9800GTX+ vs. 8600GT Physx

Why is it that when I have my 8600GT running as a dedicated Physx card, it runs the Nvidia Fluid demo slower than if I just use my 9800GTX+? It's fluid-smooth with the 9800GTX+ whilst the 8600GT is kinda slow.

 

because your 8600GT is a slow POS and the 9800GTX+ can run graphics and physX faster itself than the 8600GT can run physx

 

mmmk I thought a dedicated physics card would at least be better.

 

Maybe your CPU isn't powerfull enough to run a dedicated physx card?
Or the tests aren't optimized for it.

 

The fluid demo isn't graphically intensive, so the 9800 would have a lot more left over for calculating physics. That said, the 8600gt doesn't seem that great at running PhysX even in a gaming situation when used solely as a dedicated physics processor.

 

I'd recommend at LEAST a 9600GT/8800GT(9800GT if you want to save a few bucks on the exact same card). 8600GT is on the lower end of the mid-range segment. Actually should have been listed as a low-end card given it's complete lack of performance.

 

Oh god no. I'm on a tight budget. I bought a 9800GT for the gaming PC upstairs I can't steal it though because it's running a 22" screen too and it can't bear with the 8600GT. Oh well looks like a dedicated Physx card is still out of reach for me. I was so excited when I put the 8600GT in too.

 

The demos and such are cool and everything, but once the novelty value wears off you're just waiting for a game to come out which makes decent use of PhysX. GRAW 2 was pretty cool with the extra PhysX stuff but there hasn't really been much else that would warrant a dedicated PhysX card, I doubt you'd really even notice the difference; your 9800gtx should run it all fine.

 

Well kinda sucks i was thining off useing a spare 8600gt as a physx card too , might not bother now

 

I had the same problem with my GTX280 and using a 9600gt as a PPU. In all the demos it is faster using the GTX280 for physx instead of the 9600GT as a dedicated PPU, even in GRAW2.

 

I dont know why a 8600GT wouldnt be enough for physx?I was running a 7600GT until a week ago and that ran every game i had fine.The only reason i even upgraded cause the last 2 games i bought wouldnt even start unless i had dual core.So i figured i might as well go all the way.

 

If anyone bought a dedicated Physx card. It would be cool to see if it can run the Nvidia fluid demo smooth vs. a 8800 or 9800 series card alone.

 

i`ve got an 8600gt sat doing nothing right now....didn`t even know i could use it as a physx card..............gonna look into this more see if it is worth it

 

It's not. Runs physx worse than if your 9800GTX+ does it by itself.

 

that sux, guess i'll take my 8500 out...

 

i tested it all out and used fluidmark to score it...here are my findings... http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=281988

 

I have an eVGA 8800GTS 320MB card that just died. I sent it in for RMA and replaced it with an 8800GTS 640MB I had. I was thinking that when I get it back I would use it as a PhysX card in the same system or in my new Intel Core i7 920 / ASUS P6T Deluxe / MSI GTX260 setup. I might not even bother though if a single card does it better.

BTW, I think its a little funny that people consider GRAW 2 to basically be the only noteworthy game for PhysX usage. Personally I prefer Unreal Tournament III over most games so far.

 

Using an 8800GTS would more than likely perform better with PhysX than using an 8600GT, as the 8600GT is basically the minimum requirement for running CUDA based PhysX. 8600GT is also nearly the slowest DX10/CUDA-enabled card on the market.

 

wow every one worry's about physx cards to much just play your games...

 

Essentially, the 9800GTX+ can render and do physics faster than the 8600 GT just doing physics.