Radeon and GeForce Share Work, PhysX Applications Win

Thursday, August 28th 2008

The functionality of CUDA and its implementation of GPU-accelerated PhysX processing has benefited many a GeForce user. Users of ATI accelerators lacking this incentive either use Ageia PhysX card or avoid it altogether. It has been verified by Hardspell that in an environment where Radeon accelerator(s) do graphics processing, a GeForce accelerator can be used standalone to process PhysX. Hardspell used a Radeon HD 3850 along with a GeForce 9600 GT on the same system with the display connected to the Radeon, though no form of multi-GPU graphics connection existed, the GeForce card partnered the Radeon well in processing physics, while the Radeon did graphics. Results of the oZone 3D FluidMark, a benchmark that includes routines to evaluate the machine's capability in processing physics, showed a greater than 350% increase in scores, showing that the GeForce accelerator is doing its job.

This was further proved with game testing of Unreal Tournament III. Provided are screen-shots from the game along with those of the FluidMark windows. The first window shows a score of 759 o3marks, while the second window in which GeForce processed PhysX, the score jumped to 2909 o3marks.

Source: Hardspell

posted by btarunr - 11:55 AM | Related News |

User comments

by warup89 (12:00 PM) - Reply

Wow an Nvidia card and a ATI card working together side-by-side, this is revolutionary :laugh:

by tigger (12:01 PM) - Reply

Very nice,pity you cant use a radeon and gforce card together in vista.

by alexp999 (12:01 PM) - Reply

Well this is good use for radeon owners. i expected the drivers to conflict with each other, something wrotten. Still begs the question whether or not it is needed. I have considered myself getting a cheap 8 series gfx card for physics, but so few games use them, it only seems to be benchmarks that truely benefit. :(

by Basard (12:37 PM) - Reply

so, would a 9500gt work too? or do we have to pay 150 bucks still just for physics?

by MrMilli (12:50 PM) - Reply

Basard, even a 9400GT would work!

by kenkickr (12:52 PM) - Reply

So could I throw a 9400GT in with my 3870 CF setup to get some PhysX support? I guess that would be cool!

by Waldoinsc (12:56 PM) - Reply

this is great news...but we need some more details...what motherboards are applicable, drivers needed, which video cards can be used (can older Radeons be used, or lower capacity Geforce 9x00 series), etc. I've been waiting for this as I have mostly used ATI/AMD graphics, but pondered how to implement physics going forward. Can't wait to see how this unfolds.

by chron (12:59 PM) - Reply

Now one has to ponder - on a dual pci-e slot board, is it better to go crossfire and take up that second slot with an equally priced video card as your main, or is it better to take a cheap nvidia card and get physx capability.... hmm.

by wolf2009 (1:12 PM) - Reply

Hopefully someone will figure out a way to do this on Vista. Otherwise Vista is going to be bashed again .

by Tatty_One (1:14 PM) - Reply

This is gonna hurt Microsux......more people will just put off using Vista......there are an aweful lot of gamers out there in the Big Wild world.....but noone on a multi GPU Physx setup is going to be playing DX10 Physx games once more of them are made :eek:

by Tatty_One (1:16 PM) - Reply

by: chron
Now one has to ponder - on a dual pci-e slot board, is it better to go crossfire and take up that second slot with an equally priced video card as your main, or is it better to take a cheap nvidia card and get physx capability.... hmm.

Just buy a 200 series card, a 2nd card does not add anything to Physx as the 200 series has CUDA 3.0.

by Bytor (1:32 PM) - Reply

One question.... If this only works in XP can you still run a pair of ATI cards in xfire and have a 3rd card, the nvidia running PhysX? I think XP only supports 2 GPU's. Thats the main reason I went to Vista so I could run the 3 3870's together.

by wolf2009 (1:35 PM) - Reply

by: Bytor
One question.... If this only works in XP can you still run a pair of ATI cards in xfire and have a 3rd card, the nvidia running PhysX? I think XP only supports 2 GPU's. Thats the main reason I went to Vista so I could run the 3 3870's together.

I think so too . / / / / / / We are at Crossroads now . TO go with Xp and PhysX or Vista and xfire .

by Bytor (1:37 PM) - Reply

I have a Asus P1 PhysX card in the closet, but not sure it will work in the same way...

by btarunr (1:38 PM) - Reply

by: Basard
so, would a 9500gt work too? or do we have to pay 150 bucks still just for physics?

