Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

660Ti w/GT640 as PhysX GPU, OR HD4000 as PhysX possible?

Tags:
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
April 22, 2013 10:45:41 AM

I have a 660Ti and I play a few games that have PhysX, like Batman, BL2, and I think Metro 2033 has PhysX. I was thinking of getting a GT640 for 89.99 to have as my dedicated PhysX GPU. The reason I'm going with the 640 is because it has the same amount of CUDA cores as the GTX650 and it doesn't require a 6 pin power connector, so I can just plug it in and it'll work.

So I notice, particularly in Borderlands 2, that when bullets are flying I get frame rate drops down to 45FPS and noticeably longer frame latency that impacts my game play in a negative way. Even if I turn down graphics settings this still happens because of PhysX. It only stops if I turn PhysX on low. And I have a powerful graphics card, I normally run this game from 75-120FPS at MAX settings except for when PhysX kicks in. And I'd like it to run at a higher FPS because of my 120hz monitor and I'd also like higher minimums of at least 60FPS, and no more latency issues.

I'm contemplating doing this, but I don't know if it'll be worth the 90 bucks. How are Nvidia's PhysX drivers? Will there be a decent amount of PhysX games that'll come out in the near future? I think Metro Last Light will be one because(correct me if I'm wrong)Metro 2033 has PhysX.

Any answers would be appreciated. Hopefully someone can sway be one way or the other because I see on a few forums that lots of people have dedicated PhysX GPU's and they seem to enjoy the performance benefit from. Granted, most of the people already had an old GPU, so I guess that's the best case scenario.

Also, I just thought of this... Would it be possible to run PhysX on my HD4000 graphics iGPU? I have it on my 3570k but I think it's disabled because there's no option for it in my Nvidia control panel. I heard some mobo's disable HD4000 or if you have a dedicated GPU it disables it. Would I be able to enable my HD4000 graphics? Is that possible? I have a laptop with both a GT650m and HD4000 enabled, I'll check when I get home from work if you can use it for PhysX.

Again, any answer to any of my questions would be appreciated.

More about : 660ti gt640 physx gpu hd4000 physx

April 22, 2013 10:54:17 AM

CUDA cores are key for a dedicated PhysX card. A GT640 is an excellent choice as it has a high CUDA core count and runs quietly with very low power consumption.

No you cannot use your Intel on-board graphics for PhysX; Nvidia cards only.

With a good PhysX card, you will get roughly 25% better performance on those PhysX games you play. Metro: Last Light will feature PhysX when it comes out next month.
m
0
l
April 22, 2013 11:24:13 AM

17seconds said:
CUDA cores are key for a dedicated PhysX card. A GT640 is an excellent choice as it has a high CUDA core count and runs quietly with very low power consumption.

No you cannot use your Intel on-board graphics for PhysX; Nvidia cards only.

With a good PhysX card, you will get roughly 25% better performance on those PhysX games you play. Metro: Last Light will feature PhysX when it comes out next month.


Cool, so your onboard for gettings a PhysX GPU huh? Think it's a good idea? Do you currently use a dedicated PhysX GPU?

I also have another question if you don't mind asking. Do HD4000 graphics automatically become disabled when you add a discrete graphics card? What if I wanted to use the feature quick sync(hypothetically)? I know laptops are different, but on my DV6 I can switch between my GT650m and HD4000 iGPU. I guess you can't do the same thing on a desktop?
m
0
l
Related resources
April 22, 2013 11:37:39 AM

OK nevermind ok the HD4000 question as I've got that answered for me already. I'd still like to know if you own a dedicated PhysX graphics card.
m
0
l
April 22, 2013 11:52:04 AM

ericjohn004 said:
17seconds said:
CUDA cores are key for a dedicated PhysX card. A GT640 is an excellent choice as it has a high CUDA core count and runs quietly with very low power consumption.

No you cannot use your Intel on-board graphics for PhysX; Nvidia cards only.

With a good PhysX card, you will get roughly 25% better performance on those PhysX games you play. Metro: Last Light will feature PhysX when it comes out next month.


