Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Dedicated PhysX Card for GTX 570

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
February 17, 2011 11:00:09 PM

Hello,

I am currently shopping for a dedicated PhysX card for my EVGA GTX 570, any suggestions of which card to install to get the most optimal fps performance would be greatly appreciated!

Here is my rig:

i7 2600k OCed 4.7ghz
Asus P8P67 Pro
EVGA GTX 570
Seasonic M12D 850Watts
2 x 4gb GSkills Ripjaws 1600mhz

Thanks!
a b U Graphics card
February 17, 2011 11:33:48 PM

a gtx 260 is about the highest you want to go, period...

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtools/ite...

even a 9800gt or 9800gtx/gts250 (same card) will be more then enough for physx but I wouldnt go any higher than a gtx 260

also a 450 gts http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

would be inline with the gts250/9800gtx in dedicated physx pergformance, although I believe it has more cores so its likely closer to the gtx 260....

overall your best bet is to get a 9800/8800 gt off ebay for cheap and spend as little money on this as possible...
Related resources
a c 126 U Graphics card
February 18, 2011 12:05:15 AM

Additionally:

1) it usually is better to put the money towards a BETTER main graphics card unless you already have one

2) if you spend more than 50% of the cost of your current main card you might as well get two and go SLI (if motherboard supports)

3) if you spend TOO LITTLE money the framerate with PhysX might be too low so you'd be better with PhysX OFF (example: if you get 35FPS average with PhysX on but constant 60FPS VSYNC'd with PhysX OFF the overall experience is better with PhysX off)

4) in some games PhysX adds very little but does hit your framerate hard. monitor your framerate with FRAPS (ideally 60FPS solid with VSYNC enabled) and compare the visual differences

*Batman Arkham Asylum has some very MINOR additions with PhysX. It's not worth turning on if your framerate drops. Better to have smooth gameplay.
a b U Graphics card
February 18, 2011 1:43:43 PM

^+1 agreed you make many good points and even though people love having a dedicated physx card, overall it is not worth it unless you have an old card lying around or you can purchase a 8,9, or 2 series for cheap, but still it seems like a waste of money imo, but for some people they have to have it, but I'm still not sure why
a c 141 U Graphics card
February 18, 2011 1:54:40 PM

i think GT240 is good enough for physx. sure it is not the best but it will still do the job. honestly i think it is wasted to use the second PCI-E slot for dedicated physx card. the board is SLI capable so it is better if you opt for GTX570 in SLI. GTX570 in SLI should be able to handle game with advance physx enabled just fine. but if you don't like SLI then just get dedicated physx
February 18, 2011 2:00:27 PM

I wouldn't bother with a physx card to be honest. I have a gtx 560 Ti which isn't as hefty as the 570 and I run mirror's edge and arkham asylum with physx settings on high anyway. Frames rarely dip under vsync. So you'll be fine.
a c 125 U Graphics card
February 18, 2011 2:29:33 PM

IMO, only get either a cheap PhysX card (I got a GT240 for $65 after rebate), and only if you find the 570 FPS is sucking with PhysX on.

A GT240 is fine, I still had really good FPS with it on a 4x PCIe lane (P55 mobo) with CF5850s. The 5850s were still generally the bottleneck once I cranked settings up.

From what I've read, around 100 Cuda cores is perfect for max performance as a dedicated card, so the cheapest card you can buy with 90-100 Cuda cores is the one to get.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
February 18, 2011 3:07:03 PM

A GT 240, another reason I recommend this is lest power consumption. AND ^+1

ALTHOUGH a SECOND GTX 570 would be TOTALLY KICKASS AWESOME!!!!
a b U Graphics card
February 18, 2011 4:51:55 PM

I just wonder what all the fuss is about regarding PhysX. I used to run a GTX 295 and it played everything I wanted until it died. At the time the fastest card on the planet was the HD5970 and as I don't really care who I buy from (NVIDIA or ATi) I just buy the fastest card at the time. So I bought the XFX HD5970 Black Edition, I remember thinking at the time it won't support PhysX but what the heck. So how much difference did I see running a non PhysX card? Absolutely NOTHING other than even better frame rates!.
If i've missed the point please someone enlighten me?
a c 537 U Graphics card
February 18, 2011 5:31:10 PM

Kkkk1 said:
So how much difference did I see running a non PhysX card? Absolutely NOTHING other than even better frame rates!.
If i've missed the point please someone enlighten me?

