Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Benefits of Dedecated PhysX card?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
September 2, 2009 1:25:42 PM

What are the benefits of a dedecated PhysX card, and would if you have a GTX 295?
a c 271 U Graphics card
September 2, 2009 1:39:00 PM

No point, zilch, nada, bugger all, just stick with the 295 if that's what you have or are getting.
m
0
l
September 2, 2009 1:41:05 PM

are you sure, in the future games might dedecate PhysX more though I emagine, is it possible even with a 295 a dedecated PhysX card will have some benefit soon?
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 271 U Graphics card
September 2, 2009 1:50:37 PM

If it were ever needed I think it's going to be at a point in time when the GTX 295 will be considered quite a low end and not very powerful card, in other words it's not going to happen any time soon.
m
0
l
September 2, 2009 1:52:10 PM

what day will it be when the 295 is a low end card, have you ever seen crysis on a big monitor witha 295
m
0
l
a c 271 U Graphics card
September 2, 2009 1:58:58 PM

The day that your children's grandchildren realise that a dedicated physx card is a must have, can't live without it type of requirement.
m
0
l
September 9, 2009 1:25:20 AM

just to finish off this thread I decided to try a 9800GT with my 295 and there is a huge difference in deffinetly a game like Warmonger where it is completely based on PhysX and I got a bunch of PhysX demos so even though I have a GTX 295 a dedicated PhysX card is beneficial.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
September 9, 2009 3:39:37 AM

lol poor mousemoneky, but at the same time.... what was the difference in fps....120fps vs. 90 fps ???
m
0
l
September 9, 2009 1:56:57 PM

It's honestly 10 FPS faster with 9800 GT and 10 FPS slower with the GTX 295 (these are average frame rates) after just using the application Fraps. It's about 10 FPS on both Batman: Arkham Asylum Demo and in Warmonger.

So what do you guys think is that a huge difference? Before I measured the difference it seemed like a huge difference I imagined like 30 FPS difference but obvisouly it's not quite a huge performance boost. It is a welcome performance boost though.
m
0
l
a c 271 U Graphics card
September 9, 2009 2:36:41 PM

Annisman said:
lol poor mousemoneky

WTF :heink: 
m
0
l
September 9, 2009 2:58:07 PM

that helps nothing mousemonkey
m
0
l
a c 271 U Graphics card
September 9, 2009 3:16:26 PM

Then help me understand the reason behind his comment.
m
0
l
September 9, 2009 5:04:43 PM

he meant that you were sure there was no reason behind having a dedicated PhysX card if you have a GTX 295 and that was proven wrong and there for he assumed that you felt bad.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
September 9, 2009 6:38:44 PM

bmxjumperc said:
he meant that you were sure there was no reason behind having a dedicated PhysX card if you have a GTX 295 and that was proven wrong and there for he assumed that you felt bad.


precisely
m
0
l
a c 271 U Graphics card
September 9, 2009 10:31:41 PM

bmxjumperc said:
It's honestly 10 FPS faster with 9800 GT

If you feel that 10fps is worth it then good for you, as far as I'm concerned it most certainly is not and thus I stand by my original statement and feel quite good about it actually, sorry annisman you assumed wrong.
m
0
l
September 9, 2009 10:35:36 PM

it seemed like this huge performance boost though I mean I could really tell, sorry to say, I think it's awsome with my setup the way it is
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
September 10, 2009 12:06:59 AM

Having a dedicated card is useless. I added a 9600gso as a dedicated physics card paired up with 2 gtx260 sli. Performance in UT3/Warmonger were the same if not lower. If you have a powerful card then let it handle the physics don't add a weaker card. On the other hand if you have a 9600gt and adding 8600gts for dedicated physics i can imagine it would be useful and work!
m
0
l
September 10, 2009 8:15:23 AM

The room your computer is in will heat up faster. That may be a benefit in the winter. Otherwise it's a big waste or money. I could add one on my PCI-E Gen2 x4 slot, but it would be there only to fill an empty slot. Not many "good" games use PhysX. Mirror's Edge being one of the only ones I really enjoy. Save your money and leave it in the bank.
m
0
l
September 10, 2009 10:28:47 AM

yah I actually like haveing a low end graphics card in my computer for PhysX and you're right there arn't really any games that are good on the spectrum that really support PhysX and I never played Mirrors Edge but it looked boooooring. One game that does support PhysX though is Batman: Arkham Asylum and this game is super fun after playing the demo. Right my room gets disgusting, muggy and hot. And this card is basicly to fill up space, I have a 295 and I'm not going to spend another 500 doallars for another one, I spent $70 on my 9800GT.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
September 10, 2009 10:32:04 AM

You like having a low end card for physics? Have you seen any real advantages with it? I have never seen any real benefits in my rig when i had a dedicated card for physics.
m
0
l
September 10, 2009 10:42:24 AM

the difference is there I really enjoy having it, my room got really hot before this 9800GT actually in hindesight
m
0
l
September 10, 2009 11:41:52 AM

I don't think a separate PhysX card will do good with GTX295 on a 20" display.
GTX295 would be more than enough for that display. I don't know about FullHD
m
0
l
September 10, 2009 12:41:09 PM

Nope not when there is tons of PhysX code behind the scenes not that I write PhysX code I just understand that computers run on code.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
September 10, 2009 3:14:09 PM

Mousemonkey said:
If you feel that 10fps is worth it then good for you, as far as I'm concerned it most certainly is not and thus I stand by my original statement and feel quite good about it actually, sorry annisman you assumed wrong.


actually the OP said that with a card it was 10fps faster and without it was 10fps slower....which = 20fps gain, don't worry I did the math for you. And yes I think that's a great gain. :kaola: 
m
0
l
a c 271 U Graphics card
September 10, 2009 3:18:32 PM

That's nice for you.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
September 10, 2009 4:37:07 PM

I can't argue with kids all day.
m
0
l
a c 271 U Graphics card
September 10, 2009 5:00:31 PM

Like I said, that's nice for you.
m
0
l
September 10, 2009 5:34:34 PM

Annisman said:
actually the OP said that with a card it was 10fps faster and without it was 10fps slower....which = 20fps gain, don't worry I did the math for you. And yes I think that's a great gain. :kaola: 

So by your logic, there should be a step in the middle. Did he install half the card?

There was a gain of 10 FPS, not 20.
m
0
l
a c 271 U Graphics card
September 10, 2009 5:40:55 PM

^ :lol: 
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
September 10, 2009 11:25:31 PM

" It's honestly 10 FPS faster with 9800 GT and 10 FPS slower with the GTX 295 " - OP

let's say for a moment that he was getting 60 fps... Now add 10 fps to 60 with the additon of the 9800GT that results in 70fps.

Now, with the GTX 295 he says he is 10 fps slower, so subtract 10fps from 60 and you get 50. Which = a 20 fps difference.

I don't understand what the problem is here, except for the fact that we may need to overhaul our nation's failing public school system.... hint hint
m
0
l
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
January 12, 2010 1:11:40 PM

annisman.... you are actually quite wrong

" It's honestly 10 FPS faster with 9800 GT and 10 FPS slower with the GTX 295 " - OP

lets use your analogy of having 60 frames per second originally ok?

Now, he explained two different hardware configurations correct?

Originally he had 60fps, which tells me that with the 295 thats what he was getting.
He then added the physx card and his fps increased by 10 correct?

The fact that the original post said it was 10fps faster with one and 10fps slower without is abolutely redundant. Only one of those statements was needed because the 10fps faster refers to 295 and physx compared to 295, and the 10fps slower refers to 295 compared to 295 and physx

295~ ADD PHYSX CARD ~ 295 + physx card SX CARD ~ Remove Physx Card ~ 295

-60fps....................................................-70fps............................................-60fps

By him saying that redundant statement it implies that he took out the card at the end to reevaluate his values.

Maybe you should treat yourself in some post secondary education and explore more than colloquial slang then you would be able to analyze a sentence without making yourself look dumb.... just saying.
m
0
l
a c 216 U Graphics card
January 12, 2010 3:29:06 PM

A dedicated PhysX card will improve performance, as this review shows with Batman: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/batman-arkham-asylu...

But I think the point mousemonkey was trying to make is that there are very few games that will utilize the physX card that don't already run remarkibly well on a 295 on it's own, even if the dedicated card does improve performance.

I personally have a dedicated physX card, but it's an old 8800gt I had in an old computer. For me, it's useful in 1 game, Sacred 2. I don't own batman.

If you have an old card that supports physX, it's worth sticking it into the machine, but I wouldn't go out and buy a physX card unless you really spend a lot of time using physX games and have poor frames.

It would be more compelling if you had a 5970, as it would add new features to your machine, but buying a dedicated physX card to just improve performance a little on 1 or 2 games seems like a bit overkill.
m
0
l
a c 173 U Graphics card
January 12, 2010 3:46:20 PM

It all depends on what you doing. A friend of mine has the same setup card wise for mpeg ecoding and it shaved a few mid off by adding the card to ware a 10~15min video would be done in about 2min using all the gpus.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 12, 2010 4:13:25 PM

bmxjumperc said:
just to finish off this thread I decided to try a 9800GT with my 295 and there is a huge difference in deffinetly a game like Warmonger where it is completely based on PhysX and I got a bunch of PhysX demos so even though I have a GTX 295 a dedicated PhysX card is beneficial.


Warmonger is a game designed by Nvidia in order to test physX, so it absolutely requires PhysX to run...so any improvement you see will be dramatic since it's a benchmark. You need to use actual games as examples.


Also, using the GTX295 in SLi and physX is fine. You really don't need a dedicated physX card cuz it's a waste of money.
m
0
l
January 27, 2010 11:47:43 PM

I have a GTS 250 1GB in my system at the moment, and would like to be able to play Battlefield Bad Company 2 when it is released. Would a dedicated PhysX card, such as a 9500GT, improve framerates etc on a 23" screen or is it not worth the money?

Current system is:
Intel Core 2 Quad Q8400 2.66GHz
Kingston 4GB DDR3 RAM
Gigabyte GTS-250 1GB
WD Caviar Green 1TB
m
0
l
a c 173 U Graphics card
January 28, 2010 12:52:36 PM

I am not sure how much of an improvement but then again I have a very small fps loss when enabling physx due to my sli setup. If it is choppy later when enabling it then it might be worth it then.
m
0
l
February 9, 2010 2:43:57 AM

Annisman said:
" It's honestly 10 FPS faster with 9800 GT and 10 FPS slower with the GTX 295 " - OP

let's say for a moment that he was getting 60 fps... Now add 10 fps to 60 with the additon of the 9800GT that results in 70fps.

Now, with the GTX 295 he says he is 10 fps slower, so subtract 10fps from 60 and you get 50. Which = a 20 fps difference.

I don't understand what the problem is here, except for the fact that we may need to overhaul our nation's failing public school system.... hint hint



Actually i get what you are trying to say. If the gain of 10fps was after the dedicated physics card and before was a whole 10fps slower, than we can consider the following.

Lets say a game was runining at 100fps constant ( highly unlikely but this is a senario)
With one gtx295 the card had to do the physics calculation and the gfx part together (at which it produces 100fps) and by taking Annisman's point of view, we turn off physics and get 90fps (100-90=10fps lower), now we go ahead and install a dedicated physics card and run the test with physics on again. now we are getting 110fps ( SAY WHAT! :kaola:  ), so the 110fps (with dedicated physics card and physics turned on ) compared to the 100fps ( with one card for physics and gfx with physics turned on ) is a awesome 20fps increase over the 90fps with one card and physics turned of..


In conclusion:
The 20fps increase is a great advantage for anyone using 22inch monitor or over and i for one think the dedicated physics card is a awesome add if you have a spare card lying around. I myself am running a gtx295 and a dedicated physics card (9800gtx+). Do i notice the difference, hack yeah! :p 

So Annisman, i think props for you for thinking outside the box and considering the physics On/Off option in the calculation. :) 
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 9, 2010 2:59:32 AM



Notice the dedicated GTX 260 results, those are slightly lower than your single GTX 295.

So... tell me... how can there be a huge difference when the damn game is already maxed out with the min. FPS at a blazing 42 FPS!?

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/batman-arkham-asylu...
m
0
l
a c 216 U Graphics card
February 9, 2010 3:15:53 AM

42 average fps with a min of 23 is not good fps. That would make me feel motion sickness and turn off the physX. Granted, his 295 might be more impressive.
m
0
l
February 9, 2010 3:18:41 AM

AMW1011 said:
http://media.bestofmicro.com/N/S/228952/original/Batman%20PxDed%202560.png

Notice the dedicated GTX 260 results, those are slightly lower than your single GTX 295.

So... tell me... how can there be a huge difference when the damn game is already maxed out with the min. FPS at a blazing 42 FPS!?

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/batman-arkham-asylu...


I don know about that game but i game alot on my 30inch dell monitor at max resolution of 2560 x 1600 and i do notice that games run hella smooth (farcry 2 for instance) with the dedicated physics card. Havent ran any bench marks recently but will try run afew next week when im home.

Also try crysis with a dedicated physics card, bet you will see some differences but will it justify having the dedicated card? Well it depends on you.

It comes down to personal choice and how big your money tree is.
m
0
l
a c 216 U Graphics card
February 9, 2010 4:09:28 AM

Interesting placebo effect there. Farcry 2 and Crysis do not use physX. They don't even use an engine capible of using physX.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 9, 2010 4:33:09 AM

bystander said:
Interesting placebo effect there. Farcry 2 and Crysis do not use physX. They don't even use an engine capible of using physX.

Another person who doesn't have the hardware refuting a firsthand experience, how surprising.
Is it so hard to grasp that Nvidia's drivers and possibly these games that open with 'powered by Nvidia' have the ability to see an added gpu and take advantage of it.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 9, 2010 4:44:59 AM

notty22 said:
Another person who doesn't have the hardware refuting a firsthand experience, how surprising.
Is it so hard to grasp that Nvidia's drivers and possibly these games that open with 'powered by Nvidia' have the ability to see an added gpu and take advantage of it.

Not for physics they don't.

Look up "placebo effect". Seriously. You may find it enlightening.
m
0
l
February 9, 2010 4:46:40 AM

bystander said:
Interesting placebo effect there. Farcry 2 and Crysis do not use physX. They don't even use an engine capible of using physX.



Do some research first man!

Thats all i gotta say. if its not in the option it does not mean its not capable of using the physics engine.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 9, 2010 4:48:56 AM

BL4CK R4MS3Y said:
Do some research first man!

Thats all i gotta say. if its not in the option it does not mean its not capable of using the physics engine.

Do some research yourself. Crysis uses a non-PhysX based CPU physics engine.
m
0
l
February 9, 2010 4:52:23 AM

cjl said:
Do some research yourself. Crysis uses a non-PhysX based CPU physics engine.



Read on farcry2 and nvidia cards, and having a dedicated card card for physics runs the game smoother with more fps.. Go figure. May not be physics but using a dedicated card for physics provides more fps for sure.....

Try IT!!!! and than come tell us how it went.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 9, 2010 4:54:58 AM

I'm sorry, but you're full of crap. Running Far Cry 2 with a dedicated PhysX card makes no difference at all.
m
0
l
February 9, 2010 4:59:31 AM

cjl said:
I'm sorry, but you're full of crap. Running Far Cry 2 with a dedicated PhysX card makes no difference at all.



Prove it. I can say for sure and will have the bench mark tests next week when i get home. if you can prove it than i will accept defeat. i can for sure see the game runs smoother with more fps on my 30inch monitor.

Im not just assuming the results, i have experienced it.

Also try Cryostasis for significant results.

m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 9, 2010 5:09:42 AM

You know what the difference is between Cryostasis and Far Cry 2?

Cryostasis actually supports PhysX. In other words, I would expect a dedicated PhysX card to make a significant difference on Cryostasis, and not on FC2.
m
0
l
February 9, 2010 5:10:43 AM

cjl said:
I'm sorry, but you're full of crap. Running Far Cry 2 with a dedicated PhysX card makes no difference at all.



OK OK! I eat my own words, crysis and farcry 2 dont use the nvidia physx engine, they use the havox and some other.... But now i cant explain the fps boost in the two games.!

HMMM weird.
m
0
l
!