Cool, so your onboard for gettings a PhysX GPU huh? Think it's a good idea? Do you currently use a dedicated PhysX GPU?

I also have another question if you don't mind asking. Do HD4000 graphics automatically become disabled when you add a discrete graphics card? What if I wanted to use the feature quick sync(hypothetically)? I know laptops are different, but on my DV6 I can switch between my GT650m and HD4000 iGPU. I guess you can't do the same thing on a desktop?


Sorry, I'm not familiar with on-board graphics on my setup. I also don't run a dedicated PhysX card with my GTX 580, but I have done A LOT of research on this topic for these forums. I have played the Batman games, Metro: 2033, and Mafia 2, and have seen how enabling PhysX can deliver quite a hit to performance. With the right dedicated PhysX card, that performance hit is eliminated.

I think if you play PhysX games then a dedicated PhysX card is a good idea... provided you need the extra performance. Since you have already described slowdowns in Borderlands 2, then its a logical improvement. The Batman games will love the dedicated PPU. One of the most demanding PhysX games is the special PhysX pack for Unreal Tournament 3. In these circumstances a dedicated PhysX card can help a lot.

With the GT 640, it eliminates much of the concern with adding a dedicated PhysX card; too much heat, power consumption, and noise is added to justify one. The GT 640 is a very economical and will add very little idle overhead to your system when not playing PhysX games.

Here is one example of Batman performance with PhysX On versus Off. With a dedicated PhysX card, the performance is equal to the performance for Off.
http://physxinfo.com/news/6922/batman-arkham-city-physx...


And for Borderlands 2, in fact, according to this chart you will get double the framerate with a dedicated PPU:
http://physxinfo.com/news/9653/borderlands-2-physx-benc...
m
0
l
April 22, 2013 11:54:50 AM

17seconds said:
CUDA cores are key for a dedicated PhysX card. A GT640 is an excellent choice as it has a high CUDA core count and runs quietly with very low power consumption.

No you cannot use your Intel on-board graphics for PhysX; Nvidia cards only.

With a good PhysX card, you will get roughly 25% better performance on those PhysX games you play. Metro: Last Light will feature PhysX when it comes out next month.


LOL no you don't get a performance boost when running Physx rather it requires much resources to run Physx and in return you will notice a hit on the frame rate when running Physx.
m
0
l
April 22, 2013 12:04:00 PM

Duke Nucome said:
17seconds said:

With a good PhysX card, you will get roughly 25% better performance on those PhysX games you play. Metro: Last Light will feature PhysX when it comes out next month.

LOL no you don't get a performance boost when running Physx rather it requires much resources to run Physx and in return you will notice a hit on the frame rate when running Physx.

That's exactly the point.
m
0
l
April 22, 2013 12:08:12 PM

17seconds said:
Duke Nucome said:
17seconds said:

With a good PhysX card, you will get roughly 25% better performance on those PhysX games you play. Metro: Last Light will feature PhysX when it comes out next month.

LOL no you don't get a performance boost when running Physx rather it requires much resources to run Physx and in return you will notice a hit on the frame rate when running Physx.

That's exactly the point.


You don't gain 25% performs with Physx turned on. That preposterous LOL.
m
0
l
April 22, 2013 12:22:37 PM

Duke Nucome said:
17seconds said:
Duke Nucome said:
17seconds said:

With a good PhysX card, you will get roughly 25% better performance on those PhysX games you play. Metro: Last Light will feature PhysX when it comes out next month.

LOL no you don't get a performance boost when running Physx rather it requires much resources to run Physx and in return you will notice a hit on the frame rate when running Physx.

That's exactly the point.


You don't gain 25% performs with Physx turned on. That preposterous LOL.

Re-reading this thread would help you to understand the topic.
m
0
l
April 22, 2013 12:26:17 PM

17seconds said:
Duke Nucome said:
17seconds said:
Duke Nucome said:
17seconds said:

With a good PhysX card, you will get roughly 25% better performance on those PhysX games you play. Metro: Last Light will feature PhysX when it comes out next month.

