Using a graphics card strictly for physics?

Im switching from consoles to PC and I was wondering when using a grapics card for physics does it have to be the same generation as the other card? Because I have an old Nvidia 8000 card and I was thinking of using it just for that if possible with a 560ti/6950/or 570.

Like C-Rule mentioned it depends on the card you'll be using for Physx. It's a hit or miss with it really, i've never had the crave for it..

No, it just has to be an nVIDIA card. What is the card you have? Cause if you have a good primary card, and use a crap one for PhysX, it can decrease your performance.C_Rule

[QUOTE="C_Rule"]No, it just has to be an nVIDIA card. What is the card you have? Cause if you have a good primary card, and use a crap one for PhysX, it can decrease your performance.Cj19_32

[QUOTE="Cj19_32"][QUOTE="C_Rule"]No, it just has to be an nVIDIA card. What is the card you have? Cause if you have a good primary card, and use a crap one for PhysX, it can decrease your performance.ferret-gamer

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]

[QUOTE="Cj19_32"] I have an old GeForce 8600GT and im upgrading to one of these 3 560ti/6950/or 570.Cj19_32

Anyways, on System Wars there is a topic about Battlefield 3 and they are interviewing some devs with a Question and Answer part.

They aimed the question on the system requirements needed to play the game, on which they said it won't be hard to run and won't be Crysis-like. So i wouldn't worry too much about it mate. Any decent quad-core and decent GPU should handle it fine.

You need at least a gtx 260-ish card for physx at least otherwise your performance drop would be too huge to be worthwhile. If you really want physx than buy a gtx 5xx card and let it do both since older cards & cpu are not good with running physx.

[QUOTE="Cj19_32"]

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"] The only one that a 8600gt would noticably improve physx performance is the 6950, a 560 or 570 would be able to handle physx by themselves, but the 6950 being an amd card doesn't normally support having a physx card, requiring the use of a modded driver.

BattleSpectre

Anyways, on System Wars there is a topic about Battlefield 3 and they are interviewing some devs with a Question and Answer part.

They aimed the question on the system requirements needed to play the game, on which they said it won't be hard to run and won't be Crysis-like. So i wouldn't worry too much about it mate. Any decent quad-core and decent GPU should handle it fine.

You need at least a gtx 260-ish card for physx at least otherwise your performance drop would be too huge to be worthwhile. If you really want physx than buy a gtx 5xx card and let it do both since older cards & cpu are not good with running physx.

Bikouchu35

I've seen some data indicating that you only need a card on the level of a 9800gtx/8800gts 512 or better to benefit from a dedicated Physx card. That being said, it's just not worth it when you have a strong primary GPU. It's a waste of a PCI-E slot, a waste of power, and a waste of money.

http://physxinfo.com/news/3728/mafia-ii-demo-physx-benchmarks-roundup/

I think this sums it up pretty well. The number is there but is the matter of your opinion on how much is good performance vs $ on physx setup.

You can always buy two gtx 460 sli now and sell one of them off later for better card thus leaving one for physx... oh the possibilities.

http://physxinfo.com/news/3728/mafia-ii-demo-physx-benchmarks-roundup/

I think this sums it up pretty well. The number is there but is the matter of your opinion on how much is good performance vs $ on physx setup.

You can always buy two gtx 460 sli now and sell one of them off later for better card thus leaving one for physx... oh the possibilities.

Bikouchu35

That is just one game, but the results are interesting nonetheless. Still a big waste of money.

If this is the 256MB 8600GT, don't bother, that was just a poor card for a actual GPU, let alone running physx on it.

For PhysX (Since you can't take away all physics processing, only games with PhysX,) you'd want a 550 Ti at the minimum. Can't remember the website, but a few weeks ago they tested it with some 580s and various cards, including the 550 Ti and 9600GT. The 9600GT couldn't handle PhysX very well at all and wasn't worth it. However the 550 Ti was still asking for more and wasn't even breaking a sweat. It even kept up with the 560 Ti.

Tl;DR, if you want to use PhysX, get the 550 Ti for dedicated processing.

For PhysX (Since you can't take away all physics processing, only games with PhysX,) you'd want a 550 Ti at the minimum. Can't remember the website, but a few weeks ago they tested it with some 580s and various cards, including the 550 Ti and 9600GT. The 9600GT couldn't handle PhysX very well at all and wasn't worth it. However the 550 Ti was still asking for more and wasn't even breaking a sweat. It even kept up with the 560 Ti.

Tl;DR, if you want to use PhysX, get the 550 Ti for dedicated processing.

ChubbyGuy40

Skip the 550Ti and get a cheaper GTS 450 or a GTX 460 768mb. The GTS 450 GPU is just an underclocked 550Ti core, and the GTX 460 is only 15-20 dollars more and has a lot more GPU muscle for Physx. Even if the 550Ti keeps up in some games, the fact is that a 336 core part will pull away when Physx games get more demanding.

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]

[QUOTE="Cj19_32"] I have an old GeForce 8600GT and im upgrading to one of these 3 560ti/6950/or 570.Cj19_32

That is just one game, but the results are interesting nonetheless. Still a big waste of money.

hartsickdiscipl

@.@ the physx performance hog on that game is pretty crazy. I think is good benchmark for future games.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

That is just one game, but the results are interesting nonetheless. Still a big waste of money.

Bikouchu35

@.@ the physx performance hog on that game is pretty crazy. I think is good benchmark for future games.

That would be like saying that Crysis was a good benchmark for future games in 2007. It doesn't work that way. You can't extrapolate from 1 or 2 games.

Mafia II is pretty much the only game that makes use of PhysX properly, and my single 570 runs the game and physx on high without breaking a sweat. Dedicating another card to physx is a waste

Mafia II is pretty much the only game that makes use of PhysX properly, and my single 570 runs the game and physx on high without breaking a sweat. Dedicating another card to physx is a waste

wis3boi

That would be like saying that Crysis was a good benchmark for future games in 2007. It doesn't work that way. You can't extrapolate from 1 or 2 games.

hartsickdiscipl

Except that thats comparing to two or more different gpu (nv vs amd vs ??) makers while physx is pretty much Nvidia, thus working in a fixed increment (more likely so than the former). If you were to be unware like TC you may think a beatup old bfg physx or his 8600gt is good for using as dedicated physx. While the chart at least gave an idea on where to start. Im just saying gtx 260 as an arbitrary line, heck the internet is there for you, but thats just one example that I found from the many. I can be hotlinking all the day, but thatll be pointless.

Besides in 2007 if you can run Crysis you can run everything!

physx isn't worth the effort. I have a geforce 460 1gb and I can't tell the difference between that and my older radeon card for physics. Not to mention the number of games that actually use it is like 10, and the only games you will actually play that have it is probably 2.