A question for the Graphics Gurus

[DiscipleDOC]

What's better for PhysX--2 GTX 285, or one GTX 285, and other 285 dedicated to PhysX?

[Redeemed]

Oooh... that's a good one.

I guess a lot depends on what resolution you play at. At 1680x1050, my single GTX260 could play Crysis all at Very High, with no AA. Framerate never dipped below 25, which for me was playable.

So if you have a GTX285, I'm sure running them in SLi while have PhysX enabled wont hurt. Only real way to find out is to test each, of course. But I'd just rock SLi and leave PhysX enabled. What *should* happen is the card with the least work load takes over PhysX effects. Should have no impact on framerate.

Good question though.

[Maverick123w]

I'm just taking a stab at the dark and saying that the dedicated physx gpu will be the significantly faster option. Like I said though just a guess.

Edit: Btw man, very nice rig.

[bob saget]

crapload of people have asked this question, maybe sticky?
And I don't even know the answer

[jolle]

having one GTX 285 dedicated for physX is probably huge waste though.
A cheaper card would suffice, and unless you play only PhysX powered games, with GPU support at that, it´d be idle most of the time.
(cant remember the last time I played a game with GPU support)

I´d guess you´d get more bang for the buck running em in SLI.
Or using a GTX285 for rendering and a cheaper card for PhysX.

[Redeemed]

Significantly faster? I don't know- I think what resolution DOC's gaming at is the determining factor, and what is the minimal acceptable framerate in his opinion.

I'd venture a single GTX285 is plenty for 1680x1050. But I'm betting he games at 1920x1200... so that might be a bit much for a single 285. Thus, running SLi will allow him to have sustained framerates that are acceptable, and the one card with the lightest work load just does PhysX.

Kind of a hard call, not having tinkered with such myself. I'm under the impression though that a single GTX285 is over kill for dedicated physX- no game out can fully use the card just for PhysX. Hence why keeping SLi and just enabling GPU accelerated PhysX is probably the best option... all just a guess though.

[Maverick123w]

Originally Posted by Redeemed

Significantly faster? I don't know- I think what resolution DOC's gaming at is the determining factor, and what is the minimal acceptable framerate in his opinion.

I'd venture a single GTX285 is plenty for 1680x1050. But I'm betting he games at 1920x1200... so that might be a bit much for a single 285. Thus, running SLi will allow him to have sustained framerates that are acceptable, and the one card with the lightest work load just does PhysX.

Kind of a hard call, not having tinkered with such myself. I'm under the impression though that a single GTX285 is over kill for dedicated physX- no game out can fully use the card just for PhysX. Hence why keeping SLi and just enabling GPU accelerated PhysX is probably the best option... all just a guess though.

I agree that a single gtx285 is over kill for physx, but from what I've seen having a dedicated physx card seems much faster than not having one. Maybe I missed a review where they tested physx with sli but I didn't think it helped much.

[Revs]

If the choice is either two 285's in SLi doing gfx and PhysX or a single 285 doing gfx and another doing PhysX then I'd say the the SLi option would be better, probably by a long way.

PhysX doesn't require that much power, so a 285 purely for PhysX is pretty major overkill. You would have much more benefit using both in SLi and letting PhysX take whatever power it needs to do it's thing. Basically what you're asking is; will the demands of PhysX make two cards in SLi running gfx and PhysX slower than a single card just running gfx? No, not by a long shot .

Of course SLi + PhysX (3 cards) with something like a 9600/9800GT dedicated to PhysX is the best way to go, but a lack of room on the mobo is an issue for many.

Another thing to think about is just altering the settings for the rare occasion you play a PhysX enabled game.

Hope that made sense

[DiscipleDOC]

Thanks for the replies, and yes, I agree that this should be a sticky.

I do have an extra 260 that I probably can put in as a dedicated PhysX card, but I want to hold on on that before I do that. Not only that, I would have to make some arrangements to get my third card to have the necessary power.


Anyway, keep up the discussion...this is very interesting.

[Dr.Nick]

sli without doubt, even when playing batman. However a dedicated physx card is very nice to have also

[shilk]

Originally Posted by jolle

having one GTX 285 dedicated for physX is probably huge waste though.
A cheaper card would suffice, and unless you play only PhysX powered games, with GPU support at that, it´d be idle most of the time.
(cant remember the last time I played a game with GPU support)

I´d guess you´d get more bang for the buck running em in SLI.
Or using a GTX285 for rendering and a cheaper card for PhysX.

My thoughts exactly. Although I'm only running a cheap 9600 GT in SLi, they have no problems what so ever with PhysX. With Batman: AA, I was able to run it on high with no issues — most of the time.

Having both 285 cards in SLi would be perfectly fine. And the PhysX performance would be great.

[Revs]

Originally Posted by abtomat74

I don't remember where I booked the article, but I seem to recall reading about a 9600gt or thereabouts being more than is needed for any physx usage, if not the perfect card.

Here is one of the articles from the other thread in case you missed it:
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...ance/page5.asp

You're right, I read the same article. The conclusion was that there was no gain to be had from anything over a 9600GT, which is why I got one myself .