if you recall, the recommended requirements were a GTX260 for primary renderer, and a 9800GTX for PhysX.

Mirrors Edge: 16x10 all setting Highest 4xAA

280 PhysX ON: Mn: 44 Av: 75 Mx: 126

280 + 8600GT PhysX ON: Mn: 60 Av: 94 Mx: 154

280 + 9600GSO PhysX ON: Mn: 87 Av: 112 Mx: 184

280 + 8800GTS 512 PhysX ON: Mn: 90 Av: 113 Max: 183

But these numbers are all in my graphs.
http://173.2.167.31:8880/PhysX/index.htm

It really depends on the game and the amount of PhysX content being employed.
Logically, the more PhysX content, a more powerful GPU is required for dedicated PhysX processing. At the same token, a more powerful Primary GPU would be required to actually render all the extra PhysX content that the PhysX GPU is crunching. Naturally.

I would have loved the opportunity to test the AGEIA PhysX card alongside all these other benches. A member here offered to send me one on loan for testing, but it didn't happen. I don't think he was able to find his. hehe. I have the same trouble when I'm looking for something in this rubble pile of old PC parts. Never find what I'm looking for, but I find something else I was looking for last month, but don't need it now. LOL.

 

[MyLeftNut]

So for newer titles, I assume a gtx 470 + 8800gt for physics would undermine performance?

 

[Keysplayr]

So for newer titles, I assume a gtx 470 + 8800gt for physics would undermine performance?

I haven't any idea. But looking at the recommended requirements for Mafia II would make somebody think that way. This goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway. Until newer PhysX games are tested with newer hardware, we won't know.

 

[evolucion8]

Probably only in Batman AA, the AGEIA Processor is far behind for the minimum spec, but look here at this review and the AGEIA PhysX showing good performance scaling that outperforms slightly the 9600GT

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...eia-card-Alternative-to-Nvidia-Physx/Reviews/

Batman AA probably is too much stuff for an AGEIA processor or it isn't optimized for it like Mirror's Edge, Dark Void worked great with my AGEIA card, no slowdowns and great performance, but the Phisics effects are pathettic.