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

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

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. :(

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

Basard, even a 9400GT would work!

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

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.

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.

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

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: chron;949842

---

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.

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: Bytor;949889

---

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 .

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

by: Basard;949814

---

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

---

Any card 8400 GS upwards.;)

by: wolf2009;949892

---

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: alexp999;949897

---

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: alexp999;949897

---

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: wolf2009;949901

---

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: wolf2009;949892

---

I think so too .



/
/
/
/
/
/



We are at Crossroads now . TO go with Xp and PhysX or Vista and xfire .

---

Dual boot FTW!!!

by: alexp999;949912

---

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

I really hope they get this worked out in Vista.

by: Bytor;949889

---

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: Tatty_One;949872

---

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.

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: chron;949974

---

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;949996

---

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.

by: newtekie1;949969

---

I really hope they get this worked out in Vista.



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.

---

Ah I was thinking that after I posted. Only 2 of the cards connected (ATI's via crossfire) and the 3rd card(Nvidia) would be a stand alone to do PhysX...hhhmmmmm

But does anyone know of a way to make a Agiea PhysX card work with ATI video cards in the games that support PhysX?
I tried running fluidmark with this setup but it would not work. (I had the PhysX card drivers installed)

by: R_1;949996

---

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.

---

You wont/cant use cores of the CPU unless the game is programmed in that way, apart from that, a GPU is MUCH more efficient at Px than a CPU.

by: Tatty_One;950008

---

You wont/cant use cores of the CPU unless the game is programmed in that way, apart from that, a GPU is MUCH more efficient at Px than a CPU.

---

Well TBH and to honor the truth, a CPU is "much" more efficient at physics (almost everything except graphics, indeed), but it's just overwhelmed by the power of the GPUs.

But yeah, because of that, a GPU can do physics a lot faster or bigger = better.

If it worked on vista,would i be able to run 2x4850's in xfire and an nvidia card in the third pci-e x4 slot for physx?

by: tigger69;950022

---

If it worked on vista,would i be able to run 2x4850's in xfire and an nvidia card in the third pci-e x4 slot for physx?

---

Yep!

I dont get it, why doesnt it work in Vista anyway?

I think you cant run nvidia and ati drivers at the same time on vista.

by: alexp999;950025

---

Yep!

I dont get it, why doesnt it work in Vista anyway?

---

Its the way Vista Driver implementation is designed . It is designed to prevent drivers from getting entangled with each other and causing BSOD's. So they are not run in Vista kernel ( Something like this ). Thus it allows only one display driver.

Due to this driver implementation, you see less BSOD's on vista.

by: wolf2009;950037

---

Its the way Vista Driver implementation is designed . It is designed to prevent drivers from getting entangled with each other and causing BSOD's. So they are not run in Vista kernel ( Something like this ). Thus it allows only one display driver.

Due to this driver implementation, you see less BSOD's on vista.

---

And I suppose the Ageia physx card doesnt count as a display driver?

i guess the next thing then, is to allow you to have a physx driver install, that allows the card only to be used for that purpose so their is still only one display driver

by: alexp999;950041

---

And I suppose the Ageia physx card doesnt count as a display driver?

i guess the next thing then, is to allow you to have a physx driver install, that allows the card only to be used for that purpose so their is still only one display driver

---

yup, for using nvidia card as a physX card, you have to install their control panel with drivers .so it doesn't work .

I was not aware that you could only have one display driver in Vista. I have had 2 different cards many times, one for gaming and a professional one for working and I had no problems with them. This is impossible in Vista, I guess. Too bad M$...

i dont see why this wont work on vista. it's gotta be a simple fix that should be fixed soon enough. vista wont let you run 2 display drivers correct, BUT the cuda/physx driver is not really a display driver. there has got to be another reason why it's not working yet.

as for XP and multi gpu support.... i had my 2x3870x2's working fine in XP. even gpu-z showed 4gpu CFX enabled.

i think it's just a matter of time before this gets fixed for vista.

by: btarunr;949896

---

Any card 8400 GS upwards.;)

---

how about using built-in mobo graphics like GF8200 (my ECS 8200 board) with a ATI 4850 or 3870 card? Or even with my X800GTO?

by: suraswami;950209

---

how about using built-in mobo graphics like GF8200 (my ECS 8200 board) with a ATI 4850 or 3870 card? Or even with my X800GTO?

---

Should be OK yes.

So what's the chance of someone writing 3rd party driver for nvidia gpu to support physics only that's not a display driver so that it's vista compatible.

I have three slots and a cheap low end nvidia card in my 3rd slot would be nice!

I installed my Asus P1 PhysX card with my ATI 3870 in my intel rig. I installed the card drivers and when I tried running fluidmark it said I needed the 8.07.18 or better drivers, so I installed them. Now when I try and run fluidmark the following message pops up.



