Overclock.net › Forums › Graphics Cards › NVIDIA › Proper PhysX card for...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Proper PhysX card for... - Page 5

post #41 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken1649 View Post
If you look at post #2, all the links are there.

That's the easy part, just 3 simple steps:

1. Install Forceware 285.xx (do not restart).
2. Install PhysX SS (do not restart).
3. Run the PhysX Patch (restart PC).

Done.

Verify with GPU-Z, if PhysX is checked, it was installed correctly.
nice. It seems easier than before
Fun stuff
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 950 @ 4.2ghz ht on 1.408 ASUS P6X58D Premium EVGA Gtx780 Classified 3x2 G skill 1600 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 8.1 Pro LG E2370V-BF 1920x1080[IPS] FILCO Majestouch Tenkeyless Antec SG-850 
CaseMouseAudio
Corsair 400R DeathAdder 3500dpi Onboard Optical - Audioengine D1 - HiFiMAN HE-400 
  hide details  
Reply
Fun stuff
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 950 @ 4.2ghz ht on 1.408 ASUS P6X58D Premium EVGA Gtx780 Classified 3x2 G skill 1600 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 8.1 Pro LG E2370V-BF 1920x1080[IPS] FILCO Majestouch Tenkeyless Antec SG-850 
CaseMouseAudio
Corsair 400R DeathAdder 3500dpi Onboard Optical - Audioengine D1 - HiFiMAN HE-400 
  hide details  
Reply
post #42 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Doe View Post
What number? The info is there full stop. PhysX doesn't have anything to do with graphics, and even when a GT 240 improves performance over 260 Tri-SLi (which is as fast as a 480-580), a GT430 WILL. Period. You're being silly.
Clearly you have never tried using a low end nVidia GPU as a dedicated PhysX card. You claim even a gt 240 improves performance with a gtx580, in parenthesis, but you still made that claim. I had to take my gt240 out of my htpc, and run some tests with my gtx 580, even though I had tested it with my gtx470 sli configuration in the past.

I just ran a quick test, using the benchmark tool of the 3 games I have installed (47 total) that actually use hardware accelerated PhysX. I used max settings in each game at 1920x1080p resolution, with hardware accelerate PhysX enabled obviously.

Here are the results:

GTX580
Mafia II: avg 51.5

Batman:AA
Min: 72
Max: 156
Avg: 112

Metro 2033
Average Framerate: 50.33
Max. Framerate: 119.69
Min. Framerate: 0.63

GTX580 + gt240
Mafia II: avg 36.9

Batman:AA
min: 54
max: 140
avg: 92

Metro 2033
Average Framerate: 53.33
Max. Framerate: 117.16
Min. Framerate: 13.48

In 2 of the 3 games I tested, performance was worse with a low end nvidia GPU. I doubt the results would vary much with a gt430. Metro 2033 was slightly better, but honestly I didn't notice the PhysX too much in that benchmark. I thought Mafia II's benchmark was the most PhysX intense with all the fire, and cloth on the player models. Batman also had noticeable PhysX effects going on in the benchmark.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paratrooper1n0 View Post
I apologize if I came across as bashing. Your statement proved you prefer sub-par games though and typically pc gamers do not fall for the hype.
No worries, bro, I don't really care if people bash me on OCN, I usually take it with a grain of salt.

I don't know as if my statement proved I prefer sub-par games. I guess I should have been more clear, of the games I have tried with hardware accelerated PhysX, Batman:AA was the one I found the most enjoyable. It wasn't necessarily a great game, I probably only enjoyed it because I'm a batman fanboy, and I got it cheap during a steam sale. I am definitely going to wait a while for the new one to drop in price if I do get it.

There are only a handful of hardware accelerated PhysX games out there, 17 to be precise, here's the list:

http://physxinfo.com/index.php?p=gam&f=gpu

I guess if you like to play any of those 17 games on a regular basis, you should probably pick up a dedicated physx card. I don't play any of them on a regular basis, and I highly doubt you do.

I haven't played GRAW2, but that looks like about the best game on the list. I liked Rainbow Six when I was younger, but I didn't play pc games for about 8 years or so. I only recently got back into pc gaming in the last 2 years, so that's one of the games I missed. Even if it is a great game, it's 4 years old, so I doubt anybody plays it much in 2011.

Now I will go back to playing the "sub-par" bf3.
Edited by anubis1127 - 11/1/11 at 11:25pm
post #43 of 43
Ok, well, I've done my best to clean up this thread. What a mess you guys have made Sorry for the cases where I deleted posts that were non-offensive, but the reason I did so in most cases was because they contained quotes of offensive/ToS-violating posts.

