9600 is considered a "sweet-spot" for a physx card. You could try the 6200, but you might find it best at holding papers down during a breeze across your desk or replacing onboard graphics on circa 2000 era machines.
Well, like I said, you could try it. It may not give ya the best results, but try a comparison of with/without and let us know how it goes. Edit: Hey! You've been here since 2005.
You need an 8800 series or greater for physixs. That 6200 is not even worth keeping even as a paperweight. A rock from your yard would sell for more.
Yeah i was just woundering if old tech like that had enough power to run physics at 1680x1050 plus it is free.
That's why I was curious as to just what it would do as a physX card. I have one hanging on my "wall 'o oldness". But it's AGP and I don't own an AGP capable machine.
only cards from the 8800 on support programmable gpu's( non gfx related ) and therefore Cuda, so nope, cant use anything like that
Ok, so question here......................... Why can my 6100 on board support PhysX with SLI and their's cant???????
Your onboard GeForce 6100 does not support DirectX 10, nor does it support CUDA. Cuda is a requirement for PhysX. It contains no Stream Processors, which is a requirement for Cuda support. Your 6100 barely supports DirectX 9....lol. In your case, PhysX is being handled by either the CPU or your dedicated graphics cards.
