Rumor: Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050 2GB and 1050 Ti 4GB

#5338974 Posted on: 09/26/2016 10:00 PM

---

Of course better GPU is always better... but you really surestimate the PhysX computation's need...

*edit* PhysX take out job from CPU, even a 5** or 6** middle class serie do this special calculation faster than CPU, so why let it do this work while an old (obsolete lol) GPU can do it better.


well old q9450 might not, but 4770k was more then capable.


My point was physx is very cuda/ram bandwidth dependent and fast i7 with 35gb/s will faster then a 20-30GB/s vram gpu.


you can see it here 640gt vs 650gtx, one having slow ram other gddr5
http://1pcent.com/?p=169

&
http://www.volnapc.com/all-posts/how-much-difference-does-a-dedicated-physx-card-make




Anyway, didn't really want to derail this thread with a addon physx gpu

#5338992 Posted on: 09/26/2016 11:23 PM

---

Well there is a difference if someone expects too much out of a budget card like your 950.. Even 960 is meh.

It always was a far worse deal than several other entry level cards before the 760, of course it´s not surprise is choking this soon, I only got it because the 4gb 960 was too pricey and the 970 looked gimped too. It seems it was the smarter move because those cards are struggling in some of the latest games too... the only good maxwell card was the 980ti, every other segment was just too gimped and carried too hefty price tags around here. Obviously the problem is that nvidia these days is making entry/medium level cards too slow compared to the big chip, and too pricey. Bang for buck vs. console is at it´s lowest ever, today €300 cards barely perform good at the same resolution than 3 year old consoles, but when previous console gen was two years old and despite having high end hardware at launch, $80 bucks would give you 50% better frame rates at 50% higher resolution (aka hd4670)

As for the 750ti still being good for some people, it´s only because they are not asking much at this point in time, I mean seriously an overclocked 950 is like 60-70% faster and already has problems.

#5339001 Posted on: 09/26/2016 11:35 PM

---

I see this PhysX talking like every release of low end nvidia cards, but dispite batman Arkham Knight that actually have GPU smoke and stuff like what, what recent games have GPU PhysX?

I mean, there are tons of games with basic PhysX stuff exclusively processed by the CPU, like cloth and basic ragdoll stuff, but apart from that almost no game do use GPU PhysX nowadays!

#5339072 Posted on: 09/27/2016 08:11 AM

---

Its better to have a very fast card for a dedicated gpu physx ..so there is no lag and the main gpu waiting on cycles..the more cores the better
But yeah gpu physx seems far and inbetween these days as most physx are on the cpu..i have a gtx 680 for a physx card if i need it..most games use havok physx

#5339202 Posted on: 09/27/2016 03:36 PM

---

not at all, PhysX is not a huge work if you do only that on the GPU, even a 740 2gig is far than enough in 99% of the case.

most of the time issue are due to misconfiguration (ex: select "auto" instead of "dedicated" for the GPU)

and/or driver issue like fermi and maxwell mixed on W10 (now solved btw) or modded driver (using tesla as phyx card for gaming... solved too ).

There was a video on youtube about it. They pitted different card combos and measured performance. Can't remember the channel, there are a crap load now, but if you search for multiple card physx or something like that i'm sure you'll find it.

Wikipedia has a list of GPU physX games. I think everything now can pass to the gpu? via the driver? I mean you don't have to explicitly set it to go to the GPU when making the game.
Sure if you want a crap tonne you may want to do that.