• 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.

worth using old gfx for Physics?

Memphis Raines

Memphis Raines

Memphis Raines

Associate
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
468
Location
Stockton.
Just built a system for a mate that runs mainly BF3 and Crysis 3 and similar games

spec is i5 3570K @ 4.4, Gigabyte Z77x UD3H running a 7950 GFX,

when running BF3 on nearly max settings it is getting a healthy 70+ FPS, but the cpu is running hard on all 4 cores around 85% or more

I understand these games run a lot of physics and wondered if a dedicated card for it will help the cpu load,

We are planning on a 2nd 7950, and the board does have 3 slots that can be used for gfx cards (tho the bottom is prob 4x and only single width)


So basically, *will it help cpu load, and what sort of card would be best suited?

cheers!
 
not sure of the rules on this part of the forum.. but this post sunk rapidly off the first page so just hoping someone might have an idea if this will help me out and how to go about it..
 
Adding an additional graphics card won't help for physics in BF3. In fact, the vast majority of games (even PhysX ones) don't use the GPU at all for physics processing.

Aside from that, what is the issue with the CPU being pushed hard? Surely if you have a quadcore CPU, you want it to be pushed?

It kinda defeats the purpose of having a quadcore CPU if all 4 cores aren't being pushed, no?
 
Last edited:
Physx does not = physics

One can add features, nice effects and gameplay elements, the other can be used to punish half a market for having the audacity to not buy Nvidia :D
 
I honestly think the lack of understanding over physics and PhysX is why so many people think they need nVidia for physics effects. The sad truth is that less than 10% of games that actually use PhysX don't even use a GPU for it.
 
spoffle said:
I honestly think the lack of understanding over physics and PhysX is why so many people think they need nVidia for physics effects. The sad truth is that less than 10% of games that actually use PhysX don't even use a GPU for it.
Click to expand...

Less than 10% of games that use Physx don't use a GPU for it... so 90% of Physx games use the GPU... good feedback spoffle, that one is getting saved down to get trotted out any time you start going on about physx again :D
 
Memphis Raines said:
when running BF3 on nearly max settings it is getting a healthy 70+ FPS, but the cpu is running hard on all 4 cores around 85% or more

I understand these games run a lot of physics and wondered if a dedicated card for it will help the cpu load,

We are planning on a 2nd 7950, and the board does have 3 slots that can be used for gfx cards (tho the bottom is prob 4x and only single width)


So basically, *will it help cpu load, and what sort of card would be best suited?
Click to expand...

No, it won't help with cpu load, as the physics in BF3 are all done on the cpu afaik, as it uses the Havok Physics engine.


What you're thinking about, as others have said, is PhysX from Nvidia.


This can run on cpu's, but Nvidia want you to use / buy their gfx cards to get the most from it, so it is only officially supported on Nvidia gfx cards.

You could run a Nvidia card for PhysX along with an ATi card for the graphics if you felt the need. That's called Hybrid PhysX :

http://physxinfo.com/wiki/Hybrid_PhysX

But it's not officially supported by ATi or NVidia, and won't help with your cpu load in BF3.

Here's a list of games that use hardware accelerated PhysX :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_with_hardware-accelerated_PhysX_support


So adding a 2nd 7950 will increase your fps, and energy bills, but it won't help with the cpu load :)
 
haha cheers for the info! I wasnt sure what engine was used for the physics in BF3 and Crysis (apart from their CryEngine thing)

So will adding the 2nd card still give the same boost in fps even with the cpu load already quite high with 1 card?
 
If your CPU is running at 100% and your graphics card is running at <100%, you won't get any advantage from a second graphics card - you need a faster CPU.

If your graphics card is running at 100% and your CPU is running at <100%, then you will get an advantage from a second graphics card. However, your CPU usage will likely also increase, as you have more graphical power, it will also require more CPU power.
 
Confused said:
If your CPU is running at 100% and your graphics card is running at <100%, you won't get any advantage from a second graphics card - you need a faster CPU.

If your graphics card is running at 100% and your CPU is running at <100%, then you will get an advantage from a second graphics card. However, your CPU usage will likely also increase, as you have more graphical power, it will also require more CPU power.
Click to expand...

running exactly the same system as you atm mate, 3570k @ 4.4 with 7950

definately getting 100% out of the gfx .. just very surprised how high the cpu load is in games..

i wonder how much of a jump in actual power is the i7 3770... amazed that i am looking at needing the six core i7 for current gen gaming hah!
 
andybird123 said:
and laughing my socks off that everyone said a 3930K was a total waste of money as little as a few months ago :D
Click to expand...

not a waste... just a whole lotta money! hah

if i had gone skt2011 it would have been a 3820 but then i prob would have been limited to a 7850/70 gfx card :\

definately happier having gone 3570K + 7950 over 3820 + 7870

I just will prob have to sell the board/chip/ram and trade up to six core next year...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom