TESTED: 3D SLI vs 2D SLI performance compared
  1 / 3    
We often hear that SLI and 3Dvision are a match made in heaven, or that SLI can almost double the framerate in some games, when in 3Dvision. When recommending upgrades to newcomers on the forum, SLI is almost always suggested. I thought it'd be useful to do some tests, so we had some charts and data to work with. I tested 8 games, in 4 modes each (2d sli, 3d sli, 2d single-gpu, 3d single-gpu). I've posted the results, complete with charts and so on, [url="http://www.volnapc.com/all-posts/3d-and-sli-performance-tested"]on my website[/url]. But in a nutshell,these were my findings: [list] [.]3D SLI may not be as amazing as you'd hoped. The results are often similar to 2D SLI, and near-perfect scaling is still rare.[/.] [.]However, 3D SLI does almost always outperform 2D SLI, at least a bit[/.] [.]In a couple of the games tested, it blew 2D SLI out of the water[/.] [.]Unlike in 2D, SLI can pretty much always be counted on in 3D. Even when a game got poor SLI scaling in 2D, it always got decent scaling in 3D[/.] [.]As is often assumed, the average performance cost of 3Dvision is 50%, or a halving of fps. This is in single-GPU mode. In SLI mode, this cost is a little lower on average.[/.] [/list]
We often hear that SLI and 3Dvision are a match made in heaven, or that SLI can almost double the framerate in some games, when in 3Dvision. When recommending upgrades to newcomers on the forum, SLI is almost always suggested. I thought it'd be useful to do some tests, so we had some charts and data to work with.

I tested 8 games, in 4 modes each (2d sli, 3d sli, 2d single-gpu, 3d single-gpu). I've posted the results, complete with charts and so on, on my website. But in a nutshell,these were my findings:

  • 3D SLI may not be as amazing as you'd hoped. The results are often similar to 2D SLI, and near-perfect scaling is still rare.
  • However, 3D SLI does almost always outperform 2D SLI, at least a bit
  • In a couple of the games tested, it blew 2D SLI out of the water
  • Unlike in 2D, SLI can pretty much always be counted on in 3D. Even when a game got poor SLI scaling in 2D, it always got decent scaling in 3D
  • As is often assumed, the average performance cost of 3Dvision is 50%, or a halving of fps. This is in single-GPU mode. In SLI mode, this cost is a little lower on average.

ImageVolnaPC.com - Tips, tweaks, performance comparisons (PhysX card, SLI scaling, etc)

#1
Posted 05/05/2014 02:50 PM   
Not only was that a really thorough and well-thought-out set of tests, the presentation was really clear and easy to interpret, with some great commentary. Fantastic to finally have some hard numbers on this, thanks for putting in the time!
Not only was that a really thorough and well-thought-out set of tests, the presentation was really clear and easy to interpret, with some great commentary. Fantastic to finally have some hard numbers on this, thanks for putting in the time!

#2
Posted 05/05/2014 03:22 PM   
Interesting results - nice job :-) Did you disable the 3D driver completely when running the 2D tests? It used to be the case at least that just having the 3d driver running would knock 10-15% of the framerate, even without 3D enabled in game. One thing I saw that was interesting was the ratio of (single GPU 2D)/(dual GPU 3D): BatmanAO: (66-57)/66 = 13.6% Tomb Raider: (49-39)/49 = 20.4% Bio Infinite: (88-73)/88 = 17% Grid 2: (91-75)/91 = 17.6% Hitman: (40-26)/40 = 35% Mafia 2: (68-63)/68 = 7.4% Metro LL: (52-47)/52 = 9.6% Sleep Dogs: (60-42)/60 = 30% It's another common belief considering 3D and SLI to think that you'll get about the same FPS in 3D with an SLI setup as you will get in 2D with the single card, which is also definitely not true from these results Depending on whether you had disabled the 3d driver altogether, some of this would be accounted for the 3D driver just 'running', but certainly not 30-35%.
Interesting results - nice job :-)

Did you disable the 3D driver completely when running the 2D tests? It used to be the case at least that just having the 3d driver running would knock 10-15% of the framerate, even without 3D enabled in game.

One thing I saw that was interesting was the ratio of (single GPU 2D)/(dual GPU 3D):
BatmanAO: (66-57)/66 = 13.6%
Tomb Raider: (49-39)/49 = 20.4%
Bio Infinite: (88-73)/88 = 17%
Grid 2: (91-75)/91 = 17.6%
Hitman: (40-26)/40 = 35%
Mafia 2: (68-63)/68 = 7.4%
Metro LL: (52-47)/52 = 9.6%
Sleep Dogs: (60-42)/60 = 30%

It's another common belief considering 3D and SLI to think that you'll get about the same FPS in 3D with an SLI setup as you will get in 2D with the single card, which is also definitely not true from these results Depending on whether you had disabled the 3d driver altogether, some of this would be accounted for the 3D driver just 'running', but certainly not 30-35%.

Rig: Intel i7-8700K @4.7GHz, 16Gb Ram, SSD, GTX 1080Ti, Win10x64, Asus VG278

#3
Posted 05/05/2014 04:15 PM   
Thanks, guys. Yes, that surprised me too, Mike. I too had previously assumed that I was getting similar FPS in 3D to what I would have gotten with one GPU in 2D. I guess it's because the performance drop of 3D is somewhat unforgiving (about -50% across the board) while the SLI boost isn't generous enough to perfectly offset that (ie. it doesn't provide a 100% boost). Yes, I disabled the 3D driver completely (using the excellent [url="http://3dvision-blog.com/4673-3d-vision-toggler-for-easier-enabling-and-disabling-of-3d-vision/"]3Dvision toggler[/url]) during my tests, rather than just in-game. I'll update the blog to make that clear.
Thanks, guys.

Yes, that surprised me too, Mike. I too had previously assumed that I was getting similar FPS in 3D to what I would have gotten with one GPU in 2D.

I guess it's because the performance drop of 3D is somewhat unforgiving (about -50% across the board) while the SLI boost isn't generous enough to perfectly offset that (ie. it doesn't provide a 100% boost).

Yes, I disabled the 3D driver completely (using the excellent 3Dvision toggler) during my tests, rather than just in-game. I'll update the blog to make that clear.

ImageVolnaPC.com - Tips, tweaks, performance comparisons (PhysX card, SLI scaling, etc)

#4
Posted 05/06/2014 02:42 AM   
This is interesting, thanks for the research. Kind of in a similar vein but not... I was playing the Arkham Origins DLC with some buddies the other night, and I had forgotten to enable both GPUs on my 690 before starting (I usually operate with one instead of both, which mimics SLI, due to my frequent need for three active displays instead of one, and you can only run two display when in multi-GPU mode). ANyways, there ended up being very little discernable difference in performance - FPS was consistent and quite playable in 3D using one GPU. I only noticed a couple of times where things got choppy, but it was during heavy and multiple simultaneous particle effects. So where I'm going with this is, not so much that I was impressed with the performance of 'half' of my video card, but rather, the realization that having both GPUs (SLI) really didn't make that much difference - at least in Arkham Origins. Anywho.. one other thing I would like someone to verify someday is whether or not increased convergence results in a decrease in performance. I could SWEAR that when I crank up convergence in some games it impacts my FPS just slightly. I simply don't have the desire to spend the time to try and verify it.
This is interesting, thanks for the research.

Kind of in a similar vein but not... I was playing the Arkham Origins DLC with some buddies the other night, and I had forgotten to enable both GPUs on my 690 before starting (I usually operate with one instead of both, which mimics SLI, due to my frequent need for three active displays instead of one, and you can only run two display when in multi-GPU mode). ANyways, there ended up being very little discernable difference in performance - FPS was consistent and quite playable in 3D using one GPU. I only noticed a couple of times where things got choppy, but it was during heavy and multiple simultaneous particle effects. So where I'm going with this is, not so much that I was impressed with the performance of 'half' of my video card, but rather, the realization that having both GPUs (SLI) really didn't make that much difference - at least in Arkham Origins.

