Proper SLI test

[ohnnyj]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

ohnnyj

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).

So this is what this is all about, you don't want these resolutions to be in SLI benchmarks, I agree there. Anything lower than 1600x1200 on an SLI system won't show very noticable performance gains. So yes, perhaps this is a low resolution for SLI but not for the majority of gamers out there, heck most people's monitors might not be able to go any higher (especially those with LCDs - exception goes to the few with 23"+ ones). It is a waist of time (for the reviewer and reader) until games come out that push SLI systems even at 1600x1200 (although there are some that do right now namely flight sims and such) and then it will be considered high res again, but low res to the next generation of cards which should be out by that time. So once again, the definition of what is a low and/or high resolution is relative; a matter of perspective.

 

[jim1976]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

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).

So you call 1600x1200 a middle resolution that you don't seem to like but you don't have any problem playing at 2048x1536(where available)@ 60Hz in a CRT???
Pretty strange if you don't mind saying me that How can you stand 60Hz during gameplay in a CRT?

I don't understand some of you ppl.
1600x1200 is middle resolution?? :Q

*edit
Those resolutions were ment for professional work not for gaming in a CRT IMHO.Such horrible Hz in those resolutions in a CRT are unecceptable.
Of course new gigantic monitors are on the way that gradually will create the need for higher resolutions but that is still far IMO. And of course only an LCD or an OLED can do that properly in the future certainly not a CRT anymore 🙂

 

[housecat]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
No. WS LCD issues are still there.

How do you know this without owning SLI.


Have you tested the 76.50 or 71.89s?
I have had my rig torn apart for two weeks now. But it will be back together tomorrow, I will test and report to my AT comrades.



I can say this: I was able to get confirmation out of Nvidia that they ARE indeed actively looking at the issues.

See link.

Originally posted by: NV_PSB
We are actively looking at the wide screen issues. Thanks everyone for all the information!

Believe me, I was not going to rest until I got that confirmation.. I was going to haunt them as much as a single citizen legally can until I got them to take notice.
Or I was going to overclock the hell out of a single GT and give ATI my money next time.

I'm calmed down, and happy with that. It might already be fixed, no one across the web forums seems as interested in this as I have been.. I've been testing each and every beta release by Nvidia.
Up until I ripped my rig apart to move to the DFI SLI.

Do not worry, it will be fixed promptly. Its a simple timing issue. This is Nvidia we're talking about here.
They are prob just very busy with all these groundbreaking product launches.

 

[Ackmed]

I know this because people still post about problems with it.

Promptly? How long has SLI been out... ?

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: jim1976

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

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).

So you call 1600x1200 a middle resolution that you don't seem to like but you don't have any problem playing at 2048x1536(where available)@ 60Hz in a CRT???
Pretty strange if you don't mind saying me that How can you stand 60Hz during gameplay in a CRT?

I don't understand some of you ppl.
1600x1200 is middle resolution?? :Q

*edit
Those resolutions were ment for professional work not for gaming in a CRT IMHO.Such horrible Hz in those resolutions in a CRT are unecceptable.
Of course new gigantic monitors are on the way that gradually will create the need for higher resolutions but that is still far IMO. And of course only an LCD or an OLED can do that properly in the future certainly not a CRT anymore 🙂

I'm sure Ben was just telling me I can make my monitor run that res if I force it. We've had discussions in the past wherein I've told him I can't bench at 2048x1536 because my monitor doesn't support it.

I can do 19X14 at 75Hz, which is about as low as I'd want to go on the Hz. (and I much prefer a nice rock solid 85 HZ at 16X12.

Ben was just clueing me in because I told him I'm stuck with the 2111 (gift from wife) and wouldn't be upgrading to a fine 2141 like he has anytime soon.

 

[housecat]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
I know this because people still post about problems with it.

Promptly? How long has SLI been out... ?

You forget how many ppl are just damn noobs.
They prob dont know about those two releases (71.89 is WHQL'd). Really.
On hardware, I believe Rollo, Geforcetony, a few others.. and maybe you if you didnt hold such a grudge against the crowned King of performance Nvidia.

