srakachic.blogg.se

1. #Do i need nvidia physx with amd card for free
2. #Do i need nvidia physx with amd card install
3. #Do i need nvidia physx with amd card software
4. #Do i need nvidia physx with amd card code

I myself dont know how Sacred 2 works, but I wouldnt generally deny what he said. What I want to say is, as mentioned at the beginning, that it completely depends. One could combine a big CPU with a little GPU and another one could combine a big GPU with a little CPU both would experience something completely different with the same game. In such a case, calculating the Physics on the CPU would be the much better option, because it would do almost no hit to the performance, especially if it is calculated in one or more separated threads on cores which wouldnt be used otherwise.Īnother point is the question about the hardware the user uses. The CPU is today in many games just for data moving to the GPU responsible and almost for nothing else. Most games today do heavy use of the GPU, because with all those little shader programs more and more of the game is calculated on the GPU instead of the CPU. Also the opposite could be true, that a game does heavy use of the GPU but almost no use of the CPU, in such a scenario the PhysX calculation on the GPU would kill the performance while PhysX on the CPU had almost no effect. Just let us think about a game that does heavy use of the CPU but almost no use of the GPU, in such a case would PhysX on the CPU decrease the performance heavily while PhysX on the GPU had almost no effect to the performance at all.

#Do i need nvidia physx with amd card software

Boards PC Is their any way to use Nvidia PhysX on AMD card with software snkboi 6 years ago 1.

#Do i need nvidia physx with amd card for free

Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts. The more important thing is the question about the bottleneck. Topic Archived Youre browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. But the main problem is, that it does much more than just calculating physical effects. I dont think that the difference for most effects is that big at all, even if the GPU performs better in such calculations because of the architecture and the huge rough power it has. With NVidia GPUs it ran on the GPU and with all other GPUs it ran on the CPU, but as far as I remember the effects were completely the same, with the little difference, that the performance with the NVidia GPUs were slower BECAUSE PhysX ran on the GPU while it was faster when you disabled PhysX on GPU! It just depends! I remember the first Risen game, it also used PhysX. Newer versions of the PhysX SDK are better optimized, and the 3.x one should finally give half-decent CPU performance. However, PhysX is terribly optimized on CPU, and single-threaded, so even a high-end CPU isn't going to give you a good framerate. It's been working just fine for 4.5 years while ive upgraded my primary card continuously, best 50 dollar video card purchase ever in my book.Someone said you should be able to run it on CPU.

Ive had a GTS 250 running with a 4870, 4890, 4870 X2, 6870, 6950, and 7870LE, lol honestly that little GTS 250 is probably the best card ive ever had. This is an old thread but it should still work, you do need a seperate nvidia card for the physx, but anything like an old 9800 or 260 should work for you. Well, i'm going to sell this AMD card and buy an Nvidia i want those effects. but to enable PhysX effect in warframe you need nvidia GPU. I never play mirror's edge so i can't comment on that. That's at 720p, but I don't think PhysX cares about resolution. If I run PhysX fluidmark, I have a constant 48+ framerate when I use 7 cores. I don't know about other games, but my FX-8320 runs PhysX fine in Mirror's Edge combined with an HD 6850. That's why, outside of PhysX, you don't see these done realistically done at all, because they are simply too hard to do. And those are the ones that typically eat performance in games. They all benefit from being run on the GPU. Anything with fluid dynamics, multiple object interactions, or some forms of cloth simulation is VERY expensive to perform properly. Some types of Physics simulations are VERY hard to do on a CPU.

#Do i need nvidia physx with amd card code

So the inefficient code argument is a fallacy, since it hasn't been valid for about 5 years now. At that point, the API used SSE rather then X87. When NVIDIA acquired Ageia in the mide 2000's (2008ish I think), they started to re-work the API, which wasn't done until about 2010 (when they broke backward compatibility with the Ageia PPU). The original Ageia PhysX sepc did use X87 for the binaries that run on the CPU, but at the time, SSE wasn't a thing yet. Please stop with a "inefficient code" argument. However I ahve found that games tend to not give you a PhysX option at all without an Nvidia card, and running PhysX off the CPU gets you pretty horrible performance (which may have something to do with Nvidia hobbling PhysX on CPU it with inefficient code).

#Do i need nvidia physx with amd card install

You wont be able to run PhysX off an AMD card, but you can still install PhysX drivers and run it off the CPU.