GTX 295 QUAD SLI and CD 1.23 Need to get this one going properly.
  1 / 2    
With CD 1.23, I finally get my QUAD SLI bars going with 3D vision enabled.

However, it's not playable in the games I tried last night. I would really like to see Nvidia get this working properly. Perhaps if folks can list their games here that they have tried this would be some good feedback for Nvidia. I think as the modern titles keep pouring out, we are going to NEED Quad SLI working right if we want to play at 1080p with all things turned on w/ 3D vision enabled. If you're like me, you're already invested a heckuva lot in x2 GTX 295's, so these need to last for a good while. (I have no interest in FERMI until I get my money's worth out of these boys.)

My Rig:
Intel i7 920 @ 4.2 GHz
EVGA X58 Classified Hydro-copper
EVGA x2 GTX 295
6 Gb Ram
Windows 7 Ultimate x64

Quad SLI enabled, 3d Vision enabled (SLI Bar indicator ON)
Aliens vs. Predator 3: 35 fps
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2: 10-15 fps (this one is the worst)
Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth: 20 fps w/massive input lag

I'll try more tonight and add to this list as I go on. Please contribute QUAD SLI folks.
With CD 1.23, I finally get my QUAD SLI bars going with 3D vision enabled.



However, it's not playable in the games I tried last night. I would really like to see Nvidia get this working properly. Perhaps if folks can list their games here that they have tried this would be some good feedback for Nvidia. I think as the modern titles keep pouring out, we are going to NEED Quad SLI working right if we want to play at 1080p with all things turned on w/ 3D vision enabled. If you're like me, you're already invested a heckuva lot in x2 GTX 295's, so these need to last for a good while. (I have no interest in FERMI until I get my money's worth out of these boys.)



My Rig:

Intel i7 920 @ 4.2 GHz

EVGA X58 Classified Hydro-copper

EVGA x2 GTX 295

6 Gb Ram

Windows 7 Ultimate x64



Quad SLI enabled, 3d Vision enabled (SLI Bar indicator ON)

Aliens vs. Predator 3: 35 fps

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2: 10-15 fps (this one is the worst)

Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth: 20 fps w/massive input lag



I'll try more tonight and add to this list as I go on. Please contribute QUAD SLI folks.

#1
Posted 03/23/2010 02:34 PM   
maybe you missed this
[url="http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=163273"]http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=163273[/url]
good luck getting quad sli to work- its never going to happen. nvidia just cant pull it off. check out my posts in the above thread for game testing. the new drivers are even worse than the last ones. we have been begging them for over a year now and quad still sucks.

the only way i could get my games to run good again is by turning off quad sli in nhancers global and game profile. its sad that i get better perfomance with quad sli off than on in most games that used to work great maxxed out. even games that used to work are now totally slow. quad is a total waist of money if you want to play in 3d.
maybe you missed this

http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=163273

good luck getting quad sli to work- its never going to happen. nvidia just cant pull it off. check out my posts in the above thread for game testing. the new drivers are even worse than the last ones. we have been begging them for over a year now and quad still sucks.



the only way i could get my games to run good again is by turning off quad sli in nhancers global and game profile. its sad that i get better perfomance with quad sli off than on in most games that used to work great maxxed out. even games that used to work are now totally slow. quad is a total waist of money if you want to play in 3d.

System:

Intel I7 920 overclocked to 4ghz

Asus Rampage Extreme II

2 Ge-force 480 in SLI

GTX 295 PhysX Card

12gb ddr3 2000mhz ram

Intel SSD in RAID 0

BR RW

1000w Sony surround sound

NVIDIA 3D Vision



3d displays tested:



Mitsubishi 65" DLP 3d HDTV (good old 1080p checkerboard since 2007!!!)

Panasonic VT25 (nice 2d but I returned it due to cross talk)

Acer H5360 720p on 130" screen (the best 3d)

23" Acer LCD monitor (horrible cross talk- sold it)

Samsung 65D8000

#2
Posted 03/24/2010 06:59 AM   
[quote name='photios' post='1025383' date='Mar 23 2010, 03:34 PM']With CD 1.23, I finally get my QUAD SLI bars going with 3D vision enabled.

However, it's not playable in the games I tried last night. I would really like to see Nvidia get this working properly. Perhaps if folks can list their games here that they have tried this would be some good feedback for Nvidia. I think as the modern titles keep pouring out, we are going to NEED Quad SLI working right if we want to play at 1080p with all things turned on w/ 3D vision enabled. If you're like me, you're already invested a heckuva lot in x2 GTX 295's, so these need to last for a good while. (I have no interest in FERMI until I get my money's worth out of these boys.)

My Rig:
Intel i7 920 @ 4.2 GHz
EVGA X58 Classified Hydro-copper
EVGA x2 GTX 295
6 Gb Ram
Windows 7 Ultimate x64

Quad SLI enabled, 3d Vision enabled (SLI Bar indicator ON)
Aliens vs. Predator 3: 35 fps
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2: 10-15 fps (this one is the worst)
Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth: 20 fps w/massive input lag

I'll try more tonight and add to this list as I go on. Please contribute QUAD SLI folks.[/quote]
I one of the unlucky quad sli owners that invested in the
cards and for a year I only used one.

The only game that gave me a performance boost with
quad sli is bad company 2, so whatever happens I that game
that take use of the cards must be done with other games.
[quote name='photios' post='1025383' date='Mar 23 2010, 03:34 PM']With CD 1.23, I finally get my QUAD SLI bars going with 3D vision enabled.



However, it's not playable in the games I tried last night. I would really like to see Nvidia get this working properly. Perhaps if folks can list their games here that they have tried this would be some good feedback for Nvidia. I think as the modern titles keep pouring out, we are going to NEED Quad SLI working right if we want to play at 1080p with all things turned on w/ 3D vision enabled. If you're like me, you're already invested a heckuva lot in x2 GTX 295's, so these need to last for a good while. (I have no interest in FERMI until I get my money's worth out of these boys.)



My Rig:

Intel i7 920 @ 4.2 GHz

EVGA X58 Classified Hydro-copper

EVGA x2 GTX 295

6 Gb Ram

Windows 7 Ultimate x64



Quad SLI enabled, 3d Vision enabled (SLI Bar indicator ON)

Aliens vs. Predator 3: 35 fps

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2: 10-15 fps (this one is the worst)

Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth: 20 fps w/massive input lag



I'll try more tonight and add to this list as I go on. Please contribute QUAD SLI folks.

I one of the unlucky quad sli owners that invested in the

cards and for a year I only used one.



The only game that gave me a performance boost with

quad sli is bad company 2, so whatever happens I that game

that take use of the cards must be done with other games.

#3
Posted 03/24/2010 09:14 AM   
[quote name='DanielJoy' post='1025882' date='Mar 24 2010, 12:59 AM']maybe you missed this
[url="http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=163273"]http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=163273[/url]
good luck getting quad sli to work- its never going to happen. nvidia just cant pull it off. check out my posts in the above thread for game testing. the new drivers are even worse than the last ones. we have been begging them for over a year now and quad still sucks.

the only way i could get my games to run good again is by turning off quad sli in nhancers global and game profile. its sad that i get better perfomance with quad sli off than on in most games that used to work great maxxed out. even games that used to work are now totally slow. quad is a total waist of money if you want to play in 3d.[/quote]

I saw it, but I didn't feel like the topic was narrow enough. It seemed like it discussed the drivers in general and not particular enough ONLY to QUAD SLI.

What you say is true, but it does pretty much nothing to actually get the problem solved. Saying they suck, or will never work, might seem apt to the way you feel about it, but it is hardly constructive.

First off, there was NO quad sli w/ 3D vision until CD 1.20. So we're basically talking about two driver iterations, hardly a project worth condemning.

Secondly, not many buy Quad SLI for 3D vision but to crush games that otherwise would not be able to run optimally 1080p max settings. As a business model, Nvidia has to pick and choose what they are going to implement in their driver path and do so carefully based on the resources they have. So, it's hardly a surprise that QUAD is the last to get implemented.

Thirdly, since QUAD SLI is starting to show its worth through the passing of time and more sophisticated games that come out.

Finally, it's probably still faster than x2 GTX 480's in regular SLI in DX 10 and DX9. On that margin, it still has valuable worth in potency. Hence, I feel little need to upgrade to Fermi (and would rather wait for the last gen of DX11 cards and/or DX12 cards). It's much easier to just keep the pressure on and do so cordially and constructively.
[quote name='DanielJoy' post='1025882' date='Mar 24 2010, 12:59 AM']maybe you missed this

http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=163273

good luck getting quad sli to work- its never going to happen. nvidia just cant pull it off. check out my posts in the above thread for game testing. the new drivers are even worse than the last ones. we have been begging them for over a year now and quad still sucks.



the only way i could get my games to run good again is by turning off quad sli in nhancers global and game profile. its sad that i get better perfomance with quad sli off than on in most games that used to work great maxxed out. even games that used to work are now totally slow. quad is a total waist of money if you want to play in 3d.



I saw it, but I didn't feel like the topic was narrow enough. It seemed like it discussed the drivers in general and not particular enough ONLY to QUAD SLI.



What you say is true, but it does pretty much nothing to actually get the problem solved. Saying they suck, or will never work, might seem apt to the way you feel about it, but it is hardly constructive.



First off, there was NO quad sli w/ 3D vision until CD 1.20. So we're basically talking about two driver iterations, hardly a project worth condemning.



Secondly, not many buy Quad SLI for 3D vision but to crush games that otherwise would not be able to run optimally 1080p max settings. As a business model, Nvidia has to pick and choose what they are going to implement in their driver path and do so carefully based on the resources they have. So, it's hardly a surprise that QUAD is the last to get implemented.



Thirdly, since QUAD SLI is starting to show its worth through the passing of time and more sophisticated games that come out.



Finally, it's probably still faster than x2 GTX 480's in regular SLI in DX 10 and DX9. On that margin, it still has valuable worth in potency. Hence, I feel little need to upgrade to Fermi (and would rather wait for the last gen of DX11 cards and/or DX12 cards). It's much easier to just keep the pressure on and do so cordially and constructively.

#4
Posted 03/24/2010 03:07 PM   
quad worked great for me with 1.20 and 3d vision in most titles. heck even the earlier drivers played batman better for me in 3d than the latest ones. 1.23 has crippled quad on my system. no need to debate my "quad sucks" comment- i was just being sarcastic. we have been asking nice for over a year- i guess im just done being nice. well see how you feel after another year playing your games with poorer performance than guys that payed half as much as you on graphics cards.

you might be right about quad being faster than 2 480's but that is just speculation on your part. I really doubt it- none of my games scale well at all on quad. i log my gpu usage and 30-40% is the best i ever see. sli scales very well and one 480 will hopefully destroy a 295 in performance (hopefully) so i think its logical to assume sli will be the better solution for 3d gaming. if the 480 is faster than a 295 then its pretty safe to assume sli 480 will offer significant performance improvement over a quad sli rig- due to quad scaling performance decrease.

the ATI Radeon HD 5870 beats the 295 in most benchmarks with high quality visuals enabled- so why is it wrong to assume that nvidia can at least meet if not beat ati's fastest single card solution? i understand you are probably not willing to shell out more money for a new graphics card solution- and want your quad sli set up to work- just dont hold your breath. i have personally experienced really poor performance with the quad sli setup and really doubt nvidia can get it working on a wide range of games- maybe one or two titles- but not most.

do some searching- quad sli since its conception has been the bane of gamers-offering little performance increase and many , many issues. I just wish i had researched it a bit more before i bought it.
quad worked great for me with 1.20 and 3d vision in most titles. heck even the earlier drivers played batman better for me in 3d than the latest ones. 1.23 has crippled quad on my system. no need to debate my "quad sucks" comment- i was just being sarcastic. we have been asking nice for over a year- i guess im just done being nice. well see how you feel after another year playing your games with poorer performance than guys that payed half as much as you on graphics cards.



you might be right about quad being faster than 2 480's but that is just speculation on your part. I really doubt it- none of my games scale well at all on quad. i log my gpu usage and 30-40% is the best i ever see. sli scales very well and one 480 will hopefully destroy a 295 in performance (hopefully) so i think its logical to assume sli will be the better solution for 3d gaming. if the 480 is faster than a 295 then its pretty safe to assume sli 480 will offer significant performance improvement over a quad sli rig- due to quad scaling performance decrease.



the ATI Radeon HD 5870 beats the 295 in most benchmarks with high quality visuals enabled- so why is it wrong to assume that nvidia can at least meet if not beat ati's fastest single card solution? i understand you are probably not willing to shell out more money for a new graphics card solution- and want your quad sli set up to work- just dont hold your breath. i have personally experienced really poor performance with the quad sli setup and really doubt nvidia can get it working on a wide range of games- maybe one or two titles- but not most.



do some searching- quad sli since its conception has been the bane of gamers-offering little performance increase and many , many issues. I just wish i had researched it a bit more before i bought it.

System:

Intel I7 920 overclocked to 4ghz

Asus Rampage Extreme II

2 Ge-force 480 in SLI

GTX 295 PhysX Card

12gb ddr3 2000mhz ram

Intel SSD in RAID 0

BR RW

1000w Sony surround sound

NVIDIA 3D Vision



3d displays tested:



Mitsubishi 65" DLP 3d HDTV (good old 1080p checkerboard since 2007!!!)

Panasonic VT25 (nice 2d but I returned it due to cross talk)

Acer H5360 720p on 130" screen (the best 3d)

23" Acer LCD monitor (horrible cross talk- sold it)

Samsung 65D8000

#5
Posted 03/24/2010 04:34 PM   
[quote name='DanielJoy' post='1026164' date='Mar 24 2010, 11:34 AM']quad worked great for me with 1.20 and 3d vision in most titles. heck even the earlier drivers played batman better for me in 3d than the latest ones. 1.23 has crippled quad on my system. no need to debate my "quad sucks" comment- i was just being sarcastic. we have been asking nice for over a year- i guess im just done being nice. well see how you feel after another year playing your games with poorer performance than guys that payed half as much as you on graphics cards.

you might be right about quad being faster than 2 480's but that is just speculation on your part. I really doubt it- none of my games scale well at all on quad. i log my gpu usage and 30-40% is the best i ever see. sli scales very well and one 480 will hopefully destroy a 295 in performance (hopefully) so i think its logical to assume sli will be the better solution for 3d gaming. if the 480 is faster than a 295 then its pretty safe to assume sli 480 will offer significant performance improvement over a quad sli rig- due to quad scaling performance decrease.

the ATI Radeon HD 5870 beats the 295 in most benchmarks with high quality visuals enabled- so why is it wrong to assume that nvidia can at least meet if not beat ati's fastest single card solution? i understand you are probably not willing to shell out more money for a new graphics card solution- and want your quad sli set up to work- just dont hold your breath. i have personally experienced really poor performance with the quad sli setup and really doubt nvidia can get it working on a wide range of games- maybe one or two titles- but not most.

do some searching- quad sli since its conception has been the bane of gamers-offering little performance increase and many , many issues. I just wish i had researched it a bit more before i bought it.[/quote]

So they say, but my QUAD SLI crushes everything in non-3D. There is NO comparison. Only issue I have is how its implemented in 3D. They have a problem to work out there. And no CD 1.20 didn't work with QUAD SLI albeit DX10, DX9 didn't even work period.

No I reject your assertion that the 5870 beats the 295, the 5970 does, but not the 5870.

[url="http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=318130"]http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=318130[/url]
[quote name='DanielJoy' post='1026164' date='Mar 24 2010, 11:34 AM']quad worked great for me with 1.20 and 3d vision in most titles. heck even the earlier drivers played batman better for me in 3d than the latest ones. 1.23 has crippled quad on my system. no need to debate my "quad sucks" comment- i was just being sarcastic. we have been asking nice for over a year- i guess im just done being nice. well see how you feel after another year playing your games with poorer performance than guys that payed half as much as you on graphics cards.



you might be right about quad being faster than 2 480's but that is just speculation on your part. I really doubt it- none of my games scale well at all on quad. i log my gpu usage and 30-40% is the best i ever see. sli scales very well and one 480 will hopefully destroy a 295 in performance (hopefully) so i think its logical to assume sli will be the better solution for 3d gaming. if the 480 is faster than a 295 then its pretty safe to assume sli 480 will offer significant performance improvement over a quad sli rig- due to quad scaling performance decrease.



the ATI Radeon HD 5870 beats the 295 in most benchmarks with high quality visuals enabled- so why is it wrong to assume that nvidia can at least meet if not beat ati's fastest single card solution? i understand you are probably not willing to shell out more money for a new graphics card solution- and want your quad sli set up to work- just dont hold your breath. i have personally experienced really poor performance with the quad sli setup and really doubt nvidia can get it working on a wide range of games- maybe one or two titles- but not most.



do some searching- quad sli since its conception has been the bane of gamers-offering little performance increase and many , many issues. I just wish i had researched it a bit more before i bought it.



So they say, but my QUAD SLI crushes everything in non-3D. There is NO comparison. Only issue I have is how its implemented in 3D. They have a problem to work out there. And no CD 1.20 didn't work with QUAD SLI albeit DX10, DX9 didn't even work period.



No I reject your assertion that the 5870 beats the 295, the 5970 does, but not the 5870.



http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=318130

#6
Posted 03/25/2010 02:35 PM   
No I reject your assertion that the 5870 beats the 295, the 5970 does, but not the 5870.

[url="http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=318130"]http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=318130[/url]
[/quote]

go check out the toms or any other legit review site on the 5870. the 295 can keep up with low visual settings in most games- but not at all with high visual settings in most games- heck even 3-way SLI beat quad sli because of scaling issues with high visual settings.

the link u provided shows a benchmark with none of the detail settings- or even the game type- and a gtx480 getting beat by the 295 and 5870 with drivers that are not even out yet- if its a real benchmark at all. Hardly much data to make conclusions with. plus the 295 is like two frames per second faster in that benchmark over the 5870! hardley a decisive win. factor in scaling issues and most games not even working in quad- and you can bet fermi sli will show up quad pretty bad.

if the benchmark u showed is real nvidia is in real trouble and wont be getting any $$ from me. we will see tomorrow!

quad does work ok in non 3d- thats true- but 1.20 had a few titles running great in 3d on my system with quad sli- im not making this up- i even posted benchmarks a month or so ago showing limited functionality.
No I reject your assertion that the 5870 beats the 295, the 5970 does, but not the 5870.



http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=318130





go check out the toms or any other legit review site on the 5870. the 295 can keep up with low visual settings in most games- but not at all with high visual settings in most games- heck even 3-way SLI beat quad sli because of scaling issues with high visual settings.



the link u provided shows a benchmark with none of the detail settings- or even the game type- and a gtx480 getting beat by the 295 and 5870 with drivers that are not even out yet- if its a real benchmark at all. Hardly much data to make conclusions with. plus the 295 is like two frames per second faster in that benchmark over the 5870! hardley a decisive win. factor in scaling issues and most games not even working in quad- and you can bet fermi sli will show up quad pretty bad.



if the benchmark u showed is real nvidia is in real trouble and wont be getting any $$ from me. we will see tomorrow!



quad does work ok in non 3d- thats true- but 1.20 had a few titles running great in 3d on my system with quad sli- im not making this up- i even posted benchmarks a month or so ago showing limited functionality.

System:

Intel I7 920 overclocked to 4ghz

Asus Rampage Extreme II

2 Ge-force 480 in SLI

GTX 295 PhysX Card

12gb ddr3 2000mhz ram

Intel SSD in RAID 0

BR RW

1000w Sony surround sound

NVIDIA 3D Vision



3d displays tested:



Mitsubishi 65" DLP 3d HDTV (good old 1080p checkerboard since 2007!!!)

Panasonic VT25 (nice 2d but I returned it due to cross talk)

Acer H5360 720p on 130" screen (the best 3d)

23" Acer LCD monitor (horrible cross talk- sold it)

Samsung 65D8000

#7
Posted 03/26/2010 12:18 AM   
[quote name='DanielJoy' post='1027129' date='Mar 25 2010, 07:18 PM']No I reject your assertion that the 5870 beats the 295, the 5970 does, but not the 5870.

[url="http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=318130"]http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=318130[/url]


go check out the toms or any other legit review site on the 5870. the 295 can keep up with low visual settings in most games- but not at all with high visual settings in most games- heck even 3-way SLI beat quad sli because of scaling issues with high visual settings.

the link u provided shows a benchmark with none of the detail settings- or even the game type- and a gtx480 getting beat by the 295 and 5870 with drivers that are not even out yet- if its a real benchmark at all. Hardly much data to make conclusions with. plus the 295 is like two frames per second faster in that benchmark over the 5870! hardley a decisive win. factor in scaling issues and most games not even working in quad- and you can bet fermi sli will show up quad pretty bad.

if the benchmark u showed is real nvidia is in real trouble and wont be getting any $$ from me. we will see tomorrow!

quad does work ok in non 3d- thats true- but 1.20 had a few titles running great in 3d on my system with quad sli- im not making this up- i even posted benchmarks a month or so ago showing limited functionality.[/quote]

Nope, sorry, I don't buy that either, because I already knew of those reviews and they are too baseline to be much of interest to me. The secret is that you have to get your CPU up around 3.8 or minimum 3.6 for QUAD SLI to show its teeth.

And speaking of Tom's here you go: [url="http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-5870,2422-13.html"]http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon...70,2422-13.html[/url]

The 295 beats the 5870 in High Quality and the 5870 beats the 295 as we turn up AF and/or the resolution past 1080p. Anybody with some experience at this point knows this is a limitation of the 295 because of the Ram per GPU. It only as 896 mb of graphics memory PER gpu whereas the 5870 has 1 gig. This shows Crysis in which the 5870 fairs the best. The rest of the games in the review either fair [u]worse [/u] for the 5870 to this example or roughly the same. Only (and I mean ONLY!) when the resolution is cranked past 1920 x 1200 does the 5870 have an advantage due to its 1 Gb of Ram, but then you are no longer comparing apples to apples and who really cares to play a game higher than 1920 x 1200. All in all the 295 qua GPU(s), is a faster product then the 5870 because its already a SLI'd application. And the reviewer here correctly has the CPU overclocked to 4.0 Ghz, which shows how well as single 295 will do.

Now I will grant you that 3-way SLI scales better than Quad SLI and will beat it on a baseline CPU GHz. This is due to the CPU not being able to supply enough data to the QUAD SLI for it to work optimally. As you turn up and overclock the CPU past 3.6, the game is over, and QUAD SLI muscles past it, even if it scales more poorly than the x3 GTX 285's. [url="http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-295,2123-4.html"]http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforc...295,2123-4.html[/url]

That review shows x3 GTX 280's getting beaten by QUAD SLI hands down, but the GTX 285 won't be enough either to blow past the 295. Any of that can be reproduced as well.


Have a look at the top rigs at EVGA. Commonality? They run Quad SLI with an I7 over 3.8 GHz.

Those things are key, otherwise, you are left giving stock-and-trade answers to problems that haven't been fully examined.

And no offense, but I've been doing this research and computer building since the 80's (yes I'm old). So I'm hardly green or a newcomer. Well I do give my money toward the GREEN guys because I think they have a better product all things considered. ;)

The 295 is a HELL of a product. They just need to get this implemented in 3D, because its still the fastest product Nvidia has to offer. We need it because the games are becoming more demanding and QUAD SLI is the only system that COULD muscle past it with max settings 1080p. Otherwise, we have to start turning things down or go buy x2 GTX 480's (which would probably be roughly the SAME). No good there partner. I choose the former.

You played out some good antagonism here and that's laudible, but I believe I have a little better edge here on the facts and experience. So instead of fighting with me about this issue and giving me hearsay or bland reviews that don't truly take advantage of the 295's power, go ahead and jump on my band wagon. They're not responding you say? We'll keep pushing and keep demanding. They'll get it. :)
[quote name='DanielJoy' post='1027129' date='Mar 25 2010, 07:18 PM']No I reject your assertion that the 5870 beats the 295, the 5970 does, but not the 5870.



http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=318130





go check out the toms or any other legit review site on the 5870. the 295 can keep up with low visual settings in most games- but not at all with high visual settings in most games- heck even 3-way SLI beat quad sli because of scaling issues with high visual settings.



the link u provided shows a benchmark with none of the detail settings- or even the game type- and a gtx480 getting beat by the 295 and 5870 with drivers that are not even out yet- if its a real benchmark at all. Hardly much data to make conclusions with. plus the 295 is like two frames per second faster in that benchmark over the 5870! hardley a decisive win. factor in scaling issues and most games not even working in quad- and you can bet fermi sli will show up quad pretty bad.



if the benchmark u showed is real nvidia is in real trouble and wont be getting any $$ from me. we will see tomorrow!



quad does work ok in non 3d- thats true- but 1.20 had a few titles running great in 3d on my system with quad sli- im not making this up- i even posted benchmarks a month or so ago showing limited functionality.



Nope, sorry, I don't buy that either, because I already knew of those reviews and they are too baseline to be much of interest to me. The secret is that you have to get your CPU up around 3.8 or minimum 3.6 for QUAD SLI to show its teeth.



And speaking of Tom's here you go: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon...70,2422-13.html



The 295 beats the 5870 in High Quality and the 5870 beats the 295 as we turn up AF and/or the resolution past 1080p. Anybody with some experience at this point knows this is a limitation of the 295 because of the Ram per GPU. It only as 896 mb of graphics memory PER gpu whereas the 5870 has 1 gig. This shows Crysis in which the 5870 fairs the best. The rest of the games in the review either fair worse for the 5870 to this example or roughly the same. Only (and I mean ONLY!) when the resolution is cranked past 1920 x 1200 does the 5870 have an advantage due to its 1 Gb of Ram, but then you are no longer comparing apples to apples and who really cares to play a game higher than 1920 x 1200. All in all the 295 qua GPU(s), is a faster product then the 5870 because its already a SLI'd application. And the reviewer here correctly has the CPU overclocked to 4.0 Ghz, which shows how well as single 295 will do.



Now I will grant you that 3-way SLI scales better than Quad SLI and will beat it on a baseline CPU GHz. This is due to the CPU not being able to supply enough data to the QUAD SLI for it to work optimally. As you turn up and overclock the CPU past 3.6, the game is over, and QUAD SLI muscles past it, even if it scales more poorly than the x3 GTX 285's. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforc...295,2123-4.html



That review shows x3 GTX 280's getting beaten by QUAD SLI hands down, but the GTX 285 won't be enough either to blow past the 295. Any of that can be reproduced as well.





Have a look at the top rigs at EVGA. Commonality? They run Quad SLI with an I7 over 3.8 GHz.



Those things are key, otherwise, you are left giving stock-and-trade answers to problems that haven't been fully examined.



And no offense, but I've been doing this research and computer building since the 80's (yes I'm old). So I'm hardly green or a newcomer. Well I do give my money toward the GREEN guys because I think they have a better product all things considered. ;)



The 295 is a HELL of a product. They just need to get this implemented in 3D, because its still the fastest product Nvidia has to offer. We need it because the games are becoming more demanding and QUAD SLI is the only system that COULD muscle past it with max settings 1080p. Otherwise, we have to start turning things down or go buy x2 GTX 480's (which would probably be roughly the SAME). No good there partner. I choose the former.



You played out some good antagonism here and that's laudible, but I believe I have a little better edge here on the facts and experience. So instead of fighting with me about this issue and giving me hearsay or bland reviews that don't truly take advantage of the 295's power, go ahead and jump on my band wagon. They're not responding you say? We'll keep pushing and keep demanding. They'll get it. :)

#8
Posted 03/26/2010 03:49 PM   
Great post Photios. I am on the fence whther to go Quad SLI or single fermi. Seems like Quad SLI and 3D just aren't happening. If it happened today I would head to EBAY to buy a second 295. Do you think a Quad SLi can hang with a SLI Fermi?
Great post Photios. I am on the fence whther to go Quad SLI or single fermi. Seems like Quad SLI and 3D just aren't happening. If it happened today I would head to EBAY to buy a second 295. Do you think a Quad SLi can hang with a SLI Fermi?

4770k @ 4.2 Water cooled
32 Gigs DDR 3 2400
GTX Titan X SLI
Obsidian 800D
EVGA 1300 watt
1 Terabyte SSD raid 0
ASUS 27 inch 3D monitor 3D vision 2.

#9
Posted 03/26/2010 04:19 PM   
no offense taken. You are clearly very smart and thoughtful and i do appreciate your opinion- but dude you kinda shot yourself in the foot with this comment:

"The 295 beats the 5870 in High Quality and the 5870 beats the 295 as we turn up AF and/or the resolution past 1080p. Anybody with some experience at this point knows this is a limitation of the 295 because of the Ram per GPU. It only as 896 mb of graphics memory PER gpu whereas the 5870 has 1 gig. This shows Crysis in which the 5870 fairs the best."

what do you think gaming at 16xq AA with 3d vision on does to the memory limited quad 295? doesn't 3d require more resolution? Personally on my system at 1080p which i game at- that the system comes to a standstill.

lets look at those benchmark results at 1900*1200 which were tested on a 4ghz cup. crysis- 5870 wins. in stalker- they are tied. far cry2- 295 wins. left for dead2 - 5870 wins. world in conflict- 295 wins (but ati only runs 4xaa which is a big advantage for the memory limited 295). Hawx -295 wins. RE5- the 5870 wins. GTA iv- is pretty much a tie.

seems to me like we are both splitting hairs. the 295 and the 5870 are evenly matched in these games until the settings get cranked up. Personally i run much higher settings on my system than the Toms reviewers do. this is a rather old benchmark and does not show newer titles or 3d games. results have allot to do with how a individual likes to run the visual quality settings. i have personally run into issues running the settings i like to run with my quad sli set up. Others might not care about running lower settings to get smooth game play. I get cyrsis to choke at 1080p on my system with 16xq AA. also shattered horizon runs terrible on the quad sli- i have to run medium settings to get the game playable. The cards simply run out of resolution. so in a way we are both right- it just depends on the settings.

Time will tell if the 480 sli will run better than a 295 quad. im betting it will due to the scaling issue- and my hope that it is faster than a single 295. Im of the opinion that 480 will be much better in 3d because sli is much easier to implement that quad sli on the driver level (this seems proven to me because quad still wont work)- so the 480 sli should instantly work with really high graphics settings. Ill be sure to let people know. im planning on doing thorough benchmarks with the quad and then with the 480 in 3d.

I do want to see our quad sli set ups running great- ill stop distracting from the point of your thread- and join your bandwagon.
no offense taken. You are clearly very smart and thoughtful and i do appreciate your opinion- but dude you kinda shot yourself in the foot with this comment:



"The 295 beats the 5870 in High Quality and the 5870 beats the 295 as we turn up AF and/or the resolution past 1080p. Anybody with some experience at this point knows this is a limitation of the 295 because of the Ram per GPU. It only as 896 mb of graphics memory PER gpu whereas the 5870 has 1 gig. This shows Crysis in which the 5870 fairs the best."



what do you think gaming at 16xq AA with 3d vision on does to the memory limited quad 295? doesn't 3d require more resolution? Personally on my system at 1080p which i game at- that the system comes to a standstill.



lets look at those benchmark results at 1900*1200 which were tested on a 4ghz cup. crysis- 5870 wins. in stalker- they are tied. far cry2- 295 wins. left for dead2 - 5870 wins. world in conflict- 295 wins (but ati only runs 4xaa which is a big advantage for the memory limited 295). Hawx -295 wins. RE5- the 5870 wins. GTA iv- is pretty much a tie.



seems to me like we are both splitting hairs. the 295 and the 5870 are evenly matched in these games until the settings get cranked up. Personally i run much higher settings on my system than the Toms reviewers do. this is a rather old benchmark and does not show newer titles or 3d games. results have allot to do with how a individual likes to run the visual quality settings. i have personally run into issues running the settings i like to run with my quad sli set up. Others might not care about running lower settings to get smooth game play. I get cyrsis to choke at 1080p on my system with 16xq AA. also shattered horizon runs terrible on the quad sli- i have to run medium settings to get the game playable. The cards simply run out of resolution. so in a way we are both right- it just depends on the settings.



Time will tell if the 480 sli will run better than a 295 quad. im betting it will due to the scaling issue- and my hope that it is faster than a single 295. Im of the opinion that 480 will be much better in 3d because sli is much easier to implement that quad sli on the driver level (this seems proven to me because quad still wont work)- so the 480 sli should instantly work with really high graphics settings. Ill be sure to let people know. im planning on doing thorough benchmarks with the quad and then with the 480 in 3d.



I do want to see our quad sli set ups running great- ill stop distracting from the point of your thread- and join your bandwagon.

System:

Intel I7 920 overclocked to 4ghz

Asus Rampage Extreme II

2 Ge-force 480 in SLI

GTX 295 PhysX Card

12gb ddr3 2000mhz ram

Intel SSD in RAID 0

BR RW

1000w Sony surround sound

NVIDIA 3D Vision



3d displays tested:



Mitsubishi 65" DLP 3d HDTV (good old 1080p checkerboard since 2007!!!)

Panasonic VT25 (nice 2d but I returned it due to cross talk)

Acer H5360 720p on 130" screen (the best 3d)

23" Acer LCD monitor (horrible cross talk- sold it)

Samsung 65D8000

#10
Posted 03/26/2010 06:15 PM   
[quote name='Siberian_Khatru' post='1027522' date='Mar 26 2010, 11:19 AM']Great post Photios. I am on the fence whther to go Quad SLI or single fermi. Seems like Quad SLI and 3D just aren't happening. If it happened today I would head to EBAY to buy a second 295. Do you think a Quad SLi can hang with a SLI Fermi?[/quote]

We don't know for sure if QUAD SLI is faster than SLI GTX480 or not. I suspect it still edges it in non-3D application and/or VIRTUALLY equivalent. We will see soon, I suspect that they are very very close, which from an economic/performance side I have nothing to gain from such a setup, except 2 points.

(1) It's possible that GTX 480 x2 SLI will work out of the box with 3D vision.

(2) DX 11.

Now, #1 can be overcome if Nvidia gets their coding right with their drivers. If you have it right in 2D, there's no reason it can't be implemented correctly in principle in 3D. So point #1 can be subtracted off if Nvidia wants to support those who have spent $1000 on video cards and love 3D vision (I do).

#2 can't be overcome to the limitation of the 200 series core, but I don't care enough to go to DX11 until I see it mature a couple generations of hardware. It's just not ENOUGH of an eye candy for me to swap out a $1000 x2 GTX 295 investment for another $1000 GTX 480 investment. That's just plain dumb no matter how much money you have (I have plenty).

So, having said that, I'll keep in touch on here when I see Nvidia get Quad SLI going properly on 3D.

And the goal is to get it right not just in some games but ALL games that are DX8, 9, and 10. So what do we do? Keep the hammer pressed.
[quote name='Siberian_Khatru' post='1027522' date='Mar 26 2010, 11:19 AM']Great post Photios. I am on the fence whther to go Quad SLI or single fermi. Seems like Quad SLI and 3D just aren't happening. If it happened today I would head to EBAY to buy a second 295. Do you think a Quad SLi can hang with a SLI Fermi?



We don't know for sure if QUAD SLI is faster than SLI GTX480 or not. I suspect it still edges it in non-3D application and/or VIRTUALLY equivalent. We will see soon, I suspect that they are very very close, which from an economic/performance side I have nothing to gain from such a setup, except 2 points.



(1) It's possible that GTX 480 x2 SLI will work out of the box with 3D vision.



(2) DX 11.



Now, #1 can be overcome if Nvidia gets their coding right with their drivers. If you have it right in 2D, there's no reason it can't be implemented correctly in principle in 3D. So point #1 can be subtracted off if Nvidia wants to support those who have spent $1000 on video cards and love 3D vision (I do).



#2 can't be overcome to the limitation of the 200 series core, but I don't care enough to go to DX11 until I see it mature a couple generations of hardware. It's just not ENOUGH of an eye candy for me to swap out a $1000 x2 GTX 295 investment for another $1000 GTX 480 investment. That's just plain dumb no matter how much money you have (I have plenty).



So, having said that, I'll keep in touch on here when I see Nvidia get Quad SLI going properly on 3D.



And the goal is to get it right not just in some games but ALL games that are DX8, 9, and 10. So what do we do? Keep the hammer pressed.

#11
Posted 03/26/2010 06:15 PM   
[quote name='DanielJoy' post='1027583' date='Mar 26 2010, 01:15 PM']no offense taken. You are clearly very smart and thoughtful and i do appreciate your opinion- but dude you kinda shot yourself in the foot with this comment:

"The 295 beats the 5870 in High Quality and the 5870 beats the 295 as we turn up AF and/or the resolution past 1080p. Anybody with some experience at this point knows this is a limitation of the 295 because of the Ram per GPU. It only as 896 mb of graphics memory PER gpu whereas the 5870 has 1 gig. This shows Crysis in which the 5870 fairs the best."

what do you think gaming at 16xq AA with 3d vision on does to the memory limited quad 295? doesn't 3d require more resolution? Personally on my system at 1080p which i game at- that the system comes to a standstill.

lets look at those benchmark results at 1900*1200 which were tested on a 4ghz cup. crysis- 5870 wins. in stalker- they are tied. far cry2- 295 wins. left for dead2 - 5870 wins. world in conflict- 295 wins (but ati only runs 4xaa which is a big advantage for the memory limited 295). Hawx -295 wins. RE5- the 5870 wins. GTA iv- is pretty much a tie.

seems to me like we are both splitting hairs. the 295 and the 5870 are evenly matched in these games until the settings get cranked up. Personally i run much higher settings on my system than the Toms reviewers do. this is a rather old benchmark and does not show newer titles or 3d games. results have allot to do with how a individual likes to run the visual quality settings. i have personally run into issues running the settings i like to run with my quad sli set up. Others might not care about running lower settings to get smooth game play. I get cyrsis to choke at 1080p on my system with 16xq AA. also shattered horizon runs terrible on the quad sli- i have to run medium settings to get the game playable. The cards simply run out of resolution. so in a way we are both right- it just depends on the settings.

Time will tell if the 480 sli will run better than a 295 quad. im betting it will due to the scaling issue- and my hope that it is faster than a single 295. Im of the opinion that 480 will be much better in 3d because sli is much easier to implement that quad sli on the driver level (this seems proven to me because quad still wont work)- so the 480 sli should instantly work with really high graphics settings. Ill be sure to let people know. im planning on doing thorough benchmarks with the quad and then with the 480 in 3d.

I do want to see our quad sli set ups running great- ill stop distracting from the point of your thread- and join your bandwagon.[/quote]

Daniel,
Hence your first problem, there is no reason given the ram that the 295 has to run it at 16xqAA. I think the gaming community as a whole pretty much recognizes that x4 AA and x8 AA (at the max) is the sweet spot, anything above that adds little to nothing to the aesthetical equation. This is why most of the benchmarks done are at x4 AA. To make better use of your card, and to not come to a stand still, I would simply run it what it was designed for: X4 or X8 at the most.

What you're doing, with your system, is basically pushing beyond the event-horizon of present capable computer hardware. None of the systems today are going to fair well with 16xqAA or 32xqAA with 3D vision ON in modern games running at or beyond 1920 x 1080. We just simply aren't there yet, nor do you have anything to gain in doing so other than being ABLE to do so. I will be very surprised if FERMI fairs any different.

You make some valid points, no doubt. My idea of what and how to compare the two cards is based on what I consider as [i]desireable settings[/i][u][/u] which the industry focuses and calls the "sweet" spot. These are the settings that are the [u]sine qua non[/u][b][/b] of "High Quality." Perhaps not the highest quality that you can possibly set the whole configuration at, but like all things we are discussing relative terms.

photios
[quote name='DanielJoy' post='1027583' date='Mar 26 2010, 01:15 PM']no offense taken. You are clearly very smart and thoughtful and i do appreciate your opinion- but dude you kinda shot yourself in the foot with this comment:



"The 295 beats the 5870 in High Quality and the 5870 beats the 295 as we turn up AF and/or the resolution past 1080p. Anybody with some experience at this point knows this is a limitation of the 295 because of the Ram per GPU. It only as 896 mb of graphics memory PER gpu whereas the 5870 has 1 gig. This shows Crysis in which the 5870 fairs the best."



what do you think gaming at 16xq AA with 3d vision on does to the memory limited quad 295? doesn't 3d require more resolution? Personally on my system at 1080p which i game at- that the system comes to a standstill.



lets look at those benchmark results at 1900*1200 which were tested on a 4ghz cup. crysis- 5870 wins. in stalker- they are tied. far cry2- 295 wins. left for dead2 - 5870 wins. world in conflict- 295 wins (but ati only runs 4xaa which is a big advantage for the memory limited 295). Hawx -295 wins. RE5- the 5870 wins. GTA iv- is pretty much a tie.



seems to me like we are both splitting hairs. the 295 and the 5870 are evenly matched in these games until the settings get cranked up. Personally i run much higher settings on my system than the Toms reviewers do. this is a rather old benchmark and does not show newer titles or 3d games. results have allot to do with how a individual likes to run the visual quality settings. i have personally run into issues running the settings i like to run with my quad sli set up. Others might not care about running lower settings to get smooth game play. I get cyrsis to choke at 1080p on my system with 16xq AA. also shattered horizon runs terrible on the quad sli- i have to run medium settings to get the game playable. The cards simply run out of resolution. so in a way we are both right- it just depends on the settings.



Time will tell if the 480 sli will run better than a 295 quad. im betting it will due to the scaling issue- and my hope that it is faster than a single 295. Im of the opinion that 480 will be much better in 3d because sli is much easier to implement that quad sli on the driver level (this seems proven to me because quad still wont work)- so the 480 sli should instantly work with really high graphics settings. Ill be sure to let people know. im planning on doing thorough benchmarks with the quad and then with the 480 in 3d.



I do want to see our quad sli set ups running great- ill stop distracting from the point of your thread- and join your bandwagon.



Daniel,

Hence your first problem, there is no reason given the ram that the 295 has to run it at 16xqAA. I think the gaming community as a whole pretty much recognizes that x4 AA and x8 AA (at the max) is the sweet spot, anything above that adds little to nothing to the aesthetical equation. This is why most of the benchmarks done are at x4 AA. To make better use of your card, and to not come to a stand still, I would simply run it what it was designed for: X4 or X8 at the most.



What you're doing, with your system, is basically pushing beyond the event-horizon of present capable computer hardware. None of the systems today are going to fair well with 16xqAA or 32xqAA with 3D vision ON in modern games running at or beyond 1920 x 1080. We just simply aren't there yet, nor do you have anything to gain in doing so other than being ABLE to do so. I will be very surprised if FERMI fairs any different.



You make some valid points, no doubt. My idea of what and how to compare the two cards is based on what I consider as desireable settings[/u] which the industry focuses and calls the "sweet" spot. These are the settings that are the [u]sine qua non[b][/b] of "High Quality." Perhaps not the highest quality that you can possibly set the whole configuration at, but like all things we are discussing relative terms.



photios

#12
Posted 03/26/2010 06:47 PM   
[quote name='photios' post='1027597' date='Mar 26 2010, 11:47 AM']Daniel,
Hence your first problem, there is no reason given the ram that the 295 has to run it at 16xqAA. I think the gaming community as a whole pretty much recognizes that x4 AA and x8 AA (at the max) is the sweet spot, anything above that adds little to nothing to the aesthetical equation. This is why most of the benchmarks done are at x4 AA. To make better use of your card, and to not come to a stand still, I would simply run it what it was designed for: X4 or X8 at the most.

What you're doing, with your system, is basically pushing beyond the event-horizon of present capable computer hardware. None of the systems today are going to fair well with 16xqAA or 32xqAA with 3D vision ON in modern games running at or beyond 1920 x 1080. We just simply aren't there yet, nor do you have anything to gain in doing so other than being ABLE to do so. I will be very surprised if FERMI fairs any different.

You make some valid points, no doubt. My idea of what and how to compare the two cards is based on what I consider as [i]desireable settings[/i][u][/u] which the industry focuses and calls the "sweet" spot. These are the settings that are the [u]sine qua non[/u][b][/b] of "High Quality." Perhaps not the highest quality that you can possibly set the whole configuration at, but like all things we are discussing relative terms.

photios[/quote]

very true. but i didnt pay 1000$ to not push the envelope on these cards. really- the system can handle the 16xq AA as long as 3d is not on. (exceptions crysis[works until the end of the game- then it chokes] and shattered horizon) . games look better to me at the higher settings. interestingly with cd 1.20 drivers batman, RE5 and all other 3d games used to run at 16xq in quad (or whatever the highest in game settings are for those games) along with all other 3d games i have. 1.23 has a major bug for quad sli- hopefully its just a driver fix away- since it used to work well enough in the last drivers. Obviously games that dont support 3d dont work very well at any setting in 3d (crysis and shattered horizon for example).

what is interesting to me is the just cause2 demo. i get wonderful scaling for this game- 80% + of 4 gpu's used along with the majority of the cpu- while running in 3d. i get to run the highest details including AA and AF in 3d with no slowdowns at all!! NO other game uses anywhere close to this amount of the gpu's. cyrsis or any other game is somewhere around 30-40 percent. i wish all games worked this well on quad. i haven't bought the full version yet so im not sure how well it works. i think its less of a hardware problem and more of a software problem (drivers and game creators) but who knows!
[quote name='photios' post='1027597' date='Mar 26 2010, 11:47 AM']Daniel,

Hence your first problem, there is no reason given the ram that the 295 has to run it at 16xqAA. I think the gaming community as a whole pretty much recognizes that x4 AA and x8 AA (at the max) is the sweet spot, anything above that adds little to nothing to the aesthetical equation. This is why most of the benchmarks done are at x4 AA. To make better use of your card, and to not come to a stand still, I would simply run it what it was designed for: X4 or X8 at the most.



What you're doing, with your system, is basically pushing beyond the event-horizon of present capable computer hardware. None of the systems today are going to fair well with 16xqAA or 32xqAA with 3D vision ON in modern games running at or beyond 1920 x 1080. We just simply aren't there yet, nor do you have anything to gain in doing so other than being ABLE to do so. I will be very surprised if FERMI fairs any different.



You make some valid points, no doubt. My idea of what and how to compare the two cards is based on what I consider as desireable settings[/u] which the industry focuses and calls the "sweet" spot. These are the settings that are the [u]sine qua non[b][/b] of "High Quality." Perhaps not the highest quality that you can possibly set the whole configuration at, but like all things we are discussing relative terms.



photios



very true. but i didnt pay 1000$ to not push the envelope on these cards. really- the system can handle the 16xq AA as long as 3d is not on. (exceptions crysis[works until the end of the game- then it chokes] and shattered horizon) . games look better to me at the higher settings. interestingly with cd 1.20 drivers batman, RE5 and all other 3d games used to run at 16xq in quad (or whatever the highest in game settings are for those games) along with all other 3d games i have. 1.23 has a major bug for quad sli- hopefully its just a driver fix away- since it used to work well enough in the last drivers. Obviously games that dont support 3d dont work very well at any setting in 3d (crysis and shattered horizon for example).



what is interesting to me is the just cause2 demo. i get wonderful scaling for this game- 80% + of 4 gpu's used along with the majority of the cpu- while running in 3d. i get to run the highest details including AA and AF in 3d with no slowdowns at all!! NO other game uses anywhere close to this amount of the gpu's. cyrsis or any other game is somewhere around 30-40 percent. i wish all games worked this well on quad. i haven't bought the full version yet so im not sure how well it works. i think its less of a hardware problem and more of a software problem (drivers and game creators) but who knows!

System:

Intel I7 920 overclocked to 4ghz

Asus Rampage Extreme II

2 Ge-force 480 in SLI

GTX 295 PhysX Card

12gb ddr3 2000mhz ram

Intel SSD in RAID 0

BR RW

1000w Sony surround sound

NVIDIA 3D Vision



3d displays tested:



Mitsubishi 65" DLP 3d HDTV (good old 1080p checkerboard since 2007!!!)

Panasonic VT25 (nice 2d but I returned it due to cross talk)

Acer H5360 720p on 130" screen (the best 3d)

23" Acer LCD monitor (horrible cross talk- sold it)

Samsung 65D8000

#13
Posted 03/26/2010 07:48 PM   
[quote name='DanielJoy' post='1027631' date='Mar 26 2010, 02:48 PM']very true. but i didnt pay 1000$ to not push the envelope on these cards. really- the system can handle the 16xq AA as long as 3d is not on. (exceptions crysis[works until the end of the game- then it chokes] and shattered horizon) . games look better to me at the higher settings. interestingly with cd 1.20 drivers batman, RE5 and all other 3d games used to run at 16xq in quad (or whatever the highest in game settings are for those games) along with all other 3d games i have. 1.23 has a major bug for quad sli- hopefully its just a driver fix away- since it used to work well enough in the last drivers. Obviously games that dont support 3d dont work very well at any setting in 3d (crysis and shattered horizon for example).

what is interesting to me is the just cause2 demo. i get wonderful scaling for this game- 80% + of 4 gpu's used along with the majority of the cpu- while running in 3d. i get to run the highest details including AA and AF in 3d with no slowdowns at all!! NO other game uses anywhere close to this amount of the gpu's. cyrsis or any other game is somewhere around 30-40 percent. i wish all games worked this well on quad. i haven't bought the full version yet so im not sure how well it works. i think its less of a hardware problem and more of a software problem (drivers and game creators) but who knows![/quote]

You may be right and it all may be how the software is implemented.
[quote name='DanielJoy' post='1027631' date='Mar 26 2010, 02:48 PM']very true. but i didnt pay 1000$ to not push the envelope on these cards. really- the system can handle the 16xq AA as long as 3d is not on. (exceptions crysis[works until the end of the game- then it chokes] and shattered horizon) . games look better to me at the higher settings. interestingly with cd 1.20 drivers batman, RE5 and all other 3d games used to run at 16xq in quad (or whatever the highest in game settings are for those games) along with all other 3d games i have. 1.23 has a major bug for quad sli- hopefully its just a driver fix away- since it used to work well enough in the last drivers. Obviously games that dont support 3d dont work very well at any setting in 3d (crysis and shattered horizon for example).



what is interesting to me is the just cause2 demo. i get wonderful scaling for this game- 80% + of 4 gpu's used along with the majority of the cpu- while running in 3d. i get to run the highest details including AA and AF in 3d with no slowdowns at all!! NO other game uses anywhere close to this amount of the gpu's. cyrsis or any other game is somewhere around 30-40 percent. i wish all games worked this well on quad. i haven't bought the full version yet so im not sure how well it works. i think its less of a hardware problem and more of a software problem (drivers and game creators) but who knows!



You may be right and it all may be how the software is implemented.

#14
Posted 03/26/2010 09:38 PM   
I've made a decision. My 295 is on Ebay as we speak and I will be taking the Daniel Joy route of buying 2 Gtx 480's and going SLI. I am tired of not being able to turn everything on and play in 3D at the same time. Judging by this thread and various others on the internet I just get a bad feeling about Quad Sli and 3D. I almost bought a 2nd 295 but I stopped myself. Thanks for all of your info guys. I appreciate it.
I've made a decision. My 295 is on Ebay as we speak and I will be taking the Daniel Joy route of buying 2 Gtx 480's and going SLI. I am tired of not being able to turn everything on and play in 3D at the same time. Judging by this thread and various others on the internet I just get a bad feeling about Quad Sli and 3D. I almost bought a 2nd 295 but I stopped myself. Thanks for all of your info guys. I appreciate it.

4770k @ 4.2 Water cooled
32 Gigs DDR 3 2400
GTX Titan X SLI
Obsidian 800D
EVGA 1300 watt
1 Terabyte SSD raid 0
ASUS 27 inch 3D monitor 3D vision 2.

#15
Posted 03/29/2010 04:28 PM   
  1 / 2    
Scroll To Top