• 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.

Titan + 8800GTX512

L

Lepton87

Platinum Member
Could 8800GTS 512 be useful as a PsyX card with a Titan or would it just slow it down?

I got one laying around gathering dust, I also have 7800GTX 😀 How lazy of me that I didn't sell them when they still had some value. But please don't make it off-topic.
 
8800gts will only slow Titan down so dont even fool with it. you could test it for yourself if you are bored though.
 
It can but you are talking about pairing with a Titan. A card more than capable at most resolutions, and likely has power to spare in most situations to calculate PhysX faster than an 8800 could. If you were to pair it with a GTX 280 I bet it would be great
 
even a gtx280 would not be worthwhile as Titan could probably do graphics and physx better than offloading physx on to the that old card. heck even a wimpy little plain gtx650 is faster at handling physx than a gtx280.
 
i would say try it out and watch the usage of the 8800 card. i read a test from a fellow forum member who did it with a 9600 GT with a gtx 460 (something like that) and the 9600 was only at about 65% total usage when used as a physx card.
 
I forgot about one thing, Titan will only work at PCI-E 2.0 8X, that might not be enough to satisfy it. I only saw tests with how PCI-E modes affects 7970's performance, but not Titan's. I will look but I have a suspicion that the performance lost from 16x to 8x at only 2.0 spec might be not worth it.
 
nanaki333 said:
i would say try it out and watch the usage of the 8800 card. i read a test from a fellow forum member who did it with a 9600 GT with a gtx 460 (something like that) and the 9600 was only at about 65% total usage when used as a physx card.
Click to expand...
he does not need to watch anything but the framerate to see that it will be lower than having the Titan run both graphics and physx.
 
toyota said:
he does not need to watch anything but the framerate to see that it will be lower than having the Titan run both graphics and physx.
Click to expand...

it's going to slow a lot regardless. FPS slows when i dedicated a titan card to physx vs running a single titan by itself with no physx.
 
toyota said:
even a gtx280 would not be worthwhile as Titan could probably do graphics and physx better than offloading physx on to the that old card. heck even a wimpy little plain gtx650 is faster at handling physx than a gtx280.
Click to expand...

I find this very hard to believe, particularly in high resolution situations. How can Card 1 doing both Graphics and PhysX be faster than Card 1 doing just graphics with slower Card 2 taking the PhysX load?
 
GTX 650 best card for Physx. I was lucky to get an OEM GT 640 which is essentially a downclocked GTX 650 with DDR5 mem

Also for physx Core clock matters. Higher the better. Currently with my setup my Physx cards peaks to 53% during benchmarks with Physx enabled. This is for Metro LL. That should give you an idea

Enabling Physx will lower your FPS bt in my case not by much. I currently play Metro LL with all options on high/ultra including physx but have SSA at 0.5x. I honestly don't see the difference with SSA on and off.
 
Last edited:
Carfax83 said:
I would recommend a GTX 460 over a GTX 650 for a dedicated PhysX card.
Click to expand...
Why? the 460 is a power hog compare to the GTx 650. You might even get away using the GT 640.

Remember Physx is purely a calculation activity. The faster card can calculate the better the more smooth the output will be.

http://www.hwcompare.com/13494/geforce-gtx-460-vs-geforce-gtx-650/

This is the card I used in my benchmarks. It's an OEM GT 640 essentially a GTX 650. The beauty of the OEM GT 640 is it doesn't require a power connector and has DDR5 Ram 🙂
captureetw.png
 
Last edited:
UNhooked said:
Why? the 460 is a power hog compare to the GTx 650. You might even get away using the GT 640.

Remember Physx is purely a calculation activity. The faster card can calculate the better the more smooth the output will be.
Click to expand...

After Metro Last Light overwhelmed my GTS 250, I was interested in the GTX 650 as a replacement....until I saw the benchmarks. I was surprised that a card that was two generations ahead of the GTX 460, would be so much slower.

Maybe you're right that you can't extrapolate PhysX performance from 3D benchmarks, but the GTX 460 is significantly faster than the GTX 650 so it's probably more future proof in that regard.

There are other games coming down the pipeline that will likely utilize PhysX even more than now. Witcher 3 for example is rumored to use some pretty sophisticated PhysX effects, including fluids...
 
Last edited:
Lepton87 said:
I forgot about one thing, Titan will only work at PCI-E 2.0 8X, that might not be enough to satisfy it. I only saw tests with how PCI-E modes affects 7970's performance, but not Titan's. I will look but I have a suspicion that the performance lost from 16x to 8x at only 2.0 spec might be not worth it.
Click to expand...

I'm curious about this. I'm running a 680GTX as primary and 460GTX as Physx card. Are you saying that putting the 460GTX on the bus reduces the bus to PCIe 2.0 speeds?

I'm using a Z77 board and I put the 460GTX in the x4 speed slot.

I will be upgrading to a 780GTX.
 
Last edited:
sxr7171 said:
I'm curious about this. I'm running a 680GTX as primary and 460GTX as Physx card. Are you saying that putting the 460GTX on the bus reduces the bus to PCIe 2.0 speeds?

I'm using a Z77 board and I put the 460GTX in the x4 speed slot.

I will be upgrading to a 780GTX.
Click to expand...

ahem, it's GTX then number. It's been that way since the GTX 280. I'm sure you must have noticed that by now. 🙂
 
sxr7171 said:
I'm curious about this. I'm running a 680GTX as primary and 460GTX as Physx card. Are you saying that putting the 460GTX on the bus reduces the bus to PCIe 2.0 speeds?

I'm using a Z77 board and I put the 460GTX in the x4 speed slot.

I will be upgrading to a 780GTX.
Click to expand...


Use gpu-z and see what it shows for your video card , gtx 680.

Some boards let the chipset handle the x4 slot, so your gtx 680 could still be 3.0x16. 3.0 @ 8x would not effect a gtx 680 that much. A 780 might show a few % less in some games that are real sensitive to that communication.
 
Carfax83 said:
After Metro Last Light overwhelmed my GTS 250, I was interested in the GTX 650 as a replacement....until I saw the benchmarks. I was surprised that a card that was two generations ahead of the GTX 460, would be so much slower.

Maybe you're right that you can't extrapolate PhysX performance from 3D benchmarks, but the GTX 460 is significantly faster than the GTX 650 so it's probably more future proof in that regard.

There are other games coming down the pipeline that will likely utilize PhysX even more than now. Witcher 3 for example is rumored to use some pretty sophisticated PhysX effects, including fluids...
Click to expand...

A GTX 460 (original version, not SE) has 336 shaders and a GTX 650 has 384 shaders. Difference is, the GF104 has its shaders clocked twice as fast as it's core clocks. (shader domain). So theoretical Fermi to Kepler shader performance is doubled (excluding and architectural enhancements). The GTX460's shader power would be closer to a GTX 650Ti which I believe has 768 shaders. Actually 336x2 so 672 shader equivalent.
 
Last edited:
no need to theorize as you can look at reviews and see that the 650 ti is just a little bit faster than the 460.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top