LOL, ackmed.. what more can you ask for, SLI is nearing 100% improvement in these 2048 benchmarks.
The WS DVI issue is not an issue considering nothing can touch it performance-wise.

Nvidia acknowledged it, they said they are actively working on it.

Of course, this isnt the absolute perfect product execution YOU would deliver, if you ran Nvidia... *cough*, sorry got a bit of a COUGH here. Might need to get something to clear that nasty cold up.

But for me............ ie. THE GUY WHO DUMPED NEAR $1000 ON SLI... *cough*, there is it again...
its FINE.

Acknowledge, learn, fix.

Thats all the SLI community asks.

You on the other hand, seem to demand better product execution.

Well, I wouldnt take a look at the ATI HDTV Blunder if you have such high standards.

 

[housecat]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
I know this because people still post about problems with it.

Promptly? How long has SLI been out... ?

And Ackmed, its clear you are not investigating the matter.. so plz dont comment on it like its the downfall of SLI.

I turned this up in a GOOGLE SEARCH for crying out loud

http://downloads.guru3d.com/download.php?det=1002

75.90 Fixes:
-Widescreen Monitor Issues running on DVI Such as the Dell Wide Aspect 20 Inch Monitor.

I cant confirm this.. but what else do you need or want?

I'll be sure to try the latest NV betas and the latest XtremeG drivers under SLI for the AT community when I get the rig together tomorrow.
It will be in a new thread.


Unfortunately, with my rig being down for 2 weeks now.. I havent been able to follow any betas released after 71.84 Official.


So it was either fixed by Nvidia in 75.90, or XtremeG fixed it in 75.90.

I'm not sure, as I've never used XtremeG drivers.
I'll find out soon. I'll be using the latest betas first (76.50), then the latest XtremeG release (76.44), if the NV drivers do not work.

 

[Ackmed]

If the WS LCD issue is fixed in some beta drivers, then thats GREAT news. I have not seen the results of this beta drivers, but it sure is encouraging. Although beta is far from offical. And seeing how they dont officially release drivers very often, its not looking like they will be on nvidia.com anytime soon as officially supported drivers.

I dont hold a grudge against NV for having SLI, why would I? I have a SLI capable board, and if they had fixed the WS LCD issue long ago, and had PCI-E 6800GT/Ultras anywhere near MSRP when I got this rig, I probably would have a SLI setup. But they were not. The GT's were at least $500, and the Ultra's at least $600. Now its too late in the game for me to do it (imo), because the R520 and NV50 (or whatever) is relatively close to coming out. I dont want to spend $800+ on two cards, just to have a $550 or so card beat it handily 3 months from now. I dont know if they will, but judging by the rumors, they sure look like its possible. I have the money for it, but I dont want to take that chance.

Saying the WS LCD problem is not an issue just because its much faster, may be true for you, but not to everyone else. I would not go to an analog connection, or play a game in a window, just to get better frames. The trade off is not worth it to me.

And I did try the ATi HDTV tuner, and I took it back after about 2 weeks, and several formats. It was a horrible card for me. At the time, I had a 6800GT, and there was reports of issues with it, with is even more unacceptable to me, than the SLI WS LCD issue. Is it fixed now? I dont know, but I wont be buying one any time soon. I know it was new hardware, but I am not going to be a beta tester for them.

You really should step back and take a look at your little rants.. they're pretty funny. You often assume too much, and it makes you look foolish.

Now to get back ON topic, why cant some of this big-wig hardware sites get a 2005FPW and a 2405FPW to test on for the MANY people with these monitors? So annoying. 1680x1050 is more stressing than 1600x1200 in my few tests, and I would really like to know how 1920x1200 stacks up to 1600x1200, or higher when looking at video card reviews.

 

[ohnnyj]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
If the WS LCD issue is fixed in some beta drivers, then thats GREAT news. I have not seen the results of this beta drivers, but it sure is encouraging. Although beta is far from offical. And seeing how they dont officially release drivers very often, its not looking like they will be on nvidia.com anytime soon as officially supported drivers.

I dont hold a grudge against NV for having SLI, why would I? I have a SLI capable board, and if they had fixed the WS LCD issue long ago, and had PCI-E 6800GT/Ultras anywhere near MSRP when I got this rig, I probably would have a SLI setup. But they were not. The GT's were at least $500, and the Ultra's at least $600. Now its too late in the game for me to do it (imo), because the R520 and NV50 (or whatever) is relatively close to coming out. I dont want to spend $800+ on two cards, just to have a $550 or so card beat it handily 3 months from now. I dont know if they will, but judging by the rumors, they sure look like its possible. I have the money for it, but I dont want to take that chance.

Saying the WS LCD problem is not an issue just because its much faster, may be true for you, but not to everyone else. I would not go to an analog connection, or play a game in a window, just to get better frames. The trade off is not worth it to me.

And I did try the ATi HDTV tuner, and I took it back after about 2 weeks, and several formats. It was a horrible card for me. At the time, I had a 6800GT, and there was reports of issues with it, with is even more unacceptable to me, than the SLI WS LCD issue. Is it fixed now? I dont know, but I wont be buying one any time soon. I know it was new hardware, but I am not going to be a beta tester for them.

You really should step back and take a look at your little rants.. they're pretty funny. You often assume too much, and it makes you look foolish.

Now to get back ON topic, why cant some of this big-wig hardware sites get a 2005FPW and a 2405FPW to test on for the MANY people with these monitors? So annoying. 1680x1050 is more stressing than 1600x1200 in my few tests, and I would really like to know how 1920x1200 stacks up to 1600x1200, or higher when looking at video card reviews.

I could run some benchmarks but unfortunately only have a few games 🙁.

 

[BFG10K]

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

Are you talking to me? If so what do you mean?

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

No driver will at 320x240 either because you can run into situations where you're CPU limited so what's your point? What is wrong with the benchmarks I posted at 1920x1440? Absolutely nothing as they're more than playable.

A single high end card has more than enough muscle to run games at 1920x1440 except those made in the last 12-18 months or so. For those you can usually do 1600x1200 easy.

Nothing, and I never made reference to SLI benchmarks.

That's lovely. So why are you responding to the response I made to Rollo?

I was alluding to idea of why we still see low resolution benchmarks.

Such reasons have no relevance to SLI which is the whole point of this thread in case you hadn't noticed. I simply took it a step further and made the claim that even for single high end cards 1600x1200 should be the minimum people bench them at. Again same deal - if you can't do 1600x1200 then you shouldn't be touching high end GPUs to begin with.

Simply, most people don't have the hardware to run at high or even "middling" resolutions as you call 1600x1200.

Again that's beside the point of both SLI and single high end cards.

Not everyone a. cares about high resolutions,

Then why buy SLI or single high end cards?

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

Actually it was Rollo. Please try to pay attention to what you and others are actually responding to.

75.90 Fixes: -Widescreen Monitor Issues running on DVI Such as the Dell Wide Aspect 20 Inch Monitor.

Current nVidia beta drivers (6x.xx and 7x.xx) are some of the worst drivers in existance. Until we see an official driver with the fix for all intents and purposes it's still an open issue. I personally don't care about SLI nor widescreen anyway but I find it quite deceptive for somebody to produce evidence in the form of an nVidia beta driver.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: 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.

id like to see the new splinter cell with all the bells and SM3 whistles on at a resolution greater than 1600x1200 on a single card

 

[otispunkmeyer]

well 12x10 2xAA 16xAF is good enough for me c see y'all later

 

[BenSkywalker]

So you call 1600x1200 a middle resolution that you don't seem to like but you don't have any problem playing at 2048x1536(where available)@ 60Hz in a CRT???

As Rollo already mentioned, I was telling him that his monitor was capable of running 2048x1536- my monitor can handle that res at a refresh rate higher then a 6800Ultra or x850XTPE can handle. I use 2048x1536@85Hz when gaming, if I am forced to drop down to low res settings(1600x1200) then I use 100Hz normally.

 

[Acanthus]

Im having 0 issues with all the games i play on XG75.90, i dont see how they are the "worst drivers in exsistence".

I do seem to remember not being able to play Call of Duty for 5 months on my 9700pro.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
A single high end card has more than enough muscle to run games at 1920x1440 except those made in the last 12-18 months or so. For those you can usually do 1600x1200 easy.

This just can't be the same BFG who has always championed high res AA/AF! What have you done with BFG, impostor! BFG would never say setting lower than what are possible are "good enough".

 

[BenSkywalker]

I do seem to remember not being able to play Call of Duty for 5 months on my 9700pro.

Try Sacrifice, two and a half YEARS for ATi's driver team on that and counting....

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: ohnnyj

I could run some benchmarks but unfortunately only have a few games 🙁.

I run that res, I have a 2405FPW. I just want reviewers to start using WS res' when doing reviews. Im tired of seeing 1024x768 on a $500 card, its useless to me, and to most who buy such a card.

Originally posted by: BFG10K

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

Are you talking to me? If so what do you mean?

No, it wasnt towards you.

Yes the CoD bug sucked, badly. Seemed to only happen to me when getting in some vehicle. I assume it was a driver bug, because the game devs never admitted anything. That was the last "show stopping" bug Ive had with ATi. NV has had terrible bugs too (Max Payne anyone?), but why are we even talking about this? I think both API's drivers are great now days.

 

[jim1976]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

So you call 1600x1200 a middle resolution that you don't seem to like but you don't have any problem playing at 2048x1536(where available)@ 60Hz in a CRT???

As Rollo already mentioned, I was telling him that his monitor was capable of running 2048x1536- my monitor can handle that res at a refresh rate higher then a 6800Ultra or x850XTPE can handle. I use 2048x1536@85Hz when gaming, if I am forced to drop down to low res settings(1600x1200) then I use 100Hz normally.

No prob, I was reffering to Rollo's case not yours I know what yours is capable of.,but even IF i were you I wouldn't game @85Hz. I never went below 100Hz in my CRT Anyway my opinion stays that anything beyond 1600x1200 with AA/AF for a 20'' viewable area is just overkill. But that's just my opinion.

 

[BFG10K]

I do seem to remember not being able to play Call of Duty for 5 months on my 9700pro.

Same here and it annoyed me royally, along with ATi's other driver issues.

Of course nVidia had the DEP issue for about 8 months which is far more severe, not to mention I've had random hardlocks in JK2, SOF2, Chaser and Halo with nVidia official drivers. Also some OpenGL games to this day seem to enjoy pausing for a few seconds before they become unpaused.

Thinking back now I'd say I've had far more driver issues with my 6800U than with my 9700 Pro. ATi tends to have more rendering glitches while nVidia tends to have far more serious issues like system reboots. I'll take a rendering glitch over a system reboot any day.

The 6800U is certainly a sweet card but I no longer feel nVidia's drivers are superior to ATi's I'm afraid. I'd even say that ATi's drivers are more stable in general.

This just can't be the same BFG who has always championed high res AA/AF! What have you done with BFG, impostor! BFG would never say setting lower than what are possible are "good enough".

I don't understand what you're getting at. I always run at 16xAF and crank the res and AA as high as possible without generating a slideshow. That will never change.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

I do seem to remember not being able to play Call of Duty for 5 months on my 9700pro.

Same here and it annoyed me royally, along with ATi's other driver issues.

Of course nVidia had the DEP issue for about 8 months which is far more severe, not to mention I've had random hardlocks in JK2, SOF2, Chaser and Halo with nVidia official drivers. Also some OpenGL games to this day seem to enjoy pausing for a few seconds before they become unpaused.

Thinking back now I'd say I've had far more driver issues with my 6800U than with my 9700 Pro. ATi tends to have more rendering glitches while nVidia tends to have far more serious issues like system reboots. I'll take a rendering glitch over a system reboot any day.

The 6800U is certainly a sweet card but I no longer feel nVidia's drivers are superior to ATi's I'm afraid. I'd even say that ATi's drivers are more stable in general.

This just can't be the same BFG who has always championed high res AA/AF! What have you done with BFG, impostor! BFG would never say setting lower than what are possible are "good enough".

I don't understand what you're getting at. I always run at 16xAF and crank the res and AA as high as possible without generating a slideshow. That will never change.

I have actually had the exact opposite, my "game stopping" bugs were all ATi, and usually OpenGL related. Most of my bugs on nvidia cards were similar to the far cry level of detail problems before the most recent patch, and other quirks that didnt really stop gameplay. Ive had no hard locks in Halo on my GT, but i have not tried the other 3 titles you mentioned. Maybe we are just running different games.

Vsync on in all titles, all optomizations disabled

WoW - No issues, 1600x1200 2xAA 16xAF
HL2 - No issues, 1600x1200 2xAA 16xAF
CS:S - No issues, 1600x1200 2xAA 16xAF
Battlefield 1942 - No issues, 1600x1200 2xAA 16xAF
Battlefield Vietnam - No issues, 1600x1200 2xAA 16xAF
Simcity 4 - Graphics corruption on terrain and environmental effects, documented by nvidia and effects all drivers beyond 60.xx (ATi also has horrible issues with this game on newer drivers to my understanding)
Doom 3 - No issues, 1600x1200 2xAA 16xAF - Ultra Detail settings
Unreal Tournament (Original) - No issues, 1024x768 8xAA 16xAF
Neverwinter Nights - No issues, 1600x1200 2xAA 16xAF
Warcraft 3 - No issues, 1600x1200 2xAA 16xAF

 

[Ackmed]

Guess you never played Flatout. With the official 66.93's (and some betas) it would reboot your PC 100% of the time within 30 seconds of a race.

The fact of the mater is, both have had game stopping bugs. They are bound to happen. But both overall do a great job of releasing drivers without them.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Guess you never played Flatout. With the official 66.93's (and some betas) it would reboot your PC 100% of the time within 30 seconds of a race.

The fact of the mater is, both have had game stopping bugs. They are bound to happen. But both overall do a great job of releasing drivers without them.

Ive never even heard of flatout.

Edit: It actually looks pretty cool, i loved Burnout 3 on Xbox, ill prolly give it a shot 🙂

 

[Avalon]

You need a microscope to read in-game text in anything higher than 16x12.

 

[housecat]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Im having 0 issues with all the games i play on XG75.90, i dont see how they are the "worst drivers in exsistence".

I do seem to remember not being able to play Call of Duty for 5 months on my 9700pro.

The COD issue is what got me fed up with ATI once and for all.

I had given up on ATI from years and years of poor driver releases, then try a 9800 Pro and no go. :thumbsdown: And when it did go, MY GEFORCE2MX OUTRAN IT
seriously, someting was horribly wrong with their drivers from like 4.x to 4.9 or so.

I've never encountered a gamestopping bug with Nvidia personally. People say some unknown racing game has a bug or whatever.. but when blockbuster hits like Call of Duty dont work? And for so long?

Unacceptable.

Either way, I went back to NV.. and I'm gaming much more happily for a long time now.
Thats all I can ask for.

The blockbuster hits are working exceptionally on my Nvidia SLI. Dont know how ATI's doing these days, could care less.

I MIGHT buy them again, but NV would really really have to fk up. And they havent fk'd up for me since the Geforce1 (when I jumped on the NV bandwagon). It really is alot better over here.

I never have the "grass is greener on the other side" syndrome with SLI, DX9C or Nvidia's drivers. 😉 Life is good!

 

[Ackmed]

Thats it, show your true colors.

"unkown racing game"? Hardly, its just not been released over here yet, other than for consoles. It will be soon. Its VERY popular over seas, and the demo was very popular everywhere when it came out. Just because you dont know what it is, doesnt mean its not popular.

Max Payne? Yeah, that was a bigger game than CoD. I got my new GeForce3, then Max Payne the first day it was out. Could I play it? Nope. It crashed when loading a level with a GeForce3, and there was nothing you could do about it.

There are many others, but why are we even talking about this? Both have had huge bug problems, saying otherwise is just ignorance. So is saying NV hasnt screwed up since the GeForce1.