Sub $110 Physx card? And Temp primary GPU

I think some users like to use the gt 450 as a physx card.

IDK if they're under $120 yet, but a GTX 650 might be ideal for you. If they're not, then a GTS 450 is a common choice.

Yeah! A few are. How is the GTX 640 Though? Does the DDR5 and DDR3 Matter for dedicated PPU? I hear it does, but people tell me not by much, I'm hoping someone knows lol.

It's GDDR5 and DDR3 or GDDR3 (there is no DDR5 yet, but we have both GDDR3 and DDR3, they're two different technologies).

The GT 640 is just a GTX 650 with DDR3 memory instead of GDR5. IDK how much memory bandwidth affects *PPU* performance

I've always been wondering, can you use an ATI card as your main card, and then have a Nvidia card working the PhysX? It would be great if you could, it could potentially remove PhysX only being strictly for Nvidia Users.

Yes, you can use a low end Nvidia card as a PPU for an Ati/AMD *master* card.

Ok sweet, just so I don't hijack the thread, I sent you a private message regarding the matter

Thanks

I think you use a driver hack to do that. I'm pretty sure it's possible! Don't worry about hijacking! It's still related lol.

Yeah, the only thing I wished with AMD cards was PhysX, even if not many games supported it, its not bad to have it. Its also good if it works with AMD cards, since sometimes I've seen people getting worse performance with a dedicated PhysX card. Really strange stuff.

You have to have a dedicated card that is optimal for your master card. Some people try using cards that are too weak and it doesn't go well.

Really? I saw someone using a 560ti with his 670, and he reported getting like two frames less.

I've seen a lot of things that don't always make sense. Without links to the test and having info about the rest of the hardware, OS, driver, software, and game setting specs, such things can't really be accounted for very accurately.

I'm not saying that that didn't happen, but it might have had more going to cause the issue then we might think. Of course, I could also be completely wrong and everything that I've read was just FUD. IDK, I haven't tested this myself, I only know of it and what others have said to me about it.

I think you need a decent low end card is all. Just a cool running card with a good amount of cuda cores. I know the GTS450 has performed well. I don't see it for sale anymore though. I saw a benchmark with SLI 570s and a GTS450 as a dedicated PPU. The Results were 7-19 fps in a few popular titles (Metro and batman), but it was only like 5-7 more FPS in Borderlands and some other game I don't remember the name of. I can't find the bench marks though   My theory is that the 560Ti might be too powerful of a card.

Anyone know if ATI and Ageia work well together? I'm not a fan boy, If I can get better performance at a better price, I'm all for it!

An actual Ageia card instead of a Nvidia card being treated as one would have to be pretty darned old IIRC and probably not good enough.

Thanks! Lol, looks like I'll deff go Nvidia!

GT640 and GTX650 are not even worthy to wipe one's a$$ let alone be used for physx and gaming. I suggest that you search for something else and there are much more powerful cards that can be bought for less that are of older designs. On eBay a used gtx460 can be as little as $60.

I tried for a GTX 460, but they were too expensive, and I decided it would be overkill as a Dedicated PPU. So I bought a ZOTAC GTS 450 512mb for $60. Cheers.

Of course, the key for a dedicated PhysX card is the number of CUDA cores. A GT 640 with 384 CUDA cores, the same as a GTX 560 Ti, makes it an excellent choice for under $100.

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned that you won't be able to run multiple cards with a 350 watt PSU.

i think what OP meant was hes buying a gpu now which he will eventually use as a physx card later. Hes waiting for the next gen nvidia series(so he has a good wait time before mid tier ones get released) and when the time arises, he will probably buy a new PSU along with a card.(At least that's what I percieved* with the situation)

Yeeap! You get me dude! The GTS 450 will serve me just fine! (for now that is) You'll see me more here once I start gaming... and maybe overclocking.

You don't understand that Fermi and Kepler are not one to one when it comes to performance per unit at any given clock and Kepler is much more bandwidth sensitive. Also Fermi can be had at much lower prices these days.

I actually learned that about the CUDA cores from you anyway, so I assume you know what you're talking about.

I just don't think there have been a lot of tests comparing Physx performance between Fermi and Kepler to know for sure. I know there were some comments made about optimizing Kepler for additional PhysX performance, but apparently these weren't true.

"Many rumors were floating around Kepler and its physics acceleration capabilities, some were endowing new GPU with dedicated PhysX blocks, others were claiming ability to run CPU PhysX games in hardware – none of this happens to be true." There seem to be some clues here:
http://physxinfo.com/news/7862/gtx-680-physx-benchmarks...

Truth is, Anything over a X50 Nvidia card is OverKill for physx. That is until the next Gen of Physx. Then I'll probably upgrade. But I think a GTS 450 serves the budget just right...