• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

GeForce GTX 560 Confirmed for 17th May

newtekie1

Semi-Retired Folder
Joined
Nov 22, 2005
Messages
28,473 (4.10/day)
Location
Indiana, USA
Processor Intel Core i7 10850K@5.2GHz
Motherboard AsRock Z470 Taichi
Cooling Corsair H115i Pro w/ Noctua NF-A14 Fans
Memory 32GB DDR4-3600
Video Card(s) RTX 2070 Super
Storage 500GB SX8200 Pro + 8TB with 1TB SSD Cache
Display(s) Acer Nitro VG280K 4K 28"
Case Fractal Design Define S
Audio Device(s) Onboard is good enough for me
Power Supply eVGA SuperNOVA 1000w G3
Software Windows 10 Pro x64
I don't even think those effects are worth the performance hit.

There really is no performance hit from the PhysX calculations with any decent GTX500/400 graphics card. There is a graphical performance hit from the extra particles that have to rendered. Deciding if that performance hit is worth it is up to the user, just like decididing if the performance hit from AA is worth it, because in the end it is all just unneed eyecandy.

Just about every physx simulation I've seen has seemed like it belonged in a low res phone game. The simulations are all comprised of balls and it's pretty bad when you can actually tell that by looking at it. The ball count is always just too low. Looks awful.

The simulations have nothing to do with it, the games look really damn good. And I don't know what simulations you've been looking at, but some of the PhysX ones I've seen look damn good. In fact, I think the only one I remember with balls in it was from way back in the begining of PhysX, maybe even before nVidia bought the technology. Most of the demos now show of either the soft body effect, the fluid/smoke effects, or the cloth effects. None have balls in them...:confused:
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Messages
4,686 (0.77/day)
System Name Obelisc
Processor i7 3770k @ 4.8 GHz
Motherboard Asus P8Z77-V
Cooling H110
Memory 16GB(4x4) @ 2400 MHz 9-11-11-31
Video Card(s) GTX 780 Ti
Storage 850 EVO 1TB, 2x 5TB Toshiba
Case T81
Audio Device(s) X-Fi Titanium HD
Power Supply EVGA 850 T2 80+ TITANIUM
Software Win10 64bit
The simulations have nothing to do with it, the games look really damn good. And I don't know what simulations you've been looking at, but some of the PhysX ones I've seen look damn good. In fact, I think the only one I remember with balls in it was from way back in the begining of PhysX, maybe even before nVidia bought the technology. Most of the demos now show of either the soft body effect, the fluid/smoke effects, or the cloth effects. None have balls in them...:confused:

You don't understand. Those are still using balls, they just don't appear as balls. You can see it really clearly in that Alice example when she's walking through the oil. It looks awful, not realistic or detailed. You can actually see the balls getting kicked up and bouncing around, doesn't behave as a liquid at all. It's like someone dropped marbles on the floor. Hell in that game every instance looks like some tacked on effect that doesn't belong, but that's an issue for most physx games. Scaling up in quality to say a blockbuster effect in maya water is still essentially just a bunch of tiny balls with special magnetism and weight properties, only they're so numerous it looks quite a bit better. In all physx simulations the ball count is just too low, that's why I equated it to low resolution. It really is like low resolution physics.

As for the performance. In games that use is sparingly like UT3 there's actually a performance gain, but once it's taken advantage of like those custom UT3 maps with tornados and what not there's a pretty noticeable penalty.
 
Joined
May 4, 2009
Messages
1,972 (0.35/day)
Location
Bulgaria
System Name penguin
Processor R7 5700G
Motherboard Asrock B450M Pro4
Cooling Some CM tower cooler that will fit my case
Memory 4 x 8GB Kingston HyperX Fury 2666MHz
Video Card(s) IGP
Storage ADATA SU800 512GB
Display(s) 27' LG
Case Zalman
Audio Device(s) stock
Power Supply Seasonic SS-620GM
Software win10
Nvidia gots balls!
 

newtekie1

Semi-Retired Folder
Joined
Nov 22, 2005
Messages
28,473 (4.10/day)
Location
Indiana, USA
Processor Intel Core i7 10850K@5.2GHz
Motherboard AsRock Z470 Taichi
Cooling Corsair H115i Pro w/ Noctua NF-A14 Fans
Memory 32GB DDR4-3600
Video Card(s) RTX 2070 Super
Storage 500GB SX8200 Pro + 8TB with 1TB SSD Cache
Display(s) Acer Nitro VG280K 4K 28"
Case Fractal Design Define S
Audio Device(s) Onboard is good enough for me
Power Supply eVGA SuperNOVA 1000w G3
Software Windows 10 Pro x64
You don't understand. Those are still using balls, they just don't appear as balls. You can see it really clearly in that Alice example when she's walking through the oil. It looks awful, not realistic or detailed. You can actually see the balls getting kicked up and bouncing around, doesn't behave as a liquid at all. It's like someone dropped marbles on the floor. Hell in that game every instance looks like some tacked on effect that doesn't belong, but that's an issue for most physx games. Scaling up in quality to say a blockbuster effect in maya water is still essentially just a bunch of tiny balls with special magnetism and weight properties, only they're so numerous it looks quite a bit better. In all physx simulations the ball count is just too low, that's why I equated it to low resolution. It really is like low resolution physics.

As for the performance. In games that use is sparingly like UT3 there's actually a performance gain, but once it's taken advantage of like those custom UT3 maps with tornados and what not there's a pretty noticeable penalty.

Actually, it behaves exactly like a liquid. Liquids form dropplets when in the air, and when it hits the ground it pools, that is exactly what it is doing in the Alice demo. I don't know what to tell you, but that is how fluids react. If you don't like it, I guess go take it up with mother nature...:rolleyes:

And again, the penelty isn't from PhysX, it is from the extra graphical rendering required to render all the extra objects on the screen.
 
Joined
May 15, 2007
Messages
777 (0.12/day)
System Name Daedalus | ZPM Hive |
Processor M3 Pro (11/14) | i7 12700KF |
Motherboard Apple M3 Pro | MSI Z790 |
Cooling Pure Silence | Freezer 36 |
Memory 18GB Unified | 32GB DDR5 6400MT/s C32|
Video Card(s) M3 Pro | Radeon RX7900 GRE |
Storage 512GB NVME | 1TB NVME (Boot) + 4 x 1TB RAID0 NVME Games |
Display(s) 14" 3024x1964 | 1440p UW 144Hz |
Case Macbook Pro 14" | H510 Flow |
Audio Device(s) Onboard | None | Onboard |
Power Supply ~ 77w Magsafe | EVGA 750w G3 |
Mouse Razer Basilisk
Keyboard Logitech G915 TKL
Software MacOS Sonoma | Win 11 x64 |
Yay my GTX460 is getting a free name upgrade! :D:laugh:
 
Joined
Oct 10, 2009
Messages
868 (0.16/day)
Location
London, UK
System Name The one under the desk / Media Centre
Processor Xeon X3730@3.6GHZ / Phenom II X4 805E
Motherboard Gigabyte P55M-UD4 / Asus Crosshair III
Cooling Corsair H70 + 2*PWM fan / Arctic Alpine 11
Memory 16GB DRR3-1333 9-9-9-27 / 4GB Crucial DDR3-1333
Video Card(s) Asus DirectCU GTX 680 / Gigabyte 560TI
Storage Kingston V200 128GB, WD6400AAKS, 1TB Seagate 7.2kRPM SSHD / Kingston V200 128GB
Display(s) Samsung 2343BW + Dell Ultrasharp 1600*1200 / 32" TV
Case C'M' Silencio 550 / Some ancient SilverStone brushed aluminium media centre
Audio Device(s) No.
Power Supply Thermaltake Toughpower XT 675W / EVGA 430W
Mouse Mionix Naos 3200 / Generic PS2
Keyboard Roccat Ryos TKL Pro / Evoluent Mouse Friendly Keyboard (Logitech OEM)
Software Windows 7 Ult x64
Benchmark Scores Nah.
Building a new I7-2600k p67 desktop and need some advice.
Been away from desktop parts for a while so stupid question.

I am concerned that the ati 6970-2gb or 580gtx would not be enough to run basic games at 1440x900~1080p and I see this IGP equivalent video card GTX560 that is the same as the GTX560ti and people are still able to play games and still buying this card ??

Why would anyone want to buy this card ? :confused:

I am lost, is the ATI6970 then overkill or is the games falling behind the technology ?

$250~$350 budget.

GTX560 = IGP equivalent? What?

The GTX560 is a mid-high end card, and many, many times more powerful than any IGP.

The 6950 and 580 are flagship single GPU parts, and, as is often the case with such parts, overkill for most purposes.

If you want 1440*900 gameplay a GTX550 would be fine. If you want 1080p gameplay a GTX560 would be fine.
 
Top