LOL no you don't get a performance boost when running Physx rather it requires much resources to run Physx and in return you will notice a hit on the frame rate when running Physx.

That's exactly the point.


You don't gain 25% performs with Physx turned on. That preposterous LOL.

Re-reading this thread would help you to understand the topic.


Well turning Physx off gets you a much more optimized experience without the hassle of trying to hack in an additional space heater to run Physx. The only thing that Physx adds to metro is more smoke and dropped frame rates and frame times.
m
0
l
April 22, 2013 12:31:41 PM

Duke Nucome said:
17seconds said:
Duke Nucome said:
17seconds said:
Duke Nucome said:
17seconds said:

With a good PhysX card, you will get roughly 25% better performance on those PhysX games you play. Metro: Last Light will feature PhysX when it comes out next month.

LOL no you don't get a performance boost when running Physx rather it requires much resources to run Physx and in return you will notice a hit on the frame rate when running Physx.

That's exactly the point.


You don't gain 25% performs with Physx turned on. That preposterous LOL.

Re-reading this thread would help you to understand the topic.


Well turning Physx off gets you a much more optimized experience without the hassle of trying to hack in an additional space heater to run Physx. The only thing that Physx adds to metro is more smoke and dropped frame rates and frame times.


You really don't know diddly squat and should really stop posting here.
m
0
l
April 22, 2013 12:37:18 PM

Mousemonkey said:
Duke Nucome said:
17seconds said:
Duke Nucome said:
17seconds said:
Duke Nucome said:
17seconds said:

With a good PhysX card, you will get roughly 25% better performance on those PhysX games you play. Metro: Last Light will feature PhysX when it comes out next month.

LOL no you don't get a performance boost when running Physx rather it requires much resources to run Physx and in return you will notice a hit on the frame rate when running Physx.

That's exactly the point.


You don't gain 25% performs with Physx turned on. That preposterous LOL.

Re-reading this thread would help you to understand the topic.


Well turning Physx off gets you a much more optimized experience without the hassle of trying to hack in an additional space heater to run Physx. The only thing that Physx adds to metro is more smoke and dropped frame rates and frame times.


You really don't know diddly squat and should really stop posting here.


Just wondering how Physx for the OP could magically make the game BL2 run smoother with additional framerates is all. Can you set the record straight or does my opinion for OP not count ?
m
0
l
April 22, 2013 12:42:16 PM

17seconds said:

Here is one example of Batman performance with PhysX On versus Off. With a dedicated PhysX card, the performance is equal to the performance for Off.
http://physxinfo.com/news/6922/batman-arkham-city-physx...


And for Borderlands 2, in fact, according to this chart you will get double the framerate with a dedicated PPU:
http://physxinfo.com/news/9653/borderlands-2-physx-benc...


Seems like nvidia is up to their dirty old marketing tricks again.
http://semiaccurate.com/2010/07/07/nvidia-purposefully-...
m
0
l
April 22, 2013 12:42:45 PM

If a dedicated GPU is used then the OP will will be using less of the primary for PhysX hence the additional fps. Have not tried this yourself?
m
0
l
April 22, 2013 12:46:56 PM

Mousemonkey said:
If a dedicated GPU is used then the OP will will be using less of the primary for PhysX hence the additional fps. Have not tried this yourself?


Yes I tried a dedicated GPU to run Physx in Metro 2033 but I did not have a satisfactory experience and I noticed frame times drops so I reverted back to graphics by AMD Radeon HD and now Metro 2033 runs as good as gold.
m
0
l
April 22, 2013 12:54:21 PM

So you base everything from one experience with one game?
m
0
l
April 22, 2013 1:02:33 PM

Mousemonkey said:
So you base everything from one experience with one game?


Extra Goo effects in BL2 did not justify the performance decrease for me personal.
m
0
l
April 22, 2013 1:12:06 PM

As I don't get a performance decrease in either of those games I think you may have been doing something wrong, that's my personal opinion.
m
0
l
April 22, 2013 1:43:20 PM

Mousemonkey said:
As I don't get a performance decrease in either of those games I think you may have been doing something wrong, that's my personal opinion.


