Proper SLI test

[ohnnyj]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: BFG10K

What about 1280x1024 with 4x/8x?

There's no reason to go lower than 16x AF anyway because any modern card will basically give it to you for free. Same thing with 2x MSAA really.

For some people that is about as high as they'll get with their monitors....

Such people are wasting their time buying a single high-end card, much less two of them. I run most games older than a year at 1920x1440 with 4xAA because my single 6800U has more than enough muscle to do so. To run at 1280x960 on an SLI setup is quite frankly ludicrous.

Lol, since when is 12x10 low res gaming?

Since the likes of the 9700 Pro introduced 1600x1200 as a standard resolution. These days I'd class 1600x1200 as a middling resolution since 6800U/X800 XT cards can easily push 1920x1440.

You must be very tolerant of low frame rates. I can't stand when it drops below 60 in a first person shooter. Something slow like Flight Sim 2004, above 30 is fine.

Yeah, I don't know what kind of fps you are getting but as I have said before my 6800GTs can get bogged down during intense scenes. Granted I get 100+ fps most of the time, its those action scenes that are some of the best and most important. And this is running at the slightly less 1920x1200 2xAA 16xAF. And I do have the rest of the hardware to back up the system - FX-55, 2GB Corsair 3200XL, dual Raptors, etc., etc.

 

[Mingon]

I game on my tv-800*600 such high res, do I need sli nope, would i get it if i could yes. my 6800 soft mod (350/800) struggles still with some games at that res with 2xaa (i.e. less than 50fps constant)

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Since the likes of the 9700 Pro introduced 1600x1200 as a standard resolution. These days I'd class 1600x1200 as a middling resolution since 6800U/X800 XT cards can easily push 1920x1440.

It depends on the game. A 6800U/X800XT can't play Doom3 or Far Cry at 16X12 4X 8X at all. Older games they can.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
FiringSquad's high res benches. With the exception of the benches provided by Rollo, it has been hard to find any real good tests for SLI setups, FiringSquad is the first site to throw up some decent numbers.

Thanks Ben, glad to help. Good read too. 🙂

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
I personally don't think reviewers should bother with anything lower than 1600x1200 when testing high-end cards. Tests like "1280x960x4x4" are utter nonsense.

not really, we're still someone who plays at that res. It's nice to see if it really pays off to buy a high end card.

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Since the likes of the 9700 Pro introduced 1600x1200 as a standard resolution. These days I'd class 1600x1200 as a middling resolution since 6800U/X800 XT cards can easily push 1920x1440.

It depends on the game. A 6800U/X800XT can't play Doom3 or Far Cry at 16X12 4X 8X at all. Older games they can.

He didnt say anything about AA/AF.

 

[Blastman]

The problem for 6600GT SLI still remains that it is only a 128MB setup. AT 12x10-4AA-16AF 128MB?s is not going to be enough in many cases.

In the Splinter Cell-CT benches the 6600GT SLI beats the 6800GT at 10x7 but then loses badly at 12x10.

12x10-4AA-16AF ? Average ?.min

6800GT ? ? ? 39.4 ? ? 23.1
6600GT SLI ? ? 27.3 ? ? 3.1

The 6600GT SLI setup also dips down to ? 3.1 fps ..!!! ? at one point.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Since the likes of the 9700 Pro introduced 1600x1200 as a standard resolution. These days I'd class 1600x1200 as a middling resolution since 6800U/X800 XT cards can easily push 1920x1440.

It depends on the game. A 6800U/X800XT can't play Doom3 or Far Cry at 16X12 4X 8X at all. Older games they can.

He didnt say anything about AA/AF.

Well Ackmed/Fallguy, he's wrong anyway you look at at it because 16X12 is high resolution, period. Since the vast majority of people don't own a 6800U/X800XT/6800 SLI set, or the monitors to run 16X12, in no way shape or form can it be considered "middling".

Also, there's nothing wrong with what I said: it's true single cards can't play those games at the setting I specified.

http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html
When you look at the hundreds of thousands of gamers sampled on Steam and see around 5% have a X800Pro/6800GT or better, it's pretty apparent 16X12 is not a middling resolution and reviewers can't give up <16X12 quite yet. :roll:

 

[ohnnyj]

I think that many are not realizing that the majority of gamers out there do not own high end cards and as such in order to have benchmarks that pertain to the majority, lower resolutions will continue to be run (and should be). Want proof? Just look at Valve's latest hardware survey. As of right now the lead goes to the 9800 Pro at 11%, you won't find the X800 Pro until number 17 at less than 2%, the X800XT even less. Numbers for nVidia cards are similar. And this is out of over 700,000 surveyed so far (April 9th).

