NVIDIA Removes Restriction on ATI GPUs with NVIDIA GPUs Processing PhysX

[newtekie1]

The minimum I would recommend would be a 9600GS/GSO or 8800GS. Anything below is just uncivilized

Physxinfo.com is a great site to follow when it comes to physx supported games.

You definately need G92 8800gt or better for physX in games like Batman: AA and others. The Shellshocker right now is not good enough if that is what you might be looking at as 128bit memory cripples that card.

A 9600GT with 64 shaders was more than enough to handle Batman: AA at high PhysX.

And the shellshocker would work perfectly, as it is the shader power that matters, the memory bus is relatively unimportant for PhysX performance, which is why cards like the GT240/GT220 make great PhysX cards.

WTF has physx got to offer apart from some crappy effects that have no effect on gameplay whatsoever, very limited support in games " current and in the future " with the majority being complete balls, oh yeah expect 50% drop in FPS with phsyx hardware accelerated games. Havok FTW.

PhysX and Havok, in a non hardware accelerated environemnt offer pretty much the same effects for the same performance hit, everything is run on the CPU. So really, there is no reason to say "Havok FTW", as it offers nothing over PhysX, but PhysX offers the option of hardware accleration to add more effect. Yes, more effects on the screen means more to render for the GPU, and if you have a single GPU doing PhysX also, then the performance hit can be rather noticeable. However, if you don't like it, just turn hardware accelerated PhysX off, and the game won't be any different from a Havok implementation.

 

[DaedalusHelios]

A 9600GT with 64 shaders was more than enough to handle Batman: AA at high PhysX.

And the shellshocker would work perfectly, as it is the shader power that matters, the memory bus is relatively unimportant for PhysX performance, which is why cards like the GT240/GT220 make great PhysX cards.

Define "enough". It is a subjective statement.

If what you mean by enough is it will not limit framerate when paired with a 5870 then no. I have seen people benchmark Batman: AA and they have reported that the 8800gt 512mb vanilla had less frames operating as dedicated physX than when using 8800gts 512mb and even moreso than a GTX 260 when being used with a 5870. That means frames are limited by the card when running at max resolutions and settings. Now with lesser systems it may not be the case though. I am assuming highend since this is a gaming forum and I didn't explain it fully.

 

[cdawall]

Only shitty part is my ch3 doesn't have room with 2 4850x2's installed the x1 slots are covered by the coolers would be ok if I went all water tho....hmmm tec cooled water sounds fun.

 

[ShRoOmAlIsTiC]

my 240 will be monday, ill do a bench with my 5850 and gtx260 in batman first then do another with the 5850 and the 240. Just to see how big of a difference there is in physx.


check this out
http://www.elitebastards.com/index....rticle&id=842&catid=14&Itemid=27&limitstart=3

a 9600gso and 9800gt both come out equal in physx performance

 

[DaedalusHelios]

my 240 will be monday, ill do a bench with my 5850 and gtx260 in batman first then do another with the 5850 and the 240. Just to see how big of a difference there is in physx.

Please do. I haven't seen results with a 5850 yet and the only thing I have is 5870s on the ATi side. So no way for me to test that personally.

 

[MilkyWay]

Buying a GTX260 for physx is a waste since i have a GTX 260 as my main card, the price of a GTX 260 is just not worth those few extra effects on those very few games. I also dont see a lot of developers supporting it in the future.

I cant believe you need a powerful card to run physx, not powerful maybe mid range these days but those cards arnt cheapo its definitely not worth it at all. Sure you can choose to do that if you like but it doesn't mean its value for money.

 

[OnBoard]

Really hope it's just not a simple "we forgot to block ATI cards in the Beta" seeing people buying GeForce cards If the coming WHQLs also allow this, then it should be good.

Never got why not allow as it means more sales that wouldn't have happened.

 

[ShRoOmAlIsTiC]

Buying a GTX260 for physx is a waste since i have a GTX 260 as my main card, the price of a GTX 260 is just not worth those few extra effects on those very few games. I also dont see a lot of developers supporting it in the future.

I cant believe you need a powerful card to run physx, not powerful maybe mid range these days but those cards arnt cheapo its definitely not worth it at all. Sure you can choose to do that if you like but it doesn't mean its value for money.

