Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Physx Upgrade

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
November 2, 2012 5:25:04 AM

Current Build:
ASRock Extreme3 Gen3 Motherboard (2 PCIe 3.0 slots)
Intel i3-2100
Sapphire Radeon HD 6850
500W OCZ PSU

Some future and recent games I have looked into have rather nice Physx integration (Borderlands 2, Arma 3), and I would like to pay for that upgrade.

My questions:
1. Are there any other advantages towards having a separate, cheap, Nvidia card for PhysX?
2. Will I experience many problems with software/hardware compatibility?
3. Would a change to a 550ti Fermi or similar card prove better?

I believe that the requirement for PhysX is 96 CUDA cores. If there are any other restrictions I should be aware of, please mention them!
:??: 

More about : physx upgrade

a b U Graphics card
November 2, 2012 5:40:24 AM

1.you won't see any performance drop at least from your main card that's used to run the game

2. you're gonna be needing a hacked driver if you're going to pair an AMD card with an Nvidia card as a dedicated PhysX card. while many users here have stated that they have no problem with said drivers, i'd rather side with caution, nonetheless, and tell you that while they do work, don't expect them to work 100% of the time.

http://physxinfo.com/wiki/Hybrid_PhysX#Driver_compatibi...

3. a cheap GT 430 will do you good, a 8800/9800 GTX would be great if you can find any.

http://physxinfo.com/wiki/GPUs_with_PhysX_support
m
0
l

Best solution

a c 191 U Graphics card
November 2, 2012 7:17:30 AM

It depends really on the card you purchase. There is a Physx mod out there (which I've done and will probably do again soon). Seeing as you have a 500W PSU, you are somewhat limited in your choices.

You could probably run a GT640. You could also get an old 9800GT which would be fantastic.

If you go too cheap though, you won't be able to run any games. My hacked drivers worked pretty well actually.
Share
Related resources
a c 133 U Graphics card
November 2, 2012 7:25:35 AM

I'd heed what hazle says. I'm unsure how these hacked drivers work they update physx frequently. Borderlands 2 is a pretty new game but runs on dx 9 so the physx side may be pretty lax on requirements either way if you want the extra eye candy I'm sure you could buy one of those cards and use it in tandem with a hacked driver or fork out the money for a gtx 600 series card 660,670,680 and use physx.
m
0
l
a c 191 U Graphics card
November 2, 2012 7:29:37 AM

I've used the hacked drivers, and they work well. Just use the Physx drivers that come with the 285.62 driver set from Nvidia.
m
0
l
a c 133 U Graphics card
November 2, 2012 7:41:01 AM

hows the drop in performance?

quite a big drop in versions from that and the up to date 306.97 by nvidia.
m
0
l
a c 191 U Graphics card
November 2, 2012 7:48:21 AM

Well, when I was using it, I was using a 9600GSO, which is a bit slower than what I usually recommend, which is a 8800GT/9800GT. Performance wasn't too bad on it though.

I would recommend the new drivers, but since the mod does not work with them, it won't operate correctly.

It was with a 6950 and a 9600GSO when I used it. Then for a short short time, I used a GTS250, which worked great with the 6950 until the 6950 started overheating too much in my new case (Antec Sonata) which is when I switched it out for my old GTX460, which runs Physx awesome.
m
0
l
a c 133 U Graphics card
November 2, 2012 7:57:56 AM

I hear reading around that some of the older cards have issues with physx maybe a gtx 640 or 650 shrugs. With borderlands 2 sorry I haven't seen anything with batman arkham city that game is really rough on even nvidia cards in phsyx.


This is when I was using two 560ti's in sli
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNdr9y6VZrk

Borderlands 2 with my 670 Physx on high.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZ1FPO2AbpM&feature=relm...

current config
Intel Core i5 2500k
Asrock Z68 EXTREME4 Gen 3
Gigabyte GeForce GTX 670 2GB OC
Corsair Vengeance DDR3 1600 8GB (2x4)
Creative Soundblaster X-Fi Titanium Fatality Professional
Samsung 830 256GB SATA III SSD
Seagate Barracuda 500 GB SATA II
LG 12x Super Multi Blue WH12LS38
CM Storm Sniper
Corsair AX850 PSU
Corsair Hydro H100
m
0
l
a c 191 U Graphics card
November 2, 2012 8:22:16 AM

Yea Arkham City is pretty hard to run for even modern systems. Borderlands I don't mind playing the Physx on medium, as it still looks pretty good anyway. And in the case of Borderlands, you are more playing for the storyline and the utterly hilarious comments made by the characters instead.

That's much better than my current main build lol. I'm using my 6950 in another build so it has more airflow. My plan is to get a new fan for the 6950 and get it back into my computer, so I can have better results in gaming as well as all sorts of programs, such as Solidworks and CAD and Visual Studio, which I use for school.

Main Tower

CPU: Intel Core i5 2500K @4.4GHz
Mobo: MSI Z68MA-G45
GPU: Nvidia GeForce GTX460 256-bit 900core/4000mem with Arctic Accelero Twin Turbo II
RAM: 16GB Corsair XMS3 1333MHz
CPU Cooler: Corsair H60
Boot drive: Western Digital Caviar Black 500GB
Storage drive: Western Digital Caviar Black 500GB (not the same as the boot)
Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB
Seagate 1TB external portable USB3.0 HDD
Seagate 2TB external desktop HDD
Case: Antec Sonata Proto
Optical drives: Asus 24X SATA DVD-RW drive
PSU: FSP Group AURUM GOLD 750W
Accessories: Razer Deathadder, Logitech K800, wired Xbox 360 controller, Razer Carcharias, Bose Companion 2 Speakers
TV Tuner: WinTV 1800
OS: Win7 Home Premium 64-Bit
Display: Magnavox TV 19MD357B

m
0
l
November 2, 2012 4:54:16 PM

Deemo13 said:
Yea Arkham City is pretty hard to run for even modern systems. Borderlands I don't mind playing the Physx on medium, as it still looks pretty good anyway. And in the case of Borderlands, you are more playing for the storyline and the utterly hilarious comments made by the characters instead.

GPU: Nvidia GeForce GTX460 256-bit 900core/4000mem with Arctic Accelero Twin Turbo II


That's interesting...
Currently, with my RADEON 6850, I am able to use physx on medium without any major drop in performance during combat (putting it on high will take my FPS down to 10-15 at times).
And with all this talk of 'Hacked Drivers' I don't think I would like to be buried in software issues.
I think I'll just wait and eventually upgrade to a GTX 660 or better when the money becomes available. I believe I have plenty of friends who would appreciate an upgrade to a 6850 anyway :kaola: 
m
0
l
November 2, 2012 4:56:49 PM

Best answer selected by armedtoe.
m
0
l
a c 191 U Graphics card
November 2, 2012 4:58:42 PM

I wouldn't be surprised if the i3 was able to keep up in Physx work. Its a good processor.
m
0
l
November 2, 2012 5:03:09 PM

Haha I do realize that in order to run the anticipated Arma 3, I will likely NEED a processor upgrade.
I have heard rumors that Arma 3's PhysX will be controlled by only your processor, so that might take a higher priority in the long run.
Sandy Bridge 2500k or similar will probably be my choice, due to their decreasing prices and because of Ivy bridge's heat problems.
m
0
l
November 2, 2012 5:10:02 PM

March 29th 2013 is the estimated date.
I could probably get in on the closeout sales near the beginning of next year.
You think an i7 would be more efficient in Arma 2/3? I always hear that 'Quad core is enough' in gaming, but Arma seems to be the one setting the bar for processor dependency.
m
0
l
a c 133 U Graphics card
November 2, 2012 5:13:58 PM

the i5 and i7 are both quad cores the only difference is the hyperthreading that the i7 gets which is mainly driven to those who do editing and rendering.
m
0
l
a c 191 U Graphics card
November 2, 2012 5:17:13 PM

I would say go for an i5 if you are gaming. The i7 is more for professional work like rendering, as said above.
m
0
l
November 2, 2012 5:18:32 PM

Alright, thanks everyone :) 
m
0
l
a c 191 U Graphics card
November 2, 2012 6:43:07 PM

No problem. Glad to help!
m
0
l
!