How PhysX runs on Nvidia and AMD (ATI) systems - Page 3

Bags · 2011-07-17, 02:23 AM

I buy Nvidia cards and the only reason I can come up with as to why I prefer them over AMD is that their logo is green.

/shrug

Just hope my GTX 460 will be enough to run PS2 well.

Infektion · 2011-07-17, 09:01 AM

Originally Posted by Bags

I buy Nvidia cards and the only reason I can come up with as to why I prefer them over AMD is that their logo is green.

/shrug

Just hope my GTX 460 will be enough to run PS2 well.

I hope it is too, that's my cheap upgrade from an HD4850 512MB. For 150+"rebate" it's a good deal. Specially since I hardly Play pc games anymore. I'm also hoping my e8400 @ 3.5Ghz is ok, I'll push it to 4.1Ghz again, but I was running abit high vcore.

Goku · 2011-07-17, 06:29 AM

Vancha why are you using so low resolutions? Anything 1680x1050 to 1920x1200 in mainstream these days.

Vancha · 2011-07-17, 08:38 AM

Three reasons.

1: That's where the seesaw between the two brands tips.

2: People may be upgrading their GPU but continue using an older monitor.

3: I use 1280x1024.

Astrok · 2012-07-06, 02:06 AM

Originally Posted by Goku

Vancha why are you using so low resolutions? Anything 1680x1050 to 1920x1200 in mainstream these days.

in every game i do play on low resolutions to.

Since back in the day when i played delta force 1 on 640x something.

I normally play at max res around 1280.I cant handle high resolutions in games.
Right now i play arma 2 alot and if i get high res my eyes killing me for sure.If i put it a bit lower i can concentrate longer and that way i can play longer.

i know the higher the res how better it looks but somehow i never gave about pixels on my screen.

CasualCat · 2012-08-16, 03:34 PM

So how important are the specs of the card were you to run an older Nvidia card just for PhysX?

In the example the chart example they showed a a 460 w/a 275 for PhysX. What about a 6 series Nvidia (660/670,etc.) with a 9800GTX for the PhysX?

Is there a threshold in which the older card may actually hold the new card back in some way?

Masterr · 2012-08-16, 04:04 PM

i5-3450 quad core @ 3.1 Ghz Ivy Bridge
Radeon HD 6670
8GB Ram

Wanting to run game on 1440x900 on High

So with all this physX stuff, your saying I'm basically screwed...

Dkamanus · 2012-08-16, 04:15 PM

Originally Posted by Masterr

i5-3450 quad core @ 3.1 Ghz Ivy Bridge
Radeon HD 6670
8GB Ram

Wanting to run game on 1440x900 on High

So with all this physX stuff, your saying I'm basically screwed...

Not necessarily, if I understood. I have a similar config:

i5-2500k 3.3 Ghz, 8gb 1600Mhz DDR3 RAM, and an HD 6870 Graphics card.

Both processors, in theory, could handle PhysX quite well on our CPUs, since we'd be forced to do so there, cause of our Radeon GPUs. The problem would be more severe on older dual core processors where the load of the game PLUS the PhysX would simply be too much for the CPU.

Lunarchild · 2011-07-17, 08:45 AM

As I noted above, raw performance is not everything. So your whole point is moot ^^

Also I use 1920x1080x120 + 1920x1200x59

Goku · 2011-07-17, 08:54 AM

Get off those old resolutions. I cannot understand how you guys can stand playing on those. The added viewing in games is easily worth the upgrade.

Right now anything above a GTX 550 Ti or 5770 is complete overkill for 1280x1024 and under. My 4670 was more then playable at that resolution.

Lunar what are you using to have 120 screens??

I actually may grab a ASUS VG236HE that is 23 inches, 1920x1080, and most of all 120Hz. I really want to see if there is a difference. If I get it from Best Buy and don't care for it I can just return it for free

.

Lunarchild · 2011-07-17, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by Goku

Get off those old resolutions. I cannot understand how you guys can stand playing on those. The added viewing in games is easily worth the upgrade.

Right now anything above a GTX 550 Ti or 5770 is complete overkill for 1280x1024 and under. My 4670 was more then playable at that resolution.

Lunar what are you using to have 120 screens??

I actually may grab a ASUS VG236HE that is 23 inches, 1920x1080, and most of all 120Hz. I really want to see if there is a difference. If I get it from Best Buy and don't care for it I can just return it for free

.

120 screens? I wish

Anyhow, got the 24" Acer one. Overall I'm not an Acer fan, but the screen is pretty good overall! The slower screen is a cheap 28" one. Going to need to replace that sometimes... Probably when I get a job again.

Bags · 2011-07-17, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by Lunarchild

120 screens? I wish

Anyhow, got the 24" Acer one. Overall I'm not an Acer fan, but the screen is pretty good overall! The slower screen is a cheap 28" one. Going to need to replace that sometimes... Probably when I get a job again.

Ooh, I wonder if we have the same monitor. Mine's a 24" acer too. Does yours have touch screen buttons for adjusting Contrast and etc?

Lunarchild · 2011-07-17, 05:21 PM

Originally Posted by Bags

Ooh, I wonder if we have the same monitor. Mine's a 24" acer too. Does yours have touch screen buttons for adjusting Contrast and etc?

Nop, it has actually fixed buttons. Which is a LOT better, because I can never get the power buttons on those monitors with capacitive buttons to work properly ^^ It's this one btw: http://www.techradar.com/reviews/pc-...-908747/review

Goku · 2011-07-17, 09:13 AM

Push it and if it dies you have a excuse to upgrade

. Did you end up getting that GTX 460, 465, or something entirely different?

nathanebht · 2011-07-17, 01:04 PM

Your Nvidia / AMD stats are off Atranox. Its 59% Nvidia to 33% AMD. http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

Using AMD myself, still does excellent in games while at the same time sending very nice HDMI 7.1 sound to my receiver.

Vancha, if your running 1280 x 1024, I'd suggest a new monitor the next time your in the market. Whatever your PC buying budget is, split it in half. Half goes to the monitor and half the PC. You'll have the LCD for much longer than you keep that PC.