The card is working fine. I can reset it and play PhysX based games that came with the card, but can't run fluidmark..

Anyone have any ideas?

Thanks

Try installing the 8.08.18 PhsyX software. You might have to uninstall all previous Ageia and PhsyX drivers first.

by: EnglishLion;950375

---

So what's the chance of someone writing 3rd party driver for nvidia gpu to support physics only that's not a display driver so that it's vista compatible.

I have three slots and a cheap low end nvidia card in my 3rd slot would be nice!

---

I assume that is what is going to have to happen. NVidia is going to have to just release a set of drivers that makes Vista pick the card up as a PPU only, and not a GPU.

by: newtekie1;950477

---

I assume that is what is going to have to happen. NVidia is going to have to just release a set of drivers that makes Vista pick the card up as a PPU only, and not a GPU.

---

thats so not going to happen lol that would be to nice of NV

by: Bytor;950388

---

I installed my Asus P1 PhysX card with my ATI 3870 in my intel rig. I installed the card drivers and when I tried running fluidmark it said I needed the 8.07.18 or better drivers, so I installed them. Now when I try and run fluidmark the following message pops up.



The card is working fine. I can reset it and play PhysX based games that came with the card, but can't run fluidmark..

Anyone have any ideas?

Thanks

---

I think Fluidmark is an NVidia bench, thus it requires CUDA and ATi aint got that.

by: cdawall;950491

---

thats so not going to happen lol that would be to nice of NV

---

Certainly Nvidia won't be writing it, they want you to buy nvidia only obviously! But an independant programmer out there might. I know you can get alternative ATI display drivers (don't know if they work in vista) so it might be possible.

by: Tatty_One;950504

---

I think Fluidmark is an NVidia bench, thus it requires CUDA and ATi aint got that.

---

In the first post in this thread the bottom pic's show they ran it using a ATI 3800 series card.

by: Bytor;950558

---

In the first post in this thread the bottom pic's show they ran it using a ATI 3800 series card.

---

Lol yes....with an NVidia card so it has CUDA!! You are not talking about using an NVidia card hence no CUDA, you can still have Physx with the Ageia but that does not give you CUDA and therefore you have problems with this NVidia bench......get my drift?

Good point tatty....Cheers...

Not worth spending money on Nvidia at this time..

by: Tatty_One;950504

---

I think Fluidmark is an NVidia bench, thus it requires CUDA and ATi aint got that.

---

by: Bytor;950558

---

In the first post in this thread the bottom pic's show they ran it using a ATI 3800 series card.

---

by: Tatty_One;950631

---

Lol yes....with an NVidia card so it has CUDA!! You are not talking about using an NVidia card hence no CUDA, you can still have Physx with the Ageia but that does not give you CUDA and therefore you have problems with this NVidia bench......get my drift?

---

by: Bytor;950641

---

Good point tatty....Cheers...

Not worth spending money on Nvidia at this time..

---

Go read Fluidmark's page here.

An nVidia card is not required, you just need the CUDA dll if you don't have an nVidia card. The benchmark will run fine on an Ageia card, or with no PhysX capable card at all. It is a PhsyX benchmark, not an nVidia benchmark, just like Vantage.

by: cdawall;950491

---

thats so not going to happen lol that would be to nice of NV

---

by: EnglishLion;950532

---

Certainly Nvidia won't be writing it, they want you to buy nvidia only obviously! But an independant programmer out there might. I know you can get alternative ATI display drivers (don't know if they work in vista) so it might be possible.

---

NVidia wants the technoligy to catch on. The only way it will compete with Havok is if it can be used on virtually every platform, and nVidia knows that. Which is exactly why they are helping get PhysX running on ATi cards, something not even ATi is willing to help with.

Maybe that will be their solution, if it just runs on ATi cards, then you won't have to worry about getting nVidia cards working with ATi cards in Vista, you can have all ATi cards.

Thanks Newtekie1. Works great now...

by: R_1;949996

---

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.

---

or not. please at least educate yourself before making blind statements.

I own two quad core systems, and my FPS went from 15-20 in UT3 with physx, to over 70 with the video cards assisting. CPU's have nothing in terms of power, compared to video cards.

ya and Intel thinks X86 is going to be a Good Graphics Engine (Larrabee) this just proves intel is further wrong.

What if, in vista, you install the entire nVidia driver package with the Physx app, then just uninstall the gfx drivers and leave Physx on there? Wonder if that would work?

CUDA is great and all, props to nVidia getting it out there. but where the damned hell is opencl?