Anywho.. one other thing I would like someone to verify someday is whether or not increased convergence results in a decrease in performance. I could SWEAR that when I crank up convergence in some games it impacts my FPS just slightly. I simply don't have the desire to spend the time to try and verify it.

|CPU: i7-2700k @ 4.5Ghz
|Cooler: Zalman 9900 Max
|MB: MSI Military Class II Z68 GD-80
|RAM: Corsair Vengence 16GB DDR3
|SSDs: Seagate 600 240GB; Crucial M4 128GB
|HDDs: Seagate Barracuda 1TB; Seagate Barracuda 500GB
|PS: OCZ ZX Series 1250watt
|Case: Antec 1200 V3
|Monitors: Asus 3D VG278HE; Asus 3D VG236H; Samsung 3D 51" Plasma;
|GPU:MSI 1080GTX "Duke"
|OS: Windows 10 Pro X64

#5
Posted 05/06/2014 12:45 PM   
Tomb Raider (2013) - 1080p, ultimate quality, ultra shadows, 4x SSAA, vsync: force off SLI scaling: +99 % [url=http://abload.de/image.php?img=tombraider_s3d_sli_ofc1rer.png][img]http://abload.de/thumb/tombraider_s3d_sli_ofc1rer.png[/img][/url] [url=http://abload.de/image.php?img=tombraider_s3d_sli_onefo1k.png][img]http://abload.de/thumb/tombraider_s3d_sli_onefo1k.png[/img][/url]
Tomb Raider (2013) - 1080p, ultimate quality, ultra shadows, 4x SSAA, vsync: force off

SLI scaling: +99 %

Image Image

NVIDIA TITAN X (Pascal), Intel Core i7-6900K, Win 10 Pro,
ASUS ROG Rampage V Edition 10, G.Skill RipJaws V 4x 8GB DDR4-3200 CL14-14-14-34,
ASUS ROG Swift PG258Q, ASUS ROG Swift PG278Q, Acer Predator XB280HK, BenQ W710ST

#6
Posted 05/06/2014 03:38 PM   
[quote="Volnaiskra"]We often hear that SLI and 3Dvision are a match made in heaven, or that SLI can almost double the framerate in some games, when in 3Dvision. When recommending upgrades to newcomers on the forum, SLI is almost always suggested. I thought it'd be useful to do some tests, so we had some charts and data to work with. I tested 8 games, in 4 modes each (2d sli, 3d sli, 2d single-gpu, 3d single-gpu). I've posted the results, complete with charts and so on, [url="http://volnapc.com/3d-and-sli-performance-tested"]on my blog[/url]. But in a nutshell,these were my findings: [list] [.]3D SLI may not be as amazing as you'd hoped. The results are often similar to 2D SLI, and near-perfect scaling is still rare.[/.] [.]However, 3D SLI does almost always outperform 2D SLI, at least a bit[/.] [.]In a couple of the games tested, it blew 2D SLI out of the water[/.] [.]Unlike in 2D, SLI can pretty much always be counted on in 3D. Even when a game got poor SLI scaling in 2D, it always got decent scaling in 3D[/.] [.]As is often assumed, the average performance cost of 3Dvision is 50%, or a halving of fps. This is in single-GPU mode. In SLI mode, this cost is a little lower on average.[/.] [/list][/quote] Very very very awesome! You know what is missing there? 2D Surround and 3D Surround where the SLI scaling will really kick of;)) I don't have all those games to replicate the benchmark... But!!!! You could try (if you feel like it ^_^) to downsample and see the results:D that would be something really interesting to see:D I can't exactly find it right now..but I read a few months ago a GTX 780ti vs 2x780Ti and the SLI was practically worthless on those cards at 1920p. However going in Surround and 4k it was massively improving the framerates. I think downsampling is as close as you can get. (If you want it I can make a couple of tests in 2D/3D Surround but ofc I have different hardware inside so I don't know how relevant it will be ) Again awesome testing!!!
Volnaiskra said:We often hear that SLI and 3Dvision are a match made in heaven, or that SLI can almost double the framerate in some games, when in 3Dvision. When recommending upgrades to newcomers on the forum, SLI is almost always suggested. I thought it'd be useful to do some tests, so we had some charts and data to work with.

