If anybody has bought a 4850 to replace a G80 GPU please let me know!

[wingless]

know it sounds silly but according to the Nvidia PhysX Driver readme, this concept isn't out of the question. Now Nvidia is supposedly going to get PhysX enabled on ALL G80 based boards so I'm thinking I could just toss in an old 8500 or 8600GT/S as a physics co-processor. Has anybody hacked the new 177.39s to work with older G80s and have any of you used PhysX on one card while enabling 3D on another?

If this works then I will one day own an Intel AMD ATI Nvidia based computer in the form of a Nehalem CPU with Crossfire 4850/70 and a cheap Nvidia PhysX GPU backing up the fun. I already installed Nvidia's PhysX driver on my system to see if there were any ill effects with my 2900XT and there were none. It works fine. Now I have to see if a system can handle both Nvidia display drivers (for physics) and ATI display drivers all at once without exploding.

If anybody just picked up a 4850 to replace an older CUDA enabled Nvidia card (like an 8800GT or crappier) for your Intel system then do some testing for us and let us know the results please.

 

[wingless]

I've found out that you can actually use both an Nvidia and ATI card in a single system. Anybody have an 8600GTS they want to sell cheap? I need a physX card....

 

[Hardin]

Chill Wingless I don't think it will be that urgent. What game even uses Physx? GRAW? That game is old now. UT3? That game is no where near as possible as it's predecessors. Havok is much more widely used and I don't think that will change.

 

[blazed]

Yea I see quite a few of these threads now, don't think people realize Physx needs to be fully implemented to ever be utilized, so the game, hardware and software all need it. As of now theres nothing that will use a 2nd GPU for physx.

 

[wingless]

I have several PhysX games so this matters to me. Also the prospect of running both an Nvidia and ATI GPU in my rig is interesting as hell. I'd also be able to use any future CUDA-enabled software.

 

[Hardin]

I have several PhysX games so this matters to me. Also the prospect of running both an Nvidia and ATI GPU in my rig is interesting as hell. I'd also be able to use any future CUDA-enabled software.

Yes you have several games that use Physx while Havok is nearly all the first person shooters out there and more.

 

[wingless]

Yes you have several games that use Physx while Havok is nearly all the first person shooters out there and more.

Thats even better since I'm buying a 4870 ASAP. When Havok is accelerated on ATI GPUs gaming will be blissful. Either way I'm greedy and want CUDA and OpenCL/Brook+ .

 

[Rinne]

I don't know of any game that is processor bound today if you have a rather decent CPU... So don't worry about that too much, it is all just marketing and won't give you a (subjective) noticeable boost in performance...

It might become relevant when (if) CPU's become a bottlenecking factor, but will most likely not be relevant until there is a standardized physics API supporting both major GPU vendors..

 

[wingless]

I don't know of any game that is processor bound today if you have a rather decent CPU... So don't worry about that too much, it is all just marketing and won't give you a (subjective) noticeable boost in performance...

It might become relevant when (if) CPU's become a bottlenecking factor, but will most likely not be relevant until there is a standardized physics API supporting both major GPU vendors..

I have to make this weak Opteron 185 last a little longer. I don't want to build an entirely new system until after Nehalem and K10.5 launch. I have at least 6 months to wait.