question about PhysX performance

[roid450]

i have a 9600GT SC set to run the PhysX under the Nvidia settings, but i took it out last night to play UT3 and GRAW2 with my main GTX running PhysX but i noticed almost no difference in FPS or performance.

so i was wondering this morning, if maybe the current PhysX is not advanced enough as of yet to be able to really have a impact on a GPU, like maybe the PhysX right now is simple enough to where you do not need a dedicated PhysX card.

or maybe its just my system and i have something set wrong somewhere. i thought having the 9600 run PhysX would greatly improve FPS (getting 42 avg on CTF PhysX level on 1600 res on all HIGH and post processing Vivid, 16xAF) i have the newest drivers from nvidia and yes i had the 9600GT set to the primary PhysX gpu.. i had the vga hooked up with DVI adapter to the 9600 on the display 1 DVI hookup, and both cards are hooked up to my monitor like the PhysX guide said to. I had the nvidia setting set to Single Display performance. if it turns out that a dedicated PhysX card is not needed as of right now, ill just keep it off my system so its not just using power and generating extra heat and noise for little or no advantage.

thanks for reading, i hope this has not been discussed prior, but i found no similar posts using search.

 

[aka1nas]

Did you play the Ageia Island map? That was the only map that required a PPU to be playable. The rest of the game is meant to be playable without a PPU, so the PhysX effects are pretty light.

 

[roid450]

no i didnt not play.

at ur reply, no wonder the 9600gt didnt help much at all. ill leave it off until the physx in games becomes pretty advanced i guess.

 

[mpilchfamily]

It may be a while before Physics is really needed to run games. The PC gaming market has to be flexable and open to the mid and low end users. Game makers can't afford to target the high end users only. The market there is so small its not worth the investment in the game.

 

[roid450]

Originally posted by: mpilchfamily
It may be a while before Physics is really needed to run games. The PC gaming market has to be flexable and open to the mid and low end users. Game makers can't afford to target the high end users only. The market there is so small its not worth the investment in the game.

makes sense. i heard on here, and i dont know at all how accurate this is, but someone said that something like 20% of the PCs in the USA can run crysis on very high settings or are whats considered UBER rigs

also, so then should i basically toss my 9600GT then? i might be able to get a few bucks for it. maybe by the time physx is used more widely it might not even be good enough for it.

 

[badnewcastle]

I don't think even 1% of PC's in the US are Uber enough to run Crysis on Very High with a good resolutions.

 

[roid450]

Originally posted by: badnewcastle
I don't think even 1% of PC's in the US are Uber enough to run Crysis on Very High with a good resolutions.

add to that, with AA and 30+ FPS on all max settings.

i have eerything set to enthusiast except post processing, shaders quality, motion blur, and water quality set to gamer. i still only get 20-30 fps with no AA at 1600, but its mostly low 20s

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: aka1nas
Did you play the Ageia Island map?

With UT3, there's also a special PhysX map.