Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

EVGA gtx 650 vs 650 TI which one should i buy as a dedicated physx ?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
a b Î Nvidia
November 4, 2012 1:10:52 AM

I would buy neither. What do you have right now?

You can buy a used 8800GT/9800GT or a GTS250 (which works very well).

The GT640 should suffice with 300 something CUDA cores (I forgot how many) as well. But you can find a cheap older Nvidia card as well.
m
0
l
November 4, 2012 1:18:16 AM

i have a gtx 680 sc 2 and i get major fps drops like allot of other people do in games that have heavy physx usage like borderlands 2. this dude has ran some tests on video cards and said that the core clock is what he believes helped him achieve greater performance for his card

http://www.evga.com/forums/tm.aspx?m=1768879

and this is another dude with a gtx 680 like mine and he uses an dedicated physx card GT 640 http://www.evga.com/forums/tm.aspx?m=1756420&mpage=1

the point being it is absolutely necessary i get a phys x card so i can play all games on max settings like borderlands 2 without massive drops in fps.

if i get a really old card it will not perform adequately and there is evidence from youtube videos that i will suffer even more performance issues doing that.

so again i just want an opinion on these two cards on which one will work better for physx and whether or not the cuda cores with the higher mem speed is better than a card with a higher core clock
m
0
l
Related resources
November 4, 2012 1:25:56 AM

In my opinion in the long run, I Think you should just save your money and get a better card all around there's really no need for a dedicated phys x card any more and there's many benchmarks online that can show you where phys x cards may improve max Fps that they can lower your minimum Fps so there's really not much to gain in my opinion, Your money would be better spent on either a all around better card or the same card as your main and doing SLI/Crossfire. Also how many game do you have that really use phys x like 4. If you went my route all your games Fps would improve greatly.

PS: This is just my opinion, only trying too help best of luck and have fun gaming ma dude.
m
0
l
November 4, 2012 1:27:49 AM

well deemo thats not really true yes in certain areas the physx is handled really well by the gtx 680 but as you can see even from other people testing it the phys x takes such a huge toll in some areas that your fps can reach as low as zero. look at those links to see for yourself that i posted.

however with my own testing ive never reached 0 fpsi have reached 25 and 17 but thats only for a small period of time then its back up again. the problem is that because the physx hits the gtx 680 hard and fast you get a considerable amount of lag when the fps drops occur which impacts smooth gameplay
m
0
l
a b Î Nvidia
November 4, 2012 1:42:22 AM



Even though it is a 690, I feel that without a PPU, the 690 does fine. An average fps of 90 would be fantastic for me personally.
m
0
l
November 4, 2012 1:44:05 AM

ok im buying a dedicated phys x card and i want to know which one has the most bang for my buck

i have read this forum on some numbers and what i find interesting is that the 650 ti was out performed by the 650. but im still not sure because allot of other people are saying physx relies mainly on cuda cores and not on core clocks but his results showed that phys preformed better at higher clocks and minimal cuda cores.

these are the stats on both the cards and i would like an honest opinion on someone who knows about having a dedicated phys x card to help me make up my mind on which one is going to better higher core clock 650 or more than double the cuda cores 650 ti

GTX 650 Core Clock 1058MHz CUDA Cores 384 Memory Effective Memory Clock 5000MHz 94 dollars

GTX 650ti Core clock 928MHz CUDA Cores 768 Memory Effective Memory Clock 5400MHz 140 dollars

so again this card will be my dedicated phys x im making sure that it will be most beneficial to me when games like arma 3 come out and others that use physx

and here are the links to the newegg webpage where i will be purchasing one of the cards from

650ti http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

650 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
November 4, 2012 1:50:13 AM

those numbers look nice i know but as a person who owns a gtx 680 sc 2 i can tell you that high numbers dont necessarily mean smooth gameplay i get an average of 80 to 90 fps during regular game play the problem is when you encounter situations when theres a crap ton physx that needs to be calculated you get a huge fps drop that in turn lags the heck out your game making it unplayable even if its only for like 2 seconds or 3 at a time when it keeps happening over and over and over again it really ruins all the graphics. and game playability allot of people mention the hit to fps that lags up the game on max settings 1080p with physx on high which is why i need a dedicated phys x card that handles that so my 680 can run uninterrupted.

besides that my question is simple i want to know which dedicated physx card is best for my needs and if cuda cores is better than clock speed
m
0
l
November 4, 2012 2:00:20 AM

i would get the 650ti out of the two, it will last longer for future graphics imo. i dont like it when people suggest something other then whats in the question unless it was completely retarded. either would work well, but i would spend the extra 40-50 bucks or whatever for the 650ti
m
0
l
November 4, 2012 2:09:29 AM

thxs computer for the response so to make sure cuda corse is better for phys x?

the reason i ask is through testing one guy noted that all though the 650 ti had a considerably higher fps it also had the highest drop and the 650 had the less drop and more consistent framerate

GTX 650 112.77 17% 62.33 210.00
GTX 650 Ti 106.82 11% 69.67 239.33

but he also mentions thats because the 650 ti has a higher core clock the one im thinking about buying has less but higher cuda cores and 5400MH mem clock
m
0
l
November 4, 2012 2:14:15 AM

GTX 680 + GTX 580 SC (dedicated PhysX)
2012-10-01 01:18:30 – Borderlands2
Frames: 96895 – Time: 768648ms – Avg: 126.059 – Min: 13 – Max: 239
GTX 680 + GT 640 (dedicated PhysX)
2012-10-01 09:01:23 – Borderlands2
Frames: 420723 – Time: 3230437ms – Avg: 130.237 – Min: 23 – Max: 279

like look at these benchmarks the gt 640 has a higher core clock than the 580 sc the 580 being 797 and the 640 901.

what i find interesting is that the 640 has far less cuda cores than the 580 it has 384 tp the 580s 512

so is it really core clocks that matter the most?
m
0
l
a b Î Nvidia
November 4, 2012 2:29:05 AM

Well, the thing is in that bench you did above, there were twice as many frames for the 580 vs the 640. There might have been some really Physx-intensive parts of the game that may have affected benchmarks.

I personally would go with the 640.
m
0
l
a b Î Nvidia
November 4, 2012 2:48:22 AM

If you don't mind me asking what are your other specs griz I'm running a 670 and in BL2 with settings on ultra and phsyx on high I don't have any issues same goes for batman AC which is wayyyyyy wayyyyy more resource hungry phsyx wise.


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 b Î Nvidia
November 4, 2012 2:52:35 AM

bigshootr8 said:
If you don't mind me asking what are your other specs griz I'm running a 670 and in BL2 with settings on ultra and phsyx on high I don't have any issues same goes for batman AC which is wayyyyyy wayyyyy more resource hungry phsyx wise.


My thoughts exactly.
m
0
l
November 4, 2012 3:04:54 AM

cpu: i7 920 3.8 oc
mobo: ASUS P6X58D Premium
power: Corsair 850 w
ram: CORSAIR DOMINATOR 6GB
m
0
l

Best solution

Anonymous
a b Î Nvidia
November 4, 2012 3:16:08 AM

i found a direct comparison on the EVGA forums.
EVGA GTX 650 Ti SSC, Mini Review with Folding & PhysX results
third post down:
GTX670 + GTX650 PhysX High (28/100/84)

GTX670 + GTX650Ti PhysX High (28/100/86)


2 more fps for an average . . .
Share
November 4, 2012 3:28:56 AM

thank you for that forum it appears to be true then cuda cores dont mean much at all when it comes down to physx its all about the core speed.

and im glad to see the 10 extra min fps, you see my goal is not to have crazy fps during physx heavy instances, its to have less of a shock to my system when they occur to stop the lag. low fps in high stress situations will always occur but with this card i hope it diminishes the lag or better yet erase it by handling the physx while the 680 handles the graphics
m
0
l
November 4, 2012 3:47:57 AM

Best answer selected by grizdom.
m
0
l
Anonymous
a b Î Nvidia
November 4, 2012 3:54:33 AM

grizdom said:
thank you for that forum it appears to be true then cuda cores dont mean much at all when it comes down to physx its all about the core speed.

and im glad to see the 10 extra min fps, you see my goal is not to have crazy fps during physx heavy instances, its to have less of a shock to my system when they occur to stop the lag. low fps in high stress situations will always occur but with this card i hope it diminishes the lag or better yet erase it by handling the physx while the 680 handles the graphics

glad to help though honestly i just got lucky googling :) 
m
0
l
April 26, 2013 11:07:15 AM

Ran a fluidmark test with GTX680 along with physX dedicated GTX560.
The 560 kinda exploded. Its core temp shot up to 90 degrees by the end of the test, and its fan went awry with scary noise.
The card was working perfectly fine before I upgraded to 680 and placed it in second slot.

I7 OC 3.1
12G Ram
Rampage Gene 2
HX1050 corsair psu
m
0
l
!