Best for me?

[vpr]

ASUS P5Q-E
4GB RAM
4 SATA HDs (2x160GB WD 2x350GB Seagate)
Samsung 206BW 1680x1050 LCD
*I'm currently located in China*

Currently going through some system problems and have been replacing parts - I currently am running an 8400GS as a temporary card as my primary card gave up on me and I was low on money.

Looking at either an HD4850 or GTX260. If I go with the GTX260 I could run the 8400GS as a dedicated PysX card (I think?).

I mainly play MMOs (WoW/AoC/Warhammer (Not all at the same time)) RTS games (Looking forward to Red Alert 3/Starcraft II) not too many FPSs (Looking forward to the final Episode of HL2 though), and RPGs (Oblivion/D3 when it comes out/etc)

Also not wanting to be TOO power hungry, although I know the cards I mentioned are fairly power hungry.

Thoughts?

 

[solofly]

I think you meant HD4870 (not HD4850) cause there's a good 100 bucks difference between the two...

 

[arsoisaen]

I'm having the same problem, thinking abuot either a 4870/gtx260 or a 9800gtx+/4850.

Does PhysX make a big deal these days? Been out of gaming for a while and now getting back in. Want this computer to be able to run will till prob end of 2009

 

[vpr]

Not sure I can get an HD4870 here in China... But yea, I'm open to either one of the ATI offerings.

 

[solofly]

Originally posted by: vpr
Samsung 206BW 1680x1050 LCD

BTW for this res single HD4850 is plenty...

 

[Ares202]

Originally posted by: solofly

Originally posted by: vpr
Samsung 206BW 1680x1050 LCD

BTW for this res single HD4850 is plenty...

Yeh for every game this year, but if he doesnt upgrade every year and likes to run games on high settings then the 4870/GTX 260 will last him longer

theres been lots of threads to basically sum the 4870 vs GTX 260 up is like this

4870
*faster than GTX260 at stock settings
*draws less power than GTX260 when under load
*smaller so can fit in nearly all cases
*DX10.1, SM4.1 support
*better reliability (debatable)


GTX260
*cooler than 4870 at factory settings
*overclocks better (debatable)
*draws less power at idle settings
*Phyx support
*better partners (evga, xfx etc)
*More physical memory (not an issue on 1680x1050)

 

[vpr]

Originally posted by: Ares202

4870
*faster than GTX260 at stock settings
*draws less power than GTX260 when under load
*smaller so can fit in nearly all cases
*DX10.1, SM4.1 support
*better reliability (debatable)


GTX260
*cooler than 4870 at factory settings
*overclocks better (debatable)
*draws less power at idle settings
*Phyx support
*better partners (evga, xfx etc)
*More physical memory (not an issue on 1680x1050)

So which one would be more of a powersaver? Saving more during load, or idle? Seems like logic would say that more time is spent under idle (internet/video playback/music listening) than the amount of time on gaming? Would that be right?

~vpr

 

[solofly]

Originally posted by: Ares202

Originally posted by: solofly

Originally posted by: vpr
Samsung 206BW 1680x1050 LCD

BTW for this res single HD4850 is plenty...

Yeh for every game this year, but if he doesnt upgrade every year and likes to run games on high settings then the 4870/GTX 260 will last him longer

I really doubt a 4870 would last him that much longer compared to a 4850. He would have to go for the 1GB version to make it worthwhile. Also if he buys the cheaper card, he can change them for often. I already know a single HD4850 does just fine at 1920x1200/1080 in most newer games...

 

[JACKDRUID]

since you have a 8400 already, might as well use it for physx.

 

[Wreckage]

If you care about game physics or folding@home get a NVIDIA card. Otherwise just get whichever one is cheaper for you.

 

[Ares202]

Originally posted by: Wreckage
If you care about game physics or folding@home get a NVIDIA card. Otherwise just get whichever one is cheaper for you.

I read ATI was faster at folding, was the article wrong?

 

[Modular]

The most recent GPU client for F@H is written to work better with nVidia for now. Most people believe that the next release will favor the latest ATI cards.

 

[Cheex]

I just want to get something straight here...

Can you actually use an Nvidia card now by itself, just for PhysX?
Can you do in on an Intel chipset?

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: Ares202

Originally posted by: Wreckage
If you care about game physics or folding@home get a NVIDIA card. Otherwise just get whichever one is cheaper for you.

I read ATI was faster at folding, was the article wrong?

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/39057/113/

NVIDIA GPUs are now the most powerful form of folding on the planet.

 

[vpr]

Originally posted by: Cheex
I just want to get something straight here...

Can you actually use an Nvidia card now by itself, just for PhysX?
Can you do in on an Intel chipset?

From Here:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2217300&enterthread=y

Q: My rig has an 8800GTX as its main video card, however I also have an 8600GT in it as well driving extra monitors. Does anyone know if it is (or will be) possible to tell PhysX enabled games to utilize the 8600GT as a dedicated Physics engine?

