Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Just a quick question ATI/physx

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
December 16, 2009 3:29:54 AM

Ok im planning on getting the XFX HD5870 as soon as stocks came back..(down in Australia is pretty empty)
well i was reading how its a great card, blistering frames etc
all was good till i saw "featuring full DX10 and NVDIA PhysX" in a game i want to get (metro 2033)
wont i get that great experience like nvidia with there physx, or does ati have a strong point aswell in this area?

or will my i7 have to do the physics work..

One last question.. should i wait for the nvidia 300 series or will they be way to expensive

anyway hope someone can explain to me
haven't used a ati card yet..

December 16, 2009 4:23:07 AM

If you use ATI, youll either need to use the cpu or a second card , a cheap nVidia card and hack as well.
Not usre about the game, as the cpu may just do fine with it.
Physx is proprietary, so only nVidia cards can run it, and their cpu utilization hasnt proved to be that elegant
m
0
l
a b Î Nvidia
December 16, 2009 5:29:21 AM

Since it's not released for another 5 months, it's not possible to say whether the effects are worth considering or not. It not even clear on THQ or nV's site whether it's GPU physX or just using the physX engine for general physics, which is still CPU based.

If they are then you're likely going to be better off with adding a separate card to do the physX in either case; so as already mentioned you can just buy a cheap $50 card to do the physX workload, and focus on buying the graphics card to do the graphics workload.
It won't be 'necessary' for the game anymore than DX11 will be 'necessary' for any recent games, and until we know what effects they plan on using (could be lame post-apocalyptic debris or could be good explosion debris, etc).

m
0
l
Related resources
December 16, 2009 6:17:49 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
If you use ATI, youll either need to use the cpu or a second card , a cheap nVidia card and hack as well.
Not usre about the game, as the cpu may just do fine with it.
Physx is proprietary, so only nVidia cards can run it, and their cpu utilization hasnt proved to be that elegant


TheGreatGrapeApe said:
Since it's not released for another 5 months, it's not possible to say whether the effects are worth considering or not. It not even clear on THQ or nV's site whether it's GPU physX or just using the physX engine for general physics, which is still CPU based.

If they are then you're likely going to be better off with adding a separate card to do the physX in either case; so as already mentioned you can just buy a cheap $50 card to do the physX workload, and focus on buying the graphics card to do the graphics workload.
It won't be 'necessary' for the game anymore than DX11 will be 'necessary' for any recent games, and until we know what effects they plan on using (could be lame post-apocalyptic debris or could be good explosion debris, etc).


Ok, so i wouldnt even notice a difference yet, well if i were to buy the cheap nvidia "Gainward GeForce 9500GT 512MB HDMI" with physx and find a cracked driver i could have my hd 5870 paired with these for physx's
m
0
l
a b Î Nvidia
December 16, 2009 6:27:01 AM

Yes that's the idea, but I'd recommend a better GPU to act as the PhysX card, like a GT220 or GF9600GT/GSO.
m
0
l
December 16, 2009 6:36:12 AM

TheGreatGrapeApe said:
Yes that's the idea, but I'd recommend a better GPU to act as the PhysX card, like a GT220 or GF9600GT/GSO.


Yea ur right the gt220 is only an extra 20 bucks. this low end card wouldnt really require a external powersupply?
m
0
l
a b Î Nvidia
December 16, 2009 6:47:25 AM

Yeah, it's one of nV's new 40nm cards so doesn't require an additional power connector and should be a little more energy efficient than the GSO which would have similar shader/compute power.

And unless you need to play another PhysX game between now and Metro, I would say wait and by that time you could probably pick up a cheap GT240 for the same price with about twice the compute power and still doesn't need a power connector.
m
0
l
December 16, 2009 6:50:29 AM

For the GT 220? No, the GT 220 is bus powered.
m
0
l
December 16, 2009 6:52:52 AM

TheGreatGrapeApe said:
Yeah, it's one of nV's new 40nm cards so doesn't require an additional power connector and should be a little more energy efficient than the GSO which would have similar shader/compute power.

And unless you need to play another PhysX game between now and Metro, I would say wait and by that time you could probably pick up a cheap GT240 for the same price with about twice the compute power and still doesn't need a power connector.


Ok thank you very much, i will do that.

Have you heard or seen how people get those two cards to work together, i heard that nvidia is not allowing physx to work with a different gpu company when there is two cards present.
m
0
l
a c 76 Î Nvidia
December 16, 2009 5:40:10 PM

Check out these two reviews, should give you all the hardware info you need on what card to pick (I suggest the 250 or 260). the third link is to the driver hack that lets the two video drivers coexist:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/batman-arkham-asylu...
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/batman_arkham_asylu...
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia-ATI-physx-patch...

Rumor is rampant as to what the future holds for PhysX w/ ATI hardware....everything from the fermi drivers disable it to that nVidia hired the guy who wrote the hack. As with most before it actually happened "statements of fact" I give them little credence. As for fermi's release date and cost, ....on the date everything is pure speculation....as for cost, well logic has to prevail in that whatever the top card costs above the 5970 must justify the difference in cost or simply none will ever be sold. As for the rest of the line, again, if they can't sell it at a competitive price to whatever ATI card it competes with, then no one will buy it.
m
0
l
!