Thanks Newtekie, what is interesting is that with an ATI card it runs in purely software mode through the CPU as opposed to hardware thru the GPU, but I gather thats just for the bench, you cant actually run GRAW2 in software?

It will be interesting to see how the other cards do with the bench, I am just about to take over the bench's thread so am looking forward to updating your scores!

КросСли рулира, продължавайте само така! :rockout:

by: kaneda;951092

---

CUDA is great and all, props to nVidia getting it out there. but where the damned hell is opencl?

---

that Macntrash language, it wont see fruitition until people start working with it in games, just like open GL of its time. btw Translate that Cyrilic or dont use it at all.

by: Tatty_One;951206

---

Thanks Newtekie, what is interesting is that with an ATI card it runs in purely software mode through the CPU as opposed to hardware thru the GPU, but I gather thats just for the bench, you cant actually run GRAW2 in software?

It will be interesting to see how the other cards do with the bench, I am just about to take over the bench's thread so am looking forward to updating your scores!

---

I don't know why people are mixing up these stuff.
Physx is just an API. If you don't have Physx hardware, it just runs on software (ie CPU). If you have hardware (Physx card or Geforce), it will use it.
The only thing that some developers have done is create a couple of special levels with higher level of physics and locked it so only people with Physx hardware can play it. That doesn't mean it can't run in software mode, it would just be to slow. Most aren't even locked actually.
Except of Cellfactor, i don't know any other game that really requires Physx hardware.
(You can even hack Cellfactor to run without hardware!)

Hey what kind of cooling are they using? It looks like they have the same vga cooler on both cards...

by: Wile E;951086

---

What if, in vista, you install the entire nVidia driver package with the Physx app, then just uninstall the gfx drivers and leave Physx on there? Wonder if that would work?

---

that would uninstall the nvidia control panel and cuda files, which are needed to select the physX settings .

by: Wile E;951086

---

What if, in vista, you install the entire nVidia driver package with the Physx app, then just uninstall the gfx drivers and leave Physx on there? Wonder if that would work?

---

Well, in Vista, the nVidia graphics driver isn't activated when your primary card is an ATi, so uninstalliing it wouldn't really do anything really. The graphics driver has to be installed and activated for the card to be recognized by the PhysX drivers and be used as a PhysX card.

That is what leads me to believe that there are really only 2 work arounds for nVidia at this point.

1.) Develope a driver for their graphics cards, that isn't a graphics driver. So the card appears to the OS as just a PhysX card and not a Graphics Adapter.
2.) Get PhsyX working on ATi hardware, so that people running all ATi setups can use PhysX.

Great for sales of high end ATI and low end Nvidia cards.

Let the frankensteining begin ; P

So why so late and why only hardspell and why relatively little info on drivers and motherboard/chipset used and such?
Why doesn't techpowerup do this test and confirm it?

by: Wshlist;951697

---

So why so late and why only hardspell and why relatively little info on drivers and motherboard/chipset used and such?
Why doesn't techpowerup do this test and confirm it?

---

It's irrelevant which motherboard you use. 2 PCI-E slots is all you'd need.

by: btarunr;951736

---

It's irrelevant which motherboard you use. 2 PCI-E slots is all you'd need.

---

That's what we think, but is it? It would be what you expect but personally I'd also expect to not need any SLI or crossfire board for that sli/crossfire to work but just 2 16x PCIe slots, and yet..

by: Wshlist;951802

---

That's what we think, but is it? It would be what you expect but personally I'd also expect to not need any SLI or crossfire board for that sli/crossfire to work but just 2 16x PCIe slots, and yet..

---

Well you're talking about two video cards working together. Currently what they're talking about here is the equivalent of throwing in a PCI physx card. You're simply adding a processor that takes care of the physx code. You could run it at 16x/4x on older boards also. The PCI-e x16 slots dont always need to be used for video.

by: chron;951933

---

Well you're talking about two video cards working together. Currently what they're talking about here is the equivalent of throwing in a PCI physx card. You're simply adding a processor that takes care of the physx code. You could run it at 16x/4x on older boards also. The PCI-e x16 slots dont always need to be used for video.

---

I see the logic of course, there's no flaw in it except that it IS a graphics card that reports to the OS/BIOS as a graphics card, and for now even requires graphics card drivers, so although it makes sense and should make sense in practise it might have issues on certain motherboards or chipsets I fear, only testing can tell if it works on any chipset/mobo as you'd expect.

wshlist: we already know its the same as using the ageia PCI PPU card. SLI and crossfire boards are not required.

The only problems are getting both drivers to work at the same time.

I put HD4850 (catalyst 8.8) and 9600gso (force ware 177.92 +08.08.18 physX). PhysX does not see 9600GSO.
What to do?

