Which VGA is the best PhysX card?

[bakalu]

My system
CPU Core i7 Extreme 965 @ 3.4GHz vcore 1.38125V
Mainboard ASUS Rampage II Gene
Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit RTM
Driver ATI 10.4a
Driver NVIDIA 258.96 beta 64bit

Benchmark Demo Cryotasis, PhysX=ON, 1680*1050, Max Settings


ASUS HD 5850 @ 800/1150 + dedicated PhysX ASUS 9800 GT 512MB @ 600/1500/900


ASUS HD 5850 @ 800/1150 + dedicated PhysX ASUS 9600 GT 512MB @ 650/1625/900


ASUS HD 5850 @ 800/1150 + dedicated PhysX MSI 9600 GT 1GB @ 600/1500/700


ASUS HD 5850 @ 800/1150 + dedicated PhysX ASUS GTX 285 TOP 1GB @ 670/1550/1300


ASUS HD 5850 @ 800/1150 + dedicated PhysX ASUS GTX 460 768MB @ 675/1350/900


power consumption (full load with Cryotasis) ASUS HD 5850 @ 800/1150 + dedicated PhysX ASUS 9800 GT 512MB @ 600/1500/900 + i7 965 @ 3.4GHz vcore 1.38125V


power consumption (full load with Cryotasis) ASUS HD 5850 @ 800/1150 + dedicated PhysX MSI 9600 GT 1GB @ 600/1500/700 + i7 965 @ 3.4GHz vcore 1.38125V


And then I benchmark demo Cryotasis with single VGA

ASUS GTX 285 TOP 1GB @ 670/1550/1300


ASUS GTX 460 768MB @ 675/1350/900


ASUS GTX 460 768MB @ 800/1600/950


ASUS GTX 465 1GB @ 608/1215/802


ASUS GTX 465 1GB @ 700/1400/925


I am very disappointed with GTX460/465. Both VGAs are much weaker than the GTX 285 TOP in the processing of PhysX games.

I'm waiting until the Mafia 2 game officially released, but I can confirm that GT240 is the best PhysX card.

Do you agree with me?


Source : http://forum.amtech.com.vn/overclock...tml#post700580

[mlee49]

Compile data into a readable chart my friend.

[mdsx1950]

GTX 285 or GTX 465 out of the cards you have benchmarked.

[KainXS]

yep the GT240 is the best card to use for physX

[Bo_Fox]

Originally Posted by bakalu

I am very disappointed with GTX460/465. Both VGAs are much weaker than the GTX 285 TOP in the processing of PhysX games.

Much weaker?? From what I see above, an overclocked GTX 465 is practically identical to oc'ed GTX 285.

But a dedicated 9600GT PhysX card does only 1fps worse than a GTX 285 or 460 768MB in combination with 5850.

Yeah, I guess a GT240 would be pretty similar, given how a 9600GT does so well vs GTX 285, yet even less power-hungry, smaller, more silent and cool-running than 9600GT itself.

[douglatins]

So the best performing one is the 460 and best overall is the 240?

[Mussels]

fixed the thread title.

[ToTTenTranz]

Erm.. are there any GT240 results in this thread?

[mdsx1950]

Originally Posted by ToTTenTranz

Erm.. are there any GT240 results in this thread?

Exactly what i was wondering. Everyone was recommending the GT240 though the OP doesn't even mention anything about a GT240.

[CDdude55]

Just get a GT240/GTS 250 and call it a day.

[ebolamonkey3]

Originally Posted by ToTTenTranz

Erm.. are there any GT240 results in this thread?

Originally Posted by mdsx1950

Exactly what i was wondering. Everyone was recommending the GT240 though the OP doesn't even mention anything about a GT240.

The results are in the top in the bigger pictures, where the OP benched 5850 with dedicated 9800GT/9600GT/GTX285/GTX460 as physix cards. The smaller pictures are just benches of those cards by themselves w/o a dedicated physx card. I think all the GT 240 recommendation comes from the 9600GT physx results, which performs only slightly worse than the GTX 285. And the GT 240 usually performs a little better than the 9600GT and uses less power.

