i have a 3200+ 754 @ 2.48 with 1GB ram and a XFX 7800gt overclocked to 490 core 1.2 ram. what im wondering is my system even good enough to add a Ageia's PhysX card? i can get 16000 on 3dmk03 and 4500 on 3dmk06. but with the physx card, the video card is going to have to draw more things (all that eye candy it adds). what do you guys think??
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
System good enough for Ageia's PhysX ???
- Thread starter trick0502
- Start date
RoffleCopter
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2005
- Messages
- 1,910
i think yours is fine
you dont think the all of the added stuff will slow the gpu down? because it will have to draw more per frame than a the same system with out the Ageia's PhysX card. and i thought that the Ageia's PhysX card only tracked the objects on screen correct?? its still up to the gpu to draw, right?
tricky0502 said:you dont think the all of the added stuff will slow the gpu down? because it will have to draw more per frame than a the same system with out the Ageia's PhysX card.
All of the added eyecandy is 95% phyics and the ppu will handle that, the other 5% is added shrapnel, realistic fluids stuff like that and it is handled by the gpu you might see a minimal slow down but your not gonna notice it.
[RS]kookie
n00b
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2006
- Messages
- 32
empty PCI slot?
tricky0502 said:i thought that was all it did was physics, and than send it back to the gpu to draw. if im wrong please let me know!!!!
It calculates the physics, and then the results are sent back to the program for the game through the PhysX API. After that, the developer will use that data (directly, indirectly, or not at all) to calculate things like game logic, AI, and information to send off to OGL/D3D. The PPU calculates physics for the entire world, not just what you see onscreen.
Cypher19 said:It calculates the physics, and then the results are sent back to the program for the game through the PhysX API. After that, the developer will use that data (directly, indirectly, or not at all) to calculate things like game logic, AI, and information to send off to OGL/D3D. The PPU calculates physics for the entire world, not just what you see onscreen.
Exactly. Here's the nice thing: the minimum system requirements are a P4 1.4 (or AMD equivalent, of course), 256 MB of system memory, a free PCI slot, a GPU supporting SM 2.0 or better, and 20 MB of free drive space. Basically most non-integrated graphics tech sold in the past two years. So new systems, existing systems, and even *older* systems can get the PhysX Advantage. Unlike either Crossfire or SLI (which both require new hardware) you can mount an Ageia PPU in an AGP system, and you only need *one*.
It's the fact that it will go into existing non-PCIe systems that has ATI and nVidia Rather Upset. While both companies sell AGP-based GPUs, they would (naturally) much rather you buy two of their PCIe VPUs (and their competing physics solutions require that you do exactly that).
However, both the two-card solutions have their drawbacks (sheer cost and power consumption being just two); worse, ATI has a whole lineup of products (AIWs) that can't use Crossfire at all. Advantage: AGEIA.
We all know that is bs. Peeps with a computer like that will not be playing games like cellfactor or UT2007. To the op: you are fine.PGHammer said:Exactly. Here's the nice thing: the minimum system requirements are a P4 1.4 (or AMD equivalent, of course), 256 MB of system memory, a free PCI slot, a GPU supporting SM 2.0 or better, and 20 MB of free drive space
cyks said:We all know that is bs. Peeps with a computer like that will not be playing games like cellfactor or UT2007. To the op: you are fine.
You know *nothing*. You're making an assumption. Worse, you're stating the assumption as if it were fact.
Have the system requirements for UT 2007 been stated? Also, has any game that is either currently shipping or planned to ship around the same timeframe as UT 2007 been stated to *absolutely require* SM 3.0 support? (The definitive answer is no. That isn't even true of Crysis. Though it would doubtless look *best* with SM 3.0 support (as does FarCry), it certainly isn't *required*.).
Also, have you looked at the clock speeds for Intel's forthcoming Core processors (especially the Conroe CoreDuo-based desktops)? Clock speeds will either stay the same or *drop*, compared to Presler and Smithfield (even though FSB clocks will go up). I have a P4 2.6 Northwood-C (S478); the planned Conroe replacement (E6600) will actually have a *slower* absolute stock clocking (2.4 GHz), though the FSB will be taller (1066 MHz; 266 MHz x 4). And that's the *midrange* Conroe.
Check the recent announements (not just from Intel, but also from AMD) regarding processor speeds of what's new between now and year-end 2006.
haha, nice flame there friend.PGHammer said:You know *nothing*.
Tip: stare at my previous post, count to ten, breath deeply and reread.
I Never said it was impossible to run those games on that base system (which you directly base your entire post upon), but if that is what you read then by all means continue on with that insulting voice.
I like the part where you compare a P4 to a Conroe-- classic.
Yeah but Cellfactor and UT2007 arn't the only games coming out that utlize the card. It's supposed to help lift the load off the cpu for doing physics and put it on the card so that means you will have extra horsepower to handle the graphics. Also City of Villians I am sure can run on your system just fine and it will probably run just as good if you run one of the chapters of the game that has the physics card support.cyks said:We all know that is bs. Peeps with a computer like that will not be playing games like cellfactor or UT2007. To the op: you are fine.
psychoace said:Yeah but Cellfactor and UT2007 arn't the only games coming out that utlize the card. It's supposed to help lift the load off the cpu for doing physics and put it on the card so that means you will have extra horsepower to handle the graphics. Also City of Villians I am sure can run on your system just fine and it will probably run just as good if you run one of the chapters of the game that has the physics card support.
so what is doing the physics now in games?? the cpu or the gpu?? if its the gpu than the ppu card would take some stress off the gpu (because its not doing physics). is this the case, or is the cpu doing most of the physics in todays games??
PGHammer said:You know *nothing*. You're making an assumption. Worse, you're stating the assumption as if it were fact.
Have the system requirements for UT 2007 been stated? Also, has any game that is either currently shipping or planned to ship around the same timeframe as UT 2007 been stated to *absolutely require* SM 3.0 support? (The definitive answer is no. That isn't even true of Crysis. Though it would doubtless look *best* with SM 3.0 support (as does FarCry), it certainly isn't *required*.).
Also, have you looked at the clock speeds for Intel's forthcoming Core processors (especially the Conroe CoreDuo-based desktops)? Clock speeds will either stay the same or *drop*, compared to Presler and Smithfield (even though FSB clocks will go up). I have a P4 2.6 Northwood-C (S478); the planned Conroe replacement (E6600) will actually have a *slower* absolute stock clocking (2.4 GHz), though the FSB will be taller (1066 MHz; 266 MHz x 4). And that's the *midrange* Conroe.
Check the recent announements (not just from Intel, but also from AMD) regarding processor speeds of what's new between now and year-end 2006.
He never stated those were the specs to run those high-end games. He only stated the minimum specs for the Physics card itself. Which, if you look here about 2/3's the way is pretty damn close. Of course games like UT2007 are going to have higher minimum's.
how much extra power would this take?
I ran the Juice calculator a few days ago to figure out how much power I'd need for a new rig. With the following
Athlon 64 x2 4800+
2x 1gb OCZ DDR PC-4000 GOLD GX XTC
8 Maxtor 500GB SATA2
2x EVGA 7900GT CO SUPERCLOCK
6x 120mm fans
about 6 usb and 2 firewire devices and hard overclocking it's supposed to need something like 700W.
I ran the Juice calculator a few days ago to figure out how much power I'd need for a new rig. With the following
Athlon 64 x2 4800+
2x 1gb OCZ DDR PC-4000 GOLD GX XTC
8 Maxtor 500GB SATA2
2x EVGA 7900GT CO SUPERCLOCK
6x 120mm fans
about 6 usb and 2 firewire devices and hard overclocking it's supposed to need something like 700W.
cyks said:haha, nice flame there friend.
Tip: stare at my previous post, count to ten, breath deeply and reread.
I Never said it was impossible to run those games on that base system (which you directly base your entire post upon), but if that is what you read then by all means continue on with that insulting voice.
I like the part where you compare a P4 to a Conroe-- classic.
Whenever someone says *We all know...*, you are making a blanket assumption. If you don't do that, you won't get torched (by me or anyone else). If you DO make a statement like that, get out the Nomex suit, because you're going to get flamed by *somebody*, not necessarily me.
I made that comparison based strictly on their FSB and clock speeds, and because that is *exactly* where I am going upgradewise. I have a P4 2.6 with HT today (a Northwood-C), but will be going directly to Conroe (the E6600 I mentioned) which has a taller FSB, but a slower clock. This is actually possible because Conroe is a heck of a lot more efficient in terms of performance per clock cycle than any Northwood (even the C). Conroe reverses the trend that started with the Williamette series of Pentium 4 processors where succeeding generations not only sported faster FSB speeds, but faster processor clockings as well (a trend that I made reference to in the Intel Processors forum). Therefore, I'm in the weird position of upgrading to a *slower* processor.