As someone who's a bit of an expert on the subject of physX (and I think most who know me will acknowledge my expertise) I'm going to leave you with my own words of wisdom

First off, Dagan, Birdman,and Thrasher have the right idea, and Johnny Doe, I'm sorry, but you're wrong in much of what you've said , and your posting style of declaring people "WRONG" at the beginning of many posts, and ridiculing others on the boards ... is simply not how we interact with one another here on OCN (for anyone confused about this statement, understand that much of what JD has posted has since been deleted).

The simple fact of the matter is that PhysX calcs and graphics are NOT separated.

As MANY posters have tried to explain to JD, the reason that increased rendering power in your 'primary' GPU's affects the amount of physX 'power' you need in your dedicated physX card is very simple ... it's because with more rendering power, you expect more FPS.

IOW, the more rendering power you have in your main card(s), the higher the FPS, and hence, the faster your dedicated physX card needs to be in order for it to be able to 'keep up', i.e. to provide the physX calcs as quickly as your rendering cards need them to be done.

Ironically, the very FPS diagram JD posted provides a perfect illustration of the exact opposite of what he himself is claiming.

To whit:



First off, unfortunately, they did not do 3x260SLI + 260 for physX in this test. That basically renders the 3xSLI results entirely irrelevant, because we lack apples/apples comparison between the 240 and the 260 in terms of physX perf with tri-SLI 260's.

So let's look at the results here that actually DO provide illustrative data, which is the 1xSLI vs 2xSLI data, comparing the 240 against the 260 for physX.

You need only observe the following numbers, because these are all that are relevant from this diagram:

Single 260 + GT240 = 51fps
Single 260 + GTX260 = 51fps
Difference in performance going from 240 to 260 for physX, w/single GTX260 = 0%

SLI 260 + GT240 = 80fps
SLI 260 + GT260 = 88fps
Difference in performance going from 240 to 260 for physX, w/SLI GTX260 = 10%

These results 100% and absolutely back up the point that Birdman and the others are making. The more powerful the primary card(s), the more benefit is derived from having a more powerful physX card. And this is because physX is NOT separate from rendering. The faster that your primary cards are rendering, the more physX power you need in order to 'keep up'.

If JD's basic claim was true that physX is entirely separate from the rendering task, and that the GT240 is ALWAYS enough physX power, we simply WOULD NOT SEE the increase in performance for the GTX260 vs. the GT240 when we went from a single 260 to SLI 260's. But WE DO.

It is PRECISELY because the FPS was raised between a single 260 and SLI260 that the performance of the GT240 for physX begins to 'fall off' vs using the GTX260 for physX.

And I can 100% guarantee all of you readers that if there were results on this graph for Tri-SLI 260's + GTX260 for physX, we would see that the improvement for the 260 vs the 240 would be EVEN MORE than the 10% improvement seen in 2xSLI. Because the FPS would higher, and the physX performance of the GT240 would fall even further behind the performance of the GTX260.

Now ... moving forward, I expect the dialog in this thread to remain CIVIL, and profanity-free. Also, the personal attacks/name-calling between members needs to STOP. Otherwise, I will be closing this thread. Do we understand each other?
Edited by brettjv - 11/2/11 at 12:36am
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
xeon X5675 6-core @ 4.1ghz (1.29v, 20x205 +ht ) rampage iii extreme msi rx470 gaming X (the $159 budget king) 3 x 2gb corsair xms3 pc12800 (9-9-9-24-1T@1600MHz) 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
hynix 250gb ssd (boot), 2tb deskstar (apps),1tb... plextor px-712sa - still the best optical drive... corsair h8o v2 aio W10 home 
MonitorPowerCaseAudio
asus vw266h 25.5" (1920x1200) abs sl (enermax revolution) * single 70A rail 850w silverstone rv-03 XFi Titanium 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
xeon X5675 6-core @ 4.1ghz (1.29v, 20x205 +ht ) rampage iii extreme msi rx470 gaming X (the $159 budget king) 3 x 2gb corsair xms3 pc12800 (9-9-9-24-1T@1600MHz) 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
hynix 250gb ssd (boot), 2tb deskstar (apps),1tb... plextor px-712sa - still the best optical drive... corsair h8o v2 aio W10 home 
MonitorPowerCaseAudio
asus vw266h 25.5" (1920x1200) abs sl (enermax revolution) * single 70A rail 850w silverstone rv-03 XFi Titanium 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: NVIDIA
Overclock.net › Forums › Graphics Cards › NVIDIA › Proper PhysX card for...