I got mine in a trade and kept it for physx. Not a good idea to buy a card that expensive for a physx card unless you can find one used on the forums for 100 bucks or so seeing thats how much some of the 240's and the 9800 gt's gofor.

 

[SKD007]

 

[EastCoasthandle]

They won't because the cat is now out of the bag. Lets not let pessimism and paranoia infect the thread. We have no reason to think they would be ok with commiting reputation suicide by revoking it. It would mess up marketing campaigns and things that are similar in the retail segment. The only "what if" is will they enable its acceleration on ATi GPUs. It would work as well and there is no denying that, but it could still work.

Oh they will, they will. This is Nv we are talking about here.

Yes, this is a bug in the latest build of PhysX that was packaged with the driver. We'll be fixing this issue ASAP - the WHQL driver launching in early June won't have this issue. -NVIDIA

 

[newtekie1]

Define "enough". It is a subjective statement.

If what you mean by enough is it will not limit framerate when paired with a 5870 then no. I have seen people benchmark Batman: AA and they have reported that the 8800gt 512mb vanilla had less frames operating as dedicated physX than when using 8800gts 512mb and even moreso than a GTX 260 when being used with a 5870. That means frames are limited by the card when running at max resolutions and settings. Now with lesser systems it may not be the case though. I am assuming highend since this is a gaming forum and I didn't explain it fully.

I haven't tested with a HD5800 card, but with the HD4890, there was no difference in performance between the 9600GT, my GTX260, and my GTX285 doing PhysX. However, the HD4890 might have been holding back the performance.

I don't have a HD5850, but I do have an GTX470, I'll test the 9600GT vs. GTX285 to see if there is a difference in performance between thet two this weekend.

Oh they will, they will. This is Nv we are talking about here.

Damn, that really sucks.

 

[erocker]

I'm currently running two 5850's with a GT 240 for PhysX just fine. Going to pick up Batman tonight. What tests do you guys need done?

 

[poldo]

sorry guys, false alarm.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3744/...terogeneous-gpu-physx-its-a-bug-not-a-feature

Yes, this is a bug in the latest build of PhysX that was packaged with the driver. We'll be fixing this issue ASAP - the WHQL driver launching in early June won't have this issue. -NVIDIA

quoted from Anandtech:

NVIDIA tells us that they will also be "fixing" the 257.15 beta driver on their site, so new downloads of that driver will have the restriction in place.

 

[qubit]

sorry guys, false alarm.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3744/...terogeneous-gpu-physx-its-a-bug-not-a-feature

Phew, that's a relief.

Sounded too good to be true, didn't it? No wonder no official announcement.

 

[$immond$]

I really hope this pisses off those f**king annoying ATI purists.

You all know who you are.

 

[DannibusX]

I really hope this pisses off those f**king annoying ATI purists.

You all know who you are.

Huh?

 

[EastCoasthandle]

I really hope this pisses off those f**king annoying ATI purists.

You all know who you are.

I'm not sure what you mean. They still get an updated driver to use for mods.

 

[erocker]

Disregard their comment. It's been dealt with.

 

[Phxprovost]

sorry guys, false alarm.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3744/...terogeneous-gpu-physx-its-a-bug-not-a-feature

............. sounds about right

 

[christian27]

I knew it was too good coming from Nvidia

 

[slyfox2151]

its a bug not a feature, good bye physx with ATI again. that was short lived

 

[Loosenut]

its a bug not a feature, good bye physx with ATI again. that was short lived

"bug" They made it sound like a disease. :shadedshu

I'm sure someone has a copy somewhere if I ever want to try it.

 

[enaher]

sorry guys, false alarm.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3744/...terogeneous-gpu-physx-its-a-bug-not-a-feature

Dman that sucks... well to bad still think it's better for nvidia to allow at card tu use a nvidia card for physx...

 

[wahdangun]

Oh they will, they will. This is Nv we are talking about here.

wow, what a dic* move nvdia.

and ppl who consider buying nv card for phisyx would be pissed right now.

EDIT : and btw btanur should update the news

 

[crow1001]

Ah well no big loss, in fact no loss at all.