 

[Regs]

That's what Im worried about for next generation. If they say the new video cards are more than 2x as powerful compared to the current generation then im going to need a better display and im afraid I won't be the only one. Any CRT that does above 16x12 @ 85+ Hertz almost cost as much as the current day video card. I also haven't seen too many price cuts on monitors that support 2048x1536x32 either.

Who needs 100 FPS @ 16x12? Video cards are now becoming more powerful than the games and the monitors themselves. I guess they were right. LCD's are going to make the CRTs obsolete sooner than expected if this keeps up.

This of course is all keeping the gaming and hardware enthusiast in mind.

 

[ohnnyj]

Originally posted by: Regs
That's what Im worried about for next generation. If they say the new video cards are more than 2x as powerful compared to the current generation then im going to need a better display and im afraid I won't be the only one. Any CRT that does above 16x12 @ 85+ Hertz almost cost as much as the current day video card. I also haven't seen too many price cuts on monitors that support 2048x1536x32 either.

Who needs 100 FPS @ 16x12? Video cards are now becoming more powerful than the games and the monitors themselves. I guess they were right. LCD's are going to make the CRTs obsolete sooner than expected if this keeps up.

This of course is all keeping the gaming and hardware enthusiast in mind.

You need 100fps at even higher resolutions and even 1600x1200 to gaurantee that it never dips below an acceptable rate even in the most intense scenes, if you read above you will find out what happens even in an SLI system.

It will take a better technology than LCDs to replace CRTs.

 

[Regs]

I believe LongHorn and next generation hardware like the Nvidia G70 will pretty much eliminate these problems. Crazy theory.

 

[ohnnyj]

Originally posted by: Regs
I believe LongHorn and next generation hardware like the Nvidia G70 will pretty much eliminate these problems. Crazy theory.

And then newer games will come out that tax even the newest hardware. It's a game of cat and mouse.

 

[Regs]

Originally posted by: ohnnyj

Originally posted by: Regs
I believe LongHorn and next generation hardware like the Nvidia G70 will pretty much eliminate these problems. Crazy theory.

And then newer games will come out that tax even the newest hardware. It's a game of cat and mouse.

Mhh - I thought about that too. Yet sooner or later just like in the past, we will need a higher resolution standard other than 16x12 and it seems to me that next generation hardware could push that envelope. It's more of a game of lets wait and see.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Personally I think many more people are interested in a review at 1280 x 1024 (or whatever) with maximum settings, than 2048 x 1536. If the review shows me that for most things a second tier card is sufficient, that would be of interest. I am sure there is room for this type of review, but for most of us it means little until the price of huge lcd's drop alot.

The interface of LCDs is too primitive to support 2048x1536 at a fast enough setting for gaming unless you are using a dual DVI link. Low caliber displays just aren't good enough for high end gaming. BTW- I linked to the end of the review, if you want another 'I'm just like every other review' with low res settings they have those too.

Well Ackmed/Fallguy, he's wrong anyway you look at at it because 16X12 is high resolution, period.

I actually think of 1600x1200 as low resolution, 1920x1440 is middle ground with 2048x1536 being high res. Only problem I have is that my vid card can't handle high res for newer games- does for older titles with no problem though.

I think that many are not realizing that the majority of gamers out there do not own high end cards and as such in order to have benchmarks that pertain to the majority, lower resolutions will continue to be run (and should be). Want proof? Just look at Valve's latest hardware survey. As of right now the lead goes to the 9800 Pro at 11%, you won't find the X800 Pro until number 17 at less than 2%, the X800XT even less. Numbers for nVidia cards are similar. And this is out of over 700,000 surveyed so far (April 9th).

Who is asking for them to bench old cards at those settings? We are talking about seeing the highest end and SLI setups at high resolutions, not last generation parts.

If they say the new video cards are more than 2x as powerful compared to the current generation then im going to need a better display and im afraid I won't be the only one. Any CRT that does above 16x12 @ 85+ Hertz almost cost as much as the current day video card. I also haven't seen too many price cuts on monitors that support 2048x1536x32 either.

Current SLI setups run about $1K on the high end and they struggle with 2048x1536 while you can pick up a CRT that handles that setting no problem for ~$600.

I understand a lot of people get upset when anything is shown but low caliber display friendly benches, but you shouldn't really need to look at high end SLI benches anyway.

 

[nRollo]

I'm not trying to say high resolution tests are unneccessary, Ben, I'm disagreeing with BFGs position that 16X12 is "middling" when for 95% of hardware it's about as high as you're going.

So few of us are blessed with 2141s like you....
😉

 

[ponyo]

My definition of low resolution is 800x600 or lower. 1024x768 to 1280x1024 is mid resolution. 1600x1200 or higher is high resolution.

Trying to say 1600x1200 is low resolution is crazy. Even if you had SLI 6800U this wouldn't be the case.

 

[nRollo]

What's strange about BFG calling 16X12 a "middling resolution" to me is that I believe his monitor maxes out at 16X12?

http://www.ciao.fr/Sony_CPD_G420__687203/TabId/4

So for him, its got to be high res, as he can't go any higher.

 

[BFG10K]

You must be very tolerant of low frame rates.

The irony is simply killing me. I'm one of the hardest supporters of a high framerate you will ever find.

Yeah, I don't know what kind of fps you are getting but as I have said before my 6800GTs can get bogged down during intense scenes

I can't stand when it drops below 60 in a first person shooter.

Take a look. And 71.84 are even faster, usually 5%-20% across the board. Far Cry and Painkiller even more.

It depends on the game.

That would be why I made a reference to older than one year.

Well Ackmed/Fallguy, he's wrong anyway you look at at it because 16X12 is high resolution, period.

No it isn't. 1600x1200 was a high resolution during 2000 in the Radeon/GTS days when they established 1024x768 as a standard. The likes of a Radeon 9700 Pro made 1600x1200 a standard resolution two years ago.

Somebody crying about their monitor being too small isn't really relevant given they clearly shouldn't have a high-end card to begin with in such a situation.

When you look at the hundreds of thousands of gamers sampled on Steam and see around 5% have a X800Pro/6800GT or better, it's pretty apparent 16X12 is not a middling resolution and reviewers can't give up <16X12 quite yet.

What the hell does that have to do with SLI benchmarks?

What's strange about BFG calling 16X12 a "middling resolution" to me is that I believe his monitor maxes out at 16X12?

As usual you appear to have an alarming lack of understanding of the issues at hand.

Not to mention you constantly pimping the likes of SM 3.0 and SLI in pro-nVidia trumpeting but then turning around and giving us Valve statistics about users running 5200 cards. Its really hard to take anything you say seriously as you yourself don't appear to even know what you're actually arguing.

 

[Ackmed]

Heh, nice little rant just because I pointed out an error in your post.

 

[ohnnyj]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

You must be very tolerant of low frame rates.

The irony is simply killing me. I'm one of the hardest supporters of a high framerate you will ever find.

Yeah, I don't know what kind of fps you are getting but as I have said before my 6800GTs can get bogged down during intense scenes

I can't stand when it drops below 60 in a first person shooter.

Take a look. And 71.84 are even faster, usually 5%-20% across the board. Far Cry and Painkiller even more.

5-10 percent still does not give me playable framerates at ALL times. And no driver will.

It depends on the game.

That would be why I made a reference to older than one year.

Well Ackmed/Fallguy, he's wrong anyway you look at at it because 16X12 is high resolution, period.

No it isn't. 1600x1200 was a high resolution during 2000 in the Radeon/GTS days when they established 1024x768 as a standard. The likes of a Radeon 9700 Pro made 1600x1200 a standard resolution two years ago.

Somebody crying about their monitor being too small isn't really relevant given they clearly shouldn't have a high-end card to begin with in such a situation.

When you look at the hundreds of thousands of gamers sampled on Steam and see around 5% have a X800Pro/6800GT or better, it's pretty apparent 16X12 is not a middling resolution and reviewers can't give up <16X12 quite yet.

What the hell does that have to do with SLI benchmarks?

Nothing, and I never made reference to SLI benchmarks. I was alluding to idea of why we still see low resolution benchmarks. Simply, most people don't have the hardware to run at high or even "middling" resolutions as you call 1600x1200. Not everyone a. cares about high resolutions, b. is a hardcore gamer, c. wants to spend so much money for a video card.

What's strange about BFG calling 16X12 a "middling resolution" to me is that I believe his monitor maxes out at 16X12?

As usual you appear to have an alarming lack of understanding of the issues at hand.

Not to mention you constantly pimping the likes of SM 3.0 and SLI in pro-nVidia trumpeting but then turning around and giving us Valve statistics about users running 5200 cards. Its really hard to take anything you say seriously as you yourself don't appear to even know what you're actually arguing.

It wasn't Rollo who made the post about Valve's survey, it was myself.

 

[ohnnyj]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

Personally I think many more people are interested in a review at 1280 x 1024 (or whatever) with maximum settings, than 2048 x 1536. If the review shows me that for most things a second tier card is sufficient, that would be of interest. I am sure there is room for this type of review, but for most of us it means little until the price of huge lcd's drop alot.

The interface of LCDs is too primitive to support 2048x1536 at a fast enough setting for gaming unless you are using a dual DVI link. Low caliber displays just aren't good enough for high end gaming. BTW- I linked to the end of the review, if you want another 'I'm just like every other review' with low res settings they have those too.

Well Ackmed/Fallguy, he's wrong anyway you look at at it because 16X12 is high resolution, period.

I actually think of 1600x1200 as low resolution, 1920x1440 is middle ground with 2048x1536 being high res. Only problem I have is that my vid card can't handle high res for newer games- does for older titles with no problem though.

I think that many are not realizing that the majority of gamers out there do not own high end cards and as such in order to have benchmarks that pertain to the majority, lower resolutions will continue to be run (and should be). Want proof? Just look at Valve's latest hardware survey. As of right now the lead goes to the 9800 Pro at 11%, you won't find the X800 Pro until number 17 at less than 2%, the X800XT even less. Numbers for nVidia cards are similar. And this is out of over 700,000 surveyed so far (April 9th).

Who is asking for them to bench old cards at those settings? We are talking about seeing the highest end and SLI setups at high resolutions, not last generation parts.

I agree that it is always nice to see how high of settings the latest technology can run at. Seeing the high res is fine with me just to see how it runs, but even SLI system will choke in intense scenes. I was talking about the fact that they need to include low resolution tests for all those who are not fortunate enough to have the latest tech and/or do not care to.

If they say the new video cards are more than 2x as powerful compared to the current generation then im going to need a better display and im afraid I won't be the only one. Any CRT that does above 16x12 @ 85+ Hertz almost cost as much as the current day video card. I also haven't seen too many price cuts on monitors that support 2048x1536x32 either.

Current SLI setups run about $1K on the high end and they struggle with 2048x1536 while you can pick up a CRT that handles that setting no problem for ~$600.

I understand a lot of people get upset when anything is shown but low caliber display friendly benches, but you shouldn't really need to look at high end SLI benches anyway.

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: ohnnyj

It wasn't Rollo who made the post about Valve's survey, it was myself.

Sure he did, read a few posts up.

That being said, I dont think 1600x1200 is used by the masses very much. Simply because most people have substandard (to me) systems. For "hardcore" gamers or whatever you want to call them (me) I think it has been more of a used res more than ever. A lot of people game with it that have the hardware to support it. I dont think many 6800GT/Ultra users are usng 1024x768 as a gaming res.

 

[ohnnyj]

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: ohnnyj

It wasn't Rollo who made the post about Valve's survey, it was myself.

Sure he did, read a few posts up.

That being said, I dont think 1600x1200 is used by the masses very much. Simply because most people have substandard (to me) systems. For "hardcore" gamers or whatever you want to call them (me) I think it has been more of a used res more than ever. A lot of people game with it that have the hardware to support it. I dont think many 6800GT/Ultra users are usng 1024x768 as a gaming res.

That's my whole point, though, most people are not hardcore gamers and as a reusult don't own high end hardware, won't play at high (middling?) resolutions. Some may say 1600x1200 is a midrange res but these are people looking from the perspective of a hardcore gamer. The truth is most gamers don't have this hardware and as such the majority of people continue to think of it as high res. So it is all a matter of perspective.

P.S. Sorry about the survey, didn't see Rollo's inclusion of it; actually right above my post 🙂. Oops.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Rollo-

I'm not trying to say high resolution tests are unneccessary, Ben, I'm disagreeing with BFGs position that 16X12 is "middling" when for 95% of hardware it's about as high as you're going.

So few of us are blessed with 2141s like you....

I'm not sure if I mentioned it to you in the past or not, but did you know your monitor can do 2048x1536? You have to "cheat" on the drivers a bit, but the monitor itself is fully capable of displaying that resolution(at 60Hz easily).

Naustica-

Trying to say 1600x1200 is low resolution is crazy. Even if you had SLI 6800U this wouldn't be the case.

Actually, for anything outside of the newest games even a R9800Pro can handle 2048x1536(albeit without AA/AF) and even on some newer titles if you back down a few options you can normally push. Obviously with FarCry and D3 it aint gonna happen, but Q3, Morrowind, Mafia and numerous others are more then playable even with details on full running now quite outdated hardware. You give up AA due to performance obviously, but it is much less of a concern running high res settings.

ohnyj

I agree that it is always nice to see how high of settings the latest technology can run at. Seeing the high res is fine with me just to see how it runs, but even SLI system will choke in intense scenes. I was talking about the fact that they need to include low resolution tests for all those who are not fortunate enough to have the latest tech and/or do not care to.

Not for SLI benches they don't. Running 1600x1200 no AA/AF you are CPU limited almost entirely. You can't even see how much power the boards really have as they aren't close to graphics limited in pretty much all benches shown at the sites that have tested them(they may have portions that are limited as they show some scaling, but nothing like the real high benches show).