Originally Posted by CDdude55

Just get a GT240/GTS 250 and call it a day.

Yep, I agree. Though I think a GTS 250 is overkill for dedicated physx.

[ToTTenTranz]

Originally Posted by ebolamonkey3

I think all the GT 240 recommendation comes from the 9600GT physx results, which performs only slightly worse than the GTX 285. And the GT 240 usually performs a little better than the 9600GT and uses less power.

As far as I know, PhysX performance also depends on ROP performance, and the 9600GT has 2x more ROPs than the GT240, not to mention the considerably higher clocks.



I'm just saying, if people want to recommend the GT240 for PhysX instead of a G94/G92 solution, they should be using actual benchmarks, since the two architectures don't have the same performance/shader ratio.

Plus, Cryostasis is a 2-year old game and was never known for its engine efficiency. Its intellectual successor, Metro 2033, isn't much better in the optimization departmen, though.

[Bo_Fox]

Good point there, but PhysX is mainly powered by CUDA (shader) cores. That's why GT240 is a pretty good card for the few Physx games out there, with 96 shaders while 9600GT has only 64. It also idles at only 9 watts.

Popular games that really use physx:

1) Batman Arkham Asylum --- I LOVED this one. Game of the year for 2009
2) Mirror's Edge ---- I actually liked this one just as much!!
3) Metro 2033 --- Needs a GTX 480 for all the graphical goodies anyways
4) Cryostasis --- a less popular game that is poorly optimized -- also needs a powerhouse GPU
5) GRAW -- old game
6) Warmonger -- like UT3, but free

and what else (not the crappy games)? Having a dedicated PhysX card would be a huge waste if you do not play these games much.

[Hayder_Master]

this great review for best physics card, awesome work bro

[mdsx1950]

Just get a GTX 480 for Physx and keep quiet

On a serious note: 9600GT is definitely the cheapest and best price/performance out of the cards picked out.

[CDdude55]

Originally Posted by Bo_Fox

Good point there, but PhysX is mainly powered by CUDA (shader) cores. That's why GT240 is a pretty good card for the few Physx games out there, with 96 shaders while 9600GT has only 64. It also idles at only 9 watts.

Popular games that really use physx:

1) Batman Arkham Asylum --- I LOVED this one. Game of the year for 2009
2) Mirror's Edge ---- I actually liked this one just as much!!
3) Metro 2033 --- Needs a GTX 480 for all the graphical goodies anyways
4) Cryostasis --- a less popular game that is poorly optimized -- also needs a powerhouse GPU
5) GRAW -- old game
6) Warmonger -- like UT3, but free

and what else (not the crappy games)? Having a dedicated PhysX card would be a huge waste if you do not play these games much.

Mafia II is coming out in a bit and that utilizes Physx heavily.

[Tatty_One]

a GTX260 will do quite nicely for Physx, there is little point in having a dedicated card more powerful than the main card..... can I ask the OP one thing..... do you really need that much voltage on a 965 to run at under 3.8 gig or is it set to auto?

[3volvedcombat]

Originally Posted by Tatty_One

a GTX260 will do quite nicely for Physx, there is little point in having a dedicated card more powerful than the main card..... can I ask the OP one thing..... do you really need that much voltage on a 965 to run at under 3.8 gig or is it set to auto?

same +1

1.38 volts just for 3.47Ghz?

a i7 920 for you would be better then the 1000 dollar chip you have..

because that is one bad clocker if thats true.

[CDdude55]

Originally Posted by 3volvedcombat

same +1

1.38 volts just for 3.47Ghz?

a i7 920 for you would be better then the 1000 dollar chip you have..

because that is one bad clocker if thats true.

Originally Posted by Tatty_One

a GTX260 will do quite nicely for Physx, there is little point in having a dedicated card more powerful than the main card..... can I ask the OP one thing..... do you really need that much voltage on a 965 to run at under 3.8 gig or is it set to auto?

Well, he is running an ES 965. It's still running near stock(3.2Ghz), but i don't think the default volts are supposed to be that high.

