Second Nvidia card for Physx

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: seanp789
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.

That was last year when Ageia was all by it's lonesome. Now Nvidia owns Ageia.

The good thing about this is, there are several configurations in which to run PhysX, as I'm sure you know.

All on one card (single card renders and runs PhysX)
SLI (both cards render and run PhysX)
GPU + GPU (primary card renders, second card runs PhysX. Even an integrated 8 series or above GPU).

How is that for flexible? Folks buying new cards today, can use their older ones (8 series or better) just for PhysX if they have a mobo with two PCI-e slots, or just a single slot with integrated 8 series GPU).

I'm going to actually try out the integrated GPU for PhysX on a 780a mobo I have here. Probably use a 9800GTX+ to render.

 

[seanp789]

Originally posted by: DaFinn
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...

No, only Geforce 8 class cards and above suppot physx.

Nvidia has publicly stated that they will help anyone enable Physx on their GPUs including ATI and Intel so an intel chip could do physx with a driver update.

I vaguely remember reading Intel and AMD have both sided with Havok and are working on their own GPU accelerated physics solutions.

 

[MarcVenice]

I played warmonger, and it sucked, yes, it sucked That's prolly one of the most intensive physx games out there, for a while. Buying a second videocard just to play that, when your current videocard could probably run it allready, is not very economical. I will get back on this, a real thread on physx, and hopefully you'll come to understand why you don't need a second card to run physx, in fact, you might as well just stick with your ATI card, because for a while there won't be anything that will make use of nvidia's ability to run physx. Unless you ofcourse like warmoner, but then again, you're not much of a gamer if you do

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
I played warmonger, and it sucked, yes, it sucked That's prolly one of the most intensive physx games out there, for a while. Buying a second videocard just to play that, when your current videocard could probably run it allready, is not very economical. I will get back on this, a real thread on physx, and hopefully you'll come to understand why you don't need a second card to run physx, in fact, you might as well just stick with your ATI card, because for a while there won't be anything that will make use of nvidia's ability to run physx. Unless you ofcourse like warmoner, but then again, you're not much of a gamer if you do

Kind of how I feel..

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
I played warmonger, and it sucked, yes, it sucked That's prolly one of the most intensive physx games out there, for a while. Buying a second videocard just to play that, when your current videocard could probably run it allready, is not very economical. I will get back on this, a real thread on physx, and hopefully you'll come to understand why you don't need a second card to run physx, in fact, you might as well just stick with your ATI card, because for a while there won't be anything that will make use of nvidia's ability to run physx. Unless you ofcourse like warmoner, but then again, you're not much of a gamer if you do

LOL, nobody said you "needed" a second card to run PhysX. What would indicate that we don't understand this? My testing does indicate performance improvements over a single card both rendering and running PhysX however. Your testing will show the same. Common sense even if you don't test it. Two cards, one rendering, and one running PhysX will have greater performance over a single card doing both. Not saying that a single card cannot produce playable framerates, as indicated by my PhysX benching thread.

Yeah, Warmonger isn't the best game. More than anything, it should just be considered for it's PhysX properties. I think that was what was intended moreover than gameplay. UT3 levels are much better as far as gameplay, and GRAW2 has "ok" gameplay with some very kewl PhysX content.

Like I said, PhysX is only just emerging, and Nvidia has been working with devs ever since the Ageia acquisition.

P.S. Marc, you don't have to be "much of a gamer" to appreciate gaming.

P.S.S. Quick example of single GPU doing both, to 1 GPU for each:

UT3 1920x1200 HeatRayPhysX level.

Single 9800GTX+ rendering and running PhysX
Min: 25 Avg: 34 Max: 53

9800GTX+ rendering & 8800GTS512 running PhysX
Min: 32 Avg: 44 Max: 72

About 25% performance increase, and you don't need an 8800GTS512 to do it. It just happens that I have nothing "smaller" at the moment. Working on borrowing my sisters 8600GT for this very purpose.

 

[JACKDRUID]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
I played warmonger, and it sucked, yes, it sucked That's prolly one of the most intensive physx games out there, for a while. Buying a second videocard just to play that, when your current videocard could probably run it allready, is not very economical. I will get back on this, a real thread on physx, and hopefully you'll come to understand why you don't need a second card to run physx, in fact, you might as well just stick with your ATI card, because for a while there won't be anything that will make use of nvidia's ability to run physx. Unless you ofcourse like warmoner, but then again, you're not much of a gamer if you do

your 8800 can do physx + game at the same time. you do not have to have a 2nd card.

shouldn't 9600gt support physx as well?

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

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

Yeah. those were pretty much all of my concerns. I guess the real question then is if NVIDIA has any plans to release a free standing PhysX driver that doesn't conflict with any other display driver. If they did this, Vitsta would just recognize the second card as a PhysX card.

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
I played warmonger, and it sucked, yes, it sucked That's prolly one of the most intensive physx games out there, for a while. Buying a second videocard just to play that, when your current videocard could probably run it allready, is not very economical. I will get back on this, a real thread on physx, and hopefully you'll come to understand why you don't need a second card to run physx, in fact, you might as well just stick with your ATI card, because for a while there won't be anything that will make use of nvidia's ability to run physx. Unless you ofcourse like warmoner, but then again, you're not much of a gamer if you do

Warmonger does pretty much suck, but the UT3 PhysX maps are definitely cool. With every new technology you have some company wanting to be first to market with something. They often succeed in being first but having a poor implementation. I think this is the case with Warmonger.

If you looked at all the hundreds of crappy games out and made a judgment call on 3D rendering in general it wouldn't look too good. As gamers, we wait for the few good releases every year in a sea of crap to make it all worthwhile.

All that aside, if anyone is considering buying a second card solely for PhysX, I suggest they wait. However, if they are already upgrading and want to give PhysX a shot, I don't see any reason not to. IMO, actually seeing PhysX titles starting to emerge is one of the more exciting things we've seen in gaming in a while.

 

[MarcVenice]

I know Keys, did I not mention that some1's videocard could probably allready run it? As long as it's a 8800gt or better, of course depending on the resolution. Even better videocards will really run it with ease. The only point was that it's pretty much a idiotic idea to go out and buy a second videocard, to have it run physx. Of course, it will improve framerates, but in what games again? Warmonger, oh right, that sucky game. What other game? GRAW which has physx in it that I doubt NEEDS the gpu to accelerate it, what I would LOVE to see, is GRAW2 benched with the physx pack, without a nvidia videocard. And then what? One single level of UT3 ? I doubt those 3 'games' if you can even call it that much, are worth adding a second videocard. Do you not agree?

-edit

@nitromullet

what physx games are appearing? I made a thread on this a few days ago, but it got totally shot to pieces by wreckage so it got closed. I think we needed a new physx thread Tomorrow after I wake up after my party I'll get on it, then we can have a real discussion

 

[james1701]

To get back on topic, will an 8400GS run on the new drivers and how well as compared a 9600GT or another low end card.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
I know Keys, did I not mention that some1's videocard could probably allready run it? As long as it's a 8800gt or better, of course depending on the resolution. Even better videocards will really run it with ease. The only point was that it's pretty much a idiotic idea to go out and buy a second videocard, to have it run physx. Of course, it will improve framerates, but in what games again? Warmonger, oh right, that sucky game. What other game? GRAW which has physx in it that I doubt NEEDS the gpu to accelerate it, what I would LOVE to see, is GRAW2 benched with the physx pack, without a nvidia videocard. And then what? One single level of UT3 ? I doubt those 3 'games' if you can even call it that much, are worth adding a second videocard. Do you not agree?

-edit

@nitromullet

what physx games are appearing? I made a thread on this a few days ago, but it got totally shot to pieces by wreckage so it got closed. I think we needed a new physx thread Tomorrow after I wake up after my party I'll get on it, then we can have a real discussion

Seems like your really going out of your way to downplay what I believe is one of the coolest things to hit 3D gaming in a long while. But, to each his own.