A: Yes, that's exactly what you can do. See below for the Vista setup.

-------------------

Q: I was looking at an 8400GS thats passive cooled. How would this compare to a 9600 series card? I want to keep my 8800GT for my main graphics card and get a cheap second card for Phsx.

A: When rendering, a 9600GT would annihilate a 8400GS obviously. But for dedicated PhysX use, the 8400GS would probably be fine. I have heard reports (and will be testing this myself) of people using onboard integrated 8 series GPU's for their dedicated PhysX calculations. It seems that PhysX does not take that much of a toll on shaders.

--------

Q: I am a bit confused, Do u not need an SLi m/b to hook up two Nvidia's even if its for Physx??

A: An SLI capable motherboard is not needed to run two Nvidia GPU's (one for rendering, one for PhysX). Only a motherboard with 2 PCI-e slots.
You can even run this setup on a Crossfire motherboard if you wanted. Additionally, no SLI bridge is required with this setup.

--------

Q: Will I have a problem setting up a dedicated PhysX GPU on a Windows Vista system?

A: Windows Vista has a WDDM (Windows Display Driver Model) limitation/restriction of a single display driver instance. There is a workaround for this limitation.
One workaround, is to extend the Windows Desktop across a second monitor by connecting a second monitor to the secondary (dedicated PhysX) GPU, and extend the desktop to the second monitor.
Many monitors today, have multiple inputs (LCD's usually have 1 DVI and 1 D-Sub connectors). If this is your case, you can connect the second monitor connection to the second GPU and extend
the desktop that way.

1. Install both GPU's into your motherboard with the GPU you intend to use for rendering in the Primary (top) PCI-e slot, and the GPU you intend to run PhysX in the second PCI-e slot.
2. Install the 177.83 driver (This driver includes the latest PhysX drivers and is considerably larger than a standard forceware driver. About 109MB so it will take longer than usual to install.).
3. Reboot and set your proper desktop resolution.
4. If you have a monitor with two connections (DVI & D-Sub), connect the second connection to the first output (closest to motherboard) of the second (PhysX) GPU.
5. If you have a second monitor, connect it to the first output (closest to motherboard) of the second (PhysX) GPU.
6. Right click on your desktop and choose "Personalize". Then click on "Display Settings" down on the bottom.
7. On the "Monitor" Tab, click on the second largest monitor available in the window, then check the box next to "Extend the desktop onto this monitor". You can leave this monitors resolution set to 1024x768 if desired. Will have no effect on anything.
8. Choose "Apply" and if prompted, choose to keep settings and close the application.
9. Click Start --> All Programs --> Nvidia Corporation --> Nvidia PhysX Properties, and the PhysX properties window will appear.
10. Choose the "Settings Tab" and click the "Select GPU for GeForce PhysX" button. From there, choose whichever card you have in the second PCI-e slot that you are using for Physx only. Click "Apply" and "OK".
11. You're done. PhysX will now run on the second GPU only leaving the Primary GPU to render.

 

[dookulooku]

Originally posted by: vpr

Originally posted by: Ares202

4870
*faster than GTX260 at stock settings
*draws less power than GTX260 when under load
*smaller so can fit in nearly all cases
*DX10.1, SM4.1 support
*better reliability (debatable)


GTX260
*cooler than 4870 at factory settings
*overclocks better (debatable)
*draws less power at idle settings
*Phyx support
*better partners (evga, xfx etc)
*More physical memory (not an issue on 1680x1050)

So which one would be more of a powersaver? Saving more during load, or idle? Seems like logic would say that more time is spent under idle (internet/video playback/music listening) than the amount of time on gaming? Would that be right?

~vpr

Actually a lot of reviews show the GTX 260 drawing less than or about the same power under load as the 4870. Using the more recent video card reviews, the 4870 uses this much more power than the 260 according to these websites:

TechPowerUp (4870x2 review): -17 W
Hexus.net (4870x2 review): -11 W
HardwareCanucks (4870x2 review): -3 W
HardOCP (Asus GTX260 TOP review): -1 W
Firingsquad (4870x2 review): +6 W
Bit-tech.net (4870x2 review): +7 W
Computerbase.de (4870x2 review): +13 W
Anandtech (4870x2 review): +16 W
HotHardware (4870x2 review): +37 W

Most sites don't indicate what they're using to test power consumption under load. If the 4870 is using less power, is it running an app where it's slower than the 260? If the 4870 is using more power, is it running an app where it's faster than a 260?

 

[vpr]

Originally posted by: dookulooku

Originally posted by: vpr

Originally posted by: Ares202

4870
*faster than GTX260 at stock settings
*draws less power than GTX260 when under load
*smaller so can fit in nearly all cases
*DX10.1, SM4.1 support
*better reliability (debatable)


GTX260
*cooler than 4870 at factory settings
*overclocks better (debatable)
*draws less power at idle settings
*Phyx support
*better partners (evga, xfx etc)
*More physical memory (not an issue on 1680x1050)

So which one would be more of a powersaver? Saving more during load, or idle? Seems like logic would say that more time is spent under idle (internet/video playback/music listening) than the amount of time on gaming? Would that be right?

~vpr

Actually a lot of reviews show the GTX 260 drawing less than or about the same power under load as the 4870. Using the more recent video card reviews, the 4870 uses this much more power than the 260 according to these websites:

TechPowerUp (4870x2 review): -17 W
Hexus.net (4870x2 review): -11 W
HardwareCanucks (4870x2 review): -3 W
HardOCP (Asus GTX260 TOP review): -1 W
Firingsquad (4870x2 review): +6 W
Bit-tech.net (4870x2 review): +7 W
Computerbase.de (4870x2 review): +13 W
Anandtech (4870x2 review): +16 W
HotHardware (4870x2 review): +37 W

Most sites don't indicate what they're using to test power consumption under load. If the 4870 is using less power, is it running an app where it's slower than the 260? If the 4870 is using more power, is it running an app where it's faster than a 260?

You quoted 4870X2 reviews, but I was speaking about the regular 4870.

 

[dookulooku]

Originally posted by: vpr

Originally posted by: dookulooku

Originally posted by: vpr

Originally posted by: Ares202

4870
*faster than GTX260 at stock settings
*draws less power than GTX260 when under load
*smaller so can fit in nearly all cases
*DX10.1, SM4.1 support
*better reliability (debatable)


GTX260
*cooler than 4870 at factory settings
*overclocks better (debatable)
*draws less power at idle settings
*Phyx support
*better partners (evga, xfx etc)
*More physical memory (not an issue on 1680x1050)

So which one would be more of a powersaver? Saving more during load, or idle? Seems like logic would say that more time is spent under idle (internet/video playback/music listening) than the amount of time on gaming? Would that be right?

~vpr

Actually a lot of reviews show the GTX 260 drawing less than or about the same power under load as the 4870. Using the more recent video card reviews, the 4870 uses this much more power than the 260 according to these websites:

TechPowerUp (4870x2 review): -17 W
Hexus.net (4870x2 review): -11 W
HardwareCanucks (4870x2 review): -3 W
HardOCP (Asus GTX260 TOP review): -1 W
Firingsquad (4870x2 review): +6 W
Bit-tech.net (4870x2 review): +7 W
Computerbase.de (4870x2 review): +13 W
Anandtech (4870x2 review): +16 W
HotHardware (4870x2 review): +37 W

Most sites don't indicate what they're using to test power consumption under load. If the 4870 is using less power, is it running an app where it's slower than the 260? If the 4870 is using more power, is it running an app where it's faster than a 260?

You quoted 4870X2 reviews, but I was speaking about the regular 4870.

I was using the most recent reviews that include both the 260 and 4870 in a comparison of power consumption. And in most cases, that's a 4870x2 review. Notice there was a 260 review stuck in there also.

 

[Cheex]

Originally posted by: vpr

Originally posted by: Cheex
I just want to get something straight here...

Can you actually use an Nvidia card now by itself, just for PhysX?
Can you do in on an Intel chipset?

From Here:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2217300&enterthread=y

Thanks a lot for that vpr.

I have another question though.
If you have an ATI card as main (to render) can you have an Nvidia as secondary (for PhysX) or will you have driver conflicts and other issues?

 

[vpr]

Originally posted by: Cheex

Originally posted by: vpr

Originally posted by: Cheex
I just want to get something straight here...

Can you actually use an Nvidia card now by itself, just for PhysX?
Can you do in on an Intel chipset?

From Here:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2217300&enterthread=y

Thanks a lot for that vpr.

I have another question though.
If you have an ATI card as main (to render) can you have an Nvidia as secondary (for PhysX) or will you have driver conflicts and other issues?

Sorry I don't know the answer to that question - I'm interested to know as well... I'm assuming there would be driver conflicts, unless nvidia/someone were to release strictly a PhysX driver (all other functions stripped, ie: rendering, etc.) to allow graphics cards to function as a standalone PhysX card. This is just a guess, and I don't know the real answer though.

 

[BlueAcolyte]

Originally posted by: vpr

Originally posted by: Cheex

Originally posted by: vpr

Originally posted by: Cheex
I just want to get something straight here...

Can you actually use an Nvidia card now by itself, just for PhysX?
Can you do in on an Intel chipset?

From Here:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2217300&enterthread=y

Thanks a lot for that vpr.

I have another question though.
If you have an ATI card as main (to render) can you have an Nvidia as secondary (for PhysX) or will you have driver conflicts and other issues?

Sorry I don't know the answer to that question - I'm interested to know as well... I'm assuming there would be driver conflicts, unless nvidia/someone were to release strictly a PhysX driver (all other functions stripped, ie: rendering, etc.) to allow graphics cards to function as a standalone PhysX card. This is just a guess, and I don't know the real answer though.

Using XP you might be able to pull it off, but in Vista there can only be one graphics driver.