Technology X Tomorrow's Technology Today!
GAME TESTS
In our gaming test suite, we ditched the GTX 680 and just tested with the GTX 980 as a standalone graphics and PhysX processor, and then compared that to the GTX 980 with a GTX 970 as a dedicated PhysX processor. You will note in the graphics you see below “Stock Clock” refers to the GTX 980 at it’s stock clock speed, where the PhysX Card represents the GTX 970 as the dedicated PhysX processor.
Tomb Raider (2013)
The most recent iteration of Crystal Dynamic’s long-running series, Tomb Raider represents one of the best-looking titles on PC to date. Its varied landscapes and beautiful organic environments create a quite graphically demanding title.
We test this game on “Ultimate” with TressFX and FXAA at 1080p.
Interestingly enough, while minor, we do see an one point increase in the average FPS when we used the GTX 970 as a dedicated PhysX processor.
Crysis 3
Crytek’s final installment in the Crysis trilogy is easily their most graphically ambitious release, and even though it is now a few years old, it still represents the bleeding-edge in graphical fidelity.
We test on “High” with FXAA at 1080p.
Again, we see a minor increase, but now we also see it on the minimum FPS recorded throughout the game. Could this be the expected performance increase from the dedicated PhysX processor, increasing the minimum FPS?
Grand Theft Auto V
One of the most highly-anticipated releases for PC, GTA V is the latest installment of Rockstar’s long-running genre-defining open-world shooter, and it is their most graphically demanding title yet! with massive city that’s brought to life with immense detail.
We test on “Very High” with all “Advanced Graphics” and MSAA options turned off with FXAA enabled, at 1080p.
This one is a bit shocking, having a dedicated PhysX processor shows a fairly substantial increase in average FPS, by nearly 10 points. Then look at the minimum recorded FPS, we see an increase of 23 points.
Witcher 3
The Witcher 3 is definitely one of the most highly anticipated game releases this year, and as the follow-up to developer CD Projekt RED’s The Witcher 2 – which was one of the most graphically intense PC game when it was released – it has some big shoes to fill. Our research shows the Witcher 3 processes PhysX via the CPU only.
We test on “High” and post-processing set to “High” with FXAA enabled, at 1080p.
Just when we starting to get excited about the results, especially from what we saw with GTA V, Witcher 3 comes in and destroys our dedicated PhysX processor. We know that Witcher 3 is probably the most graphically demanding game in our test suite, but so much that it doesn’t perform well with a dedicated PhysX processor seems a bit odd.
Heroes of The Storm
Heroes of The Storm is Blizzard’s take on a multiplayer online battle arena. Battle as your favourite characters from Starcraft, World of Warcraft, Diablo, The Lost Vikings and their highly anticipated first-person shooter, Overwatch.
We test on “Extreme” with all Graphics options maxed out, at 1080p.
Similar to Witcher 3, graphical performance wasn’t overly favoured with the dedicated PhysX processor. However, we do see an increase in the minimum FPS and a very small increase in the average FPS recorded.
Batman: Arkham Asylum
While this is an older game in the Batman line, it is still a excellent example of Nvidia PhysX, as the game features enabled PhysX processing via GPU and PPU. It is important to note that this game features the alleged “62 FPS Cap” which we easily removed by modifying the following: First find ..\Steam\steamapps\common\batman Arkham Asylum GOTY\BmGame\Config\DefaultEngine.ini” file, then we changed the “MinSmoothedFrameRate=24” and “MaxSmoothedFrameRate=62” lines, found under the “[Engine.GameEngine]” section, to “MinSmoothedFrameRate” value 0 and the “MaxSmoothedFrameRate ” value 999.
We also test on Very High detail, with V Sync and MSAA disabled, and of course PhysX maxed out.
As we are told, this game benefits from having PhysX enabled and being run off of hardware that can adequately process PhysX. In this case, just by using our GTX 980 as the sole PhysX processor, we received better results as a whole, but we do see that the dedicated GTX 970 as the PhysX processor provide us with an increased minimum FPS.
Is….is this article a joke? Only ONE of the games tested use Physx, so of course there won’t be any benefit to the others (that ONE is Arkham Asylum). I will admit I’m surprised at the results there.
Why not run a test using Arkham Knight, which runs like two completely different games depending on if you have a dedicated card? Or Hawken, which is free, if your issue is cost?
And before you say “Witcher 3 has it!”, that game only supports it via CPU, so it doesn’t use a dedicated card even if you have one. Here’s a handy reference that took me 4 seconds to find:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_with_hardware-accelerated_PhysX_support
The purpose of this article is show how using a spare graphics card as a dedicated PhysX processor will affect performance.
We used a variety of games, some older, some newer, some Nvidia PhysX enabled, some not. This was to show how using that spare card may affect performance.
The games we chose are apart of our regular game testing suite, with the exception of Batman Arkham Asylum, which differs from Batman Arkham Knight because it was created with the intention of having a PPU process PhysX as well as a GPU.
Yes, we know Witcher 3 is “CPU Only” when it comes to PhysX, but it’s an example of how the dedicated card is not beneficial to Witcher 3 performance, thus confirming that the game is best played with the CPU to process PhysX.
The article’s intention is not to compare PhysX-enabled games, but to simply show how setting your older graphics card to solely process PhysX can affect different games.
For example – look at GTA V, a game with no intention of PhysX when being created, yet it had a higher average FPS with the dedicated PhysX processor. Something we didn’t expect to see in the slightest.
We appreciate your comments, and possibly in the future we could look at only comparing PhysX enabled games and the difference in their performance.
The article’s title should be “How Does Having a Dedicated Physx Card Affect Games That Don’t Use It?”, then. Your title implies that you’re using the card for its intended purpose, which you clearly aren’t.
Well done Chris. I have been debating on whether using my old card for physx was worth the power consumption. Seeing how few games it makes a difference on is definitely a factor to be considered.
I love these guys with a little bit of computer knowledge suddenly come out with their own interpretation of what they have googled on their website with out having real experience with the subject..I agree with J.C.
Who so ever thinks there are a few titles that use phsx, please check this out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_with_hardware-accelerated_PhysX_support