Any point in having a dedicated PhysX card now? Thinking Witcher 3.
  3 / 3    
Thanks for the links D-Man11, I have exhausted my research into them, and more. It is a strange truth that single slot solutions are few and far between, and the ones that do exist are rare and premiumly priced. On eBay, for example, for the cost of a GT 740 single slot, I can get a GTX 670. I can't justify to myself such a wasteful purchase, even if it is as low as £50. The best solution, then, seems to be to use a PCIe riser to lift the spare x4 slot to enable me to use a standard GTX 670 dual slot solution. The x4 connects through the chipset, but some reading shows that performance isn't impacted. It's a tad more complicated than I had envisioned. I have decided to purchase the above setup when I play the next PhysX intensive game - not right now. A 670 may be overkill but for £50, it is certainly the best bang for the buck it would seem. For future reference, modern cards will not work with Fermi and prior in Windows 10. nvidia plans eventual support for Fermi, but nothing prior to that. More info here: https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/867609/physx/windows-10-dedicated-physx-card-not-working/
Thanks for the links D-Man11, I have exhausted my research into them, and more. It is a strange truth that single slot solutions are few and far between, and the ones that do exist are rare and premiumly priced.

On eBay, for example, for the cost of a GT 740 single slot, I can get a GTX 670. I can't justify to myself such a wasteful purchase, even if it is as low as £50.

The best solution, then, seems to be to use a PCIe riser to lift the spare x4 slot to enable me to use a standard GTX 670 dual slot solution. The x4 connects through the chipset, but some reading shows that performance isn't impacted.

It's a tad more complicated than I had envisioned. I have decided to purchase the above setup when I play the next PhysX intensive game - not right now. A 670 may be overkill but for £50, it is certainly the best bang for the buck it would seem.

For future reference, modern cards will not work with Fermi and prior in Windows 10. nvidia plans eventual support for Fermi, but nothing prior to that. More info here:

https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/867609/physx/windows-10-dedicated-physx-card-not-working/

Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.

#31
Posted 01/03/2016 09:28 AM   
yah, you would think that the 950 or 960 would have a single slot solution since the 9XX series run so cool. Another option is a custom cooling solution
yah, you would think that the 950 or 960 would have a single slot solution since the 9XX series run so cool. Another option is a custom cooling solution

#32
Posted 01/03/2016 09:39 AM   
Galax has a 1070 single slot solution, for anyone tight on space http://www.anandtech.com/show/10926/galax-shows-off-single-slot-geforce-gtx-1070-graphics-card While it's arguable that a dedicated PhysX GPU isn't by any means a necessity since not that many games use Nvidia's PhysX and instead use other Engines for physics like Havok, it can be a good investment for certain games. A poster made a video using a GTX 1070 for his main gaming GPU and using a 650, 950 and 1060 for PhysX with a resolution of 2560x1440@120Hz. https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/957287/physx/dedicated-physx-benchmark/ [quote="xixou"]Hi, I created a benchmark with dedicated physx cards. Go full screen to see the graphs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbMLhDJ43JU [/quote]
Galax has a 1070 single slot solution, for anyone tight on space


http://www.anandtech.com/show/10926/galax-shows-off-single-slot-geforce-gtx-1070-graphics-card


While it's arguable that a dedicated PhysX GPU isn't by any means a necessity since not that many games use Nvidia's PhysX and instead use other Engines for physics like Havok, it can be a good investment for certain games.

A poster made a video using a GTX 1070 for his main gaming GPU and using a 650, 950 and 1060 for PhysX with a resolution of 2560x1440@120Hz.


https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/957287/physx/dedicated-physx-benchmark/


xixou said:Hi,

I created a benchmark with dedicated physx cards.

Go full screen to see the graphs.




#33
Posted 12/27/2016 03:12 PM   
Having played TW3 recently, I remember reading something about them moving all physx onto the CPU as it gave better performance as of the last few patches. Their reasoning was that the game is designed for consoles which do not have PhysX (actually both PS4 and XBone use AMD graphics). The only way to move it back onto the GPU was by editing a hidden setting in an obscure config file, which may or may not have worked as I did not notice any difference after some light testing. It ought to have shown me a stark difference as I am CPU limited in comparison to my GPUs.
Having played TW3 recently, I remember reading something about them moving all physx onto the CPU as it gave better performance as of the last few patches. Their reasoning was that the game is designed for consoles which do not have PhysX (actually both PS4 and XBone use AMD graphics).

The only way to move it back onto the GPU was by editing a hidden setting in an obscure config file, which may or may not have worked as I did not notice any difference after some light testing.

It ought to have shown me a stark difference as I am CPU limited in comparison to my GPUs.

Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.

#34
Posted 01/02/2017 12:36 AM   
  3 / 3    
Scroll To Top