Any card 8400 GS upwards.;)

by alexp999 (1:38 PM) - Reply

by: wolf2009
I think so too . / / / / / / We are at Crossroads now . TO go with Xp and PhysX or Vista and xfire .

To me thats pretty simple. Vista and Xfire. Think of it this way: How many games will benefit from Xfire, vs PhysX...?

by wolf2009 (1:41 PM) - Reply

by: alexp999
To me thats pretty simple. Vista and Xfire. Think of it this way: How many games will benefit from Xfire, vs PhysX...?

In a year you may get your answer if the Nvidia is to be believed. They said, 25 games before Christmas, 30 in first half next year . Thing is PhysX adds extra dimension to the game, while all xfire does is give you good framerates .

by Bytor (1:45 PM) - Reply

by: alexp999
To me thats pretty simple. Vista and Xfire. Think of it this way: How many games will benefit from Xfire, vs PhysX...?

Yes it is a no brainer, xfire ftw. But what a neat idea....

by alexp999 (1:45 PM) - Reply

by: wolf2009
In a year you may get your answer if the Nvidia is to be believed. They said, 25 games before Christmas, 30 in first half next year . Thing is PhysX adds extra dimension to the game, while all xfire does is give you good framerates .

Physx is just a standard. Any game can do its own physics, its just cheaper to use an engine and library which has already been done for you. I see more games using the haok engine, which is hardware independant.

by Tatty_One (1:58 PM) - Reply

by: wolf2009
I think so too . / / / / / / We are at Crossroads now . TO go with Xp and PhysX or Vista and xfire .

Dual boot FTW!!!

by wolf2009 (2:01 PM) - Reply

by: alexp999
Physx is just a standard. Any game can do its own physics, its just cheaper to use an engine and library which has already been done for you. I see more games using the haok engine, which is hardware independant.

maybe , but I dont see software physics doing what physX can do . Like cause the cloth in GRAW to shred to individual pieces, you can shoot individual planks in a fence and take cover . Adds an extra dimension to the game . look at the videos here http://www.driverheaven.net/articles.php?articleid=122&pageid=5

by newtekie1 (2:24 PM) - Reply

I really hope they get this worked out in Vista.

by: Bytor
One question.... If this only works in XP can you still run a pair of ATI cards in xfire and have a 3rd card, the nvidia running PhysX? I think XP only supports 2 GPU's. Thats the main reason I went to Vista so I could run the 3 3870's together.

Yes, you can still run a pair of ATi cards and a 3rd for PhysX in XP. CrossfireX is not supported in XP, however having more than 2 graphics cards is. ATi just doesn't want to support CrossfireX on XP for some strange reasons, probably to much of a hassle to work out the drivers. XP supports at least 3 graphics cards.

by chron (2:30 PM) - Reply

by: Tatty_One
Just buy a 200 series card, a 2nd card does not add anything to Physx as the 200 series has CUDA 3.0.

You misunderstood me. Say someone has a 4850 and they are trying to decide to either go crossfire (buying a card of equal price as the one they have) or save some money and get a cheap nvidia card. Would they see better performance with the cheaper nvidia card, or with the equally priced 4850? Some people are on a budget and can't "just buy a 200 series card" lol.

by R_1 (2:47 PM) - Reply

It is better just to buy a quad core CPU and to use it's additional 2 cores for physics in games. In this way you will have more balanced PC.

by DarkMatter (2:49 PM) - Reply

by: chron
You misunderstood me. Say someone has a 4850 and they are trying to decide to either go crossfire (buying a card of equal price as the one they have) or save some money and get a cheap nvidia card. Would they see better performance with the cheaper nvidia card, or with the equally priced 4850? Some people are on a budget and can't "just buy a 200 series card" lol.

It will depend on the game, obviously. If the game uses PhysX and you have the hardware physics enabled a cheap Geforce will give you a lot better performance. Probably you wouldn't be able to enable hardware physics without a Geforce or Ageia ppu, there's the possibility that some few games wouldn't even work, so in reality it's either more frames with no enhanced gameplay, or less frames but outstanding physics. Choose what you prefer.

by: R_1
It is better just to buy a quad core CPU and to use it's additional 2 cores for physics in games. In this way you will have more balanced PC.

The whole point of this is to have a lot better physics than what an entire (4 cores) Overclocked Quad can handle. Even the 8400 GS has probably more number crunching power than the fastest quad.

Post your own comment

Username:
Password:
Register Here!