• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

AMD/NVIDIA TOGETHER!

DrPeirson said:
In which case i'm glad I didn't fold and buy one. Its a good thing for Nvidia that they jumped at the opportunity before the above destroyed the reputation for "PhysX"
Click to expand...

They only became obsolete because NVidia bought the company.

nvidia stopped developing the cards, and incorporated the tech into their own cards. If they had continued developing the separate physx cards, those cards would have kept apace with the technology and would still be viable. So there'd never have been a moment where the cards "lagging destroyed the reputation" of physx.

I'd argue NVidia buying the tech has done a pretty good job of that. It's not pretty much a joke, only useful for things that don't affect game play in any way. It can look nice, but it's a pathetic shadow of what it could have been if it had been vendor-neutral.
 
this REALLY caught my attention. Nvidia and AMD together? NICE!

I'm looking at the lower end cards OcUK sell, GT240,440 and 620 - low thermal output cards, the 620 is only 49w TDP and they're really cheap cards - hardware physx addition for my AMD card for 20-40 pounds? sounds good to me.

I've not gamed on a PC for years (well, i have, but my pc is ANCIENT so only ancient games play on it so isnt any help) - only really play driving games and the odd FPS that is outright gorefest (NO puzzle or strategy) do many driving games get an advantage from hardware physx?

are those lower end cards worth getting? i'm thinking of adding one to a HD7870 and it'll be in my rig a few years

does doing this stop lucid virtu mvp's i-mode from working?
 
Skree said:
this REALLY caught my attention. Nvidia and AMD together? NICE!

I'm looking at the lower end cards OcUK sell, GT240,440 and 620 - low thermal output cards, the 620 is only 49w TDP and they're really cheap cards - hardware physx addition for my AMD card for 20-40 pounds? sounds good to me.

I've not gamed on a PC for years (well, i have, but my pc is ANCIENT so only ancient games play on it so isnt any help) - only really play driving games and the odd FPS that is outright gorefest (NO puzzle or strategy) do many driving games get an advantage from hardware physx?

are those lower end cards worth getting? i'm thinking of adding one to a HD7870 and it'll be in my rig a few years

does doing this stop lucid virtu mvp's i-mode from working?
Click to expand...

Not seeing many driving games with PhysX personally - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_with_hardware-accelerated_PhysX_support so it would probably be more a bit of geek fun than something that is actually useful to do. Still a good enough reason for me. :D

I was torn between the GTX440 and GTX460. The 440 was cheaper and required less power, but I went with the 460 just in case (and it looked cooler in the case!). I have only played Batman Arkham City at the moment and I'm seeing GPU usage of 0%-40% most of the time, with occasional trips up to 60%-70% in some rooms. Based on this, I think a 440 would have been fine most of the time, but in the heavy bits it would have hit my FPS so I'm glad I went with the 460. This is all based on a single 7970 running the game in DX9 at 5760x1080 with 8xMSAA, if that makes any difference.

As for the Lucid question, not a clue I'm afraid. I'm still on a P67 motherboard, so can't even test it out for you, sorry.
 
Anyone done any actual benchmarks... With the GTX580 you had to have another GTX580 if you wanted to dedicate a card to physx otherwise it would throttle the primary card.
I'm wondering how a high end amd would cope with a lower end nvidia...
 
Confused Stu said:
Not seeing many driving games with PhysX personally - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_with_hardware-accelerated_PhysX_support so it would probably be more a bit of geek fun than something that is actually useful to do. Still a good enough reason for me. :D

I was torn between the GTX440 and GTX460. The 440 was cheaper and required less power, but I went with the 460 just in case (and it looked cooler in the case!). I have only played Batman Arkham City at the moment and I'm seeing GPU usage of 0%-40% most of the time, with occasional trips up to 60%-70% in some rooms. Based on this, I think a 440 would have been fine most of the time, but in the heavy bits it would have hit my FPS so I'm glad I went with the 460. This is all based on a single 7970 running the game in DX9 at 5760x1080 with 8xMSAA, if that makes any difference.

As for the Lucid question, not a clue I'm afraid. I'm still on a P67 motherboard, so can't even test it out for you, sorry.
Click to expand...

thanks stu. 'Because i can' is the best reason to do anything! :D I don't see an awful lot of games i'd think i'd play in that list (although there are a couple).
It does seem from the reading i've done that an older, higher end card is better for this than a newer, lower end card... which i have to be honest rules it out for me, wayyyyyy too power hungry and hot a card for me, the gtx 460.. i was thinking it would be worth it for a card with a TDP around 50-70w but not 150w.. if i wasn't already committed to going micro ATX for my new build, it might be different, however
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom