# The Dedicated PhysX card FAQ - Read this before asking any questions!



## erocker (Oct 26, 2010)

*Please thank Newtekie1 here:* 
 The Dedicated PhysX card FAQ - Read this before a... as he put half of this FAQ together. 

In the past few weeks I've seen a lot of topics popping up asking the same questions about dedicated PhysX cards, so I figured I'd try to answer some of the most common ones here.

*What dedicated PhysX card should I get?*

Probably the most popular question about PhysX cards seen here.

If your main graphics card is an nVidia card, the simple answer is you don't need a dedicated PhysX card, and shouldn't buy one.  Here is why.  With the GTX400 series cards, they are already powerful enough to handle the PhysX calculations by themselves.  They do not take a performance hit from the PhysX calculations.  That isn't to say they won't have lower FPS when PhysX is enabled, but the lower FPS is caused by the extra graphical rendering power needed to render all the extra particles and fragments added to the scene by PhysX, not the PhysX calculations themselves.  Now, if you are using something lower than a GTX460 a dedicated PhysX card might help take some load off the main GPU.  _However_, the money would be better spent on a second GPU for SLi than on a dedicated PhysX card.

If your main graphics card is an ATi card, then something very weak will be good enough.  Generally anything with 64+ shaders will do the job just fine.  The GT240 seems to be a very popular card, as is the GT430.  You don't need anything more powerful than that.  PhysX actually takes next to no GPU power to do the calculations.

*Will a dedicated PhysX card boost performance in every game?*

Absolutely not!  It is a common misconception that because essentially every game uses some kind of physics engine, that a dedicated PhysX card will boost performance in every game.  It is important to not confuse physics in general with PhysX.  PhysX is just another physics engine that is only used in certain games.  And while the list of games that use PhysX is somewhat large, the list of games that use hardware accelerated PhysX is rather small, something like 15 games.  So only 15 games actually use the graphics card for PhysX to begin with, and of those 15 only something like 5 or 6 are real well known blockbuster games.

*Can I play a PhysX game without an nVidia graphics card?*

Of course!  However, you will not get the high end PhysX effects, which essentially amounts to nothing more than eye-candy anyway.  I've played every one of the big PhysX titles, and I can say they are just as enjoyable without the PhysX eye-candy as with.  You will also still have physic in the game.  The reasons is PhysX offers a software option that isn't as detailed as the hardware accelerated options, and this option is actually what is used in most of the PhysX games on the market.  This is why the list of games that use PhysX is 40-50 games long, but the list of games that use hardware PhysX is only 15 games long.  Software PhysX is pretty on par in terms of capability with the other software physic engines available today, such as Havok.  And it is also available to everyone, with no need for an nVidia graphics card in the system.  This is why it is more appealing to game developers than the hardware accelerated PhysX.

This software PhysX option should not be confused with option to run the hardware accelerated PhsyX on the CPU.  Those are two totally different things.  The software option to PhysX runs the calculations on the CPU, but it also tones down the amount of calculations done dramatically, with a lowered visual effect obviously.  Running hardware accelerted PhysX on the CPU does not tone down the amount of calculations, and hence performs extremely poorly when run on the CPU, making the game pretty much unplayable.


*Can you run a dedicated nVidia GPU along side a primary ATi graphics card?*

Yes.  Although not officially supported, there is a simple to apply hack that allows this.  You can read how to do it here:

Things you need​*For Installation:*
-ATi/AMD drivers: www.amd.com

-Nvidia drivers (use 258.96's): www.nvidia.com

-1.04ff PhysX mod: http://www.ngohq.com/graphic-cards/17706-hybrid-physx-mod-v1-03-v1-04ff.html <--Not needed if Nvidia card is the main video card output

*For Testing*
-GPU-Z: http://www.techpowerup.com/gpuz/

-FluidMark: http://www.ozone3d.net/benchmarks/physx-fluidmark/ (Latest version does not work, try an older version)

-3dMark Vantage: http://www.futuremark.com/benchmarks/3dmarkvantage/download/

-A video card for video output (ATi or Nvidia)

-A PhysX supported video card for PhysX. This can be the 8 series (G92) and up.

Installation​*Install ATi/AMD/Nvidia (main video) card and drivers.*

-Already done this? Good! Move on to the next step.

*Install Nvidia (PhysX) card and drivers*

-Install Nvidia card into empty PCI-E slot

-Turn on the computer

-Install Nvidia drivers. When the installer asks you to restart, open and apply the 1.04ff PhysX patch, then restart. <-- Not needed if Nvidia card is the main video output


Making sure it works​Upon restart, PhysX should be enabled. There is no place to go to enable or disable PhysX other than uninstalling the 1.04ff Patch. GPU-Z should tell you that PhysX is enabled. Try using Fluidmark to see if it performs/works like it should with a PhysX card. Of course, now is a good time to actually use your PhysX card and enjoy it. Games like Mafia 2, Batman: Arkham Asylum, Unreal Tournament 3, Mirror's Edge and others are good places to start.

*This has not been tested with the latest Nvidia WHQL drivers (will be soon)
*It is possible that some of Nvidia's newer GPU's such as the GT430 (GF108) will not work yet. (GF100/104 work.)
*Please post your benchmarks, suggestions, etc. using your dedicated PhysX card. We can then see what some good combinations are and how much of a PhysX card we really need. I will be soon testing a GT240 vs. a GTX460 in different games and benchmarks.
*Please post your benchmarks, suggestions, etc. using your dedicated PhysX card. We can then see what some good combinations are and how much of a PhysX card we really need. I will be soon testing a GT240 vs. a GTX460 in different games and benchmarks.

*Please feel free to add any comments or suggestions to make this guide better.*

Thanks!


----------



## theonedub (Oct 26, 2010)

Probably just mention that the 1.04ff patch is only for those using ATI Nvidia mash ups.


----------



## animal007uk (Oct 27, 2010)

I don't think i will ever do the ati/nvidia combo or ever use physx but thanks for this post erocker its a lot easyer to follow than most.


----------



## erocker (Oct 27, 2010)

As of right now, do not use the latest Nvidia drivers. Didn't work and I am currently having problems uninstalling...

258.96's are working fine. Latest FluidMark doesn't seem to work with this at all as it only recognizes the main video card.


----------



## RoutedScripter (Oct 27, 2010)

Is physx possible on only ATI ?

Because some people and also webshit websites are posting whole guides for making this work but it's more of a bougus since i know the hakced FF drivers are only for a combo , so .. .well . any more info if that's really possible.

furthermore the "software physx" when you just install it while having an ATI card , is there a hacked "software" layer that actually mkes pyhsix work on CPUs (removed de-optimization on CPUs)


----------



## animal007uk (Oct 27, 2010)

RuskiSnajper said:


> Is physx possible on only ATI ?
> 
> Because some people and also webshit websites are posting whole guides for making this work but it's more of a bougus since i know the hakced FF drivers are only for a combo , so .. .well . any more info if that's really possible.
> 
> furthermore the "software physx" when you just install it while having an ATI card , is there a hacked "software" layer that actually mkes pyhsix work on CPUs (removed de-optimization on CPUs)



no its not possible on just ATI cards as physx is an nvidia thing.


----------



## erocker (Oct 27, 2010)

The system used:






GT 240 Vantage CPU test:









GTX 460 Vantage CPU test:










Mafia 2 and Batman:AA are installing now.


----------



## erocker (Oct 27, 2010)

*Mafia 2 & Batman: Arkham Asylum*

Both games on maximum settings 1920x1200 PhysX set on high.

Batman:AA GT 240





Batman:AA GTX 460






Mafia 2 GT 240





Mafia 2 GTX 460


----------



## JD15 (Oct 29, 2010)

This needs stickied!


----------



## phobias23 (Oct 29, 2010)

+100% Erocker, great thread!! and nice tests. Physx for Ati & Nvidia, this can help a lot everyone who expect using physx.


----------



## newtekie1 (Oct 29, 2010)

Awesome thread!  I'll do some testing with my GTX470 and 9600GT and GTX460 as dedicated cards to see if they help anything.


----------



## Krony (Nov 16, 2010)

Hi, i was looking at GTX 580 with 9800GTX+ as physX, would an Antec 850 quatro be enough to power both ?


----------



## CrackerJack (Nov 16, 2010)

Hey Erocker, how many fps did you get before enabling PhysX? Wonder if the increase is worth picking up a GT 240. But another question is, Can you still use CUDA? Or is this just a PhysX mod... The PhysX would be nice but now that CS5 supports CUDA.. like every other video editors. I wonder if I can use my 4870 as main and GT 240 as PhysX/Cuda.


----------



## erocker (Nov 16, 2010)

CrackerJack said:


> Hey Erocker, how many fps did you get before enabling PhysX? Wonder if the increase is worth picking up a GT 240. But another question is, Can you still use CUDA? Or is this just a PhysX mod... The PhysX would be nice but now that CS5 supports CUDA.. like every other video editors. I wonder if I can use my 4870 as main and GT 240 as PhysX/Cuda.



In non-PhysX games there's a 0 fps difference. See posts 7 and 8 otherwise. CUDA doesn't work in this configuration, only PhysX.


----------



## CrackerJack (Nov 17, 2010)

erocker said:


> In non-PhysX games there's a 0 fps difference. See posts 7 and 8 otherwise. CUDA doesn't work in this configuration, only PhysX.



Understand there wouldn't be a increase in non-PhysX games. I was refering to PhysX off in Mafia 2. Cause in your screenshot of PhysX on: GT 240 30.8fps and GTX 460 35.3fps. I was wonder what was or is the fps if you turn PhysX off.


----------



## aba123 (Nov 20, 2010)

Guys, i was able to install both the drivers + mod. When i open the gpuz, its detecting both the gpu (5800+8800) . It's showing PhysX enabled with 5800. Is PhysX actually enabled now? I am not able to run fluid mark. It crashes . Which version of Fluidbench mark should i install ? Also , what are the ways that i can verify whether PhysX is set ?

Thanks


----------



## erocker (Nov 20, 2010)

aba123 said:


> Guys, i was able to install both the drivers + mod. When i open the gpuz, its detecting both the gpu (5800+8800) . It's showing PhysX enabled with 5800. Is PhysX actually enabled now? I am not able to run fluid mark. It crashes . Which version of Fluidbench mark should i install ? Also , what are the ways that i can verify whether PhysX is set ?
> 
> Thanks



Yes, PhysX is enabled. Use FluidMark 1.0 to test. The best test of course is using a game that uses PhysX such as Batman AA, etc. You should also get an increased CPU score in 3DMark Vantage.


----------



## aba123 (Nov 20, 2010)

Ok. I am not able to see the boot screen. Display appears only when windows desktop shows up. What do i do?


----------



## JD15 (Nov 20, 2010)

aba123 said:


> Ok. I am not able to see the boot screen. Display appears only when windows desktop shows up. What do i do?



Reverse which slots you're using for each card.


