King of Heroes
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2008
- Messages
- 2,006
Has anyone tried out the new GT220s for PhysX processing? A recent post on Fudzilla suggested these might be good for that.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
rightPhysx doesn't need the memory bandwidth (as much?)?
So what's better as a PhysX card; a 9600GSO 512mb (96sp), a 9600GSO 384mb (96sp), or a 9600GT 512mb (64sp)?
sorry, but that's completely wrong.The 9600GT is. 256bit vs. 128 or 192bit. Also the GT's core and shader and memory speeds are way faster then the GSO. Mine for example runs at 700core/1700shader/2000memory. Find me a GSO that can run at those speeds even a OC version...
you're right. In fact, I think a guy on these forums benched a 9800gt vs a 9800gtx and found the gtx provided better performance when used as a physx card. I think he even showed gains when moving from a 9800gtx to a GTX260 in certain scenarios220... meh. The 240 is actually a tad bit better overall than the "good" 9600GSO. This is the lowest part I'd consider for a dedicated physx card . The GTS 250/9800GTX+ is what people are beginning to give the 'ideal physx card' tag to after EVGA put out that weird GTX card with the built-in GTS 250 core to be dedicated for physx.
*take the above post with a grain of salt. I just woke up and my memory absolutely sucks.
That's honestly bizarre. I saw a fairly big improvement going from a GTX260 doing everything, to a GTX260 doing graphics and a 9800GT doing PhysX. I'm also not seeing slowdowns like you're describing.
You know what...try turning off Antialiasing. See what happens.
Give a reboot a try.
If not, the next thing I'd do is re-install my nvidia drivers.
stupid question but you have the GT220 set as the physX card in the nvidia control panel right?
sorry i knew that ive been following all along.
you have the 9600gt set as the physX card in the nvidia control panel right?
Posted via [H] Mobile Device
Yeah, it seems like the 9600GT / GT240 are exactly at the point of equilibrium; they process PhysX just fast enough to hold our gimped GTX295 back at exactly the same framerates.
Do you have a faster card you can try to see if you get get over this hump?
What? A faster card than the 295? To get much faster than even half the 295 you'd need a 285. That's all there is from the nVidia camp, and it's not going to be a huge difference. Are you suggesting a 5970??
Yeah, a faster PhysX card... because it looks like the 9600GT / GT240 are just fast enough to hold back the GTX295 at almost exactly the same frame rates.
right. the "Scarecrow" levels in Batman AA are the most impressive use of PhysX available IMO. Batman also has a built in benchmarking tool which is impacted by physX performance, in my experience.Batman Arkham Asylum, with PhysX set to high, is fairly demanding. The developers recommend a GTX260 for graphics with a 9800GTX (also known as the GTS250) dedicated to PhysX
So what's better as a PhysX card; a 9600GSO 512mb (96sp), a 9600GSO 384mb (96sp), or a 9600GT 512mb (64sp)?
nope9600 gt. that's what i run with for physx works great in games like batman aa and mirrors edge.
nope
physx is almost entirely dependent on number of SPs and the shader clock
So, go with whichever of those 9600GSOs that has the higher shader clockspeed (which of course can be overclocked)