I would wager you have multiple hundreds of dollars sunk into nvidia graphics and Intel CPUs to run Physx. Personally I don't enjoy most of the Games by nvidia with GPU accelerated Physx so I am not about to drop $500+ just to run the two games that I rarely play aside from bencmarking that have Physx.
m
0
l
April 22, 2013 1:49:32 PM

Duke Nucome said:
Mousemonkey said:
As I don't get a performance decrease in either of those games I think you may have been doing something wrong, that's my personal opinion.


I would wager you have multiple hundreds of dollars sunk into nvidia graphics and Intel CPUs to run Physx. Personally I don't enjoy most of the Games by nvidia with GPU accelerated Physx so I am not about to drop $500+ just to run the two games that I rarely play aside from bencmarking that have Physx.

That's a wager you would lose then, now stay on topic.
m
0
l
April 23, 2013 11:06:49 AM

Duke Nucome said:
Mousemonkey said:
As I don't get a performance decrease in either of those games I think you may have been doing something wrong, that's my personal opinion.


I would wager you have multiple hundreds of dollars sunk into nvidia graphics and Intel CPUs to run Physx. Personally I don't enjoy most of the Games by nvidia with GPU accelerated Physx so I am not about to drop $500+ just to run the two games that I rarely play aside from bencmarking that have Physx.



Dude you don't even know what you are talking about. And surely your not helping me of all. And of course your going to get less FPS. It's more graphics intensive OBVIOUSLY. And since it's so graphics intensive, you run a dedicated PhysX card, OBVIOUSLY. And no, it cost me 80 bucks for a dedicated PhysX card, not 500$. And if you don't like PhysX effects then somethings just wrong with you in the first place. How can you not like those effects? Hmmm, maybe because your a biased AMD owned so what are you doing on this thread in the first place? I very highly doubt you ever even owned an Nvidia card as mine runs Metro 2033 perfectly. If your comparing turning PhysX on to turning PhysX off and getting better FPS, then that so freaking obvious. You turn a setting up, you get less FPS, that's so obvious. And yet you don't seem to understand that.


Edit: And what does having an Intel CPU have to do with running PhysX? NOTHING at all. So this just tells me your a biased AMD fan as you don't even use a CPU on PhysX, so why would I buy Intel just to run it? Just goes to show your biased and misinformed that's all. Go do some research, go watch some PhysX effects again, and then come back here and tell me if I need an Intel CPU and that PhysX isn't worth it. Every explosion, shot of a bullet, spark, blood, any particle, goo, water, smoke, force fields, collisions, that's ALL PhysX, and if you don't like it then you don't like graphics. Personally I enjoy PhysX, so just because AMD doesn't have this awesome feature doesn't mean you should hate on it.
m
0
l
April 23, 2013 11:20:03 AM

Mousemonkey said:
Duke Nucome said:
Mousemonkey said:
As I don't get a performance decrease in either of those games I think you may have been doing something wrong, that's my personal opinion.


I would wager you have multiple hundreds of dollars sunk into nvidia graphics and Intel CPUs to run Physx. Personally I don't enjoy most of the Games by nvidia with GPU accelerated Physx so I am not about to drop $500+ just to run the two games that I rarely play aside from bencmarking that have Physx.


That's a wager you would lose then, now stay on topic.


Hahaha, I think it's funny how biased owners of certain parts come into a thread knowing nothing about what the threads about, and think they can comment on it and not get showed up. I mean seriously, how can running an Nvidia graphic card, on an Nvidia powered PhysX game, hurt performance? Yeah it'll lower FPS if you have PhysX on, but that's just obvious. The point in getting a dedicated PhysX card is so having PhysX on won't hurt performance and you get PhysX. It's not like you have to have a dedicated PhysX card. It just gives you even better performance. And being that some of the most popular games in the world have PhysX like Borderlands 2, Batman, Metro 2033, Metro Last Light, and many more, it would make sense that you got an Nvidia card to enjoy the full experience. And I'm sure more titles will have it in the future.
m
0
l
April 23, 2013 11:45:06 AM

Well put.
m
0
l
April 23, 2013 12:14:06 PM

ericjohn004 said:
Mousemonkey said:
Duke Nucome said:
10702625,0,95933 said:
As I don't get a performance decrease in either of those games I think you may have been doing something wrong, that's my personal opinion.
said:


I would wager you have multiple hundreds of dollars sunk into nvidia graphics and Intel CPUs to run Physx. Personally I don't enjoy most of the Games by nvidia with GPU accelerated Physx so I am not about to drop $500+ just to run the two games that I rarely play aside from bencmarking that have Physx.
said:


That's a wager you would lose then, now stay on topic.
said:


ericjohn004 said:
Hahaha, I think it's funny how biased owners of certain parts come into a thread knowing nothing about what the threads about, and think they can comment on it and not get showed up. I mean seriously, how can running an Nvidia graphic card, on an Nvidia powered PhysX game, hurt performance? Yeah it'll lower FPS if you have PhysX on, but that's just obvious. The point in getting a dedicated PhysX card is so having PhysX on won't hurt performance and you get PhysX. It's not like you have to have a dedicated PhysX card. It just gives you even better performance.


ericjohn004 said:
And being that some of the most popular games in the world have PhysX like Borderlands 2, Batman, Metro 2033, Metro Last Light,

That's it for the popular games there is not more and being that AMD has a lock on the new consoles nvidia will not be getting much love from game developers to encode buggy Physx into games.
http://physxinfo.com/

ericjohn004 said:
and many more, it would make sense that you got an Nvidia card to enjoy the full experience. And I'm sure more titles will have it in the future.


Point was I am not willing to invest $600+ dollars into SLI cards like him to get a game running property with Physx since there are so few good games that have Physx and the two that I play are essentially used for benchmarking for me personally.
m
0
l
April 23, 2013 12:22:41 PM

No one has to cough up $600, anyone could do that for only a third of that price and it doesn't take that much of a card to run physx. If you are still sold on the idea and without a 6pin connector then your options are limited. A GT640 is ok for the job and the memory bandwidth won't hold it back too much for physx only but don't bother paying retail for one when a used GT640 sometimes is as low as $40 before ship.
m
0
l
April 23, 2013 12:26:10 PM

ericjohn004 said:
Duke Nucome said:
Mousemonkey said:
As I don't get a performance decrease in either of those games I think you may have been doing something wrong, that's my personal opinion.


I would wager you have multiple hundreds of dollars sunk into nvidia graphics and Intel CPUs to run Physx. Personally I don't enjoy most of the Games by nvidia with GPU accelerated Physx so I am not about to drop $500+ just to run the two games that I rarely play aside from bencmarking that have Physx.



Dude you don't even know what you are talking about. And surely your not helping me of all. And of course your going to get less FPS. It's more graphics intensive OBVIOUSLY. And since it's so graphics intensive, you run a dedicated PhysX card, OBVIOUSLY. And no, it cost me 80 bucks for a dedicated PhysX card, not 500$. And if you don't like PhysX effects then somethings just wrong with you in the first place. How can you not like those effects? Hmmm, maybe because your a biased AMD owned so what are you doing on this thread in the first place? I very highly doubt you ever even owned an Nvidia card as mine runs Metro 2033 perfectly. If your comparing turning PhysX on to turning PhysX off and getting better FPS, then that so freaking obvious. You turn a setting up, you get less FPS, that's so obvious. And yet you don't seem to understand that.


Edit: And what does having an Intel CPU have to do with running PhysX? NOTHING at all. So this just tells me your a biased AMD fan as you don't even use a CPU on PhysX, so why would I buy Intel just to run it? Just goes to show your biased and misinformed that's all. Go do some research, go watch some PhysX effects again, and then come back here and tell me if I need an Intel CPU and that PhysX isn't worth it. Every explosion, shot of a bullet, spark, blood, any particle, goo, water, smoke, force fields, collisions, that's ALL PhysX, and if you don't like it then you don't like graphics. Personally I enjoy PhysX, so just because AMD doesn't have this awesome feature doesn't mean you should hate on it.


If you want Physx that's great but personally it is not worth the investment for the two games I used to play and now only use for Benchmarking new GPUs.
m
0
l
April 23, 2013 12:26:21 PM

Yeah, a GT 640 has 384 CUDA cores, the same as a GTX 560 Ti, so it will do a good job inexpensively with less heat, noise, and power. That would be as low as you should go since the next step down, the GT 630, only has 96 CUDA cores.
m
0
l
April 23, 2013 12:29:37 PM

17seconds said:
Yeah, a GT 640 has 384 CUDA cores, the same as a GTX 560 Ti, so it will do a good job inexpensively with less heat, noise, and power. That would be as low as you should go since the next step down, the GT 630, only has 96 CUDA cores.


I don't think that it works like that as GTX 640 is ultra low end. The 560ti would smack that card around in any situation including running Physx.
m
0
l
April 23, 2013 12:41:00 PM

Duke Nucome said:
I don't think that it works like that as GTX 640 is ultra low end. The 560ti would smack that card around in any situation including running Physx.

Really? And is this opinion based upon the same depth of knowledge that you've drawn upon previously in this thread?
m
0
l
April 23, 2013 12:49:33 PM

17seconds said:
Yeah, a GT 640 has 384 CUDA cores, the same as a GTX 560 Ti, so it will do a good job inexpensively with less heat, noise, and power. That would be as low as you should go since the next step down, the GT 630, only has 96 CUDA cores.


That does not make it as powerful as a 560ti, not even close and the 640 is only as powerful as a gts450. The shaders between the two generations is the same with very few differences except in DP floating point.
m
0
l
April 23, 2013 12:57:48 PM

17seconds said:
Duke Nucome said:
I don't think that it works like that as GTX 640 is ultra low end. The 560ti would smack that card around in any situation including running Physx.

Really? And is this opinion based upon the same depth of knowledge that you've drawn upon previously in this thread?


Is that all you have to add to the topic ? OP I recommend getting at leased a GTS 450 or 550ti to run as a Parallel Physx processor without bogging down a modern GPU.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbww3dhzK0M
m
0
l
April 23, 2013 12:59:16 PM

nforce4max said:
17seconds said:
Yeah, a GT 640 has 384 CUDA cores, the same as a GTX 560 Ti, so it will do a good job inexpensively with less heat, noise, and power. That would be as low as you should go since the next step down, the GT 630, only has 96 CUDA cores.


That does not make it as powerful as a 560ti, not even close and the 640 is only as powerful as a gts450. The shaders between the two generations is the same with very few differences except in DP floating point.


The 640 gets pitied by even a lowly GTS 450.
m
0
l
April 23, 2013 1:11:12 PM

heres a thread you should read
http://forums.gearboxsoftware.com/showthread.php?t=1491...
but if it were me I wouldn't be able to justify $90 for a card to only increase performance in one game when your already getting 45fps. If you turn vsync on and triple buffering on you might find your frame latency problem is gone.
m
0
l
April 23, 2013 1:15:45 PM

iam2thecrowe said:
heres a thread you should read
http://forums.gearboxsoftware.com/showthread.php?t=1491...
but if it were me I wouldn't be able to justify $90 for a card to only increase performance in one game when your already getting 45fps. If you turn vsync on and triple buffering on you might find your frame latency problem is gone.

I rather run sans Physx because performance is better than some cheap effects. In BFBC2 and BF3 the Physics are amazing and the game engine is ultra optimized and looks great. I could not imagine the game with so many cheesy effects to distract me with major slow downs because of Physx.
m
0
l
April 23, 2013 1:32:15 PM

Duke Nucome said:
nforce4max said:
17seconds said:
Yeah, a GT 640 has 384 CUDA cores, the same as a GTX 560 Ti, so it will do a good job inexpensively with less heat, noise, and power. That would be as low as you should go since the next step down, the GT 630, only has 96 CUDA cores.


That does not make it as powerful as a 560ti, not even close and the 640 is only as powerful as a gts450. The shaders between the two generations is the same with very few differences except in DP floating point.


The 640 gets pitied by even a lowly GTS 450.


That is why it is in the same league as a 8800gt according to the charts here. XD
m
0
l
April 23, 2013 1:38:59 PM

nforce4max said:
17seconds said:
Yeah, a GT 640 has 384 CUDA cores, the same as a GTX 560 Ti, so it will do a good job inexpensively with less heat, noise, and power. That would be as low as you should go since the next step down, the GT 630, only has 96 CUDA cores.


That does not make it as powerful as a 560ti, not even close and the 640 is only as powerful as a gts450. The shaders between the two generations is the same with very few differences except in DP floating point.

We're talking about PhysX computations, not graphics. PhysX is purely a function of the number of CUDA processors, the more the better. The card's level of graphics performance is irrelevant. You must be getting confused by the background noise in this thread, nforce.
m
0
l
April 23, 2013 1:47:00 PM

Duke Nucome said:
iam2thecrowe said:
heres a thread you should read
http://forums.gearboxsoftware.com/showthread.php?t=1491...
but if it were me I wouldn't be able to justify $90 for a card to only increase performance in one game when your already getting 45fps. If you turn vsync on and triple buffering on you might find your frame latency problem is gone.

I rather run sans Physx because performance is better than some cheap effects. In BFBC2 and BF3 the Physics are amazing and the game engine is ultra optimized and looks great. I could not imagine the game with so many cheesy effects to distract me with major slow downs because of Physx.


battlefield games don't use hardware accelerated PhysX at all. you should look at the games that support hardware accelerated PhysX, there aren't many at all.
m
0
l
April 23, 2013 1:48:30 PM

17seconds said:
nforce4max said:
17seconds said:
Yeah, a GT 640 has 384 CUDA cores, the same as a GTX 560 Ti, so it will do a good job inexpensively with less heat, noise, and power. That would be as low as you should go since the next step down, the GT 630, only has 96 CUDA cores.


That does not make it as powerful as a 560ti, not even close and the 640 is only as powerful as a gts450. The shaders between the two generations is the same with very few differences except in DP floating point.

We're talking about PhysX computations, not graphics. PhysX is purely a function of the number of CUDA processors, the more the better. The card's level of graphics performance is irrelevant. You must be getting confused by the background noise in this thread, nforce.


No I am not confused and have tinkered with physx since the days of ageia. The reason why there is a perceived increase is due to drivers. Ever noticed a load cap when running physx on certain cards that keeps physx from fully loading the gpu.
m
0
l
April 23, 2013 1:48:47 PM

iam2thecrowe said:
heres a thread you should read
http://forums.gearboxsoftware.com/showthread.php?t=1491...
but if it were me I wouldn't be able to justify $90 for a card to only increase performance in one game when your already getting 45fps. If you turn vsync on and triple buffering on you might find your frame latency problem is gone.


17seconds said:
nforce4max said:
17seconds said:
Yeah, a GT 640 has 384 CUDA cores, the same as a GTX 560 Ti, so it will do a good job inexpensively with less heat, noise, and power. That would be as low as you should go since the next step down, the GT 630, only has 96 CUDA cores.


That does not make it as powerful as a 560ti, not even close and the 640 is only as powerful as a gts450. The shaders between the two generations is the same with very few differences except in DP floating point.

We're talking about PhysX computations, not graphics. PhysX is purely a function of the number of CUDA processors, the more the better. The card's level of graphics performance is irrelevant. You must be getting confused by the background noise in this thread, nforce.


nvidia skewed the Cuda cores for Kepler. The Cuda cores are weaker in the GT 640 even though it has more than a GTS 450 it is still a weaker card.
m
0
l
!