----------



## mario1984 (Nov 22, 2010)

i bought a PC from http://www.buildyourbox.co.uk/
it already had 2 x 6850 but they didnt have a Physx option
it was a Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD3R motherboard
is there room for a Physx card and which card would be best. I was looking at a GTS 450?


----------



## CrackerJack (Nov 22, 2010)

mario1984 said:


> i bought a PC from http://www.buildyourbox.co.uk/
> it already had 2 x 6850 but they didnt have a Physx option



ATi doesn't use Physx.. only Nvidia


----------



## TotalChaos (Nov 22, 2010)

I had a GTX 460 running with my Asus 5850 for a few days and finally said screw it. Yes it works but the games I play dont often rely on PhysX. It did give a decent boost to Vantage but i was disappointed with the Mafia II results i achieved. I went back to just my 5850, using the second card just didnt seem worthy.


----------



## AmigaWolf (Nov 25, 2010)

I have a Question, i have a ASRock X58 Extreme3 MB with 2x PCI-E 2.0 16x slots and 1x 4x slot, and i have 2x Geforce GTX 460 1GB in SLI, now can i use a Geforce GT 430 in my PCI-E 2.0 4x Port as PhysX Card?


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 25, 2010)

You don't have to bump every PhysX related thread.  Just one will get you an answer usually, or even better, create your own thread asking your question.

Welcome to TPU!


----------



## AmigaWolf (Nov 25, 2010)

Ok thanks for the info.


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Nov 25, 2010)

So I just picked up Batman on the steam sale for $10.00. Which prompted me to install my 8800GTS G92 512Mb. I think everything worked except for Vantage, which is a known issue.

It did say I got: Physics Test 152.84 operations/s
Fluidmark = 310

Just installed Metro 2033. Even though it says this game uses Physx my 8800GTS never went above 15% usage in the game (played for about 2 hours). Batman uses it much more, as high as 60% in some areas. Maybe I haven't hit a physx intense scene yet in Metro 2033...

It is totally worth it to install a dedicated Physx card if you are playing games that use this and you have a ATI card (especially if you have an old nvidia card laying around. 8800GTS (G92) and above... I believe anything after and including the G92 core is physx capable.) 

http://www.nvidia.com/object/physx_new.html
http://developer.nvidia.com/object/physx_good_company.html


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 6, 2010)

In the past few weeks I've seen a lot of topics popping up asking the same questions about dedicated PhysX cards, so I figured I'd try to answer some of the most common ones here.

*What dedicated PhysX card should I get?*

Probably the most popular question about PhysX cards seen here.

If your main graphics card is an nVidia card, the simple answer is you don't need a dedicated PhysX card, and shouldn't buy one.  Here is why.  With the GTX400 series cards, they are already powerful enough to handle the PhysX calculations by themselves.  They do not take a performance hit from the PhysX calculations.  That isn't to say they won't have lower FPS when PhysX is enabled, but the lower FPS is caused by the extra graphical rendering power needed to render all the extra particles and fragments added to the scene by PhysX, not the PhysX calculations themselves.  Now, if you are using something lower than a GTX460 a dedicated PhysX card might help take some load off the main GPU.  _However_, the money would be better spent on a second GPU for SLi than on a dedicated PhysX card.

If your main graphics card is an ATi card, then something very weak will be good enough.  Generally anything with 64+ shaders will do the job just fine.  The GT240 seems to be a very popular card, as is the GT430.  You don't need anything more powerful than that.  PhysX actually takes next to no GPU power to do the calculations.

*Can you run a dedicated nVidia GPU along side a primary ATi graphics card?*

Yes.  Although not officially supported, there is a simple to apply hack that allows this.  You can read how to do it here:  How To: Use a Dedicated PhysX Card

*Will a dedicated PhysX card boost performance in every game?*

Absolutely not!  It is a common misconception that because essentially every game uses some kind of physics engine, that a dedicated PhysX card will boost performance in every game.  It is important to not confuse physics in general with PhysX.  PhysX is just another physics engine that is only used in certain games.  And while the list of games that use PhysX is somewhat large, the list of games that use hardware accelerated PhysX is rather small, something like 15 games.  So only 15 games actually use the graphics card for PhysX to begin with, and of those 15 only something like 5 or 6 are real well known blockbuster games.

*Can I play a PhysX game without an nVidia graphics card?*

Of course!  However, you will not get the high end PhysX effects, which essentially amounts to nothing more than eye-candy anyway.  I've played every one of the big PhysX titles, and I can say they are just as enjoyable without the PhysX eye-candy as with.  You will also still have physic in the game.  The reasons is PhysX offers a software option that isn't as detailed as the hardware accelerated options, and this option is actually what is used in most of the PhysX games on the market.  This is why the list of games that use PhysX is 40-50 games long, but the list of games that use hardware PhysX is only 15 games long.  Software PhysX is pretty on par in terms of capability with the other software physic engines available today, such as Havok.  And it is also available to everyone, with no need for an nVidia graphics card in the system.  This is why it is more appealing to game developers than the hardware accelerated PhysX.

This software PhysX option should not be confused with option to run the hardware accelerated PhsyX on the CPU.  Those are two totally different things.  The software option to PhysX runs the calculations on the CPU, but it also tones down the amount of calculations done dramatically, with a lowered visual effect obviously.  Running hardware accelerted PhysX on the CPU does not tone down the amount of calculations, and hence performs extremely poorly when run on the CPU, making the game pretty much unplayable.


----------



## erocker (Dec 6, 2010)

Nice guide Newtekie! Any chance that I could just merge my PhysX card setup guide into this one for one complete guide? Let me know.


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 6, 2010)

erocker said:


> Nice guide Newtekie! Any chance that I could just merge my PhysX card setup guide into this one for one complete guide? Let me know.



Sounds like an awesome plan to me!


----------



## erocker (Dec 6, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> Sounds like an awesome plan to me!



Somehow it merged into my thread instead of the other way around. Left a link in the OP so people can thank you for your effort.


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 6, 2010)

erocker said:


> Somehow it merged into my thread instead of the other way around. Left a link in the OP so people can thank you for your effort.



Thats cool, now the first post just needs a little cleaning up since the link in my part for installing PhysX with ATi doesn't work.  So if you just move the instructions up  into that part, and it will make more sense.


----------



## suraswami (Dec 6, 2010)

Is dedicated PCI PhysX (think its Ageia?) card still usable for this purpose instead of an NVidia card for people who have boards with only one PCIE 16x slot and using it for ATI graphics?


----------



## erocker (Dec 6, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> Thats cool, now the first post just needs a little cleaning up since the link in my part for installing PhysX with ATi doesn't work.  So if you just move the instructions up  into that part, and it will make more sense.



Done. 



suraswami said:


> Is dedicated PCI PhysX (think its Ageia?) card still usable for this purpose instead of an NVidia card for people who have boards with only one PCIE 16x slot and using it for ATI graphics?



It will work, though the specifications of the old PhysX cards aren't up to snuff for today's standards.


----------



## 20mmrain (Dec 6, 2010)

You know I just wanted to shoot this out there. I picked up for real cheap a 220GT and was going to sell it to a customer of mine. But instead they didn't end up taking it off my hands. SO I am currently using it for a Dedicated PhysX GPU. With my two XFX Radeon 6870's. Besides adding some extra heat to the case.... it is working out pretty well.

I will post some benches when I get up tomorrow. But you know I just wanted to throw that out there in case someone is looking for a cheap solution to PhysX. While it won't do as well as a 9800GT or a 8800GTX or even a 240GT or 430GT the EVGA 220GT is working out wonderfully.


----------



## micropage7 (Dec 7, 2010)

i have GTX 470 and i have 9600GT, will it give me any benefit if i use 9600GT as dedicated physx or its enough i use stand alone GTX 470 for physx and graphic?


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 7, 2010)

micropage7 said:


> i have GTX 470 and i have 9600GT, will it give me any benefit if i use 9600GT as dedicated physx or its enough i use stand alone GTX 470 for physx and graphic?



Read the first post, it tells you the answer.


----------



## Magikherbs (Dec 27, 2010)

Hi all.. I have a XFX Alpha Dog 8800gt on the way hehe.. only 35 bucks

Good job *erocker* and *newtekie1* 

Peace


----------



## Magikherbs (Dec 28, 2010)

*Physx engaged .. I think lol*

I think I'm missing something here heh...

8800GT solo run






HD 5750 w/ Physx = lower score !





I forgot to run the patch before the reboot, so I uninstalled the 8800GT and did it right. My only other bump is this GPU-Z error. I re-installed the 10.12 CCC ocl package without uninstalling them first, but the error persists.






If I wipe out all Ati software and redo, is it safe to make the 8800GT my main display and do it ? Or, do I need to uninstall the Nvidia drivers aswell.

XFX love 





Peace

Update.. Cpu Z says the 8800GT is in the main slot ??
http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=1560488


----------



## sliderider (Jan 10, 2011)

I only have one PCIE x16 slot, can I use something like a Sparkle 9500GT PCI for a PhysX card or is the PCI bus too slow? There are also 8400GS cards in PCIe x1, but I don't think they have enough SP's to be of any use.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 10, 2011)

sliderider said:


> I only have one PCIE x16 slot, can I use something like a Sparkle 9500GT PCI for a PhysX card or is the PCI bus too slow? There are also 8400GS cards in PCIe x1, but I don't think they have enough SP's to be of any use.



Yes, you can use a PCI card for PhysX.

However, a better solution might be to get an inexpensive normal PCI-E x16 card and modifying it to fit a PCI-E x1 slot.  This thread details the process:  HD4350, a PCI-E x1 Slot and a Dremel (Tons of Pic...

That way you can spend something like $60 on a GT430 with 96 Shaders and be safe.  The 9500GT would be powerful enough to run PhysX, but it only has 32 Shaders, which is the bare minimum.  It would suck if nVidia raised the minimum again and you found yourself stuck with a useless 9500GT(the minimum used to be 16).


----------



## sliderider (Jan 10, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Yes, you can use a PCI card for PhysX.
> 
> However, a better solution might be to get an inexpensive normal PCI-E x16 card and modifying it to fit a PCI-E x1 slot.  This thread details the process:  HD4350, a PCI-E x1 Slot and a Dremel (Tons of Pic...
> 
> That way you can spend something like $60 on a GT430 with 96 Shaders and be safe.  The 9500GT would be powerful enough to run PhysX, but it only has 32 Shaders, which is the bare minimum.  It would suck if nVidia raised the minimum again and you found yourself stuck with a useless 9500GT(the minimum used to be 16).



Unfortunately I can't seem to locate a GT430 that is single slot. They all have massive coolers on them (why the hell do you need a big cooler on a 430 anyway?) and I don't have the room as my x16 slot is right next to it.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 10, 2011)

There are a few on newegg: EVGA 01G-P3-1430-LR GeForce GT 430 (Fermi) 1GB 128...

Though the GT430 was just an example, the GT240 would also be a good card.


----------



## mrsemi (Jan 11, 2011)

I'm wanting to try the physx hack but pretty broke as of late.  I noted min shaders recommended is 64 which is twice of the 8600gts I have laying around.  Would the effects be lessened or likely to fail or do you think it could still pull it off?

Never mind, I read up a little, someone said 32 is bare min.  I'll give it a go, it'll have it's on x16 lane I'd think if the card could run physx on its own it should be able to do it as its only function.


----------



## sliderider (Jan 11, 2011)

mrsemi said:


> I'm wanting to try the physx hack but pretty broke as of late.  I noted min shaders recommended is 64 which is twice of the 8600gts I have laying around.  Would the effects be lessened or likely to fail or do you think it could still pull it off?
> 
> Never mind, I read up a little, someone said 32 is bare min.  I'll give it a go, it'll have it's on x16 lane I'd think if the card could run physx on its own it should be able to do it as its only function.



The issue I think is in the drivers. The original Aegia PhysX card was a lot lower spec than the cards that are still supported in the latest drivers so you can't use them anymore. So while you may have a card that supports an older specification of PhysX, you'd have to use an old driver with it and even then the games you want to use it with might not like it.


----------



## mrsemi (Jan 11, 2011)

sliderider said:


> The issue I think is in the drivers. The original Aegia PhysX card was a lot lower spec than the cards that are still supported in the latest drivers so you can't use them anymore. So while you may have a card that supports an older specification of PhysX, you'd have to use an old driver with it and even then the games you want to use it with might not like it.



Hmm, in that case I'll look for something more worthwhile.  Thanks


----------



## sliderider (Jan 12, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> There are a few on newegg: EVGA 01G-P3-1430-LR GeForce GT 430 (Fermi) 1GB 128...
> 
> Though the GT430 was just an example, the GT240 would also be a good card.



How about an 8800GT? I found one with a single slot cooler for $60!


----------



## Magikherbs (Jan 12, 2011)

sliderider said:


> How about an 8800GT? I found one with a single slot cooler for $60!



That should do... the most I would pay is $40 or $50 if in mint condition. For a little more, a new 9800GT can be had...

Test before you buy.. and watch the temps. Single slot 88/9800gt's can get warm..


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 12, 2011)

sliderider said:


> How about an 8800GT? I found one with a single slot cooler for $60!



The 8800GT/9800GT makes a great PhysX card.


----------



## erocker (Jan 12, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> The 8800GT/9800GT makes a great PhysX card.



Indeed! I have one myself and am going to be comparing a GTX 580 w/PhysX config to a GTX 580 + 9800GT w/PhysX config.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 12, 2011)

erocker said:


> Indeed! I have one myself and am going to be comparing a GTX 580 w/PhysX config to a GTX 580 + 9800GT w/PhysX config.



I'll be interested in your results.  When I did the same experiment with my GTX470 and a 9600GT I found no difference in performance.


----------



## sliderider (Jan 12, 2011)

If it's going to run hot then I don't want it sitting next to my 6870 and venting all over it. Does a 9600GSO run cooler than an 8800GT? It seems to have enough SP's to use as a dedicated PhysX card.


----------



## Magikherbs (Jan 12, 2011)

sliderider said:


> If it's going to run hot then I don't want it sitting next to my 6870 and venting all over it. Does a 9600GSO run cooler than an 8800GT? It seems to have enough SP's to use as a dedicated PhysX card.



Even worse if your case has bad ventelation. How 'generic' is your case? lol I would probably upgrade that first..


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 12, 2011)

sliderider said:


> If it's going to run hot then I don't want it sitting next to my 6870 and venting all over it. Does a 9600GSO run cooler than an 8800GT? It seems to have enough SP's to use as a dedicated PhysX card.



Yes, the 9600GSO runs cooler, but in both situations the cards will sit basically idle so they won't be getting very hot.  Even when being used for PhysX, PhsyX requires so little power that the cards barely heat up.


----------



## mrsemi (Jan 16, 2011)

I picked up win 7 & a gtx 280 to run dedicated physx and ran into a snag.  Windows tries to install the drivers before I can.

I went into task manager thinking I couldshut it down.  No luck.

So I uninstalled, ran crap cleaner.  Followed the steps and rebooted and windows again overwrote the correct version installation on reboot.  

Anyone know how to stop it?

I thought I figured it out but after doing the following and rebooting windows again automatically reinstalled the drivers.

Steps, right click appropriate hard drive (d in this case) 
Click properties. 
Click advance system settings
Click device installation settings
Changed to let me choose what to do and never install

Still didn't work, any ideas welcome.


----------



## Magikherbs (Jan 16, 2011)

mrsemi said:


> I picked up win 7 & a gtx 280 to run dedicated physx and ran into a snag.  Windows tries to install the drivers before I can.
> 
> I went into task manager thinking I couldshut it down.  No luck.
> 
> ...



Its ok.. after they install reboot and run the main drivers +  appropriate mod.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 16, 2011)

Magikherbs said:


> Its ok.. after they install reboot and run the main drivers +  appropriate mod.



Yeah this.

If that doesn't work, run Driver Sweeper with the network cable unplugged.  Then install the main drivers before reconnecting the network cable.


----------



## mrsemi (Jan 16, 2011)

Thanks.  Batman screenies didn't work but benchmark @ 1900 x 1200 were...

43 min, 167 max & 94 average with physx on.  Another one the next day score 53 min 167 max  to 104 average. Works great, I'm only slightly annoyed at the temps and noise of the 280.

Vantage.


----------



## Magikherbs (Jan 16, 2011)

If your 280 is anything like mine was before I cleaned it .. haha.. My 280's fan is stock @ 40% and very quiet., btw.

 Sexy Hardware Close-Up Pic Clubhouse. - Page 118

Temps ? Is it vibrating or spinning too fast ?


----------



## mrsemi (Jan 16, 2011)

Magikherbs said:


> If your 280 is anything like mine was before I cleaned it .. haha.. My 280's fan is stock @ 40% and very quiet., btw.
> 
> Sexy Hardware Close-Up Pic Clubhouse. - Page 118
> 
> Temps ? Is it vibrating or spinning too fast ?



It's idling at 66 C which is very warm, the fan speed is only at 40%.  It's too warm but one of my 5850's likes to run hot too. Prior owner said he put a fresh coat of mx4 on it, don't know if that needs time to settle or not.

According to reviews, the toxic/vapor-x run about 40 db where the 280 is 53 or 54.  I think whether you find something to be loud is relative to what you're used to.


----------



## Magikherbs (Jan 16, 2011)

mrsemi said:


> It's idling at 66 C which is very warm, the fan speed is only at 40%.  It's too warm but one of my 5850's likes to run hot too. Prior owner said he put a fresh coat of mx4 on it, don't know if that needs time to settle or not.
> 
> According to reviews, the toxic/vapor-x run about 40 db where the 280 is 53 or 54.  I think whether you find something to be loud is relative to what you're used to.



Before I cleaned mine, it peaked at 89-90 C running FFXIV benchmark. Now its down to 79C and will drop a little more once the AS5 kicks in.. 

My default fan speed is 40% too and very quiet. Have you checked under the hood ?

Edit


----------



## mrsemi (Jan 16, 2011)

No I haven't popped it open but it didn't go over 74c on a vantage run, talking about this got my attention on  my 5850's.  I'm starting to wonder how much I trust the sensors, see my thread in the ati forum.  Possible faulty sensor, I'm wondering if the motherboard has any say in the readings.  Like I said the prior owner stated he put a new coat of mx4 on there. I believe him.

Ran another batman bench, it got up to 78 on the 280 but that seems fine too.


----------



## Magikherbs (Jan 16, 2011)

Pretty much what the dude told me about the dud 9800GTX+ (and his 'pro' buddie that set it up), I bought 2 months back. Some pro ! hah.. There was at least 2 kinds of paste gooped everywhere.. the ram and vrms too lol..  aand he messed with the bios... grrrr ! At least he was cool and refunded my cash. 

Do the bios versions and stats match with the original ?


----------



## mrsemi (Jan 16, 2011)

Magikherbs said:


> Do the bios versions and stats match with the original ?



Yeah bone stock specs. I played batman a while and I'm more concerned with the 5850 than the physx card now, it hit  91 on  one card and the other max is 61.


----------



## Magikherbs (Jan 16, 2011)

mrsemi said:


> Yeah bone stock specs. I played batman a while and I'm more concerned with the 5850 than the physx card now, it hit  91 on  one card and the other max is 61.



Sounds like its not getting any airflow..


----------



## Achilles1600 (Jan 26, 2011)

www.pprof.com/downloads/10.0.15/PortraitProfessionalSetup_en.exe


----------



## erocker (Jan 26, 2011)

What the heck is that link for?


----------



## qubit (Jan 26, 2011)

erocker said:


> What the heck is that link for?



Just tried it at work and the firewall blocks site www.portraitprofessional.com as "entertainment" so it sounds a little iffy.

Entering www.pprof.com gives the above error.


----------



## AsRock (Jan 26, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Yes, the 9600GSO runs cooler, but in both situations the cards will sit basically idle so they won't be getting very hot.  Even when being used for PhysX, PhsyX requires so little power that the cards barely heat up.



Little power ?. Sure i did not see my 9800GT max out but it did add around 70w extra power usage while idle.

However the guide was spot on


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 26, 2011)

AsRock said:


> Little power ?. Sure i did not see my 9800GT max out but it did add around 70w extra power usage while idle.
> 
> However the guide was spot on



In the graphics card industry, 70w is nothing.


----------



## AsRock (Jan 26, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> In the graphics card industry, 70w is nothing.



Indeed but it's a lot when the cards not being used at all.


----------



## bud951 (Jan 31, 2011)

I think I have my setup working but I would like to know for sure. 

If Fluidmark 1.1.1 says "Hardware Physx" on and I get avg 170fps then hybrid (hardware) physx is working yes? I am running AMD Radeon 6970 + 8800GT with 260.99 drivers and Physx 9100514 and Hybrid patch 1.04ff. Are there some more physx benchmarks that I can download and run to test my setup?


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 31, 2011)

AsRock said:


> Indeed but it's a lot when the cards not being used at all.



No, not really.


----------



## roast (Feb 1, 2011)

Awesome thread. 

I'm tempted to pick up a HD6950 soon, yet I have a bunch of nVidia cards lying around too which I could use for Physx.

To be honest, Im not too fussed about PhysX though. After playing some of the (limited number of) supported games, it doesnt add too much to the experience.


----------



## bud951 (Feb 3, 2011)

bud951 said:


> I think I have my setup working but I would like to know for sure.
> 
> If Fluidmark 1.1.1 says "Hardware Physx" on and I get avg 170fps then hybrid (hardware) physx is working yes? I am running AMD Radeon 6970 + 8800GT with 260.99 drivers and Physx 9100514 and Hybrid patch 1.04ff. Are there some more physx benchmarks that I can download and run to test my setup?



I am currently getting 20+ extra FPS in Mafia 2 Benchmark with Physx on max setting so I guess my Nvidia 8800GT is working. 

