• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Second Nvidia card for Physx

james1701

james1701

Golden Member
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Originally posted by: shangshang
Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Physx is way overhyped imho. Why spend the money before games that require physx are out?
Click to expand...

might wanna try google
Click to expand...

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.
 
Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Physx is way overhyped imho. Why spend the money before games that require physx are out?
Click to expand...


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.
 
Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Physx is way overhyped imho. Why spend the money before games that require physx are out?
Click to expand...


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

No you dont need an SLI mb for physx.
 
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Physx is way overhyped imho. Why spend the money before games that require physx are out?
Click to expand...


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.
Click to expand...

It's still over rated non the less.
 
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Physx is way overhyped imho. Why spend the money before games that require physx are out?
Click to expand...


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.
Click to expand...


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!
 
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.
 
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.
 
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??
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
Click to expand...

might wanna try google
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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?
Click to expand...


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.
Click to expand...


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!
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...
 
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?
Click to expand...


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.
Click to expand...


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!
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top