And i agree about the physx stuff. Considering the majority of games don't use it anyways, dropping cash on a powerful card just to just physx in the games that do support it isn't the smartest thing to do.

[avatar_raq]

I think that the best physix card is the one that you have laying around
I have a 8800 GT from my previous build which I intend to install it into my current rig once I get my hand on mafia II..If this games turns out to be good and have a long single player campaign, then my old PC (used for internet surfing and anything other than gaming) will remain without VGA for a long while! Seriously though, do you believe this game will work flawless on an ATI gpu for graphics and nVIDIA gpu for phsyix? I have my doubts.

@OP:
why do you use beta drivers for nvidia? Could it be that the 258.xx whql drivers disable physix when detecting a radeon gpu? Did you use modded drivers?

[Tatty_One]

Originally Posted by CDdude55

Well, he is running an ES 965. It's still running near stock(3.2Ghz), but i don't think the default volts are that high.

And i agree about the physx stuff. Considering the majority of games don't use it anyways, dropping cash on a powerful card just to just physx in the games that do support it isn't the smartest thing to do.

My board will do upto 1.4V on auto, thing is I run her 3.9gig 24/7 and if I set VCore to auto she would give me that 1.4V however she runs at 3.9 on 1.275V with HT on.

The thing is with 260 and physx, Physx loves shader speed and with a 260 (192) with core/shaders unlinked them shaders can run at some terrific speeds.

[bakalu]

Sorry, My english is not good.

Originally Posted by mdsx1950

Exactly what i was wondering. Everyone was recommending the GT240 though the OP doesn't even

mention anything about a GT240.

Because I don't have GT240, the performance of the 9600GT is the same GT240 and GT240's power consumption is less than 9600GT.

Originally Posted by Bo_Fox

3) Metro 2033 --- Needs a GTX 480 for all the graphical goodies anyways
4) Cryostasis --- a less popular game that is poorly optimized -- also needs a powerhouse GPU

You may not believe but no PhysX in Metro 2033.

Cryotasis optimized for PhysX very good, When running demo Cryotasis, resources of VGA and PhysX card is almost 100%.

Originally Posted by 3volvedcombat

same +1

1.38 volts just for 3.47Ghz?

I setup high vCore for measuring electric power consumption, because when you overclock CPU, you have to increase CPU's vCore.

[Bo_Fox]

Originally Posted by bakalu

Sorry, My english is not good.

Because I don't have GT240, the performance of the 9600GT is the same GT240 and GT240's power consumption is less than 9600GT.

You may not believe but no PhysX in Metro 2033.

Cryotasis optimized for PhysX very good, When running demo Cryotasis, resources of VGA and PhysX card is almost 100%.

I setup high vCore for measuring electric power consumption, because when you overclock CPU, you have to increase CPU's vCore.

Cool.. there are rumors that Metro 2033 might have an updated PhysX patch that enables more effects since they are hardly noticeable and actually pretty well optimized for multi-core CPU's without NV cards (perhaps a hint that NV is finally designing PhysX to be compatible with multi-core CPU's).. what do you guys think?

What I meant about Cryostasis was that it's a poorly optimized game overall. PhysX still brought the frame rates down that much further. It was hardly playable on a GTX 295 even, at 1080p with high quality and 4xAA.

I'm personally against PhysX since it leaves ATI card owners out in the cold. Quad-core CPU's are never being pushed to the MAX, while the GPU is almost always being pushed to the MAX whenever Vsync is disabled, so it's always wise to do physics on the CPU, not on the GPU. Heck, Half Life 2 had good enough physics in my book--I dont care about the falling broken shards of glass in Mirror's Edge taking up trillions of GPU cycles, if that's all we're seeing in a split-second that does not even enhance the gaming experience any better than what could be done with Havok.

[eidairaman1]

Obviously its going to be the GTX 480.

[Tatty_One]

Lol, if anyone is really considering using a high end card such as a GTX480 for dedicated Physx (especially if their main GPU is mid ranged)..... they seriously need counselling! Just simply buy a high end NVidia GPU as a single card solution..... problem solved, money saved!