A ? about adding a PhysX card to my system

[exodusprime1337]

ok yeah i had it lying around.. it seems to work fine in the games i play that use physx.. my 5870's seem to be more than enough to play them anyways, just the little added benefit is good i guess.. i was more refering to will it cause a hurt to performance in anyway?

 

[Benetanegia]

ok yeah i had it lying around.. it seems to work fine in the games i play that use physx.. my 5870's seem to be more than enough to play them anyways, just the little added benefit is good i guess.. i was more refering to will it cause a hurt to performance in anyway?

Only from the added detail. Look at the Metro 2033 graph that I posted. @1920x1200 the fps go from 44 with GPU physx disabled to 39 with physx enabled. IMO it's really worth it, unless enabling physx "degrades" fps below what your low limit is, below the point you start feeling they're low.

 

[exodusprime1337]

oic cool that makes sense thank you for pointing that out, always had cards that had physx, but coming to amd only products addinga physx card is a bit foreign

 

[AmigaWolf]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-physx-hack-amd-radeon,2764-4.html

There you have one more proof to that "he is right 90% of the times" (that's irony if you didn't get it)



A 10%-20% improvement. So much for the headlines. So much for spending millions of dollars updating it, especially since it's not meant to be run on the CPU.

*Edit: Oh and that's Bullet BTW, a CPU physics provider that is closely working with AMD so it should be good and use SSE2, yet it looks like they use x87 too. Maybe there's a reason for using x87 other than crippling performance on the CPU?

And the other question about it running on multiple cores.

http://media.bestofmicro.com/5/T/260705/original/cpugpu_metro2033.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/9/5/260825/original/fps_metro2033.png

Oh a 4 Ghz ~$200 6-core CPU "comes close" to a dedicated card, a dedicated card that could have been a cheap GT240 or used 9600/9800.

And sure that they could use all the available cores on a i7 or Phenom x6 and be close to what GPU physics offers, but what about the 90% of the rest of people who only have quads or lower? What about the 60% that still has dualies? It's just not profitable to create something for such a small number of people, especially when at least half of those people have Nvidia card anyway, and many of the other half would not mind buying a $75 Nvidia card to accompany their $500 CPU and $500 GPU...

Ultimately what most people forget is that for the consumer, should he want to take benefit of the added details, it is also better to "be forced" to buy a Nvidia card next time he upgrades or "be forced" to buy a cheap Nvidia card as dedicated card, than to "be forced" to buy a new $200 CPU + $150 mobo + $80 memory every time that a new game uses more details than what his current CPU can handle.

Thank you for that info, it's good to see that there are still people that do there home work and let us know whats going on.

Dos anybody know how many PhysX games are coming in 2011?

 

[micropage7]

9600GT is ideal, u can use something lower that than but something with 96 shaders would preform physx top notch, 32 shaders work but i have seen some cases were it made it worse.

umm what about 8600GT? with 256mb memory, does it run well?

 

[AmigaWolf]

umm what about 8600GT? with 256mb memory, does it run well?

No it dos not do well, best to have a 8800 or higher for PhysX.

As you can see here:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-physx-hack-amd-radeon,2764-8.html


But it will give you some extra frames, but only some.

And a Geforce GT 250 or higher is best for PhysX in games, and PCIe 4x slot is fast Enough
for a Geforce GT 250, even a 260, and with a Geforce GTX 285 you only loss 2 a 3 FPS if
you put it in a PCIe 4x slot.

So know i also know my own question can i use a PCIe 4x slot for a Geforce GTX 430, and the
answer is yes.

 

[Inq]

I'm interested to see if you got this working. I have a build for my brother and I purchased the GT 430 for a PCIe 4x slot and it is not working. Colors are all messed up and it defaults to being stuck at 800x600 resolution.

Let me know if you get this working. I'd be interested to see what I'm doing wrong!

 

[AmigaWolf]

I'm interested to see if you got this working. I have a build for my brother and I purchased the GT 430 for a PCIe 4x slot and it is not working. Colors are all messed up and it defaults to being stuck at 800x600 resolution.

Let me know if you get this working. I'd be interested to see what I'm doing wrong!

OK i will let you know, but first i have to get my paycheck, and thats gone be 2 a 4 weeks, so be patient.

But I also want to know if there are coming new PhysX games out in 2011, if not i am thinking of
not going to buy a GFX Card for PhysX.


UPDATE: Are you using the Geforce GT 430 as a PhysX Card or as normal card?

If you use it as a PhysX Card then you must not use the DVI HDMI out of your Geforce GT 430 PhysX Card
but of your normal card.

And also uninstall the Geforce driver and then use Driver Sweeper and then after you restart again install
the newest driver from NVIDIA.

Driver Sweeper 2.7.5

Geforce Win7 64 bit 260.99 WHQL
Geforce Win7 32 bit 260.99 WHQL

 

[Inq]

Oh jeez! Thanks for the information! I'm actually using it as the main graphics card for a micro build I'm going to put into an original xbox and load it up with windows 7 for my brother for xmas.

I'm using an asus at5iont motherboard, which only has 1 pcie x4 slot (open ended) on it. The interesting part is when I installed it w/ out drivers it works perfectly. Good resolution, good quality colors everything is normal. But when I install the drivers (the most current ones you listed above) it distorts everything. Colors go to ~16 total colors and the resolution is frozen at 800x600.

I spoke with EVGA tech support who told me that ALL pins must make contact with the connected port. Otherwise the card will not function properly. To which I asked why it worked w/ out drivers... He didn't really have an answer. Which means EVGA just won't help with the problem because it isn't worth their time, hasn't been tested, isn't labeled for that kind of use and obviously the drivers aren't capable.

I'm thinking there may be a work around in the .ini file.... So I jumped in there only to realize I was lost in another dimension of oddly displayed keystrokes.

The reason I am using it is because when I load up some roms the games stutter. Which is odd because the on board card should be enough to handle some simple roms.

I heard the GT 250 performs extremely well for a dedicated PhysX card... The evga guy even said it would most likely perform better than the 430. I honestly am not sure why I would think a fermi would be optimal, but that's at least what the EVGA guy told me.

 

[AmigaWolf]

You can try the Geforce 263.09 WHQL drivers they normally only work on the new GeForce GTX
580 and GeForce GTX 460 SE but with a moded inf file they work great on all the other Geforce
Cards.

I Here some good things of that driver, so try it and let me know how it went.


You can find the driver and the moded inf file here:
http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=332876

 

[Inq]

never done this before but i'm going to give it a go! Thanks for the link man I'll let you know how it goes!

 

[silkstone]

Does anyone know wheter i would theoretically be able to get a 8500GT and slot it in the PciE 4x slot on my board and run it as a PhysX Card?

 

[micropage7]

i guess if you gaming much its kinda worth spend little buy low entry card for add on physx than push yourself to buy high end card, if you use fast card it could handle both: graphic and physx but if use add on physx it would be better