If 'we already know' then why is this news and all so vague and only one site tried? If it's the driver I'm sure others can experiment too, in fact I have run a physx demo on my radeon (no nvidia to back it up) which required the cuda.dll. so if it works then the trick is installing some more dll's (if needed) that access the nvidia card, which I imagine is done by separate dll's and you could trace which ones are used by physx surely? In fact don't they have a separate installer for CUDA physx? in that case it must be even less searching for the stuff needed, or perhaps a phone call to nvidia might do it, they like to support cuda on radeon so they'd certainly not mind the idea of people adding nvidia cards to radeon-powered systems I imagine :)

Well either way I think techpowerup should try and write a more detailed report, I'm sure they can lay their hands on a radeon and nvidia card for a moment.

by: Jambul_Er;953319

---

I put HD4850 (catalyst 8.8) and 9600gso (force ware 177.92 +08.08.18 physX). PhysX does not see 9600GSO.
What to do?

---

Thanks for trying jambul, did you install cuda? or the cuda.dll? in other words did you do some experimentation? If so keep us informed please :)

by: Jambul_Er;953319

---

I put HD4850 (catalyst 8.8) and 9600gso (force ware 177.92 +08.08.18 physX). PhysX does not see 9600GSO.
What to do?

---

Not yet possible on Windows Vista.

Thanks for your reply. Only from Russia and I do not know English. Translation through GOOGLE.

the img is a hidden link to another site

by: btarunr;953334

---

Not yet possible on Windows Vista.

---

I have Windows XP SP3:cool:

by: wolf2009;953341

---

the img is a hidden link to another site

---

This is our Russian site download images ...:toast:

by: Jambul_Er;953348

---

I have Windows XP SP3:cool:

---

Shut-down, Connect the monitor to the 9600 GSO, start, let the OS detect the display and configure as a second display-head, shut down, connect the monitor back to the HD 4850, start up. So the OS is fooled into thinking there are display-heads configured for both adapters.

by: Wshlist;953330

---

Thanks for trying jambul, did you install cuda? or the cuda.dll? in other words did you do some experimentation? If so keep us informed please :)

---

I only did that already did ... And even dances with diamonds - nothing helps:confused:

ктонить в курсе када на радеонку 4870 будут такие дравишки?)))

by: Jambul_Er;953364

---

I only did that already did ... And even dances with diamonds - nothing helps:confused:

---

Oh well :/
Someone will discover how it works eventually.

everyone here think it is good point for ati , for me i think not , maybe good for users but not for ati , cuz that mean every pc must put in nvidia card in any situation primary or physics , ati must develop a software to solve this biggest problem

hence Havoc Engine, Havoc Engine has been around alot longer so its further ahead in the Physics Dept.

by: eidairaman1;954144

---

hence Havoc Engine, Havoc Engine has been around alot longer so its further ahead in the Physics Dept.

---

Havok's original engine only used the CPU for physics, and then much later after AGEIA came around did they start with a engine that used the GPU, however that was a separate licence that gamedevelopers had to opt for (and pay for) so adoption wasn't very big I think, it's hard to say because nobody knows when people/companies say 'havok physics' if it's using the old CPU licence/SDK, like HL2 does for instance, or their (relatively)newer GPU one, plus I think their GPU one was partly non-interactive, mostly just visual wasn't it? I'm not sure about the details of it.

But either way, if a game uses the one developed by AGEIA, PhysX, like the unreal3 engine, then it doesn't matter if your card has great HAVOK support since it's PhysX that the game requires. And right now I bet lots of developers are opting for the PhysX one since it suddenly has a lot of people that can use it, unless of course they are smart like the crysis makers and just make their own physics engine and bypass all the hassle :) Although doing that on the GPU might be harder to develop than you think *shrug*

quick question.....

i have a board with 3 full length pcie slots, 4870x2 and 4870 in CFX and i am thinking about getting a 9800gt for physx. the reason for the 9800gt is because it's the fastest single slot card i can think of and it will work perfectly in between my 2 ATI beasts.

is this a good move for me or should i do something else with my time/money?

by: fitseries3;954554

---

quick question.....

i have a board with 3 full length pcie slots, 4870x2 and 4870 in CFX and i am thinking about getting a 9800gt for physx. the reason for the 9800gt is because it's the fastest single slot card i can think of and it will work perfectly in between my 2 ATI beasts.

is this a good move for me or should i do something else with my time/money?

---

The performance of PhysX isn't all that proportional to the GPU computational power beyond maybe a 8800 GS 384MB. IIRC the third long slot is PCI-E x4, is it?

4x when 3 cards are in yes. 8x when only 2 are used.

i can get a 9800gt for like $40 so it's not a price thing... just availability.

by: fitseries3;954580

---

4x when 3 cards are in yes. 8x when only 2 are used.

i can get a 9800gt for like $40 so it's not a price thing... just availability.

---

It also becomes a heat and power-draw thing :)

by: btarunr;954593

---

It also becomes a heat and power-draw thing :)

---

With 3 R770 on his system, I don't think the power/heat of a 9800GT is an issue for him.

by: DarkMatter;954616

---

With 3 R770 on his system, I don't think the power/heat of a 9800GT is an issue for him.

---

Point is, those RV770s crunch graphics, but I don't think choosing a 9800 GT over a 8800 GS would translate to anything better than higher power draw than what it already is.

by: btarunr;954617

---

Point is, those RV770s crunch graphics, but I don't think choosing a 9800 GT over a 8800 GS would translate to anything better than higher power draw than what it already is.

---

I agree, but the extra power required to go from ther GS to the GT is NOTHING compared to the power draw he already has. Sure it is pointlees if he will get the same performance, but we don't really know how much power it's going to be required in the next 6 months = 50+ new titles.

And then it's the $40 argument. If he can get a 9800GT for that money I would never never tell him to get something slower. He could even had to pay more for a GS!!

I don't think those 50+ titles have PhysX content that would make a dedicated PhysX unit such as 8800 GS sweat. 96 NVIDIA SPs is still a huge amount of rated shader compute power. 192 bit memory bus doesn't matter, the card isn't transferring large chunks of data (such a textures), it's just crunching lots of math in real-time. To look at it that way, if a PhysX title does have physics load that makes a dedicated 8800 GS sweat, a single GTX 280 machine is in for a significant graphics performance hit.

If he isn't getting a 8800 GS for less than $40 bucks, 9800 GT is cool.

by: btarunr;954617

---

Point is, those RV770s crunch graphics, but I don't think choosing a 9800 GT over a 8800 GS would translate to anything better than higher power draw than what it already is.

---

i can get a 9800gt new in box for $40 but i'd have to pay retail for a 8800.

heat.... fuck heat... who cares anyway? it's for benching and i have some 130cfm fans i use to cool the vid cards anyway.

by: btarunr;954632

---

I don't think those 50+ titles have PhysX content that would make a dedicated PhysX unit such as 8800 GS sweat. 96 NVIDIA SPs is still a huge amount of rated shader compute power. 192 bit memory bus doesn't matter, the card isn't transferring large chunks of data (such a textures), it's just crunching lots of math in real-time. To look at it that way, if a PhysX title does have physics load that makes a dedicated 8800 GS sweat, a single GTX 280 machine is in for a significant graphics performance hit.

If he isn't getting a 8800 GS for less than $40 bucks, 9800 GT is cool.

---

I think we both know each others points, but we just has focused the thing in a different way. This is how I see it, in order of importance:

- Price: IMHO, a 9800GT for $40 is must have. Period. :D

-Power consumption: the difference between both cards is 10W. The X2 alone consumes 300W. Add 150W for the HD4870 and 120W for the rest of the system, as well as 75 for the baseline card (GS) and we are talking about 645W under full load. 645 or 655 who cares?

- Performance: probably in the next year a GT will not get you better performance than the GS, maybe not even in 2 years? Who cares? You won't need to change the card. IMO you can't apply the same criteria as with graphics, where a little underpowered card makes more sense because you will need to upgrade it soon anyway. And if we take into account the price, are you really going to risk the future performance, or the possibility that you will need to upgrade the card a lot sooner in order to get a cheaper or a bit less power hungry card?

im also looking at resell value here. i can get the 9800gt and use it for a few months and still get more outta it than i paid.

not trying to dog on your btarunr

by: fitseries3;954644

---

i can get a 9800gt new in box for $40 but i'd have to pay retail for a 8800.

heat.... fuck heat... who cares anyway? it's for benching and i have some 130cfm fans i use to cool the vid cards anyway.

---

Then price is the only issue, go for it.

by: DarkMatter;954650

---

- Performance: probably in the next year a GT will not get you better performance than the GS, maybe not even in 2 years? Who cares? You won't need to change the card. IMO you can't apply the same criteria as with graphics, where a little underpowered card makes more sense because you will need to upgrade it soon anyway. And if we take into account the price, are you really going to risk the future performance, or the possibility that you will need to upgrade the card a lot sooner in order to get a cheaper or a bit less power hungry card?

---

2 years from now you think the industry will let you use a 9800 GT for PhysX? You'll be hit by the standard-syndrome, they'll come up with "The latest PhysX engine requires a CUDA < insert advanced version here > -supportive graphics card", naturally all existing hardware will become 'obsolete'. Anyway, that's Fit's we're talking about. His hardware changes like the weather :laugh:

what a really want to know is if it is worth the $40 or should i get something that has nothing to do with gfx/physx.

by: fitseries3;954657

---

what a really want to know is if it is worth the $40 or should i get something that has nothing to do with gfx/physx.

---

Something that can put those cards to use, a game. :) ...if not 9800 GT though for $40 nothing beats it.

i dont game though.

by: fitseries3;954661

---

i dont game though.

---

Then IMO that money will be better spent paying some drinks to your friends or something. Maybe sending it to the DarkMatter, he will surely give it good use... :rolleyes:

by: fitseries3;954644

---

i can get a 9800gt new in box for $40 but i'd have to pay retail for a 8800.

---

Were can you get it from for that money ?

fitseries3: how about a 9600GT? (if you can get 9000 series cheap). They used it in here: http://www.guru3d.com/article/physx-by-nvidia-review/

If I could get a 9800GT for $40 I'd swap my 8800GT, even though they are the same :D (well with luck 55nm version).

Fun to break stuff in warmonger, don't know if there is any other use at the moment. Runs surprisingly well with just my single card.

edit: oh and the 9800GT can always be downclocked for less power and heat, power is still plenty.

by: OnBoard;954706

---

fitseries3: how about a 9600GT? (if you can get 9000 series cheap). They used it in here: http://www.guru3d.com/article/physx-by-nvidia-review/

If I could get a 9800GT for 40$ I'd swap my 8800GT, even though they are the same :D (well with lucn 55nm version).

---

its not 55nm .

9800gt = 8800gt?

by: fitseries3;954715

---

9800gt = 8800gt?

---

Yep, just renamed and hybrid power support added. Most 9800GT's are even slower than my 8800GT stock.. :)

by: wolf2009;954709

---

its not 55nm .

---

Not the 9600GT, but some 9800GT's are and probably will soon be all, like the 9800GTX+.

so 9800gt is a bad choice? 9600gt better?

by: OnBoard;954720

---

Yep, just renamed and hybrid power support added. Most 9800GT's are even slower than my 8800GT stock.. :)


Not the 9600GT, but some 9800GT's are and probably will soon be all, like the 9800GTX+.

---

yup , but not right now .

by: fitseries3;954721

---

so 9800gt is a bad choice? 9600gt better?

---

9800GT is better choice . , but where the hell would you find it for $40 ?

Not a bad choice, just that the single slot cooling goes for the near 100C load numbers (well probably not in just PhysX use). 9600GT would run a bit cooler and draw less power and still be fast enough for every physics currently out there.

edit: I'll take that back. It's a MASSIVE 9W load difference with 9800GT and 9600GT :) So yeah, the 9800GT is just fine.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_9800_GT_Amp_Edition/24.html

i cant sell them for $40 but i can get you a good deal on one.

by: fitseries3;954739

---

i cant sell them for $40 but i can get you a good deal on one.

---

YHPM

by: OnBoard;954726

---

Not a bad choice, just that the single slot cooling goes for the near 100C load numbers (well probably not in just PhysX use). 9600GT would run a bit cooler and draw less power and still be fast enough for every physics currently out there.

edit: I'll take that back. It's a MASSIVE 9W load difference with 9800GT and 9600GT :) So yeah, the 9800GT is just fine.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_9800_GT_Amp_Edition/24.html

---

I've been talking about the small differences all the time. :)

Anyway the 8800GS/9600GSO would be a lot better physx card.

Exactly what Nvidia wanted...and you guys fall for it...

by: Jelle Mees;954959

---

Exactly what Nvidia wanted...and you guys fall for it...

---

I don't get it. We fall for what?

by: DarkMatter;954998

---

I don't get it. We fall for what?

---

Nvidia wants to win back discrete card market share , and with AGEIA acquisition they can attack ATI on two fronts . Graphics and this PhysX . Nobody knows how popular is it going to get, but everyone wants to buy a Nvidia card to run those few games .

They won't, software based physics engine is still by far the most popular, Intel bought the company that is the industry leader in gaming physics engine widely used in games, AMD/ATI is also following this approach since they are a CPU/GPU company as well...

PhysX is pretty much a gimmick now like it has always been (probably dying a slow death) when both Intel and AMD/ATI are using their multi core CPU's to assist on in-game physics.

The processing power involved isn't that demanding at all, using a 2nd graphics card solely for PhysX is a complete waste of time when any multi-core CPU could handle it without a single hint of slowdown at all.

by: insider;955026

---

They won't, software based physics engine is still by far the most popular, Intel bought the company that is the industry leader in gaming physics engine widely used in games, AMD/ATI is also following this approach since they are a CPU/GPU company as well...

PhysX is pretty much a gimmick now like it has always been (probably dying a slow death) when both Intel and AMD/ATI are using their multi core CPU's to assist on in-game physics.

