I am surprised that the 640 has as much cuda cores as the 560ti and that it has 2GB. The bandwidth of the card is very low. Everything else about it is awesome. I like how EVGA also sells a one slot card 640 instead of a two slot. 

xanderf


Except as noted above, PhysX calculations appear to make almost no use of video memory at all - so memory bandwidth will be MUCH less of a concern.

Well.. I have tested a GTS 450 DDR3 and believe me the memory bandwidth make a lot of difference in all PhysX games and fluidmark benchmark, this "memory bandwidth will be MUCH less of a concern" is exactly what make me buy this $85 DDR3 card. The score/fps boost a lot if I overclock just the memory, but I already sold this card.
Next time if I want to use a dedicated PhsyX card again.. I definitely must buy a DDR5 card.

charlesbego

xanderf


Except as noted above, PhysX calculations appear to make almost no use of video memory at all - so memory bandwidth will be MUCH less of a concern.

Well.. I have tested a GTS 450 DDR3 and believe me the memory bandwidth make a lot of difference in all PhysX games and fluidmark benchmark, this "memory bandwidth will be MUCH less of a concern" is exactly what make me buy this $85 DDR3 card. The score/fps boost a lot if I overclock just the memory, but I already sold this card.
Next time if I want to use a dedicated PhsyX card again.. I definitely must buy a DDR5 card.

So which one is more important in a physX card, the memory bandwidth or the amount of cores? A gentleman stated earlier said that Nvidia recommends a physX card to be at least 130 cuda cores or more. Of course both helps a lot but which matters more? Also what about the core clock on the card as well. Even thou the 640 is on a 192-bit memory interface the core clock is really high for a card to on that memory interface.

HAZMAN_THE_GREAT

So which one is more important in a physX card, the memory bandwidth or the amount of cores? A gentleman stated earlier said that Nvidia recommends a physX card to be at least 130 cuda cores or more. Of course both helps a lot but which matters more? Also what about the core clock on the card as well. Even thou the 640 is on a 192-bit memory interface the core clock is really high for a card to on that memory interface.

Amount of cores is the most important. 130 cuda cores or more <== this is true for today's games, not for the future, so more is better.
I already did fluidmark benchmark.. 64 cores gpu is exactly twice better than 32 cores gpu for physx.
Core clock is not important, memory amount is not important.
Memory bandwidth is important, make sure its not holding back the core performance.
Example : If we use a 9600gt/9800gt for physx card.. of course DDR3 will be enough, but its not enough for GT640/GTS450 (the DDR3 will bottlenecking it)
From what I saw GT640 is 128bit = 28.5 GB/s <== this is too low.
If they release a GT640 with DDR5.. this will be perfect for physx card. But for now.. I think a GTX550ti is the best choice.. consider its cooler, cheaper and less heat/power than GTX460/560.
In the end.. for me a $100-150 card is not worth it. And there isnt any cheap card that will do good for my GTX680. So.. no physx card for me now.

Well I have a case with 4x 200 mm fans, 1 x 140mm, and 1x 120 mm fans. Fot me I will use my gtx 480 for physx because I have plenty of cooling and a psu (1000 watt Psu) to accomidate my system...

VegetaCreeper


Well I have a case with 4x 200 mm fans, 1 x 140mm, and 1x 120 mm fans. Fot mr I will ise my gtx 480 for physx because I have plenty of cooling and a psu (1000 watt Psu) yo accomidate my system...

 
That's exactly what I would do with my 480(use it for PhysX) if I had a GTX 680 or 690. 

I went ahead and gave this a shot... I have 2 670 FTWs running 6000x1080 Surround, and tried the dual slot 640.  On Arkham City, you're really breaking even to have it vs. not.  You have a bit more spare power than me (one card, one monitor vs 2 cards, 3 monitors) so it might hold you back a bit.  But really, it's a wash - it doesn't hurt me, but it doesn't help me, either.
 
I'm not out anything, really, since I gave away my spare video card to a friend, but I'm not feeling compelled to put it back in, either (my testing ended with the card back out).  Maybe next time I take apart and clean out my machine, it'll go back in.

As the previous poster mentioned above and i mentioned before, there is no need for a physx card with these more powerful cards.  Unless you are struggling to hit your monitors VSynch.  However, having said that, depending on your resolution, it will take much much more power to move from say 55fps to 60fps. Physx only utilizes so much power, so really at an extreme resolution, you are not looking to gain anything.  At 1920x1080, there is room for debate on adding a dedicated card.  Take for example a 640GT, corewise, it is around 28% of a 670.  A card that is 28% of your total power will make a bigger dent in fps than say a higher end environment of SLI 680s which in its case would only totals 12.5% of the total power.
 
So in the case of the OP, unless hes getting under his monitors vSynch, which is 60FPS, he isnt going to see a difference. 60 FPS to 75 FPS on a refresh rate of 60, you cant see the difference.
 
The nice thing about the 640, is that it is enough for PhysX, and it only uses about 40 watts and uses no extra PCI-E power connectors and comes in a single slot design.

crezno


As the previous poster mentioned above and i mentioned before, there is no need for a physx card with these more powerful cards.  Unless you are struggling to hit your monitors VSynch.  However, having said that, depending on your resolution, it will take much much more power to move from say 55fps to 60fps. Physx only utilizes so much power, so really at an extreme resolution, you are not looking to gain anything.  At 1920x1080, there is room for debate on adding a dedicated card.  Take for example a 640GT, corewise, it is around 28% of a 670.  A card that is 28% of your total power will make a bigger dent in fps than say a higher end environment of SLI 680s which in its case would only totals 12.5% of the total power.

So in the case of the OP, unless hes getting under his monitors vSynch, which is 60FPS, he isnt going to see a difference. 60 FPS to 75 FPS on a refresh rate of 60, you cant see the difference.

The nice thing about the 640, is that it is enough for PhysX, and it only uses about 40 watts and uses no extra PCI-E power connectors and comes in a single slot design.

Ya you are actually right about there is no need for a PhysX card. Now days they have PhysX enabled in the cards already lol. Also does it matter about what card you use for compatibility? Because my friend tried to use a 460 with his 670 and it did not work at to well. It did not even boot up into windows. He says its because the drivers for the cards are different.  By different he means the architecture for the cards. Since the 400 and 500 series cards use the same chip which is Fermi and the 600 series of cards is Kepler.

VegetaCreeper


Well I have a case with 4x 200 mm fans, 1 x 140mm, and 1x 120 mm fans. Fot me I will use my gtx 480 for physx because I have plenty of cooling and a psu (1000 watt Psu) to accomidate my system...

If I were you, I will sell my GTX480 for $200 or more (plenty of people still want it here for that price). I already finished all physx games for now. So while I'm waiting for the new physx game.. I just stick with my single GTX680. Let's assume there will be new physx game release in 3 months from now.. then I can buy a new cheap.. cool.. and low power card (if my main card alone cant give me good fps).

I cant imagine a monster card like GTX480 just sitting inside my system while I rarely play any physx games for now. Other may say they play their physx games everyday.. if they do that.. surely there will be lesser time to play other new non physx games.

I'm interested in getting a GT 640 for a PhysX card, but still holding out for the GDDR5 edition. It's july already and I haven't seen it available nor heard any news of it. I'm wondering if there will be such an item in the future?

Personally I really don't think a physx card is worth the money, Unless you have 2 680's or a 690.
 
why not just use the extra money to get better card/cards...?

raidmax98


Personally I really don't think a physx card is worth the money, Unless you have 2 680's or a 690.

why not just use the extra money to get better card/cards...?

 
 
^^^^^
 
this is the greatest point I've ever seen in regards to the "is a physx card necessary" , or "what phsyx card should I buy?" questions. Spend the $100-150 on something thatll improve your performance ALL THE TIME not just when the 1-2 games a year that support physx come out. Bravo raidmax!

hoserx

raidmax98


Personally I really don't think a physx card is worth the money, Unless you have 2 680's or a 690.

why not just use the extra money to get better card/cards...?

^^^^^

this is the greatest point I've ever seen in regards to the "is a physx card necessary" , or "what phsyx card should I buy?" questions. Spend the $100-150 on something thatll improve your performance ALL THE TIME not just when the 1-2 games a year that support physx come out. Bravo raidmax!

I agree I would use that extra money to get me a new motherboard. I hate my board its sucks. MSI sucks. MSI is only good with GPUs. Plus I am waiting for my motherboard from because I RMAed it cause the RAM slots burnt out. Its been 2weeks and I still have not received an email form them about anything. I only got it cause I was on a budget and now I am facing the consequence for buying it. That is why I am going to get the EVGA Z77board. Well I have an extra card lie-in around anyways so why not use it as a PhysX card if you have the extra power for it. No one wants to buy my 560 anyways. They want the new stuff. 

I have 2 GTX 680's 4GB as a matter of fact, but my postcount is too low to have a rig sig .
 


Money is not an issue, but I'm looking for a PhysX card with the form factor of the length of the PCI-E lane, and no longer than that, so it doesn't obstruct my GTX 680's air intake. The GT 640 EVGA is selling in the store is almost ideal. The problem with the GT 640 currently available is the low memory bandwidth. Pack it with GDDR5 in the same size, and that would be the golden PhysX card.
 

raidmax98


Personally I really don't think a physx card is worth the money, Unless you have 2 680's or a 690.

why not just use the extra money to get better card/cards...?

im using my ol' 280 for physx with my 670 ftw :D it definitely helps with the fps and load.

Some people already have an extra card laying around and are wondering if they should use it for PhysX. Not everyone will be asking if they should buy a card. If someone does have a good card laying around, try it out and see if its worth it. 

I'll try the old 98gt with the 680s and see if it adds anything. Stay tuned. Sorry scratch that. It won't fit in the case now with the water blocks installed.

