Second Nvidia card for Physx

james1701

Golden Member
Sep 14, 2007
1,867
47
91
What cards work best for this application.
I was looking at an 8400GS thats passive cooled, and only 39.00. How would this compare to a 9600 series card? I want to keep my 8800GT for my main graphics card and get a cheap second card for Phsx.
 

error8

Diamond Member
Nov 28, 2007
3,204
0
76
That is a good question indeed. I was thinking about the same thing , but I guess that the 8400 GS is too weak even for physx. Maybe a 8600 GT will do better.
 

shangshang

Senior member
May 17, 2008
830
0
0
there will be lots of people, including myself, in this boat. An unused pcei slot on board with intel chipset P35 or older will be keen to get a cheap NV card for physx. I'm considering selling my 4850 and getting a gtx260 + "cheap physx card". I think a GTX260 + any cheap 88xx card would be a nice combo for those with a P35 intel chipset.
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
54,963
9,025
126
Physx is way overhyped imho. Why spend the money before games that require physx are out?
 

error8

Diamond Member
Nov 28, 2007
3,204
0
76
Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Physx is way overhyped imho. Why spend the money before games that require physx are out?
Good point!
 

thilanliyan

Lifer
Jun 21, 2005
11,708
1,833
126
Originally posted by: shangshang
Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Physx is way overhyped imho. Why spend the money before games that require physx are out?
might wanna try google
There aren't too many AAA titles that require PhysX hardware (lots support software PhysX) to get a great playing experience. The only "game" I've seen that might need it is Warmonger. Something like GRAW2 was unimpressive IMO.
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,227
36
91
Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Physx is way overhyped imho. Why spend the money before games that require physx are out?

Why do the same people come into every physx thread to crap it?

There ARE games out already, and more on the way. Holy smokes.
 

james1701

Golden Member
Sep 14, 2007
1,867
47
91
Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Physx is way overhyped imho. Why spend the money before games that require physx are out?

Why do I need a quadcore processor? Because I want one.

No you dont need an SLI mb for physx.
 

AzN

Banned
Nov 26, 2001
4,112
0
0
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Physx is way overhyped imho. Why spend the money before games that require physx are out?

Why do the same people come into every physx thread to crap it?

There ARE games out already, and more on the way. Holy smokes.
It's still over rated non the less.
 

shangshang

Senior member
May 17, 2008
830
0
0
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Physx is way overhyped imho. Why spend the money before games that require physx are out?

Why do the same people come into every physx thread to crap it?

There ARE games out already, and more on the way. Holy smokes.

insecurity, jealousy, penis envy, mine is bigger than yours, etc,

Sometimes I question people who say something is overrated or overhyped. Do these people ever stop to think, "Overrated and overhyped compared to what?"

IMO, for people with an Intel P35 mobo and an existing NV card, adding an el cheapo 88xx card in an otherwise unused pcie slot is a brilliant upgrade for physx games.

Tell you what I wouldn't wanna be an ATI fanboy when more physx titles are released in mass!
 

TC91

Golden Member
Jul 9, 2007
1,164
0
0
james1701, i would actually wait and use your 8800gt as the physics card later on (likely need a new psu if you do that), especially since you are on vista (your sig says so) and with vista atm, i believe you have to connect a second monitor to the second graphics card until nvidia fixes it in their drivers. an 8400gs is way too weak anyways imo.
 

Keysplayr

Elite Member
Jan 16, 2003
21,209
50
91
PhysX doesn't seem to be very taxing on the shaders. I have a 780A motherboard that I can use the onboard graphics to run Physx. I think the onboard is either an 8200 or 8300 equivalent. Maybe 16 shaders. I'll have to check up on that.
But until I get to that, I guess I can disable the shaders on my 8800GTS 512 here and use it for PhysX only. I'm guessing I can get it all the way down to 16, or maybe even 8 shaders to try it out. Only problem is, Riva Tuner 2.09 has no idea what these new drivers are yet. 177.83's. So, we may have to wait for the next update for RT.
 

james1701

Golden Member
Sep 14, 2007
1,867
47
91
That would be a great test to run. Find where the sweet spot is on shader count, and optimal core frequency.
 

40sTheme

Golden Member
Sep 24, 2006
1,607
0
0
Originally posted by: ajaidevsingh
I am a bit confused, Do u not need an SLi m/b to hook up two Nvidia's even if its for Physx??
I don't believe PhysX on the GPU requires SLi. I think it can just run off of your secondary video processor, AKA PhysX GPU.
 

taltamir

Lifer
Mar 21, 2004
13,576
6
76
Originally posted by: thilan29
Originally posted by: shangshang
Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Physx is way overhyped imho. Why spend the money before games that require physx are out?
might wanna try google
There aren't too many AAA titles that require PhysX hardware (lots support software PhysX) to get a great playing experience. The only "game" I've seen that might need it is Warmonger. Something like GRAW2 was unimpressive IMO.
which part of GRAW?, the flag waving in the wind and doing nothing demo.
Or the one where they blast individual pieces off of a fence (instead of all of it exploding), then hide behind it and shoot through the hole they made, and the AI doing the same. And the various new objects and other capabilities supposedly added?
(aka, I think you have watched only one of the two videos, and didn't real the commentary).

