Page 1 of 2
1
2
LastLast
  1. #1

    PhysX dedicated GPU

    1. If I had say... a gtx 580 and an old 8800 or whatever gpu, would I benefit from using the 8800 at a dedicated physics card?

    2. If I had say... a 7970 and an old 8800 or whatever gpu, would I benefit from using the 8800 at a dedicated physics card?

    3. Can an AMD or ATI card be used as a dedicated physx card?

    Thanks have a good one.

  2. #2
    The Lightbringer CheezusCrust's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Nuuk, Greenland
    Posts
    3,283
    For 1:


    TL;DR: No, the 8800 won't make you gain performance, you even lose performance last I remember.

    As for the other questions, I'm unsure.

  3. #3
    Thanks. Would you change your answer if the physx card was a 9800?

  4. #4
    Herald of the Titans Saithes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Mun
    Posts
    2,609
    AMD can't run PhysX on their GPU's. Running a dedicated PhysX card is really just a huge power waste. There aren't that many decent games that even use PhysX (3-4 tops) so it would sit useless most of the time. 9800's were basically rebranded 8800GT's.

  5. #5
    Thanks for the quick replies.

  6. #6
    The Lightbringer CheezusCrust's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Nuuk, Greenland
    Posts
    3,283
    You'll likely lose more performance using the 9800 as dedicated PhysX, not to mention the amounts of wasted power as Saithes mentioned.

    The only reason I'd go with an old card/low-end card is because I'm using nVidia & I've got more than 4 monitors.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by mojo6912 View Post
    Thanks. Would you change your answer if the physx card was a 9800?
    The video linked above says that basically anything lower than GTX560 is FPS loss with GTX580.

    Also PhysX is used on about 5-10 games making it more a gimmick than something people should worry about.
    Never going to log into this garbage forum again as long as calling obvious troll obvious troll is the easiest way to get banned.
    Trolling should be.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by vesseblah View Post
    The video linked above says that basically anything lower than GTX560 is FPS loss with GTX580.

    Also PhysX is used on about 5-10 games making it more a gimmick than something people should worry about.
    Agree. Would like to see it in more games though as it is quite good in the few games that have it. I can see potential for PhysX.

  9. #9
    Herald of the Titans Saithes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Mun
    Posts
    2,609
    Quote Originally Posted by Lemmiwink View Post
    Agree. Would like to see it in more games though as it is quite good in the few games that have it. I can see potential for PhysX.
    There's been "potential" for PhysX since Ageia had it.

  10. #10

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Saithes View Post
    There's been "potential" for PhysX since Ageia had it.
    Yeah, but only a big player like nvidia or amd could make sure the "potential" could be implemented in games. It does have massive potential and I hope we get more games with PhysX sooner rather than later.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by inux94 View Post
    You'll likely lose more performance using the 9800 as dedicated PhysX, not to mention the amounts of wasted power as Saithes mentioned.

    The only reason I'd go with an old card/low-end card is because I'm using nVidia & I've got more than 4 monitors.
    Dedicated Phsyx has never been proven to give any type of performance increase. It is also noted using a card beneath your current one is 100% a performance loss. I am also not sure it was even meant to be a "performance" increase rather a balance of tasking to allow smoother performance which could be considered an improvement except you don't see extra frames may even lose 1-10 in ideal situations.

    Also Physx and use of dedicated gpu has nothing to do w/ AMD, and the ability to use physx. AMD while not using the GPU to perform physx calcs can and does use the CPU, which in most cases these days is =/= to a physx gpu. Linus showed a 2xx series Physx gpu w/ sli 580's, he lost performance nothing was really seen as an improvement either as i recall.

    ---------- Post added 2012-12-31 at 10:25 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by vesseblah View Post
    The video linked above says that basically anything lower than GTX560 is FPS loss with GTX580.

