Question How do mid-range cards handle PhysX in older games?

[kellyon]

Hi there! I'm trying to revive my old Windows 7 PC for nostalgic reasons, it's got an i5-760 processor. I've been wondering about if cards like the GT1030 or the GTX 750 would be powerful enough to provide stable 60 FPS when PhysX is enabled in games released up to 2014? Or maybe this cpu can handle Physx?

 

[Eximo]

An interesting question. I never really tested physx during that era, basically just ran it on the GPU of the moment.

FPS in any specific title is going to be completely different depending on the resolution and settings. There are certainly some hard hitting games from 2014 and thereabouts that would probably overwhelm a GTX750, but not the PhysX part.

I would not go with a GT1030, that is highly likely to be looking for a UEFI BIOS and may not work with an 1st gen core platform. GTX750 should be a much safer option.

 

[TerryLaze]

Do modern-ish cards even still support PhysX? I know that it got bought out and turned into cuda by nvidia. So if a game specifically needs PhysX would it even run in cuda?

 

[Eximo]

Yes, PhysX is even open source now and will run on CUDA. Still shows up in the Nvidia control panel.

 

[hotaru.hino]

Hi there! I'm trying to revive my old Windows 7 PC for nostalgic reasons, it's got an i5-760 processor. I've been wondering about if cards like the GT1030 or the GTX 750 would be powerful enough to provide stable 60 FPS when PhysX is enabled in games released up to 2014? Or maybe this cpu can handle Physx?

What quality settings are you looking for? Even at launch, the GTX 750 Ti wasn't a 60FPS card at 1080p, high quality presets. It might get there at say 1440x900 or 720p at the same quality settings.

With regards to PhysX, most games that use it expect the CPU to handle it. I'm not sure if at that point the CPU still handles it or gets shipped off to the GPU, but even in the latter's case, there would be little to no performance impact. For games that enable extra effects when using PhysX, the performance drop depends on the game. Some games can drop performance by 40-50% on then midrange hardware, others by 10-20%.

 

[artk2219]

Hi there! I'm trying to revive my old Windows 7 PC for nostalgic reasons, it's got an i5-760 processor. I've been wondering about if cards like the GT1030 or the GTX 750 would be powerful enough to provide stable 60 FPS when PhysX is enabled in games released up to 2014? Or maybe this cpu can handle Physx?

You could probably go with a GTX 1060 or 1650 and get some decent performance as they're basically around 780 ti performance level. You get more VRAM with the 1060 provided its the 6GB model, but you can get 1650's that run on power from the PCIE slot and dont require an external pcie power cable. I mean even the 1060 3GB model would do well if your targeting 2014 and prior and youre ok with using a PCIE power cable. Those cards generally work ok with non uefi bios's, particularly the 1060. If power consumption isnt an issue, then maybe look for a GTX 970 or 980 (ti), those would game great for games of that period, or a GTX 1070 or 1080 if you wanted to get fancy. Also i would change the CPU out to a i7 870 for less than 20 dollars, or a Xeon X3460 for less than 10 on ebay. What motherboard are you using for this?

Compare Intel Core i5-760 / Core i7-870 / Xeon X3460 / Xeon X3470 / Xeon X3480

www.cpu-world.com

 

[kellyon]

What quality settings are you looking for? Even at launch, the GTX 750 Ti wasn't a 60FPS card at 1080p, high quality presets. It might get there at say 1440x900 or 720p at the same quality settings.

With regards to PhysX, most games that use it expect the CPU to handle it. I'm not sure if at that point the CPU still handles it or gets shipped off to the GPU, but even in the latter's case, there would be little to no performance impact. For games that enable extra effects when using PhysX, the performance drop depends on the game. Some games can drop performance by 40-50% on then midrange hardware, others by 10-20%.

You could probably go with a GTX 1060 or 1650 and get some decent performance as they're basically around 780 ti performance level. You get more VRAM with the 1060 provided its the 6GB model, but you can get 1650's that run on power from the PCIE slot and dont require an external pcie power cable. I mean even the 1060 3GB model would do well if your targeting 2014 and prior and youre ok with using a PCIE power cable. Those cards generally work ok with non uefi bios's, particularly the 1060. If power consumption isnt an issue, then maybe look for a GTX 970 or 980 (ti), those would game great for games of that period, or a GTX 1070 or 1080 if you wanted to get fancy. Also i would change the CPU out to a i7 870 for less than 20 dollars, or a Xeon X3460 for less than 10 on ebay. What motherboard are you using for this?

Compare Intel Core i5-760 / Core i7-870 / Xeon X3460 / Xeon X3470 / Xeon X3480

www.cpu-world.com

Thanks. I was looking for a really energy-efficient option that would also be powerful enough for the games of the time at medium-high settings. I thought the GTX 750 would do the trick, but apparently without Physx. The 1650 seems interesting, but the price is way over the budget I had set for the upgrade. Maybe I should buy a 720p monitor then. Also, I want to keep everyting, cpu ram etc., but graphics card.

 

[hotaru.hino]

Thanks. I was looking for a really energy-efficient option that would also be powerful enough for the games of the time at medium-high settings. I thought the GTX 750 would do the trick, but apparently without Physx. The 1650 seems interesting, but the price is way over the budget I had set for the upgrade. Maybe I should buy a 720p monitor then. Also, I want to keep everyting, cpu ram etc., but graphics card.

Presuming you're sourcing these from eBay (I'm not sure where you'd find a new 750), a GTX 950 might be your next best bet as a cursory glance tells me they're going for about the same price. It's a 90W TBP card, though some AIBs made a 75W version.

 

[artk2219]

Thanks. I was looking for a really energy-efficient option that would also be powerful enough for the games of the time at medium-high settings. I thought the GTX 750 would do the trick, but apparently without Physx. The 1650 seems interesting, but the price is way over the budget I had set for the upgrade. Maybe I should buy a 720p monitor then. Also, I want to keep everyting, cpu ram etc., but graphics card.

How much were you looking to spend on the gpu upgrade? Also are you located in the US and is ebay ok?

 

[kellyon]

How much were you looking to spend on the gpu upgrade? Also are you located in the US and is ebay ok?

No, not in US, ebay is not an option, in local classifieds 1650 is sold for $90-110. I'm not looking to spend more than $50.
I was recommended the GTX 950, but I don't know how much better it'll be compared to 750Ti when it comes to Physx.

 

[hotaru.hino]

I was recommended the GTX 950, but I don't know how much better it'll be compared to 750Ti when it comes to Physx.

As PhysX runs as a compute shader on the GPU, which just runs on the shader cores, you can expect a more or less linear performance difference. And again, the performance impact of PhysX in general depends on if the game has the option for extra effects.

Also another one to add is the GTX 1050. Pascal will definitely do PhysX better than Maxwell based GPUs, but I don't really know by how much. Also the GTX 1050 (and Ti version) are 75W TBP cards, at least if the AIB didn't add any overclocking or whatever.

 

[artk2219]

You're bringing me back here, but i remember people used to have dedicated physx gpu in the past, so they would have a weak gpu running physx, and the other card doing the actual graphics. It hasn't been worth it since 2015 or so, but maybe you could use like a gt 640 or something as a dedicated physx card. Then something better as the primary gpu.

 

[35below0]

When buying for an older motherboard, check for compatibility. Find the model and rev name and make sure you don't waste your time with something that wont work.
It's not enough just to buy something from the era. It might be but i got my fingers burnt.

 

[Joseph_138]

Can your system handle running two video cards? It used to be common practice to run a dedicated PhysX card, freeing the primary video card for just rendering, but I don't think Nvidia allows that in the latest drivers, anymore. You'll have to find an older driver that still supports it.

A GTX 950 will be faster than a 750 Ti, BUT, a GTX 950 is going to require a 6-pin power connector, where you can find 750 Ti cards that don't require external power. If your power supply is a limiting factor, you may not be able to run a dedicated PhysX card.

And don't get one of the old Ageia PhysX cards. They stopped supporting those ages ago.

 

[Joseph_138]

As PhysX runs as a compute shader on the GPU, which just runs on the shader cores, you can expect a more or less linear performance difference. And again, the performance impact of PhysX in general depends on if the game has the option for extra effects.

Also another one to add is the GTX 1050. Pascal will definitely do PhysX better than Maxwell based GPUs, but I don't really know by how much. Also the GTX 1050 (and Ti version) are 75W TBP cards, at least if the AIB didn't add any overclocking or whatever.

Not all 1050 Ti cards are 75W. Some have a 6-pin connector.

 

[kellyon]

Can your system handle running two video cards? It used to be common practice to run a dedicated PhysX card, freeing the primary video card for just rendering, but I don't think Nvidia allows that in the latest drivers, anymore. You'll have to find an older driver that still supports it.

A GTX 950 will be faster than a 750 Ti, BUT, a GTX 950 is going to require a 6-pin power connector, where you can find 750 Ti cards that don't require external power. If your power supply is a limiting factor, you may not be able to run a dedicated PhysX card.

And don't get one of the old Ageia PhysX cards. They stopped supporting those ages ago.

Not really, that's why I wanted one single card that could handle Physx and still hit 60 fps. Hm, I didn't know that 950 requires a power connector, apparently it will be more power hungry then.

 

[artk2219]

Not really, that's why I wanted one single card that could handle Physx and still hit 60 fps. Hm, I didn't know that 950 requires a power connector, apparently it will be more power hungry then.

Does your system have a pcie power cable that is available, are you limited to GPU's that pull power from the PCIE slot? Or has that been your preference, but you DO have a pcie power cable that you can run to the gpu? Also your GPU isnt necessarily a power hog if it requires a PCIE power cable, the GTX 1650 is a good example of this. There are versions that are perfectly happy running off of the 75w available from the PCIE slot, but many manufacturers clock it a little higher which pits it out of spec. This means it needs a 6 pin PCIE power cable because it pulling a whopping 90W or so, super power hungry hah .

 

[kellyon]

Does your system have a pcie power cable that is available, are you limited to GPU's that pull power from the PCIE slot? Or has that been your preference, but you DO have a pcie power cable that you can run to the gpu? Also your GPU isnt necessarily a power hog if it requires a PCIE power cable, the GTX 1650 is a good example of this. There are versions that are perfectly happy running off of the 75w available from the PCIE slot, but many manufacturers clock it a little higher which pits it out of spec. This means it needs a 6 pin PCIE power cable because it pulling a whopping 90W or so, super power hungry hah .

Sorry for the late reply. Yeah, there's a cable, but that's just preference. Basically, 750Ti and 950 have about the same performance, and the point of the discussion was whether this graphics card would handle PhysX enabled at good fps. If the performance is underwhelming, I'd just go with a efficient Quadro or something and forget about PhysX altogether.