The processing power involved isn't that demanding at all, using a 2nd graphics card solely for PhysX is a complete waste of time when any multi-core CPU could handle it without a single hint of slowdown at all.

---

Again, :shadedshu we are obviously not talking about the same physics. CPU can't and never will be able to handle the kind of physics that GPUs or PPU can. The demos and games that have been already released show how good PhysX can be. It is not a gimmick at all. And those demos and games can run easily on my card when deliverately downclocked the shaders to embarrasing clocks to test how much of the card was actually being used. The veredict is that my GT can handle a lot lot lot more physics. The future will just be so much better IMO. Ati very inteligently said they COULD end up using Ageia if it is successful, because they knew it's a good thing. They are just hoping game developers don't adopt it to the point that GPU acceleration is required.

by: wolf2009;955007

---

Nvidia wants to win back discrete card market share , and with AGEIA acquisition they can attack ATI on two fronts . Graphics and this PhysX . Nobody knows how popular is it going to get, but everyone wants to buy a Nvidia card to run those few games .

---

That's not fall for anything. If buying Nvidia cards is the only way to have hardware accelerated physics, so be it. They are not fooling anyone. Besides PhysX on Ati cards is possible but is Ati's decision to not adopt it. They could make their own if they don't like it, and try making developers use it. As of now Nvidia is the only one innovating in this front and whoever wants more than mediocre physics will have to use their hardware. It's simple.

EDIT: BTW you knew that Ageia aproached AMD/Ati long before Nvidia isn't it? Ati had the chance and they didn't took that train.

That's not fall for anything. If buying Nvidia cards is the only way to have hardware accelerated physics, so be it. They are not fooling anyone. Besides PhysX on Ati cards is possible but is Ati's decision to not adopt it. They could make their own if they don't like it, and try making developers use it. As of now Nvidia is the only one innovating in this front and whoever wants more than mediocre physics will have to use their hardware. It's simple.


To another Point, Havoc is the alternative to Physx. TBH, Id rather not buy hardware that supports a Function such as Physx until there is actuall Tangible Software out there that utilizes it, not just a handful but when majority have that technique, by the time Actuall Stuff comes to fruitition it will be time to upgrade again= which makes buying that piece of hardware a waste of time, im sorry future proofing is not in my vocabulary.

ATI actually announced that they won't go for their own or nvidia's but will focus on the directX11 (which reportingly has physics) and OpenCL (note the C not G in there) variants, and perhaps nvidia will have to follow suit, it's hard to argue with DirectX really, even when nvidia tries from time to time.

It's a bit trange how ATI still has to decide paths and don't seem to have resources to follow 2 paths, even after AMD bought them, a company that tossed billions of dollars around like it's going out of style.. well actually, the dollar is going out of style I guess :P

by: eidairaman1;955099

---

That's not fall for anything. If buying Nvidia cards is the only way to have hardware accelerated physics, so be it. They are not fooling anyone. Besides PhysX on Ati cards is possible but is Ati's decision to not adopt it. They could make their own if they don't like it, and try making developers use it. As of now Nvidia is the only one innovating in this front and whoever wants more than mediocre physics will have to use their hardware. It's simple.


To another Point, Havoc is the alternative to Physx. TBH, Id rather not buy hardware that supports a Function such as Physx until there is actuall Tangible Software out there that utilizes it, not just a handful but when majority have that technique, by the time Actuall Stuff comes to fruitition it will be time to upgrade again= which makes buying that piece of hardware a waste of time, im sorry future proofing is not in my vocabulary.

---

Future proofing? I hope that at least 2 of the 50 PhysX titles that are going to be released n the coming months will be worth a try. Those with Ati hardware can do 3 things:

- Buy a Nvidia card and enjoy the extra physics.

- Don't buy anything and argue about something they don't want, and they don't understand, primarily because they can't have it.

-Enjoy the game as they can play, not acting like a childish, crying for something they can't have.

PhysX is just a FREE added value for those who bought their hardware. If you don't have it and don't want to benefit from great physics, then continue as you are today. But why argue with something yo say you don't care about?

I remember so many people saying the same about the first graphics cards that is actually so funny... I'm not saying it will be as successful, but it has the potential.

Besides Havok is the alternative, but not the competition. It has nothing to do against Ageia, because where it is computed. LOL Havok, UT games, Half-LIfe 2, Oblivion... CRAP, CRAP, CRAP. The physics I mean. It had to come Crytek and make a better physics engine on their own, even if they are supposedly not experts.

by: Wshlist;955137

---

ATI actually announced that they won't go for their own or nvidia's but will focus on the directX11 (which reportingly has physics) and OpenCL (note the C not G in there) variants, and perhaps nvidia will have to follow suit, it's hard to argue with DirectX really, even when nvidia tries from time to time.

