To PhysX or not to PhysX that is the drunk man's question

Siegehammer · 19 Apr 2013 at 01:12

I have two GTX680 in my PC & was given a GTS450 for free by some random generous stranger. I decided to stick this card in as a dedicated PhysX card & see what results I'd get. So I ran Fluidmark & the results for 1080 preset were as follows:

680 SLI + 450 = 2309
680 SLI (card 2 does PhysX) = 2315
680 SLI + CPU 3930k @ 4.6GHz = 1900
680 + 680 PhysX = 2312
680 + 450 PhysX = 2312

For this benchmark tool having a dedicated PhysX Processors seems to make bugger all difference. Not sure if its worth having a dedicated PhysX card even if it's free. I know I should run game benchmarks but I'm too drunk & tired to do that at this very moment but if you guys have any real world test suggestions I would be willing to try them when I'm sober.

Siegehammer · 19 Apr 2013 at 01:24

*drunken man's question... I think >.<

d_brennen · 19 Apr 2013 at 01:26

Physx is a dead duck, leave it to your 680s (or more commonly your CPU :rolleyes:

)

It just isn't worth worrying about

Siegehammer · 19 Apr 2013 at 01:31

Yeah seems like it, no optimization seems to make it pointless. Even though in terms of PC gaming a GTS 450 is weak stuff, compared to consoles its still a beast but with no optimization in PhysX its not really serving a purpose I suppose.

BluD · 19 Apr 2013 at 01:32

When i bought my last sli setup before i changed back to ati, i also bought a dedicated physx card, and when i fitted it and told the drivers to use it, it actually gave lower fps on the physx benchmarks, so i just took it out, and let the sli handle it again.

ubersonic · 19 Apr 2013 at 01:38

Siegehammer said:
For this benchmark tool having a dedicated PhysX Processors seems to make ****** all difference.

Isn't ~2300 with hardware PhysX vs ~1900 with software PhysX in improvement? Or am I missing something /shrug

I don't mean to trash the benchmarking tool your using but there is a comparison thread on another forum I dare not link to but Googling "GTX-580 with a dedicated GTS-450 PhysX card" should help, that thread uses actual games as benches like Metro 2033, Mafia 2, Batman AA, Batman AC, etc. And the general results were that GTS450 as a dedicated PhysX card supporting a GTX580 returned slightly better FPS than the GTX580 doing both and notably better FPS than CPU PhysX (not to say that a GTX680 won't do better than a GTX680 ofc).

Siegehammer · 19 Apr 2013 at 01:39

Well that really depends on the situation in theory. Your PhysX card must be powerful enough to be able to keep up with your GPUs. So for instance if you were to use say three GTX Titans for really high res graphics but then use a GT 520 for PhysX you will definitely take a hit. But if you were to use a 670 you would get far better results. The slowest card which usually is the physX card must be able to keep up with the rendering cards else you take a hit.

Siegehammer · 19 Apr 2013 at 01:40

ubersonic said:
Isn't ~2300 with hardware PhysX vs ~1900 with software PhysX in improvement? Or am I missing something /shrug

I just added the CPU for reference purposes. The point is it makes no difference when its purely a GPU task.

Siegehammer · 19 Apr 2013 at 02:03

ubersonic said:
Isn't ~2300 with hardware PhysX vs ~1900 with software PhysX in improvement? Or am I missing something /shrug

I don't mean to trash the benchmarking tool your using but there is a comparison thread on another forum I dare not link to but Googling "GTX-580 with a dedicated GTS-450 PhysX card" should help, that thread uses actual games as benches like Metro 2033, Mafia 2, Batman AA, Batman AC, etc. And the general results were that GTS450 as a dedicated PhysX card supporting a GTX580 returned slightly better FPS than the GTX580 doing both and notably better FPS than CPU PhysX (not to say that a GTX680 won't do better than a GTX680 ofc).

I don't mind if you are trashing it, not like I spent any time researching if it's actually any good. I just downloaded it because it's on the same site as Furmark. If anything I'd guess that the 450 isn't enough to boost two 680s scores but then I would need to do a real gaming test instead of a quick & lazy benchmark.

Siegehammer · 19 Apr 2013 at 02:09

I will try the Batman Arkham Asylum Benchmark tomorrow evening since I already have that installed & then post the results for those who might have an interest.

Arthur Hucksake · 19 Apr 2013 at 06:01

Yeah, need game benchies really to judge.

Siegehammer · 20 Apr 2013 at 13:05

So here are the results for Arkham Asylum with max settings @ 1920x1080

GTX680 SLI + GTS450 PhysX

Min: 59
Max: 120
Ave: 102

GTX680 + GTX680 PhysX

Min: 59
Max: 120
Ave: 101

GTX680 SLI + PhysX

Min: 80
Max: 121
Ave: 116

GTX680 + GTS450 PhysX

Min: 59
Max: 120
Ave: 100

Clearly the GTS450 is not fast enough to keep up with two GTX680s in SLI

Rusty0611 · 20 Apr 2013 at 13:08

Perhaps not but you're hardly gettin poor performance on any set up.

opethdisciple · 20 Apr 2013 at 13:58

d_brennen said:
Physx is a dead duck, leave it to your 680s (or more commonly your CPU )

It just isn't worth worrying about

Honestly, this is the last time I want to hear such comments.

Dead duck? When there are future titles coming out with physx and the next gen consoles will also have physx support?

The only thing I wouldn’t do is buy a separate card just to run physx. It'll run fine on non dedicated cards.

Siegehammer · 20 Apr 2013 at 14:20

opethdisciple said:
Honestly, this is the last time I want to hear such comments.

Dead duck? When there are future titles coming out with physx and the next gen consoles will also have physx support?

The only thing I wouldn’t do is buy a separate card just to run physx. It'll run fine on non dedicated cards.

Agreed, if anything Physics Processing/rendering & becoming more prevalent in games, PhysX is just a proprietary system by Nvidia but Physics processing is far from being a dead duck & makes many games seem more realistic. Without it we would go back to crappy unrealistic scripted sequences like back in 2001.

spoffle · 20 Apr 2013 at 14:36

opethdisciple said:
Honestly, this is the last time I want to hear such comments.

That's quite demanding of you.

Dead duck? When there are future titles coming out with physx and the next gen consoles will also have physx support?

The only thing I wouldn’t do is buy a separate card just to run physx. It'll run fine on non dedicated cards.

The current consoles can use it. It's no different to how it is now at all because the new consoles won't be running hardware PhysX. Hardware PhysX is what is a dead duck.

To be blunt, it's been squandered as a petty selfish marketing tool.

Out of all the PhysX titles out, less than 10% use GPU PhysX. So whilst I can see PhysX as an API being around for quite some time yet, I can't see the GPU accelerated stuff lasting long.

spoffle · 20 Apr 2013 at 14:40

Siegehammer said:
Agreed, if anything Physics Processing/rendering & becoming more prevalent in games, PhysX is just a proprietary system by Nvidia but Physics processing is far from being a dead duck & makes many games seem more realistic. Without it we would go back to crappy unrealistic scripted sequences like back in 2001.

He was talking about PhysX, not physics. They're different things. PhysX isn't the only physics API used in games.

Akagi · 20 Apr 2013 at 14:43

You can just have a regular single card or multiple card NVIDIA setup and it will be able to handle PhysX as well as anything else surely? Why would you bother getting a GTS450 to go with GTX680 SLI? I don't understand. Just get 680SLI and let them do everything.

My GTX660 OC does everything including PhysX on its own. Bless it :')

tommybhoy · 20 Apr 2013 at 15:50

opethdisciple said:
Dead duck? When there are future titles coming out with physx and the next gen consoles will also have physx support?

Has gpu PhysX been confirmed by Sony/MS for the PS4/720?

PhysX is available and used on current consoles-though not gpu accelerated.

One thing Nvidia saying it's going to be 'available', another thing entirely if Sony/MS/Devs want to pay for the use of gpu PhysX as I highly doubt it will be a 'freebie' from Nvidia.

UE4 has an alternative gpu physics api in built in the engine this time round, no doubt it will be a hugely popular engine again and I imagine devs will concentrate on the free physics api rather than put further costs onto their development budgets by paying gpu PhysX license fees.

Nvidia pay developers to implement gpu PhysX into PC titles-TWIMTBP, are they going to pay for console titles to use gpu PhysX where there is no monies in it for Nvidia?

I highly doubt it.

Looking forward to the delights of the PhysX effects on the new Metro title btw, might have to throw in the old 9800GT if it needs a gpu and can't be done off the cpu-but should be doable on the cpu with PhysX 3 afaik.

Siegehammer · 20 Apr 2013 at 19:42

acme15 said:
You can just have a regular single card or multiple card NVIDIA setup and it will be able to handle PhysX as well as anything else surely? Why would you bother getting a GTS450 to go with GTX680 SLI? I don't understand. Just get 680SLI and let them do everything.

My GTX660 OC does everything including PhysX on its own. Bless it :')

If you read my first post you would have seen I got the GTS450 for free...