What is the best dedicated PhysX card?

[saturnotaku]

Originally Posted by DiscipleDOC

I have a 260 that I'm going to use for my PhysX card...

That seems excessive. Why not sell it, get a single-slot card that uses either one or no external power connectors, and pocket the difference?

I once again have to pimp the 9800 GT I'm using right now. Single slot, no external power, and a full 112 SPUs.

[JasonPC]

Originally Posted by grey_1

Silly question- with my 470, IN Batman AA physx is set to normal with no dedicated card and it's perfectly playable with all else maxed at 1680x1050.

Is the physx performance in this title indicative of what to expect in other titles that utilize physx? Would I really need a physx card?

If it does make that much difference, I may have to grab one.

It kind of depends, there are some scenes in Batman AA that use very demanding PhysX effects and other times where it is hardly using any. I think Cryostasis uses more demanding physics just in general. But the scenes in Batman AA where you are up against Scarecrow are pretty demanding, probably just as much as any other physx title. Of course in Ghostbusters they were able to achieve the same type of effects using just CPU physics but whatever....

[DiscipleDOC]

Originally Posted by saturnotaku

That seems excessive. Why not sell it, get a single-slot card that uses either one or no external power connectors, and pocket the difference?

I once again have to pimp the 9800 GT I'm using right now. Single slot, no external power, and a full 112 SPUs.

Are you saying that I can get the same PhysX performance from a 9800 that I get with a 260?

Originally Posted by JasonPC

It kind of depends, there are some scenes in Batman AA that use very demanding PhysX effects and other times where it is hardly using any. I think Cryostasis uses more demanding physics just in general. But the scenes in Batman AA where you are up against Scarecrow are pretty demanding, probably just as much as any other physx title. Of course in Ghostbusters they were able to achieve the same type of effects using just CPU physics but whatever....

Heh, forgot about Cryostasis

Thanks, I may just snag a 9800GT. I have to admit the physx really does add a lot to the immersion.

[mojoman0]

It seems there are under 10 games that utilize physx enough to want to have it. Batman and Mirror's Edge are the best implementations I've see so far. Not worth a standalone physx card from my point of view, only if you have an extra card lying around, or youre just an enthusiast

[saturnotaku]

Originally Posted by DiscipleDOC

Are you saying that I can get the same PhysX performance from a 9800 that I get with a 260?

Pretty much, yeah. Or at least, the difference in performance is so minuscule as to not be worth the added heat and power consumption between a 260 and the 9800 GT I linked to above.

Here is an article comparing performance in several games, including Cryostasis. They use a GTX 285, GTS 250 (a bit more powerful than a 9800 GT), and 9600 GT as a dedicated PhysX GPU, when paired with identical cards, both in and out of an SLI configuration.

[snowmanwithahat]

Originally Posted by grey_1

Silly question- with my 470, IN Batman AA physx is set to normal with no dedicated card and it's perfectly playable with all else maxed at 1680x1050.

Is the physx performance in this title indicative of what to expect in other titles that utilize physx? Would I really need a physx card?

If it does make that much difference, I may have to grab one.

Yes its a good indication of the performance you'll see.... Physx isn't doing alot for games just yet.

I personally only have the 9800 GTX because it was $30 and I use it for other CUDA things

Originally Posted by snowmanwithahat

Yes its a good indication of the performance you'll see.... Physx isn't doing alot for games just yet.

I personally only have the 9800 GTX because it was $30 and I use it for other CUDA things

I would like to have a 9800GTX for only $30!

Thanks for elaborating - I thnk I'll just keep my eyes open for a good deal then, no hurry though.

[CaptNKILL]

Originally Posted by saturnotaku

Pretty much, yeah. Or at least, the difference in performance is so minuscule as to not be worth the added heat and power consumption between a 260 and the 9800 GT I linked to above.

Here is an article comparing performance in several games, including Cryostasis. They use a GTX 285, GTS 250 (a bit more powerful than a 9800 GT), and 9600 GT as a dedicated PhysX GPU, when paired with identical cards, both in and out of an SLI configuration.

I saw that article when I was looking at Physx cards. I'd be a bit careful with their results.

For one, they benched Far Cry 2 which doesn't even use Physx, and they actually got differing results at times which leads me to believe they made some errors.

Also, Cryostasis is EXTREMELY heavy on Physx calculations in situations with lots of water, which I highly doubt they took the time to look for judging from their results.

[snowmanwithahat]

Yeh.... what Captn said.... I don't know why they included Far Cry 2, that's not a physx enabled game that I'm aware of.

[WeReWoLf]

It's not, It's an AmbiX enabled game...

[JasonPC]

I think they were testing for the theory that enabling physx lowers performance in non-physx enabled games due to some kind of overhead.

Edit: I installed the GT 240 and while the Fluidmark score is lower than my 8800 I have found that it made no difference in games that use physx. So until games start upping particle counts or using more effects, it seems like even a GT 240 can handle it. I'm liking the lower power consumption and heat of the GT 240 compared to the 8800 plus it came with three free games and a $35 rebate on top of a sale. So it ends up only costing $50.