So do you play any PhysX games with your 5970?


RWCHUI: The same goes for you, do you play PhysX games? If so, a mid 200 series card, as mentioned, GT 240/260 and above will do great. A single GTX570 will do great on it's own as well, but a dedicated card will improve framerates into the 20% range on PhysX games.

For me, I do have a couple PhysX games that I hit up regularly, but even if I didn't, I would still want to have the capability, just in case. It's nice to know you can always try out the Mafia 2 demo, Metro 2033 demo, or Batman: Arkham Asylum demo, and know that you can tick the box that says "Enable hardware PhysX".

a c 125 U Graphics card
February 18, 2011 6:38:27 PM

Yeah there's only around 12 games with PhysX usage so it really comes down to whether you play them or not. I played a good chunk of them, and also have ATI cards, so for me it was worth the $65 to get some really nice eye candy. Split between the games I used it on, that was basically an extra $7-8 per game to get PhysX.

Worth it? Well, after spending $600 on my 5850s the $65 seemed like chump change so yeah, worth it to me.
a b U Graphics card
February 18, 2011 7:56:18 PM

17seconds said:
So do you play any PhysX games with your 5970?


RWCHUI: The same goes for you, do you play PhysX games? If so, a mid 200 series card, as mentioned, GT 240/260 and above will do great. A single GTX570 will do great on it's own as well, but a dedicated card will improve framerates into the 20% range on PhysX games.

For me, I do have a couple PhysX games that I hit up regularly, but even if I didn't, I would still want to have the capability, just in case. It's nice to know you can always try out the Mafia 2 demo, Metro 2033 demo, or Batman: Arkham Asylum demo, and know that you can tick the box that says "Enable hardware PhysX".

http://media.bestofmicro.com/O/B/228971/original/Batman%20PhysX%20Comparison.gif

Well yeah I think so, such as Metro and Warhead. Can someone suggest a few games that use PhysX beyond cos I really don't understand ? Maybe some post or link a few vids that show PhysX and not?
a b U Graphics card
February 18, 2011 8:01:07 PM

17seconds said:
So do you play any PhysX games with your 5970?


RWCHUI: The same goes for you, do you play PhysX games? If so, a mid 200 series card, as mentioned, GT 240/260 and above will do great. A single GTX570 will do great on it's own as well, but a dedicated card will improve framerates into the 20% range on PhysX games.

For me, I do have a couple PhysX games that I hit up regularly, but even if I didn't, I would still want to have the capability, just in case. It's nice to know you can always try out the Mafia 2 demo, Metro 2033 demo, or Batman: Arkham Asylum demo, and know that you can tick the box that says "Enable hardware PhysX".

http://media.bestofmicro.com/O/B/228971/original/Batman%20PhysX%20Comparison.gif

Sorry Matto....., I just read your full post. I also run Metro maxxed and I don't see any difference in PhysX from my GTX295 and then my HD5970, other than my 5970 shafts the frames I was getting on the 295. I still see all the fabric blowing in the wind etc with no stutter or frame drop.
Am I missing something?
a c 125 U Graphics card
February 18, 2011 8:06:27 PM

Kkkk1 said:
Well yeah I think so, such as Metro and Warhead. Can someone suggest a few games that use PhysX beyond cos I really don't understand ? Maybe some post or link a few vids that show PhysX and not?


Warhead doesn't use PhysX. Games that use it are Batman: AA, Metro 2033, Cryostasis, Dark Void, Sacred 1 and 2, Mirror's Edge, Mafia 2 and....

Ah here, go to http://www.geforce.com/#/GamesandApps

And click PhysX. It shows you all 13 games that use it.
February 19, 2011 1:21:23 AM

Hey did any of you notice that Dawn of War 2 when it was initially released used to flash the NVIDIA logo when you started it up and had a phys-x option. They then seem to have jumped ship, now it flashes ATI and has a "hardware physics" option but not physx. Strangeness.
a c 537 U Graphics card
February 19, 2011 1:50:02 AM



This is just a cool looking video game:

a b U Graphics card
February 19, 2011 2:23:12 AM

^for me the
dynamic paper is the most convincing...:) 
seriously its pretty freakin cool
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
February 19, 2011 7:00:23 AM

I can't see a difference in the Mafia II thing, they are both exactly the same! wtf?
a c 271 U Graphics card
February 19, 2011 8:42:30 AM

Quote:
I can't see a difference in the Mafia II thing, they are both exactly the same! wtf?

Hardly, there is a remarked difference in the amount of debris left lying about in the left hand side of the screen split. I suggest that you view the video again.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
February 19, 2011 10:06:40 AM

Oh, now I see it, not much of a difference though, I'd don't think that I would ever BUY a dedicated PhysX card, I would just re-use my older cards/
a c 271 U Graphics card
February 19, 2011 10:30:27 AM

Quote:
Oh, now I see it, not much of a difference though, I'd don't think that I would ever BUY a dedicated PhysX card, I would just re-use my older cards/

One of the main criticisms of PhysX is that "It's just a few more bits flying around!" which I agree with in that in the few games that I've seen it used in that's all it adds, it does add some realism though in that during and after a gunfight there will be lots of debris left lying around. I've yet to see it used properly for actual physics in any game that I've played or want to play though.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
February 19, 2011 1:04:22 PM

Mousemonkey said:
One of the main criticisms of PhysX is that "It's just a few more bits flying around!" which I agree with in that in the few games that I've seen it used in that's all it adds, it does add some realism though in that during and after a gunfight there will be lots of debris left lying around. I've yet to see it used properly for actual physics in any game that I've played or want to play though.



More and more games are going to start utilizing PhysX and utilizing it better, it's just that not many people have a dedicated PhysX card so game developers don't bother too much with advanced game Physics.
a c 141 U Graphics card
February 19, 2011 1:05:45 PM

i play batman AA a lot and i can tell you with physx was set to high you will experience something that you can't get without it. to some its only more eye candy but to me the extra effect is really nice. having said that i myself will turn off the effect since i don't have dedicated physx in my system. the game still playable even the physx set to high but i don't like to play that game with less than 60FPS with v-sync enabled :p  (the FPS sometimes in the 50s but most of the time i get 60FPS)
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
February 19, 2011 1:08:10 PM

rwchui said:
Hello,

I am currently shopping for a dedicated PhysX card for my EVGA GTX 570, any suggestions of which card to install to get the most optimal fps performance would be greatly appreciated!

Here is my rig:

i7 2600k OCed 4.7ghz
Asus P8P67 Pro
EVGA GTX 570
Seasonic M12D 850Watts
2 x 4gb GSkills Ripjaws 1600mhz

Thanks!


For the sake of curiosity, about your 4.7Ghz, what is your CPU cooler?
a c 126 U Graphics card
February 19, 2011 7:09:57 PM

CPU vs GPU PhysX:

NVidia makes a HUGE DEAL about how much "better" PhysX is when done using Graphics hardware, however there are some MAJOR flaws in their argument:

1) Frame Rates drop using GPU PhysX because the GPU has to process PhysX which takes away from processing other things

2) the "CPU Only" code they do have is not optimized for modern CPU's (SSE etc)

3) the "CPU Only" code does not make use of the existing CPU processing power

Example:
I tried about FOUR different games (Batman AA etc) and discovered roughly the same thing on my system (HD5870, 8GB, i7-860).

I could play these games with the HIGHEST SETTINGS and get a constant 60FPS (VSYNC'd) without PhysX enabled. If I enable PhysX, which should now use my CPU, framerates dropped really low. Batman got 160FPS average with PhysX off and about 10FPS (a slideshow) with PhysX on.

Here's what really didn't make sense:
The PhysX calculations on a non-Nvidia system are done on the CPU. If that's the case then why do I have 70% of my CPU resources available (non-overclocked even). Further, not even a single CORE reached 100% (in case PhysX used only one core). Also, why would my frame rates drop if my CPU wasn't being maxed out and my Graphics card should not even be used except to display the graphics of the PhysX opjects which is relatively minor as it's the PhysX calculations that are intensive?

The only conclusion I could come to is NVidia is really, really messing things up for non-Nvidia systems.

How it COULD work:
My i7-860 has, on average, at LEAST 60% of it's CPU power available for PhysX and probably 80% overclocked. That is a LOT OF PROCESSING POWER.

If PhysX used most of my leftover CPU processing power there should be plenty for all the current games to max out what PhysX needs to do an awesome job.

And again, the frame rates wouldn't drop.

Summary:
If PhysX code was truly optimized to use leftover CPU power, games using PhysX would look and run BETTER on a system with a $300 CPU and a $300 Graphics card regardless of whether the card was NVidia or ATI.

CPU calculations aren't necessarily more "efficient" on a graphics card if there is NO leftover processing power of the GPU but there is on the CPU. On a per transistor basis it's more efficient on a graphics card but that definition of efficiency is basically semantics meant to distract you from the fundamental truth which is:

Modern gaming systems tend to have no leftover graphics power and plenty of CPU power for PhysX or Havok physics calculations!!

(Efficiency should be defined by the ratio of game quality to system cost, not on how many transistors are used in the processing of the code.)
a c 125 U Graphics card
February 19, 2011 7:22:27 PM

Nvidia doesn't want anything other than Nvidia cards to run PhysX. Simple as that. It could definitely run better on a CPU than it does, although it's still something that is mostly benefited by extreme parallel processing rather than fast linear processing. It could also most definitely be modified to run fine on AMD Radeon cards if they so choose, but again, Nvidia is holding all the cards here and won't do that.

AFAIK the only other physics system to allow for GPU acceleration is called Bullet physics, which I believe ATI was backing, however, it's rarely used for games.
a c 126 U Graphics card
February 19, 2011 7:25:26 PM

Want the best?

If somebody wants great PhysX AND a solid 60FPS my advice is to get an SLI 2xGTX 560Ti setup and a CPU that is equal to or slightly better than an i7-860/920.

The dual graphics card setup would then use most of the CPU processing power with enough GPU power for PhysX and normal graphics.

In short, the combined roughly $900 of processing power of the CPU and two graphics cards not only maxes out gaming quality with PhysX but also the processing is fairly balanced between the CPU, graphics and RAM in the system (get at least 1600MHz.)

Aside from cost which doesn't faze me, it's the NOISE and HEAT, although much better on the newer GTX 5xx cards is still significant. What we really, really need from NVidia is OPTIMIS for DESKTOPS.

Optimus in laptops has two graphics solutions and turns OFF the higher-end NVidia graphics COMPLETELY when not needed.

I imagine a gaming solution which uses an ATOM CPU and basic graphics (or an AMD APU) for normal non-gaming which can turn on a high-end 12-CORE CPU and SLI Graphics for gaming or video processing.

Imagine if that luxury cost only $100 more for a $2000 gaming system? What gamer wouldn't want that?
February 19, 2011 11:46:10 PM

Thanks for all the input!

I have decided not to get a dedicated PhysX card

I returned my second GTX 570 a week ago, because I could not get SLI working no matter what

SLI enable option was there no in the control panel

I tried all the tricks on google, no dice, driver sweeper, reinstalling windows, updating mobo BIOS, swapping video cards, disabling network card driver, etc etc

So SLI is not an option for me.

I guess I will do a EVGA step up option from the GTX 570 to a GTX 580

for my 4.7ghz OC i use a Noctua D-14 heatsink cooler

Thanks,
February 20, 2011 3:42:39 AM

Use a 480GTX as a dedicated PhysX card.

:D 
a b U Graphics card
February 20, 2011 2:51:09 PM

^hope your joking that would be a waste for sure
a c 172 U Graphics card
February 20, 2011 5:47:13 PM

Quote:
Don't need a PhysX card with Fermi


I disagree, I gained a nice 15-25% boost by adding a 8800gt as a dedicated card with my gtx 460 in mafia 2.
a c 172 U Graphics card
February 20, 2011 5:50:42 PM

Personally a GTX 260 is a little much for a dedicated card at this time unless you expect a major jump in the demands that physx imposes in future titles. A GT240 is only for those who need it to be single slot and limited power/connectors ect. 8800gt/gts450 is just fine for the job. Even a GTX 580 would see gains when pared with a decent dedicated card.
a c 172 U Graphics card
February 20, 2011 6:39:22 PM

The GT440 isn't the best move, you said you have a gts 240 well that is basically a 9800gt and if you swap that out for a gt440 you will not see much of a boost. I wonder why you are making that move. Higher clocks and less power?
a c 172 U Graphics card
February 20, 2011 7:32:06 PM

Why not just spend a little more extra like what a typical pizza would cost in addition and get your self a gtx 260/280 for around $100?
a c 172 U Graphics card
February 20, 2011 7:52:03 PM

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

I have been looking around in case I decided to splurge at the end of the year. That is a single slot and only uses one power connector. Fermi based cards have two drawbacks compared to the older cards. I am sure that you know those two weaknesses.

Typo <_<
a c 172 U Graphics card
February 20, 2011 9:30:58 PM

oh come on, you didn't pick up on what I tried to hint at :L

a b U Graphics card
February 20, 2011 10:01:44 PM

lol ^+1
a c 172 U Graphics card
February 20, 2011 10:11:57 PM

Tell me about it.

I will start off, fixed core to shader clock ratio. I love being able to dump the core clock on my 8800gt while being able to push the shader clock higher. Now I am going to leave you to find the other ;) 
a c 172 U Graphics card
February 20, 2011 10:54:35 PM

ok I will spill the beans. There is a noticeable different in performance between the older G80/GT200 era shader vs the Fermi. The Fermi is actually weaker for all it's advantages. Wonder why cards like the GTS 450 often trade places with a GTS250 while under performing a gtx 260? Try a gtx 460 being barely any better than a old gtx 280/285 give or take 5%? I have not pinned down as to why and got a few thoughts but not much more than that. That is why I went with a g92 for the dedicated card for one thing raw power at the shader level even though i already got a gtx 460 that replaced two 9800gt. The two 9800gt went into my back up rig.
a c 172 U Graphics card
February 20, 2011 11:09:33 PM

They were used as two examples. Kinda went in one ear and out the other but when a card with 50% more shaders from the same more or less a generation or two apart from the same company perform so terribly then one must wonder. A 192 shader card being matched and even beaten by a much older 128 shader card. It is not like there were many disadvantages for the newer card except for the texture fill rates.
a c 172 U Graphics card
February 21, 2011 12:06:33 AM

For physx only and due to a little bit of personal attachment I would go with a G92 or a GT200a/b as a dedicated card but if I needed a single slot card that didn't out to much heat out ect the gts 450 will be fine for the job. One thing I do like about Fermi though is their low idle wattage vs the older cards.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
May 12, 2011 1:08:57 PM

I hope you guys know that a slow PhysX card will bottleneck a fast graphics card, for example, an 8600GT, about 25% slower than a GT 240, when used as a PhysX card with a GTX 580 will give you 10fps in most new PhysX games.

You can see proof buy NCIX/Linus on YouTube.
!