It's a bit trange how ATI still has to decide paths and don't seem to have resources to follow 2 paths, even after AMD bought them, a company that tossed billions of dollars around like it's going out of style.. well actually, the dollar is going out of style I guess :P

---

I'm not so sure about GPU physics on DX11. GPU compute is going to be there AFAIK, but from there to a good physics API there's a long way. DX11 will launch a lot later and taking into account the adoption rate of DX's, we wouldn't have hardware accelerated physics until 2011. No thanks, give the physics now, and I myself will decide if I want it or not.

EDIT: after some searching I have found that Ati said that before Ageia's adquisition. And TBH there is a difference. Ageia had a hardware base of not more than 100.000 PPUs, Nvidia has over 50 million capable cards and 55-60% market share. You can't compare, it does pay off to implement good physics in your game if you know it could mean an advantage over other games when you have so much potential buyers.

Look what happened Ageia, it never took off, Nvidia bought them up, they gotta be careful they dont have the same fate, but i guess Nvidia would drop it like a whore if it flops, before they go under.

by: DarkMatter;955150

---

Future proofing? I hope that at least 2 of the 50 PhysX titles that are going to be released n the coming months will be worth a try. Those with Ati hardware can do 3 things:

- Buy a Nvidia card and enjoy the extra physics.

- Don't buy anything and argue about something they don't want, and they don't understand, primarily because they can't have it.

-Enjoy the game as they can play, not acting like a childish, crying for something they can't have.

PhysX is just a FREE added value for those who bought their hardware. If you don't have it and don't want to benefit from great physics, then continue as you are today. But why argue with something yo say you don't care about?

I remember so many people saying the same about the first graphics cards that is actually so funny... I'm not saying it will be as successful, but it has the potential.

Besides Havok is the alternative, but not the competition. It has nothing to do against Ageia, because where it is computed. LOL Havok, UT games, Half-LIfe 2, Oblivion... CRAP, CRAP, CRAP. The physics I mean. It had to come Crytek and make a better physics engine on their own, even if they are supposedly not experts.

---

by: eidairaman1;955202

---

Look what happened Ageia, it never took off, Nvidia bought them up, they gotta be careful they dont have the same fate, but i guess Nvidia would drop it like a whore if it flops, before they go under.

---

Man, understand this:

less than 100.000 PPUs = big flop as no game developer will care to make separate code if the hardware base is only 10% of the number of game copies they try to sell. Yet Ageia managed to convince some developers!! Speaks volumes to the quality of the feature!

more than 50 million capable GPUs (and potentially a lot more to come) = a developer only needs to sell the game to 2% of the installed base to become the most successful PC game in late years. IF the game really stands out IMO they can sell a lot more than that 2% of Nvidia owners EASILY.

by: DarkMatter;955154

---

I'm not so sure about GPU physics on DX11. GPU compute is going to be there AFAIK, but from there to a good physics API there's a long way. DX11 will launch a lot later and taking into account the adoption rate of DX's, we wouldn't have hardware accelerated physics until 2011. No thanks, give the physics now, and I myself will decide if I want it or not.

EDIT: after some searching I have found that Ati said that before Ageia's adquisition. And TBH there is a difference. Ageia had a hardware base of not more than 100.000 PPUs, Nvidia has over 50 million capable cards and 55-60% market share. You can't compare, it does pay off to implement good physics in your game if you know it could mean an advantage over other games when you have so much potential buyers.

---

They actually said it early august this year:

"in his speech GPG CTO Technology Day held in Iceland's capital, Raja Koduri, CTO of AMD GPG (ex-ATI), announced that AMD believes that the time for proprietary software solutions such as AMD's own Close-to-Metal and Nvidia's CUDA has passed.

As a result, AMD will throw its efforts behind DirectX 11 Computational Shaders and the OpenCL GPGPU language and will focus on standardized solutions only."

Of course it's true that that is not mentioning physics, and also it's not quite clear if MS will do anything in that direction or offer encouragement or support for physics on the GPU via DX11, on the other hand ATI could use the GPU-computational part of DX11 and write a physics plugin for it, theoretically, as could nvidia, or nvidia could extend CUDA to work on top of DX11 so they can smoothly move their PhysX api to DX11 and have no need to expose their users to big changes in that area.
And then there's the DX11 platform.. it'll be vista/windows7 and not XP, which most people still prefer and have.
So I guess you are right, PhysX seems to be the winner and we'll have to get nvidia cards as assist or someone should make a PhysX driver for ATI.

Personally I pull more towards getting a nvidia card as secondary right now, as soon as I know if that's practical, because some dubious pic