Would a PCIE 2.0 x16 going at x1 be enough for a physx card?

[ChorniyVolk]

Motherboard I'm looking at only supports x16/x16/x1, and I might be doing a crossfire set-up filling those x16 slots, but if I use the driver hack and get a cheapish nvidia card for physx processing, will that x1 slot be enough or will it bottleneck the card's performance?

EDIT: No guys, it's a x16 slot, I'm saying the bandwidth is reduced to x1.

Here's the board: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131614&ref=dynamitedata.com

So what I'm saying is, will the bandwidth limitations of the motherboard reduce the physx performance from the card?

 

[T2k]

Is there really a graphics card with x1 physical interface?

 

[Zensal]

Is there really a graphics card with x1 physical interface?

Probably. But x1 and x16 are electrically compatible, so using a dremmel to take the end off of your x1 slot, you can use an x16 card in it.

OP: Maybe. I'd look up some benchmarks for the Ageia PPU, because IIRC, it used a PCI slot.

 

[T2k]

I have my AGEIA PPU since its release, it's the original PCI version and about as good as having a dedicated GF8800 for PhysX. If you can get it for cheap you're way better off getting one instead of sawing off some part of your mobo plugging in a full-size x16 card...

 

[ashishmishra]

I have my AGEIA PPU since its release, it's the original PCI version and about as good as having a dedicated GF8800 for PhysX. If you can get it for cheap you're way better off getting one instead of sawing off some part of your mobo plugging in a full-size x16 card...

OP, unless you plan on using/sticking-with Vista or Below, there will be no drivers for Ageia PPU for Windows 7 and onwards.

 

[T2k]

OP, unless you plan on using/sticking-with Vista or Below, there will be no drivers for Ageia PPU for Windows 7 and onwards.

Yeah, sure - I must be dreaming then...

1. There is no driver for any multi-vendor scenario - Nvidia decided to screw everyone unless they are Nvidia-only. In other words you need to apply a hack if you want to use any NV or AGEI card with your non-NV card.

2. If you are to use this hack then you can use it for AGEIA as well, just like I did, in W7. In other words there is full PhysX (including AGEIA PPUs) support under W7...

 

[Zensal]

OP, unless you plan on using/sticking-with Vista or Below, there will be no drivers for Ageia PPU for Windows 7 and onwards.

Umm... We were not suggesting that he use a Ageia PPU, but to look at it in terms of a bandwidth bottleneck.

OP: It seems like it will bottleneck it eventually, but my guess is you will run into a CPU/GPU bottleneck long before your dedicated Physx card does.

Disclamer: I do not/have not ever used Physx, so you might want some more opinions before you decide.

 

[ChorniyVolk]

No guys, it's a x16 slot, I'm saying the bandwidth is reduced to x1.

Here's the board: http://detonator.dynamitedata.com/c...com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131614

So what I'm saying is, will the bandwidth limitations of the motherboard reduce the physx performance from the card?

 

[Keysplayr]

It seems that 4x PCI-e is what most P55 mobo makers are giving their mobos that have a dedicated PhysX slot. So, I'm going to suggest that 4x is the minimum to go with.

 

[Lonyo]

There have been benchmarks of graphics cards being used as graphics cards at reduced speeds, and the performance deficit even at 1x isn't all that huge (compared to what you might expect), so x1 for just PhysX should be fine.

 

[ChorniyVolk]

Keys, maybe that amount of bandwidth is more for the top tier physx cards? I was just thinking of getting some cheap one that can do the job in the 2-3 games that I want physx to work in.

Lonyo, I think you mean "being used as physx cards, and would you happen to have such benchmarks? That would be a huge help, thanks.

 

[Lonyo]

Keys, maybe that amount of bandwidth is more for the top tier physx cards? I was just thinking of getting some cheap one that can do the job in the 2-3 games that I want physx to work in.

Lonyo, I think you mean "being used as physx cards, and would you happen to have such benchmarks? That would be a huge help, thanks.

I meant graphics card as a graphics card
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/pci-express-2.0,1915-10.html

That's not the one I had in mind, but it's similar.
PCIe x1 doe cause a hit in some situations graphics wise, but it's not as terrible as you might think in some cases (FSX ecluded!).

I don't know how a graphics load would compare to a PhysX load, but I would assume PhysX is going to be less bandwidth restrained, so it should have even less impact than in graphics situations.

 

[Keysplayr]

Keys, maybe that amount of bandwidth is more for the top tier physx cards? I was just thinking of getting some cheap one that can do the job in the 2-3 games that I want physx to work in.

Lonyo, I think you mean "being used as physx cards, and would you happen to have such benchmarks? That would be a huge help, thanks.

That could very well be the case. I don't really know, I was just going off of what mobo makers were using for dedicated PhysX GPU slots. I'd like to say you'd be fine with a 1x slot, but I can't say with any certainty. Wish I could be more help here, but I don't currently own a mobo that cut's the third slot down to 1x when using SLI.

 

[ChorniyVolk]

What I'm wondering is why there are boards that do x16/x16/x8, isn't the maximum around 32?

It's just too bad, this is the only problem with that board, it beats all my other options, doesn't fill it with stuff I don't need (like the E760 which is loaded down with extras for extreme overclockers, but I'm fine with getting to 3.8-4.0 GHz and stopping), and even has USB3 and SATA 6GB/s for futureproofing.

 

[SHAQ]

I don't think you will know until you try it. I searched a lot for info on this and came up empty. I've read that you can fold at full speed at 1x with a single slot video card, but only a bunch of questions about physx at 1x nothing concrete. But unfortunately there are not many titles that need a dedicated physx card at present as most physx games use cpu and not gpu. I bought a x16 to x1 adapter to try this out but ended up going with a 295 and a 260 and wasn't able to try it. I would need a single slot card to test it.

 

[ChorniyVolk]

Yeah, I know about the lack of hardware physx processing games, hence the want for a cheap card and not something that's $100 or anything crazy.

I don't know about the trying part though, I'm dumping too much cash into this machine to just leave stuff to chance. I guess I'll hold out for another 2 days, the deal on the motherboard lasts until the 16th, so I can buy it then. I'll just have to have my fingers crossed that someone has the answer.

 

[ChorniyVolk]

And when I say cheapish, I mean these sorts of cards:

http://jkamassociates.com:8888/index.htm

Either the 9600gso or the 8800gts (is there a rebranded name for it?) for physx processing. Or are there other cards in that price range I should consider?

 

[taltamir]

you are buying 3 video cards and that mobo is a 300$ mobo...
What I am trying to say is, get a mobo that doesn't reduce your third card to a pathetic 1x.
A 16x / 8x/8x is acceptable. 16/16/1 is not. neither is 16/16/4

 

[ChorniyVolk]

Well if you looked at it, you'd see that it does do 16/8/8

But the first two spots will be for actual video processing, the last one will be just for physx, so I don't think lowering the second slot to x8 (which would bring down the first card's performance to x8 as well so that they match, right?) just so the physx card can get x8 worth of bandwidth.

The only other option I have as far as I know (apart from overpriced boards) is EVGA's E758 and GIGABYTE's UD5, and while they have 16/16/8 (or so their newegg pages say), they're missing out on SATA 6GB/s, USB3, and they're a bit older than the ASUS, and in the interest of keeping this board on for a while and not having to replace it when I want the new revised tech (not to mention that with the coupon code, it goes down to just a tiny bit above the prices of a E758 TR/A1/UD5) I was aiming to get the ASUS.

 

[Lonyo]

you are buying 3 video cards and that mobo is a 300$ mobo...
What I am trying to say is, get a mobo that doesn't reduce your third card to a pathetic 1x.
A 16x / 8x/8x is acceptable. 16/16/1 is not. neither is 16/16/4

16/16/4 is more than fine, it's only really 1 that has a chance of bottlenecking.
4 is fine even for a fully fledged card being use for graphics with only slight performance hit in the vast majority of cases.
If anything 16/16/4 is better than 16/8/8 because then you lose nothing on the graphics and nothing on the physics.

But then the board says is can do 16/8/8 or 16/16/1, so I say get the board and test it out.
The worst case is you lose a tiny bit from having 16/8 SLI, the best case is we find out that x1 on a PCIe is enough for PhysX.

 

[ChorniyVolk]

Well not necessarily, it might be enough for a lower tier of physx processing, but for higher power it might not be enough.

I just wish someone who has tried this was here to save me! I was hoping to get the $25 off with newegg promotion on top of the coupon code, but while the code ends on the 16th, the $25 gift card (which I'll count as $25 off) ends in less than 3 hours!

 

[SHAQ]

Get at least a 9600GT, but I would prefer a 8800GT/9800GT.

 

[ChorniyVolk]

So I was thinking about it, and x16/x8/x8 doesn't sound so terrible after all. Check this out:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-5850,2433-14.html

That's with 2 5850s, and I'm probably going to be going with something less powerful right now, like 2 4890s, so going by what that chart says, am I right to assume that running 2 4890s at x8 instead of x16 won't affect my performance very much if at all?

Or am I reading that chart wrong?

 

[ChorniyVolk]

bump, would like the final loose end tied up