Question though.. Is my 8800GT as a stand alone Physx card just a little under powered for these newer Physx enabled games? Its what I had laying around and I like the fact that its a single slot card but would Physx enabled games run smoother with a newer Nvidia card like GTX 260 or something that has more CUDA cores?


----------



## Blue-Tiger (Feb 12, 2011)

bud951 said:


> I am currently getting 20+ extra FPS in Mafia 2 Benchmark with Physx on max setting so I guess my Nvidia 8800GT is working.
> 
> Question though.. Is my 8800GT as a stand alone Physx card just a little under powered for these newer Physx enabled games? Its what I had laying around and I like the fact that its a single slot card but would Physx enabled games run smoother with a newer Nvidia card like GTX 260 or something that has more CUDA cores?



No, PhysX is slowly dieing. I can run PhysX in Mafia II maxed out on a dedicated 9800GTX, so that would be all you'd maximally need. I have ran it maxed out on a 8800GTX, which, as we all know, is basically thesame compared to the 9800GTX. 

Bottomline: I really like PhysX and I would love to see it grow even bigger, but I'm not expecting that to happen. So you should not invest alot of money on a PhysX card (like the GTX260), but invest that in a second hand 9800GTX (perhaps), or to improve your primairy graphics card... Just my 2 cents,


----------



## Rakin (Feb 17, 2011)

Hey Guys!!I have a 6870 so will a GT220/240 be enough for PhysX


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 17, 2011)

Yes, both will handle physx just fine.  I'd shoot for the GT240 though, just to make sure for future games.


----------



## Rakin (Feb 17, 2011)

or will 9600GT be bttr or GTS250 or 430 bcoz i want to keep it low a bit....


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 17, 2011)

Rakin said:


> or will 9600GT be bttr or GTS250 or 430 bcoz i want to keep it low a bit....



In order of raw phsyx performance:

GT220
9600GT
GT240
GT430
GTS250

However, I'd go with whichever you can find cheapest, again trying to avoid the GT220 just for futureproofing sake.


----------



## Rakin (Feb 17, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> In order of raw phsyx performance:
> 
> GT220
> 9600GT
> ...



Thanx alot man!!


----------



## cable (Feb 24, 2011)

amd 9750 cpu idle 34c under load 40c max
ati hd 5770 1gig temp idle 32c under load 39c
gtx 460 768 meg temp idle 26c under load 37c
both fans at 100%
thanks for the great write up so even i could understand and make this work


----------



## Rakin (Feb 24, 2011)

Over kill....


----------



## Blue-Tiger (Feb 24, 2011)

cable said:


> amd 9750 cpu idle 34c under load 40c max
> ati hd 5770 1gig temp idle 32c under load 39c
> gtx 460 768 meg temp idle 26c under load 37c
> both fans at 100%
> thanks for the great write up so even i could understand and make this work



So you are using a GTX460 for PhysX? What a waste of money IMO...


----------



## cable (Feb 27, 2011)

it's not a waste i had the 460 and picked the 5770 up for 65.00 just to try it out did not like now back to 460 with a 8800 GTX to run 3rd monitor no more ati thinking i'll sell the ati


----------



## Blue-Tiger (Feb 27, 2011)

Vrgn86 said:


> Has anybody tried this with a 6950 and a gt430? Does it work?



I am running a HD6950 (@ HD6970) together with an 9800GTX for PhysX and that does work. nVidia's specs page also claims the GT430 to be PhysX-ready. Anyway, it's up to you. What is that GT430 gonna cost you?


----------



## Blue-Tiger (Feb 27, 2011)

Vrgn86 said:


> $50 I can get it to work for benches and fluid mark, but not yet in games



Yeah, well... That's just some editing in game files you have to do. What games are the troublemakers?


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Feb 27, 2011)

gt240's sweet for physx, cheep at 50quid and can get gddr5 on it for that with no exernal power needd (all off mobo) and asa slight bonus something else to fold on 24/7 but 96 shaders is deff the min for high physx settings on games

you have to use the right driver and physx ver to get hybrid working dude and i doubt a 430 would use the older driver? ie with a gt240 i HAVE to use driver 258.69(later dont work at all) and physx9.10.0223 then update phsyx as you wish but patched after each update with physx mod 1.04ff


----------



## dark2099 (Mar 1, 2011)

quick question on this, in the guide by erocker, says to use one specific driver, is it possible to use newer ones now, or is that one just widely found to be the best?  thanks


----------



## erocker (Mar 1, 2011)

dark2099 said:


> quick question on this, in the guide by erocker, says to use one specific driver, is it possible to use newer ones now, or is that one just widely found to be the best?  thanks



I'm pretty sure newer drivers will work.


----------



## LifeOnMars (Mar 14, 2011)

Hi guys, I have just got an HD 5870 on the cheap so I'm running that as my main card now. This means I have a GTS 450 sitting around doing nothing so I would like to do a little benching/try some games with a bit of physx action.

My question is, I only have one other PCI-e slot which is X4. Is that going to be enough bandwidth for the physx calculations? Also I have a 650w PSU, will that be enough to power my rig with the added physx card as I don't want anything blowing up on me 

Thanks.


----------



## Funtoss (Apr 21, 2011)

what if i have sli gtx 460 would it still handle physx?


----------



## micropage7 (Apr 21, 2011)

LifeOnMars said:


> Hi guys, I have just got an HD 5870 on the cheap so I'm running that as my main card now. This means I have a GTS 450 sitting around doing nothing so I would like to do a little benching/try some games with a bit of physx action.
> 
> My question is, I only have one other PCI-e slot which is X4. Is that going to be enough bandwidth for the physx calculations? Also I have a 650w PSU, will that be enough to power my rig with the added physx card as I don't want anything blowing up on me
> 
> Thanks.


physix just needs lower than graphic so it looks fine to put that on x4 



Funtoss said:


> what if i have sli gtx 460 would it still handle physx?


return to what resolution you are on, the setting, the game and so
460 is pretty powerful card so if you make it sli it would be fine run graphic and physix at the same time


----------



## Delova (Apr 25, 2011)

Awesome !! Thanks 4 the info


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (May 18, 2011)

*hybrid with geforce 270.51 works ish*

Hi im running a hybrid sys as described and was untill a recent fresh install:shadedshu using 258.62 drivers as they were the latest set i could get working but after a recent full reinstall:shadedshu i thought id have another go at updatein and used 270.51, and to my surprise they worked fine ish with physx mod 1.4ff, fluidmark shows hardware peing used and vantage does first cpu physx test fine using gpu to assist. 

thing is the second cpu test in vantage doesnt use the gpu anymore(think its the AI one not sure but planes crashing one) ive ran fluidmark for a while and physx dosnt cut out or disable so im not sure why its not assisting in that second test any ideas?

ps woot yall 270.51 does work at least ish

ish being the word ie not, the second cpu test is the physx the first is AI and hence i was mistaken it didnt work in all games either. imho


----------



## Blue-Tiger (Jun 5, 2011)

I have been running hybrid for quite a while now. At first a 8800GTX together with an HD5870, nowadays a HD6950 (flashed) combined with a 9800GTX. Running Mafia 2 is just perfect, can set the APEX PhysX on High no problem... The only this is, I keep having problems getting PhysX to run in Batman: AA. It's not a game I play that often, but hell, it's frustrating  If you know what I've missed, let me know in this thread plz 

Kudo's for the tut so far!


----------



## Gabkicks (Jun 14, 2011)

i got my 6950 sitting 34th on the highest fluidmark scores  Only game i know of that would be a reason to keep my 250 in my case is ARMA III, and that isnt out for another year -_-. Oh snap, i still havent beaten metro2033.
http://www.ozone3d.net/benchmarks/physx_fluidmark_score_130.php?id=92f2ec5185f5768bb3e8acff85b103d8


----------



## xibeleli (Jul 5, 2011)

Man can you guys help me, I'm trying to do this with a 5970 and 9600gt. Everything turned out as it should be (gpuz detects physx is on,etc.) except for the fact that when i test it fluidmark. In fluidmark doesn't verify that physx is done by gpu since it says cpu > physx instead of gpu>physx and the gpu load for 9600gt sits at 0% . Man what the hell did i do wrong?


----------



## xibeleli (Jul 5, 2011)

Ill just post what i posted on the other forum so you guys know what i did.



> Hi guys, i have done lots of searches for this problem and asked on other forums but am still having trouble after spending 14 hours.
> 
> i am currently having trouble doing this setup (as described in title). I've installed my 5970 properly as my main display card. Now i also wanted physx support so i added a 9600gt to enable this feature. The reason im trying it is because i've heard other people having success with this.
> 
> ...


----------



## Rakin (Jul 5, 2011)

Hey i have dual 460s in SLi so my question is will i get boost in benchies & physX enabled games with an 9800GT for physX?


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jul 5, 2011)

Rakin said:


> Hey i have dual 460s in SLi so my question is will i get boost in benchies & physX enabled games with an 9800GT for physX?



possibly but possibly not much

and for all the last set of 100% working with mod1.04ff drivers are 258.65 Afaik they work solidly and you can still update physx, just re apply the mod each time also ive not met a game that wouldnt work with that combo of the few anyway


i am now ive looked back thru the thread gona stop repeating myself


----------



## xibeleli (Jul 5, 2011)

so gay , seems like no matter what i do it doesn't work, apart from gpuz showing that it's enabled


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jul 5, 2011)

you tried driver 258.65? give it a go


----------



## xibeleli (Jul 5, 2011)

I havent tried it yet, but will give it a go tommorow. The main problem i'm having is physx not actually working in *reality*. Absolutely zero load in the physx gpu when i run fluid mark. I also tested on the game alice:madness returns  and notice no difference or fps improvement.

Gpuz detects physx however, and i was able to complete the instructions on this guide.


----------



## xibeleli (Jul 6, 2011)

Lol working now, turns out all i had to do was delete the necessary physx.dll files to get the gpu to do the physx rendering instead of the cpu doing it.  


Result is pretty alright 10fps gain in minimum fps which is a big deal during the lag scenes


----------



## Blue-Tiger (Jul 6, 2011)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> possibly but possibly not much
> 
> and for all the last set of 100% working with mod1.04ff drivers are 258.65 Afaik they work solidly and you can still update physx, just re apply the mod each time also ive not met a game that wouldnt work with that combo of the few anyway



Yeah but you won't have to update PhysX drivers anyway  Atleast, I haven't...


----------



## xibeleli (Jul 6, 2011)

^ Actually now that it's working i can confirm that its working with the latest drivers 275.33


----------



## Ahmad Rady (Sep 9, 2011)

The ATI 4870X2 runs well with the GTS250 and PhyX is running well without extra patch!
Just installed the ATI 4870X2 latest driver and the GTS250 with latest driver without PhysX and use an old PhysX software that doesn't support PhysX on CPU.


----------



## Techjon (Sep 24, 2011)

*HD 5970 + 9800gt*

I am trying to install a 9800gt as a dedicated physx.  I have the 258.96 driver installed with the 1.04 mod.  GPU-Z doesn't show physx as enabled.  I have tried extending the monitor, I have removed all drivers and reinstalled several times with the same results.  Can any tell me what I am doing wrong?  I run Win 7 64 bit, i7 975, rampage iii extreme, 1100 watt psu.
Thanks for any help


----------



## erocker (Sep 24, 2011)

Techjon said:


> GPU-Z doesn't show physx as enabled



Have you tested PhysX applications yet? Often GPU-Z and even in the Nvidia CP it will not show PhysX as being enabled yet it will work.


----------



## Techjon (Sep 24, 2011)

erocker said:


> Have you tested PhysX applications yet? Often GPU-Z and even in the Nvidia CP it will not show PhysX as being enabled yet it will work.



No, net yet.  Is there any particular application you would recommend?


----------



## erocker (Sep 24, 2011)

3DMark Vantage.


----------



## Techjon (Sep 24, 2011)

Is there anything in particular I should be paying attention to?  Is the only way to test if the 9600gt is working would be to uninstall the 9800gt and run 3DMark Vantage again and compare?


----------



## erocker (Sep 24, 2011)

Techjon said:


> Is there anything in particular I should be paying attention to?  Is the only way to test if the 9600gt is working would be to uninstall the 9800gt and run 3DMark Vantage again and compare?



yes

or a PhysX game. I mean, you did installl a PhysX card to use it right?


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Sep 25, 2011)

Would a 9600 gso work as physx card with ati 6850 as main?


----------



## Techjon (Sep 25, 2011)

erocker said:


> yes
> 
> or a PhysX game. I mean, you did installl a PhysX card to use it right?



I got it for Alice Madess Returns.  I played the game and it does look better!  I guess i was looking for cpu-z to confirm it for me!  Thanks for your help!


----------



## ad3k (Sep 27, 2011)

nice, very VERY creative 
well, how about running a 250 gts in pci-e 1x? in previews posts i saw how people mod their pci-e 16x  now there isint a strait answer for this one, since 1x works with 2.5gbps and 16x pushes 5gbps would this have a big effect on physx dedicated card?


----------



## RyanL (Nov 6, 2011)

Couple of questions.  I saw earlier in this thread that CUDA doesn't work when using a Nvidia/ATI hybrid setup.  Can anyone confirm this because it was going to be one of the reasons for going with one of these configurations?  I would like to go with a GT 520 (or something else very low powered, some of you guys are going way overboard with your dedicated Physx cards).  I just discovered that you can open the card slot on a PCI-E on a motherboard, does anyone have any issues with doing this (especially with cards which draw their power from the PCI bus)?


----------



## lucsem70 (Nov 11, 2011)

I had an ASUS 9800GT 1GB and now i bought an MSI HD6950 TwinfrozerIII 2GB (unlocked), on a 1333 FSB MB, with 2GB of DDR3.
Do you believe i can get better performance from my 6950 using my 9800 as physx dedicated card?


----------



## entropy13 (Nov 11, 2011)

lucsem70 said:


> I had an ASUS 9800GT 1GB and now i bought an MSI HD6950 TwinfrozerIII 2GB (unlocked), on a 1333 FSB MB, with 2GB of DDR3.
> Do you believe i can get better performance from my 6950 using my 9800 as physx dedicated card?



Of course. But the "added" performance is not really quite significant (and there aren't that many games that use PhysX), but since you already have the 9800GT why not use it? Just make sure your PSU can handle it though, and that there's a free slot for a second card.


----------



## kenkickr (Nov 11, 2011)

RyanL said:


> Couple of questions.  I saw earlier in this thread that CUDA doesn't work when using a Nvidia/ATI hybrid setup.  Can anyone confirm this because it was going to be one of the reasons for going with one of these configurations?  I would like to go with a GT 520 (or something else very low powered, some of you guys are going way overboard with your dedicated Physx cards).  I just discovered that you can open the card slot on a PCI-E on a motherboard, does anyone have any issues with doing this (especially with cards which draw their power from the PCI bus)?



The only experience I have is with Xilisoft but to answer your question I cannot enable Cuda after setting up a hybrid physx setup.  As long as I enable ATI/AMD OpenCL *before* putting in the Nvidia card I'm atleast able to use OpenCL within Xilisoft.


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 11, 2011)

tigger said:


> Would a 9600 gso work as physx card with ati 6850 as main?



Yes, though the 48 shader version might bog down.


----------



## RyanL (Nov 12, 2011)

kenkickr said:


> The only experience I have is with Xilisoft but to answer your question I cannot enable Cuda after setting up a hybrid physx setup.  As long as I enable ATI/AMD OpenCL *before* putting in the Nvidia card I'm atleast able to use OpenCL within Xilisoft.



Thanks.  That's along the same lines as I want to use cudu for; converting videos to MKVs or whatever.  It's litterally 10X faster using cuda rather than the CPU.  I only wish that Handbrake (best program for that) would impliment cuda support.  I kind of came to same conclusion about cuda with a hybrid settup just by looking around, but I thought that you have to do the opposite with the OpenCL; ditch the ATI one and use Nvidia's.  I don't know, I'm finding so many conflicting ways on how to actually do this.  I'm wondering if there's an actual decent write-up on the subject.  Of course there's the developer's thread on NGOHQ (located here), but it is somewhat confusing.  In one statement there's a statement that cuda isn't going to work and a little bit down from that it sounds like it could.  He also mentions that you have to delete some PhysX files from Mirror's Edge to make this hybrid thing work.  Is that the only game you need to do this for or was that just an example?  If there's other games that require this, is there a list with instructions floating around somewhere?  

Sorry for the long post and I was going to ask these questions over at the NGOHQ forum, but never received an email confirmation from them when I signed up.


----------



## RyanL (Nov 12, 2011)

entropy13 said:


> Of course. But the "added" performance is not really quite significant (and there aren't that many games that use PhysX), but since you already have the 9800GT why not use it? Just make sure your PSU can handle it though, and that there's a free slot for a second card.



I just recently came across this myself so I don't how valid it is, but couldn't he throw the 9800GT into a mini PCIe slot by cutting the end of it open with a dremmel tool or knife?  I know that the 9800GT wouldn't operated at full speed but I don't think it would need to in this scenario and would be fine.  I'm actually looking to do the exact same thing.  The only thing that I can't figure out (like I mentioned a few posts up) is whether or not a low powered card which draws its power from the pci bus would work right in this configuration.  I'm pretty sure that the 9800GT would be fine since it has a 6 pin power connector.


----------



## lucsem70 (Nov 13, 2011)

entropy13 said:


> Of course. But the "added" performance is not really quite significant (and there aren't that many games that use PhysX), but since you already have the 9800GT why not use it? Just make sure your PSU can handle it though, and that there's a free slot for a second card.


Thanks
My doubt is that the 9800 support directX 10 and the 6950 support directX 11. 
I believe my PSU can support 2 board, it's a th750W corsair, with 6, 6/8 pin for graphic card and 2 slot PCIe 16x is free on my motherboard.
I prepared the DVi-Vga adapter for simulate the 2 monitor (following the dedicated guide), and i'm almost ready to assebly all.

In the case like BF3 that is made with directX 10 (im my pc run low res with 9800 and medium with the 6950), the dedicated card could provide any benefit using the boards togheter?

Thanks again 

PS: In a pair of days i'll have back my 6950, that i lent  to a friend of mine to try the cross-fire with 2 same boards; then i will give you back the final verdict if there is an improve of performance or not.


----------



## ramintjoo (Nov 24, 2011)

Previously couple of days I have seen lots of subjects appearing asking exactly the same questions regarding devoted PhysX cards, and so i figured I'd attempt to answer probably the most common ones here.

What devoted PhysX card must i get?

Most likely typically the most popular question about PhysX cards seen here.

In case your primary graphics card is definitely an nVidia card, the easy response is you do not need a devoted PhysX card, and should not purchase one. Here's why. Using the GTX400 series cards, they're already effective enough to handle PhysX information on their own. They don't have a performance hit in the PhysX information. That is not to express they will not have lower FPS when PhysX is enabled, however the lower FPS is triggered through the extra graphical rendering energy required to render all of the extra contaminants and fragments put into the scene by PhysX, not the PhysX information themselves. Now, if you work with something less than a GTX460 a devoted PhysX card may help try taking some load from the primary GPU. However, the cash could be better allocated to another GPU for SLi than you are on a devoted PhysX card.

In case your primary graphics card is definitely an ATi card, then something very weak is going to be adequate. Generally anything with 64  shaders is going to do the task all right. The GT240 appears to become a extremely popular card, out of the box the GT430. You do not need something more effective than that. PhysX really takes hardly any GPU energy to complete the information.

Will a devoted PhysX card boost performance in each and every game?

Definitely not! It's a common misunderstanding that because basically all the games uses some type of physics engine, that the devoted PhysX card will boost performance in each and every game. You should not confuse physics generally with PhysX. PhysX is simply another physics engine that's only utilized in certain games. Even though their email list of games which use PhysX is sort of large, their email list of games which use hardware faster PhysX is quite small, something similar to 15 games. So only 15 games really make use of the graphics card for PhysX to start with, as well as individuals 15 only something similar to five to six are really the well-known blockbuster games.

Can One play a PhysX game with no nVidia graphics card?

Obviously! However, you won't obtain the top end PhysX effects, which basically comes down to simply eye-chocolate anyway. I have performed each of the large PhysX game titles, and that i can appear at first sight just like enjoyable with no PhysX eye-chocolate just like. Additionally, you will have physic in the overall game. The reason why is PhysX provides a software option that is not as detailed because the hardware faster options, which choice is really what's utilized in the majority of the PhysX games available on the market. For this reason their email list of games which use PhysX is 40-50 games lengthy, however the listing of games which use hardware PhysX is just 15 games lengthy. Software PhysX is fairly on componen when it comes to capacity using the other software physic engines currently available, for example Havok. Which is available too to everybody, without necessity to have an nVidia graphics card within the system. For this reason it's more desirable to game designers compared to hardware faster PhysX.

Miracle traffic bot PhysX option shouldn't be wrongly identified as choice to run the hardware faster PhsyX around the CPU. Individuals are two completely different things. The program choice to PhysX runs the information around the CPU, it tones lower the quantity of information done significantly, having a decreased visual effect clearly. Running hardware accelerted PhysX around the CPU doesn't tone lower the quantity of information, and therefore works very poorly when operate on the CPU, making the overall game virtually unplayable.

Are you able to operate a devoted nVidia GPU with a principal ATi graphics card?

Yes. While not formally supported, there's an easy to use hack that enables this. Read how to get it done here:
__________________________________


----------



## ramintjoo (Nov 24, 2011)

thx broo


----------



## Ray_Rogers2109 (Dec 16, 2011)

Which PhysX card would work best with my entire set-up? I'll be buying the Sapphire 6950 2GB 100312-3L, unlocking to 6970, and using it on the 16x PCI-E 2.0 slot. The nVidia PhysX GPU will be used on the 8x PCI-E 2.0 slot. Any suggestions? Considering one for about $80.
I don't think I can use my 8400GS, it's the one with an S-Video port and not the HDMI one, as a PhysX dedicated card.
Would I even need a dedicated PhysX card with the GPU I'm buying soon? The Sapphire 6950 2GB 100312-3L will be the main card i.e. connected to the monitor.


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Dec 16, 2011)

Ray_Rogers2109 said:


> Which PhysX card would work best with my entire set-up? I'll be buying the Sapphire 6950 2GB 100312-3L, unlocking to 6970, and using it on the 16x PCI-E 2.0 slot. The nVidia PhysX GPU will be used on the 8x PCI-E 2.0 slot. Any suggestions? Considering one for about $80.
> I don't think I can use my 8400GS, it's the one with an S-Video port and not the HDMI one, as a PhysX dedicated card.
> Would I even need a dedicated PhysX card with the GPU I'm buying soon? The Sapphire 6950 2GB 100312-3L will be the main card i.e. connected to the monitor.



IF you want to run Nvidias Physx, then you need a Nvidia card. The latest game to support PhysX is the latest Batman. Not a huge list of games incorporate PhysX, but I will say the added effects are nice.


----------



## Ray_Rogers2109 (Dec 16, 2011)

ZenZimZaliben said:


> IF you want to run Nvidias Physx, then you need a Nvidia card. The latest game to support PhysX is the latest Batman. Not a huge list of games incorporate PhysX, but I will say the added effects are nice.



I only have a very few games which support it. First of all MAFIA II, soon to buy BATMAN: Arkham Asylum (have only played the demo with the integrated 4290), BATMAN: Arkham City (after I've completed Arkham Asylum), METRO 2033 and possibly one other.
Would like to see some comparison images with the EXACT same settings for the above games with PhysX on and off. Guess it'd be most helpful but I'm still using a generic CRT and using a DVI to VGA adaptor. GPU first and then the monitor in my system specs guide next.

EDIT: So the 8400GS I'm assuming won't cut it for PhysX.
EDIT EDIT: Just looked through the forums and it's too weak for it.


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Dec 16, 2011)

http://physxinfo.com/data/vreview.html

Also I think it just needs to be a G92 core or newer.

I know I used my 8800GTS for PhysX and it worked great.


----------



## Ray_Rogers2109 (Dec 16, 2011)

ZenZimZaliben said:


> http://physxinfo.com/data/vreview.html
> 
> Also I think it just needs to be a G92 core or newer.
> 
> I know I used my 8800GTS for PhysX and it worked great.


Thanks! Browsing through the On and Off comparison shots, it appears with it on it makes these games more atmospheric. But I'll be using the Sapphire 6950 2GB 100312-3L with the 6970 BIOS before purchasing the stand-alone PhysX card.


----------



## Ray_Rogers2109 (Dec 17, 2011)

I'm considering the PNY VCGGT5201XPB GeForce GT 520 (Fermi) for the PhysX card but in the 8x PCI-E 2.0 slot. the Sapphire will be in the PCI-E 2.0 16x slot.


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 17, 2011)

The GT520 will technically work, but I'd get something with more shaders than just 48.  Something like the GT440 would do nicely.


----------



## Ray_Rogers2109 (Dec 17, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> The GT520 will technically work, but I'd get something with more shaders than just 48.  Something like the GT440 would do nicely.



Would I really need more shaders if I don't have anything connected to the ports on the PhysX card? As stated I'm buying the Sapphire 6950 2GB with the 6970 bios switch as stated. It'll be my main graphics card. I don't think I'll even buy the PhysX card until after I buy the monitor.
So Sapphire 6950/unlocked fully to 6970 will be the main card and nVidia will just be for PhysX.


----------



## Ray_Rogers2109 (Dec 22, 2011)

Okay I looked at the program files and features with the start menu. Says I have PhysX version 9.10.0513 Should I still need a dedicated GPU for PhysX though? Asking before I install the GPU in my system specs tomorrow (hopefully it'll arrive then).


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 22, 2011)

Ray_Rogers2109 said:


> Would I really need more shaders if I don't have anything connected to the ports on the PhysX card? As stated I'm buying the Sapphire 6950 2GB with the 6970 bios switch as stated. It'll be my main graphics card. I don't think I'll even buy the PhysX card until after I buy the monitor.
> So Sapphire 6950/unlocked fully to 6970 will be the main card and nVidia will just be for PhysX.



The reason I suggest a card with more shaders is because nVidia likes raising the requirements.  When the first released PhysX for their cards(after buying Ageia) there wasn't a minimum shader requirement.  Then they made the minimum 16 shaders, then they raised it to 32 shaders sometime in the last year(I forget when).  I wouldn't be surprised if they up it again to 64 shaders in the near future.  So while 48 shaders will technically do now, I'd go with something with more just in case.



Ray_Rogers2109 said:


> Okay I looked at the program files and features with the start menu. Says I have PhysX version 9.10.0513 Should I still need a dedicated GPU for PhysX though? Asking before I install the GPU in my system specs tomorrow (hopefully it'll arrive then).



You do not need a PhysX card to use PhysX.  Games that use PhysX will run in "Software" mode if a PhysX card is not detected.  The physics details of the game will be run on the CPU and the physics details will be lowered so it doesn't overload the CPU.  The quality without a dedicated PhysX card is equal to what you would get with other software physics engines, such as Havok or Bullet.  Some games allow you to actually increase the physics details back to their full levels even when running PhysX on the CPU, however framerates tend to suck due to PhysX never being designed to run on a CPU.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jan 4, 2012)

due to a recent mobo upgrade see rig and the recent aquisition of batman AC ive dug out my old gt240 and thrown it into this admittedly test stage rig, its installed right gpuz sees it and its being used ,though not by all physx apps (fluidmark) and the physx isnt the prob as i think it is working 

my issue is my crossfired 5800's, ive reinstalled their drivers a few times ,first due to swapping them round jic and then a few more times with uninstalls to rectify my problem ,which is

their visible and deffinately crossfired (benches prove this) but the crossfire tabs not shown in CCC or ati tray tools for that matter ,its like their one card as unistalling a monitor from either stops them both displaying , v odd any ideas


----------



## entropy13 (Jan 28, 2012)

jacob.lara79 said:


> Hopefully I can explain what is going on here,
> 
> The 9800 is too slow to keep up with your newer 560 Ti card.
> 
> Your 560 Ti is able to render frames much faster then the 9800, so it has to wait for the 9800 to finish calculating the Phys X before it can display those frames. If you were to use two similar cars like two 560Ti (1x Normal GPU and 1x dedicated Phys X) You will probably see an increase in frames because both cards are able to work at similar speeds.



Nope, no increase in framerates. Just "removed" the bottleneck. But then again if you have two 560 Ti's just SLI them and ignore "dedicated PhysX".


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jan 28, 2012)

i got my physx working thanks to erocker's headsup on the driver i shouldnt have used, after messing with batman a bit ive decided personally you now need something with 192 plus shaders in, so im hopeing a gt640 might appear soon and have whats needed


----------



## erocker (Jan 28, 2012)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> i got my physx working thanks to erocker's headsup on the driver i shouldnt have used, after messing with batman a bit ive decided personally you now need something with 192 plus shaders in, so im hopeing a gt640 might appear soon and have whats needed



What card are you using for PhysX?


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 28, 2012)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> i got my physx working thanks to erocker's headsup on the driver i shouldnt have used, after messing with batman a bit ive decided personally you now need something with 192 plus shaders in, so im hopeing a gt640 might appear soon and have whats needed



What makes you say that?  With my GT240 doing dedicated PhysX in with the SLI GTX470's the GPU load on the GT240 barely breaks 50%.

Remember, performance loss(as in lower FPS) when adding a dedicated PhysX card is guaranteed.


----------



## khanfauza (Feb 18, 2012)

due to a recent mobo upgrade see rig and the recent aquisition of batman AC ive dug out my old gt240 and thrown it into this admittedly test stage rig, its installed right gpuz sees it and its being used ,though not by all physx apps (fluidmark) and the physx isnt the prob as i think it is working.What card are you using for PhysX?


----------



## Velvet Wafer (Sep 4, 2012)

So, with Borderlands 2 coming out soon, i would like to inform myself here, if there is still a way to physx an ATI card with an Nvidia card via hack... still have a 9800gt green that i could use for that


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Sep 4, 2012)

Haha, yup. I just reinstalled my 8800GTS for the very same reason. Everything seems to work in FluidMark.


----------



## Velvet Wafer (Sep 4, 2012)

which drivers did you use for that?


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Sep 4, 2012)

Velvet Wafer said:


> which drivers did you use for that?



http://www.ngohq.com/graphic-cards/17706-hybrid-physx-mod-v1-03-v1-05ff.html 

Just followed above revisions. 1st post should probably be updated with latest info.


----------



## Black Mesa (Sep 5, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> I'll be interested in your results.  When I did the same experiment with my GTX470 and a 9600GT I found no difference in performance.



Touche ^ I found the same with my GTX560SE and a GTX275 I found no difference in performance although heat and noise output went threw the roof. I quickly uninstalled the Physx* card after all Physx* games were tested.


----------



## Velvet Wafer (Sep 5, 2012)

huh strange... the system doesnt recognize the nvidia card at all, when i dont use it in the primary slot, and if i put it in the primary slot, the 6970 gets no video output (sadly no way to distinguish the post order between pcie slots in bios)


----------



## Random Murderer (Sep 5, 2012)

Velvet Wafer said:


> huh strange... the system doesnt recognize the nvidia card at all, when i dont use it in the primary slot, and if i put it in the primary slot, the 6970 gets no video output (sadly no way to distinguish the post order between pcie slots in bios)



Sounds like a borked PCIE slot to me. can you try them in another system?


----------



## Velvet Wafer (Sep 5, 2012)

Random Murderer said:


> Sounds like a borked PCIE slot to me. can you try them in another system?



slot is fine, my 6970 works flawless in both...i could put both cards into another system, but that would be a MAJOR hassle, i would love to circumvent


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Sep 5, 2012)

Velvet Wafer said:


> slot is fine, my 6970 works flawless in both...i could put both cards into another system, but that would be a MAJOR hassle, i would love to circumvent



Have you tried using your 3rd slot. I know it is only a 8x but really that should make almost no difference just for physx crunching.


----------



## Velvet Wafer (Sep 5, 2012)

ZenZimZaliben said:


> Have you tried using your 3rd slot. I know it is only a 8x but really that should make almost no difference just for physx crunching.



i only have 2x 16x slots and one x4 slot besides the usual x1... cant do that sadly!


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Sep 5, 2012)

oh I wasn't sure which pc in your specs. Asus M4A89GTD PRO was what i looked into.


----------



## Velvet Wafer (Sep 5, 2012)

ZenZimZaliben said:


> oh I wasn't sure which pc in your specs. Asus M4A89GTD PRO was what i looked into.



thats right, it has 2 slots


----------



## Random Murderer (Sep 5, 2012)

Is the board on the latest BIOS?
Can you fit a full-length card in the x4 slot? PhysX cards don't need a lot of bandwidth and a x4 slot would do just fine.


----------



## Velvet Wafer (Sep 6, 2012)

Random Murderer said:


> Is the board on the latest BIOS?
> Can you fit a full-length card in the x4 slot? PhysX cards don't need a lot of bandwidth and a x4 slot would do just fine.



yes, tried the third newest and newest bios, doesnt change a bit. sadly no, i would need to cut a slot in the x4 pcie to use it


----------



## Random Murderer (Sep 6, 2012)

Velvet Wafer said:


> yes, tried the third newest and newest bios, doesnt change a bit. sadly no, i would need to cut a slot in the x4 pcie to use it



Have you contacted Asus? Something just doesn't seem right here...


----------



## Velvet Wafer (Sep 6, 2012)

Random Murderer said:


> Have you contacted Asus? Something just doesn't seem right here...



actually i havent, i can see where you are leading, and i also think it may be a compatibility issue plus a missing bios option... do you think they can do something about that? may have to look up the phone numbers


----------



## brandonwh64 (Sep 6, 2012)

I have just bought a GT240 for physx, I will not have to figure out how to cut my top PCIex X1 slot open so a full X16 will fit.

Hope to get 6950's Xfire'd with GT240 Physx


----------



## Velvet Wafer (Sep 6, 2012)

brandonwh64 said:


> I have just bought a GT240 for physx, I will not have to figure out how to cut my top PCIex X1 slot open so a full X16 will fit.
> 
> Hope to get 6950's Xfire'd with GT240 Physx



you can also try to trim the card itself, there was actually a very nice tut here on the forums


----------



## erocker (Sep 6, 2012)

brandonwh64 said:


> I have just bought a GT240 for physx, I will not have to figure out how to cut my top PCIex X1 slot open so a full X16 will fit.
> 
> Hope to get 6950's Xfire'd with GT240 Physx



It doesn't work very well for PhysX, especially if it's only going to run in x1.


----------



## Phusius (Sep 6, 2012)

physx and gymx

/hug 7970
/dance


----------



## erixx (Sep 9, 2012)

Hi,

just for entertainment this Sunday i will install an old single-slot GF GT9600XXX as Physix card alongside my brand new 670. I know for most games this would be needless, but maybe some of the stress-fullest games can take advantage of it.

Nvidia recently released a "Physix Benchmark": http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/ar...nload-the-pla-directx-11-and-physx-benchmark/

Now, I also have some questions, forgive the simpleness, but it is just to make sure the following:

1) This physix only card would need
a) its fan spinning ?  
b) the additional power plugs plugged in ?

2) Apart from the above-mentioned benchmark application, what is the best real game to test if the 670 handles well on it's own or better with the 9600 helping?

I will test, but maybe the community already has...

THANKS!!


----------



## erixx (Sep 9, 2012)

Testing, so far. (will edit)

A) GF9600 as dedicated Physix, PCIE power cables not connected.
Get lack of power warning on boot.
Nvidia panel recognizes card, set to do Physix
Running this chinese PLA benchmark, says no physix, and physix graph overlay says CPU, so apparantly I get no Physix from the GF9600 GPU.
Results
Media 90
Max 124 FPS

B) Reboot and adding power cables...
No more power warning.
PLA still says no Physix in its options. Running with Physixs=CPU bar...
Media 103
Max 135 FPS...

Maybe gotta test with a proper benchmark software...


----------



## erixx (Sep 9, 2012)

Erocker: Fluidmark 1.5 seems to be working with 6xx cards now...

It is hard to download, I got it from x-drivers.ru


Fluid mark 1.5 Results:
With dedicated GT9600XXX
- "Score" 321
- 26 SPS/FPS

Without dedicated card, just the GTX670
- "Score" 1167
- 96 SPS/FPS

Weird, and for sure it is not optimized or maybe it is buggy, but then GAMES ARE ALSO NOT ALWAYS OPTIMIZED, so this is a very negative relative result.

Add to that that the extra 9600 card eats some wattage, adds noise and tons of heat right in the mouth of the GTX670, and the results are negative:

9600 is out of the rig.


----------



## VulkanBros (Sep 9, 2012)

So....this card : Gigabyte GV N430-1GI (rev. 2.0) - GF GT 430 - 1 GB
should be sufficient to run - say the Borderlands 2 game alongside a 7970?

Question is - will it run on a Crosshair IV Formula? - Is it worth doing it?
The GT430 is a leftover from a friends upgrade......


----------



## brandonwh64 (Sep 19, 2012)

So I am having issues getting this to work. I cut down my card and it was flawlessly in a PCIex x1 slot but when I install the Nvidia drivers and reboot it kills the AMD drivers to the point I have to uninstall and use driver sweeper before they will reinstall properly. What am I doing wrong?

AMD drivers 12.8 and Nvidia  258.96


----------



## Batou1986 (Sep 19, 2012)

brandonwh64 said:


> So I am having issues getting this to work. I cut down my card and it was flawlessly in a PCIex x1 slot but when I install the Nvidia drivers and reboot it kills the AMD drivers to the point I have to uninstall and use driver sweeper before they will reinstall properly. What am I doing wrong?
> 
> AMD drivers 12.8 and Nvidia  258.96



You need this http://www.ngohq.com/graphic-cards/17706-hybrid-physx-mod-v1-03-v1-05ff.html 
And older drivers 285.62 I think.
Nvidia blocks PhysX with Ati hardware present

Borderlands 2 wont utiliez the gpu even after deleting the PhysXDevice.dll


----------



## brandonwh64 (Sep 19, 2012)

Batou1986 said:


> You need this http://www.ngohq.com/graphic-cards/17706-hybrid-physx-mod-v1-03-v1-05ff.html
> And older drivers 285.62 I think.
> Nvidia blocks PhysX with Ati hardware present
> 
> Borderlands 2 wont utiliez the gpu even after deleting the PhysXDevice.dll



Got physx working with those drivers! Also got physx in BL2 and OMG is it wonderful!

Use this setting




1Kurgan1 said:


> If anyone out there has AMD cards, but picked up a Physx card like I did for this, and your setting is still locked. Here's how to change that.
> 
> 1. Go to Documents/My Games/Borderlands 2/WillowGame/Config
> 
> ...



MSI afterburner shows load on all three cards and CPU load is around 10%


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 19, 2012)

so you have that other card in the PCI E1 slot


----------



## brandonwh64 (Sep 19, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> so you have that other card in the PCI E1 slot



Yes


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 19, 2012)

brandonwh64 said:


> Yes



cool, i can only guess Physx only requires the x1 bandwidth and nothing more?


----------



## Rei86 (Oct 27, 2012)

some update about this I guess.

Members are sk3tch and staypuft on EVGA forums that decided to run some test for some fun

http://www.evga.com/FORUMS/tm.aspx?m=1772338&mpage=1 
http://www.evga.com/forums/tm.aspx?m=1756420 
http://www.evga.com/forums/tm.aspx?m=1768879&mpage=1


----------



## Techtu (Nov 6, 2012)

*Advice needed from those with hyrbid physx*

Just wanting a quick word of advice really I've got chance of swapping my old old old 9500GT for a somewhat newer 8800GT but is getting around all the workarounds to enable PhysX with AMD as main GPU worth while with the 8800GT?

I'd like to know if others have got any results that I could compare or just advice in general. 

EDIT! Whoops! Somehow I made 2 threads of the same in seconds.. could a mod delete one please.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 6, 2012)

Techtu said:


> Just wanting a quick word of advice really I've got chance of swapping my old old old 9500GT for a somewhat newer 8800GT but is getting around all the workarounds to enable PhysX with AMD as main GPU worth while with the 8800GT?
> 
> I'd like to know if others have got any results that I could compare or just advice in general.
> 
> EDIT! Whoops! Somehow I made 2 threads of the same in seconds.. could a mod delete one please.



the 8800GT is overall faster card


----------



## erocker (Nov 6, 2012)

Sometimes it depends on the game. You will need to go in and delete certain physx.dll's once in a while to get it to work. Either way I would do the swap even if you don't plan on using the card for PhysX.


----------



## Techtu (Nov 6, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> the 8800GT is overall faster card



Yes I know it's faster  I called the 8800GT newer didn't I? I also posted 2 threads, I also made more error's this isn't my morning so bare with me 

But yes anyways I know it's faster, I've never had to bother before now though as always had NVidia as a main GPU so is it simple to get going and is the gains really worth the 8800GT with the added head and power over the 9500GT for the amount of PhysX games out there... either option has got be better than using my CPU for PhysX right?


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 6, 2012)

Techtu said:


> Yes I know it's faster  I called the 8800GT newer didn't I? I also posted 2 threads, I also made more error's this isn't my morning so bare with me
> 
> But yes anyways I know it's faster, I've never had to bother before now though as always had NVidia as a main GPU so is it simple to get going and is the gains really worth the 8800GT with the added head and power over the 9500GT for the amount of PhysX games out there... either option has got be better than using my CPU for PhysX right?



8800GT is considerably better than the 9500 for PPU use, however power is the tradeoff


----------



## Techtu (Nov 6, 2012)

I've just used the PhysX mod with my 9500GT, ran 3Dmark 11 and got the same score as I would without it? Used Furmark too which show's I'm only using the 9500GT? (I have nothing attached via display to that card).


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 6, 2012)

Techtu said:


> I've just used the PhysX mod with my 9500GT, ran 3Dmark 11 and got the same score as I would without it? Used Furmark too which show's I'm only using the 9500GT? (I have nothing attached via display to that card).



did you go into the NV COntrol panel and ensure that Physx was enabled on the 9500GT and not the CPU?


----------



## Techtu (Nov 6, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> did you go into the NV COntrol panel and ensure that Physx was enabled on the 9500GT and not the CPU?



No, I'm unable to enter the control panel unless I plug a monitor into one of the 9500GT's display ports.

Should I do that?


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 6, 2012)

Techtu said:


> No, I'm unable to enter the control panel unless I plug a monitor into one of the 9500GT's display ports.
> 
> Should I do that?



worth a shot but perhaps a program like rivatuner/afterburner should allow it


----------



## Techtu (Nov 6, 2012)

Where would I look for this in AfterBurner?


----------



## Techtu (Nov 6, 2012)

Techtu said:


> Where would I look for this in AfterBurner?



EDIT: If for example I do a run with 3Dmark Vantage and I look through the results and it says "PPU Disabled: true - PPU Used: false" does that mean my PhysX isn't working? :/


----------



## brandonwh64 (Nov 6, 2012)

Check with Fluid mark to see if physx is working

http://www.ozone3d.net/benchmarks/physx-fluidmark/


----------



## Techtu (Nov 6, 2012)

Hmm, it's not working


----------



## Random Murderer (Nov 7, 2012)

Techtu said:


> Hmm, it's not working



With Fluid mark you have to delete a few of its PhysX files. Not sure which, though a quick search(possibly in this thread) should tell you.


----------



## Mathragh (Aug 1, 2013)

So has anyone been able to get this to work with windows 8?

I've tried a couple of months ago, but I couldn't get physx to use the card instead of the CPU.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Aug 1, 2013)

Mathragh said:


> So has anyone been able to get this to work with windows 8?
> 
> I've tried a couple of months ago, but I couldn't get physx to use the card instead of the CPU.


I've had some luck with hybridiz mod off ngohq forum


----------



## Mathragh (Aug 1, 2013)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> I've had some luck with hybridiz mod off ngohq forum



Got borderlands 2 to work with my 8800GT with that mod! thnx alot for the tip


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Aug 1, 2013)

Mathragh said:


> Got borderlands 2 to work with my 8800GT with that mod! thnx alot for the tip



No problem I think it safe to say the mod method might need updateing as physx mod1.5 has limited usage now.


----------



## Mathragh (Aug 1, 2013)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> No problem I think it safe to say the mod method might need updateing as physx mod1.5 has limited usage now.



That's indeed the way it seems.

Also, would I be correct when I conclude that the 8800GT can't always keep up with physx in borderlands? I seem to get some slowdowns at busy scenes, but they appear to be less serious than the slowdowns I have on CPU physx alone.


----------



## Random Murderer (Aug 1, 2013)

Mathragh said:


> That's indeed the way it seems.
> 
> Also, would I be correct when I conclude that the 8800GT can't always keep up with physx in borderlands? I seem to get some slowdowns at busy scenes, but they appear to be less serious than the slowdowns I have on CPU physx alone.



8800GT is more than enough. I've used a GTS250, an 8600GT, and a 9500GT. None of them slowed down due to PhysX over-taxing the card.
Have you set PhysX to "High"(or "Advanced" or "Hardware", can't remember how it's named in Borderlands) in the options? And did you make sure to select the 8800GT from the nVidia Control Panel as the PhysX adapter? It seems to me you're still running PhysX on the CPU.


----------



## Mathragh (Aug 1, 2013)

Random Murderer said:


> 8800GT is more than enough. I've used a GTS250, an 8600GT, and a 9500GT. None of them slowed down due to PhysX over-taxing the card.
> Have you set PhysX to "High" in the options? And did you make sure to select the 8800GT from the nVidia Control Panel as the PhysX adapter? It seems to me you're still running PhysX on the CPU.



Well, GPU-Z does show the 8800GT is under load (between 5 and 50%). Actually, I think the load on the 8800GT lessens when theres fps drops. 

Not sure what's going on, but I suppose something might be off with all the dll's I need to either leave or move(according to the hybridiz mod tutorial).

Also when I try opening the control panel, it says i need to connect a display to the 8800GT, but whenever I do that, windows seems to go into an infinite screen initialisation loop and I get two flickering black screens with just the cursor.


----------



## Random Murderer (Aug 1, 2013)

Mathragh said:


> Well, GPU-Z does show the 8800GT is under load (between 5 and 50%). Actually, I think the load on the 8800GT lessens when theres fps drops.
> 
> Not sure what's going on, but I suppose something might be off with all the dll's I need to either leave or move(according to the hybridiz mod tutorial).
> 
> Also when I try opening the control panel, it says i need to connect a display to the 8800GT, but whenever I do that, windows seems to go into an infinite screen initialisation loop and I get two flickering black screens with just the cursor.



That is odd.
Have you tried any other games that utilize PhysX?
Deleting/moving some of the game's PhysX files may do the trick. I know with Mirror's Edge and FluidMark you need to do this.
Are you trying to play Borderlands 1 or 2?


----------



## Mathragh (Aug 1, 2013)

Random Murderer said:


> That is odd.
> Have you tried any other games that utilize PhysX?
> Deleting/moving some of the game's PhysX files may do the trick. I know with Mirror's Edge and FluidMark you need to do this.
> Are you trying to play Borderlands 1 or 2?



Borderlands 2.

It looks like its sending all the physx rendering data towards the 8800GT, but then discarding that and using the CPU anyway.


----------



## Random Murderer (Aug 1, 2013)

Mathragh said:


> Borderlands 2.


Should be plug and play.
You mentioned you tried plugging a screen into the 8800GT. Did you do that while in Windows or plug it in with the PC off then boot?


----------



## Mathragh (Aug 1, 2013)

Random Murderer said:


> Should be plug and play.
> You mentioned you tried plugging a screen into the 8800GT. Did you do that while in Windows or plug it in with the PC off then boot?



While in windows.

Supposed it was just plug&play. Edit: does the same when I turn off the PC, plug in the monitor, and then turn it on again.

I just compared the fluidmark scores i get when using GPU Physx with the scores i get using CPU. its 50 for GPU vs 22 for CPU, so its definitely working. I'll try putting all the dll's back except for the ones he somewhere states in his post. I might've just misunderstood the poster, his text is a bit fragmented =D


----------



## Random Murderer (Aug 2, 2013)

Any luck?


----------



## Mathragh (Aug 2, 2013)

Random Murderer said:


> Any luck?



sadly, no. I tried leaving as many Nvidia DLL's out as possible without preventing the game from running. To no avail. also tried running it with other combinations, same result.


I'm not exactly experienced with this, but could it be that only a part of physx is getting accelerated? I noticed that cuda wasnt ticked in the gpu-z window, while physx was. That, and that both the hybrid fix, and the borderlands map have references to cuda(so it must be important right?). One could argue that fluidmark could correctly work, while borderlands doesnt, because fluidmark doesnt use cuda?

I'll try and backtrack/redo my whole installation tomorrow(using the new beta catalyst huehue), unless I/someone come(s) up with another solution.


----------



## Turmeric (Sep 13, 2013)

i remember my last pc, bought three nvidia 260, hoped i could get 2 of them in sli and one as dedicated physx...   end of story i only used 1 card the 5 years i had the thing, nice project.......crysis 1 was on top back then, could never get that thing playable.


----------



## jcgeny (Jan 12, 2014)

the hybrid physx is no longer working with latest drivers , but 2013 games and before are all playable .
in xcom-bureau after the middle of game there are plenty of aliens and physx and need a card .
that is two month i started a new build with 3 gtx570 and a gtx280 , to play mafia2 and batman origin [that does not play with hybrid physx] with a lot of fps . batman origin is not as good as the first and the part where batman is under drugs , but some things are great , that is bad that there is no story and too much fights with too strong enemies .
the souncard is an asus hdav that has hdmi in-out , the gtx280 does the video in , hard-drives are two pci-e revodrive ;'] 
that should be great ....more over because i use a 2x cpu 6 cores 2.8 Ghz and 2 x 24 Go of ram .
i found nearly all on ebay at very good price . most things are second hand but all cards work and cpus + vgas are all watercooled so i think it is sure they will live long .
here is how it looks , sorry photo is not great because of not enough lights


----------



## davidm71 (Sep 26, 2015)

Anyone get a 740GT working as a dedicated physics card?
 I've tried and failed.


----------



## atanas dimitrov (Mar 11, 2016)

in Nvidia CP should I set PhysX to GPU or CPU? or leave to Auto what is the difference?


----------



## R-T-B (Mar 25, 2016)

atanas dimitrov said:


> in Nvidia CP should I set PhysX to GPU or CPU? or leave to Auto what is the difference?



It's simply where PhysX computations are run, either on GPU or CPU.

Auto will let it pick the best path for that game.  I'd just leave it there.


----------



## Glavas_ZG (Apr 8, 2016)

Tnx Nvidia


----------



## RCoon (Apr 8, 2016)

Glavas_ZG said:


> Tnx Nvidia



This has nothing to do with running a dedicated PhysX card.


----------



## Upgrayedd (Jun 27, 2017)

Tested with a GTX 970 @1442MHz w/GTX 950 @1101MHz Dedicated PhysX

Drivers 382.33 Metro Last Light Redux tested with these settings.
Res: 1920x1080
Quality: Very High
SSAA: OFF
Texture Filtering: AF 16X
Motion Blur: Off
Tessellation: Very High
Vsync: Off
Advanced PhysX: On


PhysX on GTX 970 PhysX on dedicated GTX 950


----------



## prashant121 (Jan 19, 2018)

thank you guys i solved my problem..


----------



## Watermelon5 (Apr 15, 2021)

I know this thread is very old however I would like to ask something. I have a question for running a dedicated PPU with my HD 4870 x2. Do I just install the drivers normally, and will it run as if it is a nVidia card?


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Apr 15, 2021)

Watermelon5 said:


> I know this thread is very old however I would like to ask something. I have a question for running a dedicated PPU with my HD 4870 x2. Do I just install the drivers normally, and will it run as if it is a nVidia card?



No. If i remember correctly ATi had their own physics engine at the time called Havok. Nvidia PhysX is not cross compatible meaning that calculations will still be done by your CPU if you dont have a second compatible Nvidia card installed to take on the processing duties.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Nov 12, 2021)

jamesjordan said:


> I don't think I'll ever use the ati/nvidia combo or physx,



Why would you need to? todays CPUs are pretty strong and have a lot more cores for processing duties than in 2010. It would only really make sense if you had a really weak CPU and a spare PCI-E slot for a second graphics card. 

_And even then_ - the number of new games that came out over the last few years that supported physX out of the box are so few and far between that its not even worth wasting the PCI-E slot.


----------



## DemonicRyzen666 (Feb 2, 2022)

FreedomEclipse said:


> Why would you need to? todays CPUs are pretty strong and have a lot more cores for processing duties than in 2010. It would only really make sense if you had a really weak CPU and a spare PCI-E slot for a second graphics card.
> 
> _And even then_ - the number of new games that came out over the last few years that supported physX out of the box are so few and far between that its not even worth wasting the PCI-E slot.



At that point why is there even still an option in Nvidia's drivers at all to turn change from auto/cpu/ or a specific GPU?
From what I've gathered threw digging. No new game will ever support* GPU physX* ever again, only *raytracing* I don't think any game will ever both, Nore does one now.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 2, 2022)

DemonicRyzen666 said:


> At that point why is there even still an option in Nvidia's drivers at all to turn change from auto/cpu/ or a specific GPU?
> From what I've gathered threw digging. No new game will ever support* GPU physX* ever again, only *raytracing* I don't think any game will ever both, Nore does one now.


Yup every idea nv starts they abandon it.


----------



## DemonicRyzen666 (Feb 3, 2022)

So I noticed something
This is a picture of Control




Noticed in the red box it's not used at all Gpu1 139mhz No load
However, I noticed that in Metro Exodus Enhanced edition the Mhz change to like the card has has load it goes up to 1,152mhz but the load is 0% is this a bug?
This maybe because I don't have the original install maybe. I don't know. Does anyone have both and extra Nvidia GPU do test ?


----------