I tested 8 games, in 4 modes each (2d sli, 3d sli, 2d single-gpu, 3d single-gpu). I've posted the results, complete with charts and so on, on my blog. But in a nutshell,these were my findings:

  • 3D SLI may not be as amazing as you'd hoped. The results are often similar to 2D SLI, and near-perfect scaling is still rare.
  • However, 3D SLI does almost always outperform 2D SLI, at least a bit
  • In a couple of the games tested, it blew 2D SLI out of the water
  • Unlike in 2D, SLI can pretty much always be counted on in 3D. Even when a game got poor SLI scaling in 2D, it always got decent scaling in 3D
  • As is often assumed, the average performance cost of 3Dvision is 50%, or a halving of fps. This is in single-GPU mode. In SLI mode, this cost is a little lower on average.



Very very very awesome! You know what is missing there? 2D Surround and 3D Surround where the SLI scaling will really kick of;)) I don't have all those games to replicate the benchmark...
But!!!! You could try (if you feel like it ^_^) to downsample and see the results:D that would be something really interesting to see:D

I can't exactly find it right now..but I read a few months ago a GTX 780ti vs 2x780Ti and the SLI was practically worthless on those cards at 1920p. However going in Surround and 4k it was massively improving the framerates.

I think downsampling is as close as you can get. (If you want it I can make a couple of tests in 2D/3D Surround but ofc I have different hardware inside so I don't know how relevant it will be )

Again awesome testing!!!

1x Palit RTX 2080Ti Pro Gaming OC(watercooled and overclocked to hell)
3x 3D Vision Ready Asus VG278HE monitors (5760x1080).
Intel i9 9900K (overclocked to 5.3 and watercooled ofc).
Asus Maximus XI Hero Mobo.
16 GB Team Group T-Force Dark Pro DDR4 @ 3600.
Lots of Disks:
- Raid 0 - 256GB Sandisk Extreme SSD.
- Raid 0 - WD Black - 2TB.
- SanDisk SSD PLUS 480 GB.
- Intel 760p 256GB M.2 PCIe NVMe SSD.
Creative Sound Blaster Z.
Windows 10 x64 Pro.
etc


My website with my fixes and OpenGL to 3D Vision wrapper:
http://3dsurroundgaming.com

(If you like some of the stuff that I've done and want to donate something, you can do it with PayPal at tavyhome@gmail.com)

#7
Posted 05/06/2014 05:48 PM   
Mafia 2 - 1080p, 8x SGSSAA 2D SLI +91 % 3D SLI +116 % 2D: [url=http://abload.de/image.php?img=mafia2_sli_offpijwq.png][img]http://abload.de/thumb/mafia2_sli_offpijwq.png[/img][/url] [url=http://abload.de/image.php?img=mafia2_sli_ony3jba.png][img]http://abload.de/thumb/mafia2_sli_ony3jba.png[/img][/url] settings: [url=http://abload.de/image.php?img=mafia2_settingsh1jut.png][img]http://abload.de/thumb/mafia2_settingsh1jut.png[/img][/url] 3D: [url=http://abload.de/image.php?img=mafia2_s3d_sli_offcdkn3.png][img]http://abload.de/thumb/mafia2_s3d_sli_offcdkn3.png[/img][/url] [url=http://abload.de/image.php?img=mafia2_s3d_sli_onlqj79.png][img]http://abload.de/thumb/mafia2_s3d_sli_onlqj79.png[/img][/url] profile: [url=http://abload.de/image.php?img=mafia2profileukjn2.png][img]http://abload.de/thumb/mafia2profileukjn2.png[/img][/url]
Mafia 2 - 1080p, 8x SGSSAA

2D SLI +91 %
3D SLI +116 %

2D: Image Image settings: Image

3D: Image Image profile: Image

NVIDIA TITAN X (Pascal), Intel Core i7-6900K, Win 10 Pro,
ASUS ROG Rampage V Edition 10, G.Skill RipJaws V 4x 8GB DDR4-3200 CL14-14-14-34,
ASUS ROG Swift PG258Q, ASUS ROG Swift PG278Q, Acer Predator XB280HK, BenQ W710ST

#8
Posted 05/06/2014 06:43 PM   
Thanks Volnaiskra, Bo3b and I were having a discussion regarding the drop in performance suffered due to S3D. I seemed to be getting ~35% average across the board while most others pointed out they were getting a 50% drop. I regret not having the time not to investigate it further myself, and eventually the thread died. Bo3b did make an interesting observation however, which was that one should be measuring the minimum fps rather than the average fps, which is a valid point even if it is one which I don't completely agree with. Also, for those of us who use a 3D projector which is limited to a painful 1280x720 resolution, SGSSAA is a godsend, and this is where SLI truly shines as Kingping1 has noted above. Thanks for the results. I found them to be odly satisfying to my curiosity. -- Shahzad.
Thanks Volnaiskra,

Bo3b and I were having a discussion regarding the drop in performance suffered due to S3D. I seemed to be getting ~35% average across the board while most others pointed out they were getting a 50% drop.

I regret not having the time not to investigate it further myself, and eventually the thread died.

Bo3b did make an interesting observation however, which was that one should be measuring the minimum fps rather than the average fps, which is a valid point even if it is one which I don't completely agree with.

Also, for those of us who use a 3D projector which is limited to a painful 1280x720 resolution, SGSSAA is a godsend, and this is where SLI truly shines as Kingping1 has noted above.

Thanks for the results. I found them to be odly satisfying to my curiosity.

-- Shahzad.

Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.

#9
Posted 05/07/2014 12:14 AM   
scaling comparison is fun and all, but even perfect scaling won't remedy the perfomrance hit brought about by 3D vision, especially in 3D surround.
scaling comparison is fun and all, but even perfect scaling won't remedy the perfomrance hit brought about by 3D vision, especially in 3D surround.

epenny size =/= nerdiness

#10
Posted 05/07/2014 01:01 AM   
[quote="SnickerSnack"]I was playing the Arkham Origins DLC...........there ended up being very little discernable difference in performance - FPS was consistent and quite playable in 3D using one GPU. [/quote]Yes, the SLI scaling in Arkham Origins is pretty poor overall. In my earlier blog post about PhysX, I actually found that I got better FPS if I disabled SLI and devoted my 2nd card to PhysX! [quote]Anywho.. one other thing I would like someone to verify someday is whether or not increased convergence results in a decrease in performance. I could SWEAR that when I crank up convergence in some games it impacts my FPS just slightly. I simply don't have the desire to spend the time to try and verify it. [/quote]This is actually on my list, as I've wondered myself. I suspect that it'd be a little like increasing FOV, in that it would slightly increase the GPU load by increasing the amount of geometry on-screen. [quote="helifax"] You know what is missing there? 2D Surround and 3D Surround where the SLI scaling will really kick of;)) I don't have all those games to replicate the benchmark...[/quote] I can't test for that, as my current setup isn't Surround-capable. My gaming PC has only two monitors, and one of them is in portrait mode. If you ever decide to do tests like that, and have nowhere to publish them, then I'd be happy to put them on my blog. [quote="Kingping1"]Tomb Raider (2013) - 1080p, ultimate quality, ultra shadows, 4x SSAA, vsync: force off SLI scaling: +99 % [url=http://abload.de/image.php?img=tombraider_s3d_sli_ofc1rer.png][img]http://abload.de/thumb/tombraider_s3d_sli_ofc1rer.png[/img][/url] [url=http://abload.de/image.php?img=tombraider_s3d_sli_onefo1k.png][img]http://abload.de/thumb/tombraider_s3d_sli_onefo1k.png[/img][/url] [/quote] Interesting. We have similar systems, so I wonder where the huge discrepancy comes from. I'm wondering now whether I used 4xSSAA or 2xSSAA. I'll check when I get home. Otherwise, I'd think it has to be something to do with control panel settings (forced transparency supersampling, maximum pre-rendered frames, etc.). Or maybe an in-game setting. Exclusive fullscreen perhaps? I've heard that disabling exclusive fullscreenm makes a big difference in SLI (ie. by making TressFX no longer broken). I didn't know this at the time, and I believe had exclusive fullscreen set to on (and tressFX was broken). As for the Mafia II tests, I'm assuming that SGSSAA is responsible for the huge diffrence in 2D SLI, as RAGEdemon said. Though how many tests did you do in Mafia II? It's a very unreliable benchmark, and in my experience, the first run is always significantly different to the later ones. It produces weird maximum framerates, too. [quote="RAGEdemon"]Thanks Volnaiskra, Bo3b did make an interesting observation however, which was that one should be measuring the minimum fps rather than the average fps, which is a valid point even if it is one which I don't completely agree with.[/quote] I agree with Bo3b in theory, but I don't think it works well in practice. While gaming, minimum framerates *are* probably the most important, because they're the lags and dips that you notice most of all, and that most hurt your immersion. Also, they tend to happen during the most most action-packed and/or spectacular parts of a game, which is when you most crave smooth performance. The problem is that by looking at minimum framerates in testing, you're essentially basing your findings on outliers. All it takes is a single dip or hiccup to tarnish an otherwise impeccable 60fps run. If there was a way to capture all of the dips and low-points of a run and average them, then that would be very helpful. But measuring only the single lowest point just distorts the findings too much. To have any hope of accurately measuring minimum framerates, you'd have to do a LOT of passes. I've done testing in Metro Last Light where I was routinely doing 6 passes in each configuration. Even then, the minimum framerates were very unpredictable. You'd have a brilliant run that just had one unlucky freeze which would give a minimum framerate of 2fps, and then a spluttering, stuttering run that would give you a minimum framerate of 8fps.
SnickerSnack said:I was playing the Arkham Origins DLC...........there ended up being very little discernable difference in performance - FPS was consistent and quite playable in 3D using one GPU.
Yes, the SLI scaling in Arkham Origins is pretty poor overall. In my earlier blog post about PhysX, I actually found that I got better FPS if I disabled SLI and devoted my 2nd card to PhysX!

Anywho.. one other thing I would like someone to verify someday is whether or not increased convergence results in a decrease in performance. I could SWEAR that when I crank up convergence in some games it impacts my FPS just slightly. I simply don't have the desire to spend the time to try and verify it.
This is actually on my list, as I've wondered myself. I suspect that it'd be a little like increasing FOV, in that it would slightly increase the GPU load by increasing the amount of geometry on-screen.


helifax said: You know what is missing there? 2D Surround and 3D Surround where the SLI scaling will really kick of;)) I don't have all those games to replicate the benchmark...
I can't test for that, as my current setup isn't Surround-capable. My gaming PC has only two monitors, and one of them is in portrait mode.

If you ever decide to do tests like that, and have nowhere to publish them, then I'd be happy to put them on my blog.

Kingping1 said:Tomb Raider (2013) - 1080p, ultimate quality, ultra shadows, 4x SSAA, vsync: force off

SLI scaling: +99 %

Image Image


Interesting. We have similar systems, so I wonder where the huge discrepancy comes from. I'm wondering now whether I used 4xSSAA or 2xSSAA. I'll check when I get home. Otherwise, I'd think it has to be something to do with control panel settings (forced transparency supersampling, maximum pre-rendered frames, etc.).

Or maybe an in-game setting. Exclusive fullscreen perhaps? I've heard that disabling exclusive fullscreenm makes a big difference in SLI (ie. by making TressFX no longer broken). I didn't know this at the time, and I believe had exclusive fullscreen set to on (and tressFX was broken).


As for the Mafia II tests, I'm assuming that SGSSAA is responsible for the huge diffrence in 2D SLI, as RAGEdemon said. Though how many tests did you do in Mafia II? It's a very unreliable benchmark, and in my experience, the first run is always significantly different to the later ones. It produces weird maximum framerates, too.


RAGEdemon said:Thanks Volnaiskra,
Bo3b did make an interesting observation however, which was that one should be measuring the minimum fps rather than the average fps, which is a valid point even if it is one which I don't completely agree with.


I agree with Bo3b in theory, but I don't think it works well in practice.

While gaming, minimum framerates *are* probably the most important, because they're the lags and dips that you notice most of all, and that most hurt your immersion. Also, they tend to happen during the most most action-packed and/or spectacular parts of a game, which is when you most crave smooth performance.

The problem is that by looking at minimum framerates in testing, you're essentially basing your findings on outliers. All it takes is a single dip or hiccup to tarnish an otherwise impeccable 60fps run. If there was a way to capture all of the dips and low-points of a run and average them, then that would be very helpful. But measuring only the single lowest point just distorts the findings too much.

To have any hope of accurately measuring minimum framerates, you'd have to do a LOT of passes. I've done testing in Metro Last Light where I was routinely doing 6 passes in each configuration. Even then, the minimum framerates were very unpredictable. You'd have a brilliant run that just had one unlucky freeze which would give a minimum framerate of 2fps, and then a spluttering, stuttering run that would give you a minimum framerate of 8fps.

ImageVolnaPC.com - Tips, tweaks, performance comparisons (PhysX card, SLI scaling, etc)

#11
Posted 05/07/2014 07:27 AM   
You guys, don't do the same mistake than me, don't upgrade to windows 8.1. SLI doesn't work with 3D vision in Windows 8.1. :(
You guys, don't do the same mistake than me, don't upgrade to windows 8.1.

SLI doesn't work with 3D vision in Windows 8.1. :(

#12
Posted 05/08/2014 01:00 AM   
[quote="Johnlennon07"]You guys, don't do the same mistake than me, don't upgrade to windows 8.1. SLI doesn't work with 3D vision in Windows 8.1. :([/quote] Don't worry, I plan on skipping Windows 8 altogether.
Johnlennon07 said:You guys, don't do the same mistake than me, don't upgrade to windows 8.1.

SLI doesn't work with 3D vision in Windows 8.1. :(


Don't worry, I plan on skipping Windows 8 altogether.

|CPU: i7-2700k @ 4.5Ghz
|Cooler: Zalman 9900 Max
|MB: MSI Military Class II Z68 GD-80
|RAM: Corsair Vengence 16GB DDR3
|SSDs: Seagate 600 240GB; Crucial M4 128GB
|HDDs: Seagate Barracuda 1TB; Seagate Barracuda 500GB
|PS: OCZ ZX Series 1250watt
|Case: Antec 1200 V3
|Monitors: Asus 3D VG278HE; Asus 3D VG236H; Samsung 3D 51" Plasma;
|GPU:MSI 1080GTX "Duke"
|OS: Windows 10 Pro X64

#13
Posted 05/08/2014 12:49 PM   
As far as I know 3D vision is limited to 60hz vsynced which makes some of your values pretty strange. 2D can obviously use vsync or run without vsync with huge effect on fps.
As far as I know 3D vision is limited to 60hz vsynced which makes some of your values pretty strange.

2D can obviously use vsync or run without vsync with huge effect on fps.

Thanks to everybody using my assembler it warms my heart.
To have a critical piece of code that everyone can enjoy!
What more can you ask for?

donations: ulfjalmbrant@hotmail.com

#14
Posted 05/08/2014 09:52 PM   
[quote="Flugan"]As far as I know 3D vision is limited to 60hz vsynced which makes some of your values pretty strange. 2D can obviously use vsync or run without vsync with huge effect on fps.[/quote]I'm not sure what you mean. Vysnc was off in all of these tests
Flugan said:As far as I know 3D vision is limited to 60hz vsynced which makes some of your values pretty strange.

2D can obviously use vsync or run without vsync with huge effect on fps.
I'm not sure what you mean. Vysnc was off in all of these tests

ImageVolnaPC.com - Tips, tweaks, performance comparisons (PhysX card, SLI scaling, etc)

#15
Posted 05/09/2014 02:54 AM   
  1 / 3    
Scroll To Top