But yes, there are very few titles right now, that doesn't mean they don't exist at all.
 

nitromullet

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2004
9,031
36
91
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
PhysX doesn't seem to be very taxing on the shaders. I have a 780A motherboard that I can use the onboard graphics to run Physx. I think the onboard is either an 8200 or 8300 equivalent. Maybe 16 shaders. I'll have to check up on that.
But until I get to that, I guess I can disable the shaders on my 8800GTS 512 here and use it for PhysX only. I'm guessing I can get it all the way down to 16, or maybe even 8 shaders to try it out. Only problem is, Riva Tuner 2.09 has no idea what these new drivers are yet. 177.83's. So, we may have to wait for the next update for RT.
Out of curiosity, any word or info if it would be possible to run a PhysX compatible GeForce card solely for PhysX alongside an ATI card for video on an Intel chipset motherboard?
 

AzN

Banned
Nov 26, 2001
4,112
0
0
Originally posted by: shangshang
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Physx is way overhyped imho. Why spend the money before games that require physx are out?

Why do the same people come into every physx thread to crap it?

There ARE games out already, and more on the way. Holy smokes.

insecurity, jealousy, penis envy, mine is bigger than yours, etc,

Sometimes I question people who say something is overrated or overhyped. Do these people ever stop to think, "Overrated and overhyped compared to what?"

IMO, for people with an Intel P35 mobo and an existing NV card, adding an el cheapo 88xx card in an otherwise unused pcie slot is a brilliant upgrade for physx games.

Tell you what I wouldn't wanna be an ATI fanboy when more physx titles are released in mass!
Think for a minute what this does? It really doesn't do anything special except what we already get visually. The difference is so insignificant and drops your fps by a bunch.

I have a g92 and no way jealous of this feature. It's just another over hyped feature so Nvidia can sell more vid cards.

Who cares when CPU can do the exact same thing.
 

DaFinn

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2002
4,725
0
0
Hmm,

this may be stupid question, but do intel graphics support physx?
I have a G33 mb with integrated graphics. Can I turn that into physx processor?

edit: to support my 9600GT that is...
 

Keysplayr

Elite Member
Jan 16, 2003
21,209
50
91
Originally posted by: Azn
Originally posted by: shangshang
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Physx is way overhyped imho. Why spend the money before games that require physx are out?

Why do the same people come into every physx thread to crap it?

There ARE games out already, and more on the way. Holy smokes.

insecurity, jealousy, penis envy, mine is bigger than yours, etc,

Sometimes I question people who say something is overrated or overhyped. Do these people ever stop to think, "Overrated and overhyped compared to what?"

IMO, for people with an Intel P35 mobo and an existing NV card, adding an el cheapo 88xx card in an otherwise unused pcie slot is a brilliant upgrade for physx games.

Tell you what I wouldn't wanna be an ATI fanboy when more physx titles are released in mass!
Think for a minute what this does? It really doesn't do anything special except what we already get visually. The difference is so insignificant and drops your fps by a bunch.

I have a g92 and no way jealous of this feature. It's just another over hyped feature so Nvidia can sell more vid cards.

Who cares when CPU can do the exact same thing.
This prompts me to believe that you haven't tried it yet. Because if you had, you would not be able to say what's bolded above. You should. At any rate, this thread isn't about whether PhysX is good or not. Not sure why this thread is leaning that way. Lets stop that for now and start another thread if you need to. It's about a second Nvidia card for PhysX.
 

Keysplayr

Elite Member
Jan 16, 2003
21,209
50
91
Originally posted by: nitromullet
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
PhysX doesn't seem to be very taxing on the shaders. I have a 780A motherboard that I can use the onboard graphics to run Physx. I think the onboard is either an 8200 or 8300 equivalent. Maybe 16 shaders. I'll have to check up on that.
But until I get to that, I guess I can disable the shaders on my 8800GTS 512 here and use it for PhysX only. I'm guessing I can get it all the way down to 16, or maybe even 8 shaders to try it out. Only problem is, Riva Tuner 2.09 has no idea what these new drivers are yet. 177.83's. So, we may have to wait for the next update for RT.
Out of curiosity, any word or info if it would be possible to run a PhysX compatible GeForce card solely for PhysX alongside an ATI card for video on an Intel chipset motherboard?
The first reason I would think this not a good idea, is driver compatability/conflicts. The second reason would be with Vista and it's WDDM single driver instance limitation/restriction.

You would have more of a chance doing ATI/Nvidia combo under XP. I think it would be damn near impossible on Vista. I haven't tried it. I'll see about acquiring a cheapo ATI card (3870/3850). I could try it out. I have my bottle of Advil ready to go. LOL
 

seanp789

Senior member
Oct 17, 2001
374
0
0
I think having a 2nd nvidia dedicated to physx is a big waste. You have to realize that Aegia spent the last year trying to sell dedicated physx cards and failed. There is nothing to indicate that a cheap nvidia card would out perform a dedicated PPU. The money you would spend on a 2nd card would be much better spent on a single, faster card that could be used on physx and non-physx games especially since there are only a few physx intensive titles. The real beauty here is that nvidia customers will have hardware physx acceleration as a free, value added bonus. Yes you will lose some graphics power but it is a balance of cost and overall performance that's important for developers to see this as a technology worth adopting. Physx is useless without more games but this go a long way in making physx main stream.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY