harshilsharma63
DIY FTW!
> Got a bit confused?
> From topgear's statement it implies that having a powerful non-nvidia GPU will not do any help in PhysX. You'll need a fast CPU for that. Whereas with an Nvidia GPU the CPU doesn't matter.
Is dedicated nvidia GPU for PhysX is needed when using R9 270X as main GPU???
> Got a bit confused?
> From topgear's statement it implies that having a powerful non-nvidia GPU will not do any help in PhysX. You'll need a fast CPU for that. Whereas with an Nvidia GPU the CPU doesn't matter.
OP
bssunilreddy
Chosen of the Omnissiah
Just get a low end $20-$30 GT430/GT440. This video shows a comparison and has some setup info specific to borderlands:
Borderlands 2 AMD Nvidia Hybrid PhysX - YouTube
basically install the 285 driver, install the standalone physx, run the extra hybridize tool. Rename/delete the physxcore.dll and physxdevice.dll files in the borderlands bin folder. You can use gpu-z to confirm physx is enabled on the ATI card and make sure it's put load on GPU2 during gameplay.
Obviously there is still a lot of testing to be done with Borderlands 2 as we plan to integrate in our GPU testing going forward. As we have done in the past, the chances are good that we will do so setting PhysX at the lowest possible setting - it annoys NVIDIA when we do that but it seems to be the most fair way to compare the performance of these varying GPUs. Especially until we figure out exactly WHY the performance is dropping so dramatically on AMD cards when PhysX is at Medium or High.
It is nice that least AMD Radeon users have the option to enable PhysX at all, and if you are playing with a high performance cards like the HD 7900s, you will probably still be able to set it to Medium and get playable frame rates at 1080p. No, NVIDIA hasn't enabled PhysX acceleration on AMD cards, but they appear to have chosen to allow it to run through the system as a whole (or maybe they just forgot).
UPDATE: I did finally get an answer from Gearbox about the slow downs we were seeing on the AMD results. Apparently when larger collections of PhysX simulations are running on the CPU, those threads can take quite a bit longer than they would when running on the GPU. As a result, the CPU (and rest of the game engine code) becomes "blocked" waiting for a single thread to finish, which results in the lower CPU utilization we saw on the AMD results as well as the lower overall performance. Because PhysX is an NVIDIA engine, even if Gearbox chose to they likely couldn't add in additional multi-threaded capabilities to the PhysX code path so the slow down here is likely to stay.
For most NVIDIA GPU users, the additional PhysX effects are a fun and simple way to increase the "cool" factor of your gaming experience and you should be able to run at Medium or High pretty easily. That is just one of the advantages you get with the NVIDIA GeForce brand with this title. Mid-range AMD users will want to leave PhysX at low for the best frame rates but if you have a high end system and utilize a higher end Radeon GPU you can probably still get away with the Medium setting.
Taken from:*www.thinkdigit.com/forum/graphic-cards/180508-dedicated-nvidia-gpu-physx-needed-when-using-r9-270x-main-gpu.html
[h=2]Borderlands 2: is CPU capable of handling the PhysX effects?[/h] with 25 comments
Borderlands 2, latest and probably one of the greatest games with support for GPU accelerated PhysX effects, is a HOT topic these days. Update: GPU PhysX in Borderlands 2 – PhysX review and comparison video Update #2: Borderlands 2 PhysX Benchmark Roundup Usually, extra PhysX effects are meant to be executed on compatible NVIDIA GPUs, so even if one can force his CPU to do the work, it is not very effective – massive slowdowns and fps drops during scenes with intence physics are make the games hardly enjoyable. This is valid for titles like Batman series, Alice: Madness Returns, Mafia II and others. Said matter was a tough topic over recent years, even resulting in claims that NVIDIA “hobbles” the CPU PhysX performance by purpose, to make their GPUs look more advantageous. However, recently we saw many reports (mostly from AMD users) that Borderlands 2 shows surprisingly good performance, while running with all PhysX effects enabled even without a NVIDIA card in the system. Thus, we decied to perform a little investigation to answer the question – can a CPU handle all the extra PhysX effects in Borderlands 2 ? A boss fight against “Boom and his brother Bewm” is a good candidate for PhysX testing – scene contains a lot of particles (also, particles are constantly generated over time) and some cloth objects. *physxinfo.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/border2_bench1_sm.jpgGun in our hands has explosive rounds - this produces even more particles
A place near the beginning of the level presents a good opportunity for testing, as it comprises several high-poly cloth pieces, many particle effects, Crystalisks and Varkids spitting SPH liquids. Results are averaged over the two runs for each of settings.
(\Documents\My Games\Borderlands 2\WillowGame\Config) PhysXLevel=0 - PhysX Low
PhysXLevel=1 - PhysX Medium
PhysXLevel=2 - PhysX High
P.P.S. Hybrid PhysX configurations are also supported.
PS: I got good PhysX rendered on my HD7770.This is why I asked whether a dedicated GPU is required or not.I installed just PhysX standalone drivers.
Borderlands 2 AMD Nvidia Hybrid PhysX - YouTube
basically install the 285 driver, install the standalone physx, run the extra hybridize tool. Rename/delete the physxcore.dll and physxdevice.dll files in the borderlands bin folder. You can use gpu-z to confirm physx is enabled on the ATI card and make sure it's put load on GPU2 during gameplay.
Obviously there is still a lot of testing to be done with Borderlands 2 as we plan to integrate in our GPU testing going forward. As we have done in the past, the chances are good that we will do so setting PhysX at the lowest possible setting - it annoys NVIDIA when we do that but it seems to be the most fair way to compare the performance of these varying GPUs. Especially until we figure out exactly WHY the performance is dropping so dramatically on AMD cards when PhysX is at Medium or High.
It is nice that least AMD Radeon users have the option to enable PhysX at all, and if you are playing with a high performance cards like the HD 7900s, you will probably still be able to set it to Medium and get playable frame rates at 1080p. No, NVIDIA hasn't enabled PhysX acceleration on AMD cards, but they appear to have chosen to allow it to run through the system as a whole (or maybe they just forgot).
UPDATE: I did finally get an answer from Gearbox about the slow downs we were seeing on the AMD results. Apparently when larger collections of PhysX simulations are running on the CPU, those threads can take quite a bit longer than they would when running on the GPU. As a result, the CPU (and rest of the game engine code) becomes "blocked" waiting for a single thread to finish, which results in the lower CPU utilization we saw on the AMD results as well as the lower overall performance. Because PhysX is an NVIDIA engine, even if Gearbox chose to they likely couldn't add in additional multi-threaded capabilities to the PhysX code path so the slow down here is likely to stay.
For most NVIDIA GPU users, the additional PhysX effects are a fun and simple way to increase the "cool" factor of your gaming experience and you should be able to run at Medium or High pretty easily. That is just one of the advantages you get with the NVIDIA GeForce brand with this title. Mid-range AMD users will want to leave PhysX at low for the best frame rates but if you have a high end system and utilize a higher end Radeon GPU you can probably still get away with the Medium setting.
Taken from:*www.thinkdigit.com/forum/graphic-cards/180508-dedicated-nvidia-gpu-physx-needed-when-using-r9-270x-main-gpu.html
[h=2]Borderlands 2: is CPU capable of handling the PhysX effects?[/h] with 25 comments
Borderlands 2, latest and probably one of the greatest games with support for GPU accelerated PhysX effects, is a HOT topic these days. Update: GPU PhysX in Borderlands 2 – PhysX review and comparison video Update #2: Borderlands 2 PhysX Benchmark Roundup Usually, extra PhysX effects are meant to be executed on compatible NVIDIA GPUs, so even if one can force his CPU to do the work, it is not very effective – massive slowdowns and fps drops during scenes with intence physics are make the games hardly enjoyable. This is valid for titles like Batman series, Alice: Madness Returns, Mafia II and others. Said matter was a tough topic over recent years, even resulting in claims that NVIDIA “hobbles” the CPU PhysX performance by purpose, to make their GPUs look more advantageous. However, recently we saw many reports (mostly from AMD users) that Borderlands 2 shows surprisingly good performance, while running with all PhysX effects enabled even without a NVIDIA card in the system. Thus, we decied to perform a little investigation to answer the question – can a CPU handle all the extra PhysX effects in Borderlands 2 ? A boss fight against “Boom and his brother Bewm” is a good candidate for PhysX testing – scene contains a lot of particles (also, particles are constantly generated over time) and some cloth objects. *physxinfo.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/border2_bench1_sm.jpgGun in our hands has explosive rounds - this produces even more particles
Testing system: i7 2600K CPU, GTX 580 GPU, 8 GB RAM, Win 7 64-bit. In-game settings: 1680×1024, all High. 60 sec sequence was recorded with FRAPS. *physxinfo.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/border_bench2.png
First of all, Borderlands 2 is showing excellent performance while utilizing GPU for PhysX calculations – minimum framerate is above 60 even on high PhysX settings. But most interesting, CPU execution can also provide playble framerate, despite the fact that Borderlands 2 is still using good old PhysX SDK 2.8.4. We assume that some scenes in the game, containing lots of fluids, particle effects or your co-op friends, may result in lower fps (~15-20), but still – framerate won’t crawl most of the time, like in previous games. UPDATE [26.09]: we have recieved several commentaries, that the scene we have choosen for our previous test, while being pretty heavy on PhysX effects, is still not producing too much load for the CPU. Thus, we decided to give it another try, but now using one of the most demanding levels of the game, as we heard – Caustic Caverns. *physxinfo.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/border_bench3_sm.jpgCrystalisks are vomiting SPH FluidsA place near the beginning of the level presents a good opportunity for testing, as it comprises several high-poly cloth pieces, many particle effects, Crystalisks and Varkids spitting SPH liquids. Results are averaged over the two runs for each of settings.
*physxinfo.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/border_bench4.png
While GPU performance took a large hit, it still can maintain minimum framerate above 30 fps and keep average framerate at pleasant 50 fps. CPU execution of PhysX effects, in comparison, crawls at nearly unplayable 15-20 fps level. We can now clearly say that fluid simulation is affecting the CPU performance the most. UPDATE #2 [28.09]: final round of testing, now using PhysX benchmark, built into Borderlands 2 (will be available soon in a patch).
It is designed to extensively utilize all kind of PhysX effects during the sequence. *physxinfo.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/border_bench5.png
As you may see, numbers are located somewhere in between our two previous results – benchmark scene indeed includes some complex physics interactions, but the ones you may encounter in real game will affect your framerate in more dramatical way. To summarize: If you are playing Borderlands 2 in Single Player mode, carefully avoiding fluid emitting weapons/enemies and staying away from certain areas of the game – you may find a CPU execution of PhysX effects sufficient. But if want really comfortable gameplay, without any compromises – presence of NVIDIA GPU is still a mandatory. P.S. if PhysX option is grayed out on your system, you still can change the settings using "PhysXLevel" parameter in "WillowEngine.ini" file:(\Documents\My Games\Borderlands 2\WillowGame\Config) PhysXLevel=0 - PhysX Low
PhysXLevel=1 - PhysX Medium
PhysXLevel=2 - PhysX High
P.P.S. Hybrid PhysX configurations are also supported.
PS: I got good PhysX rendered on my HD7770.This is why I asked whether a dedicated GPU is required or not.I installed just PhysX standalone drivers.
Last edited:
sam_738844
Wise Old Owl
^^
OP could ask me as i have played BL2 with Phyx iwith high-end Nvidia hardware, and i had friends in co-op all the time with high end AMD GPU
if you're talking about gpu accelerated PhysX the answer is NO , AMD GPU CANNOT RENDER phyx, the calculation will be off-loaded to CPU, the amount of phyx effects i have seen and experienced with 200+ hours of borderlands2 are amazing but they can nail down the GPU to its knees and specially in co-op. The amount of effects , if tried to be rendered by a CPU, one has to spend an insane amount of money against a very fast unlocked CPU such as 3***X or 4***X and get a decent amount of effects with any AMD GPU. You did not have any phyx calculation done by the AMd gpu, you could install the standalone drivers because the CPU can do it too.
"its a fact that Nvidia currently only allows GPU-accelerated PhysX on its own graphics cards, thus forcing everyone else to calculate the PhysX instructions implemented in games using the CPU.
Assuming that a calculation can be parallelized, a GPU with its multiple shader units is faster than a conventional CPU with two, three, four, or even six cores. According to Nvidia, physics calculations are two to four times faster on GPUs than CPUs.
That’s just half of the truth, though, because there are no physics features that couldn’t be implemented solely on the CPU. Quite often, games use a combined CPU + GPU approach, with the highly parallelizable calculation,s such as particle effects, performed by the GPU and the more static, non-parallelizable calculations, such as ragdolls, performed by the CPU. This is the case in Sacred 2, for example. In theory, the ratio of highly parallelizable calculations should in many cases be too low to really take noticeable advantage of the immense GPU speed.
But then why is the difference often so drastic in practice?
There are at least two reasons for this. The first one is that, in almost all of the games tested, CPU-based PhysX uses just a single thread, regardless of how many cores are available. The second one is that Nvidia seems to be intentionally not optimizing the CPU calculations in order to make the GPU solution look better. We’ll have to investigate multithreading at a later time with a suitable battery of benchmarks. Right now, we want to explore Nvidia deliberately leaving its code in a state where CPUs just can’t compete with GPUs." --toms
OP could ask me as i have played BL2 with Phyx iwith high-end Nvidia hardware, and i had friends in co-op all the time with high end AMD GPU
if you're talking about gpu accelerated PhysX the answer is NO , AMD GPU CANNOT RENDER phyx, the calculation will be off-loaded to CPU, the amount of phyx effects i have seen and experienced with 200+ hours of borderlands2 are amazing but they can nail down the GPU to its knees and specially in co-op. The amount of effects , if tried to be rendered by a CPU, one has to spend an insane amount of money against a very fast unlocked CPU such as 3***X or 4***X and get a decent amount of effects with any AMD GPU. You did not have any phyx calculation done by the AMd gpu, you could install the standalone drivers because the CPU can do it too.
"its a fact that Nvidia currently only allows GPU-accelerated PhysX on its own graphics cards, thus forcing everyone else to calculate the PhysX instructions implemented in games using the CPU.
Assuming that a calculation can be parallelized, a GPU with its multiple shader units is faster than a conventional CPU with two, three, four, or even six cores. According to Nvidia, physics calculations are two to four times faster on GPUs than CPUs.
That’s just half of the truth, though, because there are no physics features that couldn’t be implemented solely on the CPU. Quite often, games use a combined CPU + GPU approach, with the highly parallelizable calculation,s such as particle effects, performed by the GPU and the more static, non-parallelizable calculations, such as ragdolls, performed by the CPU. This is the case in Sacred 2, for example. In theory, the ratio of highly parallelizable calculations should in many cases be too low to really take noticeable advantage of the immense GPU speed.
But then why is the difference often so drastic in practice?
There are at least two reasons for this. The first one is that, in almost all of the games tested, CPU-based PhysX uses just a single thread, regardless of how many cores are available. The second one is that Nvidia seems to be intentionally not optimizing the CPU calculations in order to make the GPU solution look better. We’ll have to investigate multithreading at a later time with a suitable battery of benchmarks. Right now, we want to explore Nvidia deliberately leaving its code in a state where CPUs just can’t compete with GPUs." --toms
Cilus
laborare est orare
We did have have this discussion so many time here and I should make a sticky thread about all the physX queries. I have used a GT 240 GDDR5 for Hybrid PhysX (2X6870 IN CF + GT 240 GDDR5 and then HD 7950 VaporX + GT 240) for some long times.
1. For running GPU PhysX, you need an nVidia GPU with 512MB of Ram and minimum of 32 stream Processors. It should be 8000 series or later. It will not run on any other company's GPU.
2. For using another card from other vendor (Read AMD) as main card and another nVidia card as PhysX card, you need to mod the nVidia Driver. Details are here: How To: Fix Hybrid PhysX with latest PhysX and Geforce 285+ [SOLVED!]
3. PhysX does not really add up any eye candy which is not possible with other CPU based Physics rendering engines like Havoc and bullet. But just to show the differences nVidia had deliberately crippled the PhysX codepath for CPU execution by using unoptimized and older x87 codes.
4. Due to very negative reviews, starting from PhysX SDK 3.0 release, nVidia has added optimized CPU codepath for PhysX, implemented by SSE2. So any games, implementing PhysX by using 3.0 version, can run the PhysX code optimally over the CPU irrespective of the GPU. However, it still runs slightly better when executed by a nVidia GPU.
1. For running GPU PhysX, you need an nVidia GPU with 512MB of Ram and minimum of 32 stream Processors. It should be 8000 series or later. It will not run on any other company's GPU.
2. For using another card from other vendor (Read AMD) as main card and another nVidia card as PhysX card, you need to mod the nVidia Driver. Details are here: How To: Fix Hybrid PhysX with latest PhysX and Geforce 285+ [SOLVED!]
3. PhysX does not really add up any eye candy which is not possible with other CPU based Physics rendering engines like Havoc and bullet. But just to show the differences nVidia had deliberately crippled the PhysX codepath for CPU execution by using unoptimized and older x87 codes.
4. Due to very negative reviews, starting from PhysX SDK 3.0 release, nVidia has added optimized CPU codepath for PhysX, implemented by SSE2. So any games, implementing PhysX by using 3.0 version, can run the PhysX code optimally over the CPU irrespective of the GPU. However, it still runs slightly better when executed by a nVidia GPU.
flyingcow
Shibe
This is what i wanted to ask
OP
bssunilreddy
Chosen of the Omnissiah
Is Zotac GT630 Synergy Edition 1GB GPU @ 4.4k enough as a PhysX card? Main card will be HIS R9 270X 2GB GPU.
harshilsharma63
DIY FTW!
Really? After all the discussion you are still asking the same question?
sam_738844
Wise Old Owl
HOW HARD it is to comprehend that when buying an AMD GPU, buyers already know that it doesnt come with phyx, and the acceptability factor does not fade away. Phyx is not everything, its definitely is something but not everything, and if you're so up to it, agreeing to the fact that some major titles does have phyx titles in recent times, you're ready to pay 15+4=19K on two different GPUs and await a $hit load of hassle, why dont you go for a 20~K nvidia GTX 760?? why so bent on AMD GPU in such case?
ASHISH65
Technomancer