    Also PhysX is used on about 5-10 games making it more a gimmick than something people should worry about.
    First part and second 100% correct, PhysX however working 100% properly is not a gimmick in the slightest.

    Games notably using PhysX Hardware-acceleration

    Metro 2033
    Planetside 2
    Borderlands 2
    Hawken
    EverQuest Next
    ARMA 3
    Lost Planet 3
    Metro: Last light
    The Secret World
    Lost Planet 2
    Unreal tournament 3
    TC GRAW 1 and 2

    a few more, Note UT3. UT4 is inc very very soon, atleast in the UE4 form. So while a Physx GPU is completely unneeded, physx is only picking up pace since '05.

  13. #13
    Warchief Kezotar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    not sure
    Posts
    2,107
    Quote Originally Posted by Saithes View Post
    AMD can't run PhysX on their GPU's. Running a dedicated PhysX card is really just a huge power waste. There aren't that many decent games that even use PhysX (3-4 tops) so it would sit useless most of the time. 9800's were basically rebranded 8800GT's.
    Of course you can. You just have to download own drivers.

    ---------- Post added 2012-12-31 at 12:20 PM ----------

    If anyone knows, how would a 7970 with a dedicated physx card (being gtx 480) work?
    I7 - 4930K / 16 GB - 1600MHZ / R9 290 Core 1220 MHZ - Memory 1550 MHZ

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Milkshake86 View Post
    Games notably using PhysX Hardware-acceleration
    Some of those are beta, some unreleased without even one second of gameplay footage available (Everquest Next).

    Quote Originally Posted by Milkshake86 View Post
    So while a Physx GPU is completely unneeded, physx is only picking up pace since '05.
    Bit sad if you can list only a dozen or so games since '05, doesn't sound to be more than a gimmick.
    Never going to log into this garbage forum again as long as calling obvious troll obvious troll is the easiest way to get banned.
    Trolling should be.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by vesseblah View Post
    Some of those are beta, some unreleased without even one second of gameplay footage available (Everquest Next).



    Bit sad if you can list only a dozen or so games since '05, doesn't sound to be more than a gimmick.
    Notable games there is quite a few games unlisted, keep in mind betas are games and not betas like the old days. A beta at this day and age is a functioning game thats been picked clean of most imperfections. EQ still alpha, but the point is it w/ Nvidia proprietary PhysX only being used by soo many a lot of games do in fact utilize it. While I get the idea of what you are saying, because a gimmick can be just something thats shiney that seperates you from the rest but it could be 100% worthless(Carrot Tops standup), problem is Nvidia is preventing a lot of usage of the item. Unlike a snuggie however if PhysX was used in droves then we would be seeing a bit more of its possibilities than what was previously seen.

  16. #16
    I am going to open with this:

    https://developer.nvidia.com/physx-games

    There are a ton of games on this list, and it isn't even current. I can think of a game off the top of my head that I play often, Borderlands 2, that supports Physx, and I have tried with it off. The game doesn't feel the same at all to me without it. Physx adds so much atmosphere to a game in my opinion, but I guess you could equate it to having high quality shadows. It is not necessary, but it is beautiful.

    You can use an ATI card for display and an Nvidia card for Physx using custom drivers that are easy to find and download, but I would not buy an Nvidia card just for Physx. I used to do this with a Radeon 4890 and a 9800GT.

    I tried keeping the 9800GT to be used for Physx with my 680, but that was a total joke because it actually slowed the 680(and even a single 570 for that matter) down more than it would on its own.

    In short, if you are looking to use Physx and are upgrading your GPU completely, buy Nvidia. I would not suggest trying to build your rig around Physx though, because, even though I choose not to play supported games without it, it is just another graphical feature. Many people play games without shadows and lighting effects, and if you are one of those people that doesn't mind missing out, it might not be a big deal to you.