Well maybe I can let you guys know how things work?  I have a GTX 580 Classified Ultra Edition, and my GT 640 will be in today.  I'm going to use it as a physx card and see how it goes.  Wish me luck.

SPOHNMAN


Well maybe I can let you guys know how things work?  I have a GTX 580 Classified Ultra Edition, and my GT 640 will be in today.  I'm going to use it as a physx card and see how it goes.  Wish me luck.

Will be interested to hear back, yes!

SPOHNMAN


Well maybe I can let you guys know how things work?  I have a GTX 580 Classified Ultra Edition, and my GT 640 will be in today.  I'm going to use it as a physx card and see how it goes.  Wish me luck.

 
I'd love to know, I don't mind paying for the 640 if it really does help in a worthwhile way.

Hi Guys, I'm new to this posting thing but I have just benchmarked my system and thought you might be interested?
 
System Spec;
i7 920 @ 2.67GHz
EX58-UD5 Gigabyte MB
6GB DDR3
Palit 680GTX
Palit GT640
 
I benched using Batman Arkham Citys own bench test and Fraps. I ran all the sequences twice, once writing down the batman bench results and then ran again using the Fraps log files.
 
Batman Settings;
Full Screen = Yes
Resolution = 1920x1080
V Sync = Yes
Anti Aliasing = FXAA (HIGH)
DX11 Features = MVSS & HBAO
DX11 Tessellation = HIGH
Detail Level = VERY HIGH
Dynamic Shadows, Motion Blur, Distortion, Lens Flares, Light Shafts, Reflections, Ambiant Occlusion all = YES
Hardware Accelerated PHYSX = HIGH
 
So In order;
                                                    Batman Bench        Fraps Bench
Rank Card Config             PhysX   3D       Average         Average
   1    680GTX                      No      No           86                87.98
   2    680GTX                      No     Yes           50                50.46
   3    680GTX                      Yes     No           45                44.47
   4    680GTX + GT640        Yes     No           40                39.78
   5    680GTX                      Yes     Yes          37                37.56
   6    680GTX + GT640        Yes     Yes          34                34.76
 
So as you can see with this setup the GT640 is slowing things down!
 
Anyone want to buy a brand new GT640, only benchmarked once!?
I hope this helps you all :)
Mark.

Well now we know. Thanks for the benchmarks.

Well that's a bummer.
 
Guess we're gonna have to wait for a 650/660 card to act as a decent PhysX card...

DarkAngel_ZERO


Well that's a bummer.

Guess we're gonna have to wait for a 650/660 card to act as a decent PhysX card...

 
Kind of what I was thinking, I guess.
 
That is a bummer.  Wonder what the issue is?  Could it really be just the memory bandwidth?  One wonders why some enterprising manufacturer doesn't just slap some GDDR5 on it and call it a 'Geforce 645', then...

I recently upgraded from single 285 to a 680FTW 4gb+  bumped my 285 down to the third slot and I am running it as a physx card with my 680 as main card.
 
I dont play any really physx intense games but I did run a quick JX3 benchmark and found a few FPS were gained using 285 for physx over letting the 680 go it alone.
 
I was kinda surprised. 
 
 

Well even thou the 640 seems to be a poor physX card I think due to the low bandwidth it has. How would a 560 do as a physX card? Someone mentioned using their 480 which I know will kill in being a physX card. Also I would not use a 660 for a physX card. That would be a waste from what the rumor specs on it says. Does anyone know when the release date for that card is? I know a few people that would like to know any kind of accurate release date for it.

I just ran the Batman AC bench for you guys.
I use a GTX 680 FTW and a GTX 460 for Physx.
I used the following settings for both benches with the Batman Benchmark.
Anti Aliasing= 32x csaa
DX11 Features=MVSS and HBAO'
DX11 TEssellation= High
Detail Level= EXTREME
Dynamic Shawdows =Yes
Motion Blur= Yes
Distortion= Yes
Lens Flares= Yes
Light Shafts= Yes
Reflections= Yes
Ambient Occlusion= Yes
Hardware Accelerated Physx= High
Using GTX 680 for all the work I scored Min=5,Max=89,Avg=56
GTX680 Plus GTX 460 I scored Min=15,Max=98,Avg=65
 

Well then it goes to show it matters what type of physX card you use. Since you used a 460 I would imagine that my 560 will perform as well as your 460 did.

HAZMAN_THE_GREAT


Well then it goes to show it matters what type of physX card you use. Since you used a 460 I would imagine that my 560 will perform as well as your 460 did.

I'm sure your 560 would do great. It's one of those things if you already have the card to use for physx you might as well use it because it does help with games that use physx but it is very debateable wether it is worth it for someone who is considering buying one. IMO the GTX 460 and the GTX 560 make the perfect physx card.
 
I just wish more games use Nvidia Physx the two games that the physx cards helps out the most in is Mafia II and Alice Madness Returns...the FPS boost given by the extra physx card is huge in those games (around a 30 fps boost in Mafia II) one game that is dissapointing that uses physx with it's gains is Metro..I was hoping to get a big boost in that game but it only added a handfull of extra fps.