ASUS PhysX Card

It's not as dramatic as a 7900 GTX or an X1900 XTX, but here it is in all its glory. We welcome the new ASUS PhysX card to the fold:



The chip and the RAM are under the heatsink/fan, and there really isn't that much else going on here. The slot cover on the card has AGEIA PhysX written on it, and there's a 4-pin Molex connector on the back of the card for power. We're happy to report that the fan doesn't make much noise and the card doesn't get very warm (especially when compared to GPUs).

We did have an occasional issue when installing the card after the drivers were already installed: after we powered up the system the first time, we couldn't use the AGEIA hardware until we hard powered our system and then booted up again. This didn't happen every time we installed the card, but it did happen more than once. This is probably not a big deal and could easily be an issue with the fact that we are using early software and early hardware. Other than that, everything seemed to work great in the two pieces of software it's currently possible to test.

Our test system is setup similarly to our graphics test systems, with the addition of a low speed CPU. We were curious to find out if the PhysX card helps out slower processors more than fast CPUs, so we set our FX-57 to a 9X multiplier to simulate an Opteron 144. Otherwise, the test bed is the same as we've used for recent GPU reviews:

AMD Athlon 64 FX-57
AMD Opteron 144 (simulated)
ASUS NVIDIA nForce4 SLI X16 Motherboard
2GB OCZ DDR RAM
ATI Radeon X1900 XTX
ASUS PhysX PPU
Windows XP SP2
OCZ PowerStream 600W PSU


Now let's see how the card actually performs in practice.

AGEIA PhysX Technology and GPU Hardware PhysX Performance
Comments Locked

101 Comments

View All Comments

  • bob661 - Friday, May 5, 2006 - link

    Joe SixPacks aren't gamers. They're email and Word users. People that game know what hardware is required.
  • nullpointerus - Friday, May 5, 2006 - link

    That's not how it works. New types of hardware are initially luxury items both in the sense that they are affordable only by a few and way overpriced. When the rich adopt these things, the middle class end up wanting them, and manufacturers find ways to bring the prices down by scaling down the hardware or using technological improvements. So in other words, pipe down, let those who can afford them buy them, and in an few years we may see $50-75 versions for ordinary gamers.
  • Mr Perfect - Saturday, May 6, 2006 - link

    I wish I could find the article now, but back a ways there was an interview with Ageia where it was said that prices would span a similar range as video cards. So yes, there will probably be low-end, minrange, and highend card.

    What I'm concerned about is the people who already are fighting a budget to game. These are the highschool kids with little to no income, the 40 year old with two kids and a morgage, and the casual gamer who's probably just as interested in a $170 PS2. What happens when they have to buy no only an enty level $150 video card, but also a $150 physics card? I can only imagine if gaming was currently limited to only those people with a $300 budget for a 7900GT or X1800 XL that we'd see PC gaming become a very elite selection for "enthusiasts" only.

    Hopefully we can get some snazzy physics without increasing the cost of admision so much, either by taking advantage of the dual core CPUs that are even now worming their way into the mainstream PCs, or some sort of new video card technology.
  • nullpointerus - Sunday, May 7, 2006 - link

    Game developers have to eat, too. They won't produce games requiring extravagant hardware. Your fear is irrational. When you go into a doctor's office to get a shot, do you insist that the needle be sterilized right in front of your eyes before it comes anywhere near your skin? No. The doctor wants to eat, so he's not going to blow his eduction and license by reusing needles...
  • Mr Perfect - Monday, May 8, 2006 - link

    Well obviously it won't be a problem if it's not required. If it becomes an unnecessary enhancment card, like an X-Fi, then all is well. All I've been saying is if it DOES become a required card there is the possibility for monetary problems for the bread-and-butter casual gamers who fill the servers.
  • Googer - Friday, May 5, 2006 - link

    I for one will not be an early adopter for one of these. First generation hardware is always so cool to look at but it's almost always something you do not want to own. DX9 Video Cards are a great example: ATi 9700 PRO Was a great card if you played DX8 games but by the time software rolled around to take advantage of DX9 hardware, the 9700PRO just was not truly cut to handle it. The 9700PRO lacked a ton of features that second generation DX9 Cards had. My point is you should wait for the revision/version 2.0 of this card and you wont regret it. By then programs should be on store shelves to take full advandage of PhysX hardware.
  • Jedi2155 - Monday, May 8, 2006 - link

    I think it handled the first gen dx9 games relatively well. Farcry was a great example as it played quite well on my 9700 pro (which lasted me till Sept. '05 when I upgraded to a refurb. x800 pro). It also was able to run most games on max details (although crappy framerates but it was able to do it!). I think the 9700 pro offered it lot for its time and was able to play the 1st gen Dx9 games well enough.
  • munky - Friday, May 5, 2006 - link

    Sure, the 9x00 series could handle DX9, just not at maxed out settings. I played Farcry on a 9800xt, and it ran smoothly at medium-high settings. But the physx card is just plain disappointing, since it causes such a performance hit in GRAW, even at cpu-limited resolutions. Either the developers did not code the physics properly, or the physx card is not all that it's hyped up to be. We'll need more games using the ppu to know for sure.
  • rqle - Friday, May 5, 2006 - link

    I bought a 9700 Pro, i saw it as so far ahead of ti4600 with its 4x the proformance when AA was apply. First card to play games with AA and AF even if wasnt directx9 games. BUT this ageia thing seem little pointless to me, i actually rather have 2 ATI or 2 Nvidia card, at least this gives you an option, less physics or better graphic experience. comes in handle for those 98% of games that not ageia compatible yet.
  • PeteRoy - Friday, May 5, 2006 - link

    I hope this thing will be integrated into video cards mobo or CPU instead of seperated card.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now