    ---------- Post added 2012-12-31 at 04:31 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Kezotar View Post

    [/COLOR]If anyone knows, how would a 7970 with a dedicated physx card (being gtx 480) work?
    It would probably work great!
    "Man is a slow, sloppy and brilliant thinker; the machine is fast, accurate and stupid." -William M. Kelly

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Kezotar View Post
    If anyone knows, how would a 7970 with a dedicated physx card (being gtx 480) work?
    At least nVidia require drivers. Drivers that will then literally stop the card from working, because it detects that you use an AMD card with it.

    Yeah.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Drunkenvalley View Post
    At least nVidia require drivers. Drivers that will then literally stop the card from working, because it detects that you use an AMD card with it.

    Yeah.
    This is incorrect, and Nvidias PhysX is not required to even having an Nvidia gpu. ATI w/ PhysX cards has been seen since 5xxx w/ 280's etc as the dedicated. You may have more problems running 2 normal GPU's but the physx gpu is only handling physx calcs and nothing more. Still my buddy has a 560 Ti and a 7850 in his pc now, 1 running a 2560x1440p monitor other running 2 1920x1080 monitors. Oddly enough he chose this for specifics to his work and etc wanting access to cuda and PhysX, while still having a performance set gpu just for gaming, so I sold em my 560 when I bought 2 6950's and kaboom sob 460 dies in my ladies pc.

  19. #19
    Milkshake, just to clarify, dedicated Physx absolutely does help, but you need a fairly recent GPU if you have the latest generation. One of my 570s did help boost my 680 performance when I tried it, but I sold the card. I still keep Physx enabled, and it doesn't hurt my framerate any more than some of the other fancy graphic options would, but it definitely does drop frames a lot lower than when I had a card dedicated.
    "Man is a slow, sloppy and brilliant thinker; the machine is fast, accurate and stupid." -William M. Kelly

  20. #20
    Titan Synthaxx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Rotherham, England/UK
    Posts
    12,991
    Generally, you want a card from the same generation as your main GPU for the simple fact of synchronisation. This is why older cards being used as dedicated PhysX will cause a loss of performance.

    Things changed with the 6-series though. They reduced the power of the part of the GPU that calculates double-precision floating point in order to reduce power and heat constraints. This is why Tesla exists for calculations and supercomputers - It's essentially Kepler (or Fermi if you look at the older Tesla models) with the rendering areas reduced in power and the double FP areas beefed up (and it's also why Tesla chips set a new world record only a few months ago).

    Physics calculations are done in double, or extended floating point. In terms you can understand a little better, that's 32-bit (single), 64-bit (double). Extended i believe is 80-bit.

    To put some perspective on just how radical the numbers are, Fermi calculations are 63% faster than on Kepler, even if the gaming performance of Kepler is much higher than it is on Fermi (the numbers shown at 670 launch startled me). This page shows the numbers against a 7970. The 7970 is miles ahead of both Fermi and Kepler, and this is why it's good for computational calculations, such as those associated with Bitcoin or folding, or more relevant, PhysX. However, it's because they reduced the FP calculations on Kepler that they were able to beef up the render related areas of the chip and pump out better FPS in the majority of games, but it also served to reduce power requirements by massive amounts (< 200W usage at load on a 670 for example) which in turn reduced heat output.

    For this reason, if you're running a dedicated GPU for PhysX, it would ideally be a 7970. However, for the sake of "plug and play", a 580 would be the best choice (as the 590 runs at a slower clock speed per GPU and i don't believe you can spread PhysX over multiple GPU's).
    Coder, Gamer - Thoughtcloud | NEW SITE: IOCube| Node.js Monkey | #Error418MasterRace
    Knows: Node.js, JS, JQuery, HTML, CSS, Object Pascal, PHP, WQL/SQL, Ruby

    PC: 750D / 16GB / 256GB + 750GB / GTX780 / 4670K / Z87X-UD4H | Laptop: 8GB / 120GB + 480GB / GTX765M / 4700MQ

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •