6970 with 260GTX dedicated physx card on GIGABYTE EX-38-DQ6 , is it possible ?

Hi everybody

I have a little question and I hope you can help

I have motherboard GIGABYTE EX-38-DQ6 ........ Core 2 Quad Q6600 ...... 6GB RAM DDR2 / 800
and I have the 260GTX
my question : I want to get the 6970 and let the 260GTX be as a dedicated Physx card ........... can I do that on my motherboard ?!!

and will it work well ?

Many thank

Reply to MaXiMuM GaMeR

Dedicated physX cards with an AMD card is not supported by Nvidia. However, there are some hacked Nvidia drivers out there that will let you do this. You will have to look around, but the below link should get you started. A dedicated PhysX card will only add performance in a PhysX enabled game. Otherwise it just sits there and sucks power. Hope this helps.

http://www.techpowerup.com/105329/ [...] esent.html

Reply to jay2tall

I think nvidia has rigged drivers in such a way thatif an amd card is detected in the system you can't use the gtx for physx.There are hacked drivers available on the web which can help you use the gtx as the physx card but personally I don't thnk they are that reliable.To answer your question,you can't use the gtx for physx with 6970 as main card officially

Reply to celpas

It will work and most people know very very little on this particular topic but they have already stated the need for the community patch aka the hacked drivers. Since you are using a 775 platform there is a chance that you may not see gains in physx games but if this is being used for reasons other than physx such as cuda apps then go for it. I suggest that you do give this a try but if there are losses then go without.

On the side a gtx 260 is overkill for this use but you already own

Message quoted 2 times

Reply to nforce4max

nforce4max wrote :

It will work and most people know very very little on this particular topic but they have already stated the need for the community patch aka the hacked drivers. Since you are using a 775 platform there is a chance that you may not see gains in physx games but if this is being used for reasons other than physx such as cuda apps then go for it. I suggest that you do give this a try but if there are losses then go without.

On the side a gtx 260 is overkill for this use but you already own

I've been doing this for a year now with a couple different setups. I'm curious, exactly why would a 775 platform not see any physX improvement? From personal experience and benchmark reviews of this setup, even if you are running on a PCEe x4, there is no loss in performance, transferring the info does not seem to be what holds performance back. However, I don't have a 775 platform, so if you know of another problem, I'd like to know.

I also had found that what "most" people who don't own such a setup, think a 9800GT is the most performance you can gain from such a setup, I can tell you that this is wrong, at least for the only game I use it with (Sacred 2). A review a while back showed that optimal performance in the games they used was a 260. Again, it does depend on the game you play.

The bad news is that there are very few games out there that can take advantage of GPU accelerated PhysX.

The good news is that if you use multiple monitors for an extended desktop, not for eyefinity or surround, your comp will idle at much lower clocks and lower heat (possibly lower power), because to drive multiple monitors from a single card requires the memory to stay at full clocks to prevent flickering, but if each monitor is driven by a different card, there is no problem with normal idle clocks.

Message quoted 2 times
Message edited by bystander on 04-20-2011 at 05:30:26 PM

Reply to bystander

ATI + Nvidia for PhysX works fine. Just need this:
http://www.ngohq.com/graphic-cards [...] -04ff.html

Reply to wolfram23

bystander wrote :

I've been doing this for a year now with a couple different setups. I'm curious, exactly why would a 775 platform not see any physX improvement? From personal experience and benchmark reviews of this setup, even if you are running on a PCEe x4, there is no loss in performance, transferring the info does not seem to be what holds performance back. However, I don't have a 775 platform, so if you know of another problem, I'd like to know.

I also had found that what "most" people who don't own such a setup, think a 9800GT is the most performance you can gain from such a setup, I can tell you that this is wrong, at least for the only game I use it with (Sacred 2). A review a while back showed that optimal performance in the games they used was a 260. Again, it does depend on the game you play.

The bad news is that there are very few games out there that can take advantage of GPU accelerated PhysX.

The good news is that if you use multiple monitors for an extended desktop, not for eyefinity or surround, your comp will idle at much lower clocks and lower heat (possibly lower power), because to drive multiple monitors from a single card requires the memory to stay at full clocks to prevent flickering, but if each monitor is driven by a different card, there is no problem with normal idle clocks.

The only problem with 775 is the very poor system i/o performance. The 9800gt in most games for dedicated physx is more than enough while I have yet to play sacred 2 but I'll admit I do have a copy saved on a drive (iso) lol. gtx 260 is only needed when the 47% cap is reached on a lower end card.

Reply to nforce4max

bystander wrote :

I've been doing this for a year now with a couple different setups. I'm curious, exactly why would a 775 platform not see any physX improvement? From personal experience and benchmark reviews of this setup, even if you are running on a PCEe x4, there is no loss in performance, transferring the info does not seem to be what holds performance back. However, I don't have a 775 platform, so if you know of another problem, I'd like to know.

I also had found that what "most" people who don't own such a setup, think a 9800GT is the most performance you can gain from such a setup, I can tell you that this is wrong, at least for the only game I use it with (Sacred 2). A review a while back showed that optimal performance in the games they used was a 260. Again, it does depend on the game you play.

The bad news is that there are very few games out there that can take advantage of GPU accelerated PhysX.

The good news is that if you use multiple monitors for an extended desktop, not for eyefinity or surround, your comp will idle at much lower clocks and lower heat (possibly lower power), because to drive multiple monitors from a single card requires the memory to stay at full clocks to prevent flickering, but if each monitor is driven by a different card, there is no problem with normal idle clocks.

The gtx 260 is overkill just for a dedicated physx card.Firstly I own a gtx 275 and I played through the whole game and if I useed only my 275 then my fps would be a constant 30+.when I added a gt 240 as my physx card my fps got 40+ constant.even in mafia 2 which uses insane amount of physx I got a constant 30+fps on the most demanding and heavily used physx warehouse level.hell,if a gtx 260 was the optimal requirement for physx then for most of the people out there who own single rig setups will likely just buy AMD cards as physx is one of the main advanctages nvidia has over AMD

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to celpas

celpas wrote :

The gtx 260 is overkill just for a dedicated physx card.Firstly I own a gtx 275 and I played through the whole game and if I useed only my 275 then my fps would be a constant 30+.when I added a gt 240 as my physx card my fps got 40+ constant.even in mafia 2 which uses insane amount of physx I got a constant 30+fps on the most demanding and heavily used physx warehouse level.hell,if a gtx 260 was the optimal requirement for physx then for most of the people out there who own single rig setups will likely just buy AMD cards as physx is one of the main advanctages nvidia has over AMD

I'm not sure if you know what optimal means. It doesn't mean what's good enough, it means what is best. Maphia II is not likely the most physX demanding game either. I believe Dark Void would grab that crown. He's also not going out to buy a 260, he's using one he has, which I was pointing out, is about the optimum card for running PhysX at it's highest settings.

Anyways, to back of my claims that a 260 is about optimum, here is a benchmark of 5870's with different physX cards for Maphia II: http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] 764-8.html

Here is Dark void with physX set to low, again, it shows the 260 at about optimum: http://physxinfo.com/news/1657/dar [...] -round-up/

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to bystander

nforce4max wrote :

It will work and most people know very very little on this particular topic but they have already stated the need for the community patch aka the hacked drivers. Since you are using a 775 platform there is a chance that you may not see gains in physx games but if this is being used for reasons other than physx such as cuda apps then go for it. I suggest that you do give this a try but if there are losses then go without.

On the side a gtx 260 is overkill for this use but you already own

Ohhh that's great to hear it will work ........ I just wasn't sure that my MotherBoard will support the dedicated physx card

If it works I will make a party and invite you all guyz XD

Reply to MaXiMuM GaMeR

Many thanks for your great answers

I'm new here , I hope we will be friends ........ GaMinG Friends !!

Reply to MaXiMuM GaMeR

i will be broud to be part of this gaming friends
it can be done
believe me i did it with nvidia latest drivers with a couple of tricks i used to own 8600 GT but that card was not enough for physx so your Gtx 260 should be good but you may face several proplems as i did with my 8600 Gt
when you use video editing software i use cyberlink power director when i used to have the 8600 Gt the program keeped crashing till i removed the GFX then i realized that if you used program supports ati stream technology (and its availble now in the new 6000's cards but with diffrent name) the program will crash because it will think nvidia is the main card and nvidia dont support that technology so if you are planing to use it for physx it will work but i cant tell you that way on puplic just PM me

Message quoted 1 times

------------------------------ We love california
Reply to johnnyq8

bystander wrote :

I'm not sure if you know what optimal means. It doesn't mean what's good enough, it means what is best. Maphia II is not likely the most physX demanding game either. I believe Dark Void would grab that crown. He's also not going out to buy a 260, he's using one he has, which I was pointing out, is about the optimum card for running PhysX at it's highest settings.

Anyways, to back of my claims that a 260 is about optimum, here is a benchmark of 5870's with different physX cards for Maphia II: http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] 764-8.html

Here is Dark void with physX set to low, again, it shows the 260 at about optimum: http://physxinfo.com/news/1657/dar [...] -round-up/

the 260 can handle dark void at 1680X1050 and 1920X1080 at high settings on its own as nvidia themselves state in their optimal playable settings
http://www.geforce.com/#/Optimize/ [...] ce-GTX-260
Also the benchmark in the game is a worst case scenario.I average 41 fps in darkvoid with physx at high with my 275 gtx

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to celpas

johnnyq8 wrote :

i will be broud to be part of this gaming friends
it can be done
believe me i did it with nvidia latest drivers with a couple of tricks i used to own 8600 GT but that card was not enough for physx so your Gtx 260 should be good but you may face several proplems as i did with my 8600 Gt
when you use video editing software i use cyberlink power director when i used to have the 8600 Gt the program keeped crashing till i removed the GFX then i realized that if you used program supports ati stream technology (and its availble now in the new 6000's cards but with diffrent name) the program will crash because it will think nvidia is the main card and nvidia dont support that technology so if you are planing to use it for physx it will work but i cant tell you that way on puplic just PM me

you're welcome man I will be proud of it too

look I don't think I will ever need to use a video editing software so I dont care if it will crash or not XD

I just wasn't sure that my motherboard will be able to support the dedicated physx card

And no one made me sure yet

Reply to MaXiMuM GaMeR

celpas wrote :

the 260 can handle dark void at 1680X1050 and 1920X1080 at high settings on its own as nvidia themselves state in their optimal playable settings
http://www.geforce.com/#/Optimize/ [...] ce-GTX-260
Also the benchmark in the game is a worst case scenario.I average 41 fps in darkvoid with physx at high with my 275 gtx

Dark Void won't let you play at high physX settings without having dedicated physX card. You can play at high normal settings, but low physX.

Show me actual benchmarks and I'll believe you, but the benchmarks I showed, say otherwise. A list of what cards can play a game isn't exactly proof of anything. Game companies always over reach.

As I stated before, the 260 is about at the optimal performance point. Anything above improves performance very little to none, and even going down to the 250 has a pretty steep drop in performance according to the benchmarks I showed.

Message quoted 1 times
Message edited by bystander on 04-21-2011 at 04:55:26 PM

Reply to bystander

Oh well you already own so just use it and forget about this debate.

Reply to nforce4max

I just wanted to make one last note. This type of setup does not work with Windows Vista. Windows XP and Windows 7 can support two sets of video drivers, Vista doesn't.

Reply to bystander

bystander wrote :

Dark Void won't let you play at high physX settings without having dedicated physX card. You can play at high normal settings, but low physX.

Show me actual benchmarks and I'll believe you, but the benchmarks I showed, say otherwise. A list of what cards can play a game isn't exactly proof of anything. Game companies always over reach.

As I stated before, the 260 is about at the optimal performance point. Anything above improves performance very little to none, and even going down to the 250 has a pretty steep drop in performance according to the benchmarks I showed.

Firstly did you visit the link I said?It shows that the optimal playable settings for gtx 260 at 1680X1050 and 1920X1080 are everything including physx maxed with 36 fps and 30 fps which is quite playable for this game as this is a third person shooter.also the benchmark is run in a worst case scenario so30+ fps in the benchmark means 40 in atual gameplay.To back up this theory hardocp tested the game on the 275 and found the game playable at 1920X1080 with everything maxed,physx medium AND 2XAA AND got 46fps average.I myself played through the game with physx high on gtx 275 and I always got a constant 30+ fps at 1680X1050.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/201 [...] mance_iq/5
Dedicated physx cards are pretty much useless as all they do is suck power and they can only help you in 15 games

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to celpas

celpas wrote :

Firstly did you visit the link I said?It shows that the optimal playable settings for gtx 260 at 1680X1050 and 1920X1080 are everything including physx maxed with 36 fps and 30 fps which is quite playable for this game as this is a third person shooter.also the benchmark is run in a worst case scenario so30+ fps in the benchmark means 40 in atual gameplay.To back up this theory hardocp tested the game on the 275 and found the game playable at 1920X1080 with everything maxed,physx medium AND 2XAA AND got 46fps average.I myself played through the game with physx high on gtx 275 and I always got a constant 30+ fps at 1680X1050.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/201 [...] mance_iq/5
Dedicated physx cards are pretty much useless as all they do is suck power and they can only help you in 15 games

The point isn't "what's playable". He's arguing that the 260 shows improvements over the 250 or 240, but there isn't really any improvements beyond that. Therefore, the ONLY logical conclusion is that the 260 is the best PhysX card. Personally, as someone with a GT 240 for PhysX, I think a 240 is ALL you need but that doesn't mean there isn't better PhysX cards available.

Also, it's 21 games. http://physxinfo.com

And it's not useless if you play those games and if you don't have Nvidia main card. And the power usage at idle is laughable.

So basically, you're arguing a moot point. The OP has the card. It would be retarded to sell it and buy a 240 instead - way more hassle than it could possibly be worth.

Reply to wolfram23

Forum Graphics & Displays : Graphics Cards 6970 with 260GTX dedicated physx card on GIGABYTE EX-38-DQ6 , is it possible ?

Graphics Cards

TV Tuner Cards

AMD Radeon

Diamond Multimedia

Matrox

Nvidia

Palit

PowerColor

Please mind