Whats up guys. So I have a i5 2500k and EVGA GTX 590 setup. I started playing Batman AC and it's amazing. With max setting and tesselation at max @ 1920x1080 my framerate is 78fps average. But when I turn on PhysX on high my FPS plummet down to @ 48FPS average. And yes I can tell a huge difference with FPS in 40-50s and locked at a constant 60fps with Vsync enabled. I guess the 590 just spoiled me because I won't except playing anything less that 60fps now, it's gorgeous.
So I'm planning to pick up a dedicated PhysX card. Anyone know what is the lowest card I can get by with PhysX on high and still producing a high FPS with my 590? I've been googling for some benchmarks but no luck. I know there arnt a lot of games but use PhysX but Batman AC PhysX are to badass to play without. Thanks.
BTW PSU no problem, I got a 1050w.
All of those except for the gts 450 are very terrible cards for dedicated physx. A old 8800gt will cream any gt430/440 any day of the week except for power consumption.
Best in slot for dedicated physx is general for most a 8800/9800gt or a gts450 single slot. For dual slot a 9800gtx+ or gtx260. The older architecture has more 32bit floating point unit performance per clock and per unit than Fermi. The main advantage that most users will see is unlinked core and shader clocks allowing you to downclock the core when desired and focus more power on the shader core alone. A very good 9800gtx+/gts250 can top the shader out at 2.1ghz. Last but not least nvidia seams to have designed the physx drivers to not fully load the card so only a certain % of the cpu can be used making cards with higher shader counts and clocks better for physx than others.
Minimum for dedicated physx that is Fermi is basically a GTS450, they have high enough shader count with decent clocks to make it fairly good for another year or two as a dedicated physx card. For retro a 9800gtx+ or gtx260 is better. Anything more than those cards isn't going to give you as much of a bang for the $$ and power used.
Originally Posted by Ray_Rogers2109
Would I really need more shaders if I don't have anything connected to the ports on the PhysX card? As stated I'm buying the Sapphire 6950 2GB with the 6970 bios switch as stated. It'll be my main graphics card. I don't think I'll even buy the PhysX card until after I buy the monitor.
So Sapphire 6950/unlocked fully to 6970 will be the main card and nVidia will just be for PhysX.The reason I suggest a card with more shaders is because nVidia likes raising the requirements. When the first released PhysX for their cards(after buying Ageia) there wasn't a minimum shader requirement. Then they made the minimum 16 shaders, then they raised it to 32 shaders sometime in the last year(I forget when). I wouldn't be surprised if they up it again to 64 shaders in the near future. So while 48 shaders will technically do now, I'd go with something with more just in case.
Originally Posted by Ray_Rogers2109
Okay I looked at the program files and features with the start menu. Says I have PhysX version 9.10.0513 Should I still need a dedicated GPU for PhysX though? Asking before I install the GPU in my system specs tomorrow (hopefully it'll arrive then).You do not need a PhysX card to use PhysX. Games that use PhysX will run in "Software" mode if a PhysX card is not detected. The physics details of the game will be run on the CPU and the physics details will be lowered so it doesn't overload the CPU. The quality without a dedicated PhysX card is equal to what you would get with other software physics engines, such as Havok or Bullet. Some games allow you to actually increase the physics details back to their full levels even when running PhysX on the CPU, however framerates tend to suck due to PhysX never being designed to run on a CPU.
Which graphics cards can accelerate NVIDIA PhysX?
All GeForce 8 series graphics cards and above with at least 256MB of local onboard graphics memory and at least 32 cores will be able to accelerate NVIDIA PhysX. If you intend to use an NVIDIA supported graphics card as a dedicated Physx card, the other graphics cards in the system must also use an NVIDIA GPU.
A dedicated video card for Physx has been tested before. My memory of the results was hazy but basically if you're running anything from a GTX560Ti above, you'll see reduced performance by doing it. It's best to leave the Physx work to the main GPU itself. There was a very slight increase in performance with lower end Nvidia cards like the 450.
Leprekaun wrote:Thanks Hammer_Time . I would have gotten a 660 Ti but it was just too much money for me . I had a budget of £200 so the 660 Ti was above that (current price: £232). Thanks for the video, it's good to know that too slow a GPU and it will hinder performance. Looking at prices of a GTX 560 Ti, I've concluded that it's DEFINITELY not worth it. Cheapest I found on eBay for a 560 is €170 which is nearly the same amount of money I spent on my GTX 660. I guess I'll just consider going SLI in a few months time when Nvidia start to introduce the GTX 700 series, that way the 600 series will be phasing out and be cheaper.
Leprekaun wrote:Something I'm finding quite strange though are the FPS differences in the Mafia II benchmark with PhysX compared to Linus in the video. He's getting an average of 49.7 FPS, I'm getting just above 30FPS and I'm running at the same core speed as he was and with 16GB of RAM, doesn't make any sense to me :/.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest