Disappointed with my GTX 670 SLI

Wanted to run BF3 on a 120hz monitor and keep the framerate above 100fps?! Holy crap, I'm sure someone would have told you that it would be a fool's folly to accomplish that; 1700 dollars or not. I am sorry you're disappointed with your setup though, if you are too disappointed I would be happy to take it off your hands for ya :)
 
Am I the only one that has no sympathy for the OP. He's complaining about GTX 670 in SLI... Most people would love to have GTX 670s in SLI yet this dude is here complaining about it...I get it that he has 120 hertz monitor but still...he's playing a demanding game and expecting 120 FPS? Are we going to start complaining about Crysis 3 (when it's released) that it doesn't play 120 FPS? IMHO this thread just seems very superficial...
 
okay let me break it down for you guys one more time.

he bought a higher end sli setup hoping he could stay above 120 fps because he has a 120hz screen. once he saw that he could not do it, he lowered the settings but still could not maintain the magical 120 fps. some of us helped him realize that it was his cpu that was the limitation there and now he knows that. the OP has learned from this and really does not deserve some of the comments he is getting if you look at the context of the thread.
 
Not sure if people just have excessively high standards to claim that below 120fps is unplayable, or if I just have excessively low standards.

In all seriousness: I understand your disappointment to an extent, but remember that you have SLI 670's. Repeat that to yourself. You have one of the best gaming set-ups possible. Enjoy your rig what it is instead of bemoaning what it is not. Life's too short to spend it worrying about a few dropped frames.

Just my two cents. Good luck.
 
Just be glad you don't have one of those plasma screens with an advertised 600hz refresh. :D
You'd spend a fortune trying to hit that many fps!
On topic, I am curious to see how much (if any) improvement a higher OC on his processor will net.
Good luck OP and enjoy your rig.
 
DraginDime said:
Just be glad you don't have one of those plasma screens with an advertised 600hz refresh. :D
You'd spend a fortune trying to hit that many fps!
On topic, I am curious to see how much (if any) improvement a higher OC on his processor will net.
Good luck OP and enjoy your rig.
Click to expand...

off topic: they are not 600hz refresh, it's 600hz sub-field drive, meaning the screen is split into 10 sections, and each one is refreshed @ 60hz, the entire picture is still only being refreshed 60 times per second.

on topic: I had 7970 and 680 in SLI testing @ 120hz, I'm pretty sure @ 1920x1080 it was pretty close to 120fps, though I had a 2600K @ 4.8ghz, I think hyperthreading helps a bit in BF3.
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
off topic: they are not 600hz refresh, it's 600hz sub-field drive, meaning the screen is split into 10 sections, and each one is refreshed @ 60hz, the entire picture is still only being refreshed 60 times per second.

on topic: I had 7970 and 680 in SLI testing @ 120hz, I'm pretty sure @ 1920x1080 it was pretty close to 120fps, though I had a 2600K @ 4.8ghz, I think hyperthreading helps a bit in BF3.
Click to expand...

That's why I put "advertised" in there. Thanks for the info though, I wasn't aware of exactly how they came up with that number. It's amazing the sales hype people buy into (not that anyone here would do such a thing)
 
According to some reviews, Kepler performance is more CPU dependant than AMD"s current GPU line up as they removed the hardware scheduler from their GPU's and now the scheduler and the compiler runs on the CPU along with the compiler, kinda like AMD did with their previous generation of cards except that AMD has expertise in that regard for being a CPU company.
 
TroyX said:
im running c2q 9550 at 4ghz and my cores are only running 50-60% in bf3 with mesh on high, im not sure you know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...


Are you getting 120+ fps? No. Your CPU doesn't need to be at 100% usage to be CPU limited either. I'm not so sure you know what you're talking about.

For reference, I have 3-way 680's and 2700k at 5.1, and the only way to maintain 120+ fps on 64 player maps is to drop mesh quality to medium, which reduces the draw calls on the CPU.

I run at a solid 125fps cap, everything at ultra with 16xCSAA + 4xtrSSAA. The only setting that gives me more fps on my CPU limited config is dropping mesh quality. My CPU usage never approaches 100% either btw, but I am still CPU limited.
 
BababooeyHTJ said:
Its the same but you get used to the higher framerate so it may not feel as smooth.
Click to expand...

Not exactly, at 60fps on a 120hz display you get juddering and frame skipping like 30fps on a 60hz display. No matter the refresh rate of your display, you want a frame for every refresh for fluid motion with no juddering.
 
In those games, IPC matters more than multithreaded performance, that's why you don't see a 100% CPU usage and yet, you are CPU bottlenecked. Draw calls are a severe performance issue under DX9. Microsoft fixed it under DX10 and above and has much better multithreaded support.
 
Last edited:
If you want to keep FPS high, overclocking is what matters. Crank the GTX 670 SLI as high as they'll go and then drop in a 3770K @ 4.5GHz+ if you still aren't getting the frames you want.

For reference, I get ~60FPS average at 2560x1600 everything maxed in BF3, not sure what I get at 1080p.
 
evolucion8 said:
In those games, IPC matters more than multithreaded performance, that's why you don't see a 100% CPU usage and yet, you are CPU bottlenecked. Draw calls are a severe performance issue under DX9. Microsoft fixed it under DX10 and above and has much better multithreaded support.
Click to expand...

funny you say that, because BF3 is one of the few games that Bulldozer / PD do well with, and they have low IPC and are more aimed at multi-threaded loads.
 
I read a quad core i5/i7 at ~2.6 can handle roughly the same draw calls as the xbox360 CPU, meaning PC CPU's aren't really far ahead at all in that regard. Sure it's double with a 5GHz oc, but that isn't saying much against ~7 year old tech.

Mr. K6 said:
For reference, I get ~60FPS average at 2560x1600 everything maxed in BF3, not sure what I get at 1080p.
Click to expand...

A CPU to push 60fps in BF3 is no sweat, it's pushing 120+ that is difficult with ultra mesh quality on 64 player servers. I'm pretty close though, if Haswell has ~15% more IPC speed, and perhaps I can get a slightly higher oc than my 2700k too, it should be achievable to never drop under 120.
 
psy81 said:
Am I the only one that has no sympathy for the OP. He's complaining about GTX 670 in SLI... Most people would love to have GTX 670s in SLI yet this dude is here complaining about it...I get it that he has 120 hertz monitor but still...he's playing a demanding game and expecting 120 FPS? Are we going to start complaining about Crysis 3 (when it's released) that it doesn't play 120 FPS? IMHO this thread just seems very superficial...
Click to expand...

You kinda act like these cards dropped from the sky. Some people actually have to work for their shit.


Mr. K6 said:
If you want to keep FPS high, overclocking is what matters. Crank the GTX 670 SLI as high as they'll go and then drop in a 3770K @ 4.5GHz+ if you still aren't getting the frames you want.

For reference, I get ~60FPS average at 2560x1600 everything maxed in BF3, not sure what I get at 1080p.
Click to expand...

You sure as wouldn't get 120.
I was bottle necking at around 75-100fps(IIRC) with my 670 @1080
Nothing I lowered brought me closer to solid 120fps.
That said I was happy with those frames from one 670 however I see the Op's issue.

I now pull over 60fps @1440 which doesn't quite add up compared to 1080.
Moral to the story: As others said, very likely a cpu limitation.
 
evolucion8 said:
According to some reviews, Kepler performance is more CPU dependant than AMD"s current GPU line up as they removed the hardware scheduler from their GPU's and now the scheduler and the compiler runs on the CPU along with the compiler, kinda like AMD did with their previous generation of cards except that AMD has expertise in that regard for being a CPU company.
Click to expand...

Probably balanced out by the fact that AMD's drivers still don't even have proper support for multi-threaded rendering lol :rolleyes:

That's why with many games that are mostly CPU limited, like World of Warcraft, you have 660ti's beating 7970 Ghz editions.
 
Revdarian said:
Multithread rendering has to be supported by the game directly, and as far as i know the only game that does support it is Civilization V after a patch.

660ti's do not beat 7970's on WoW when you actually use it for the proper resolution:
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/EVGA/GTX_670_FTW_Signature_2/23.html
Click to expand...
It's still pretty far behind its average though. Typically the 7970 is on par with the GTX 680 but here it's behind by ~20%. I wonder what's up with AMD's drivers in that game.
 
Mr. K6 said:
It's still pretty far behind its average though. Typically the 7970 is on par with the GTX 680 but here it's behind by ~20%. I wonder what's up with AMD's drivers in that game.
Click to expand...

That game, and many many others. :( It's a shame because their hardware is good-looking and cheap, but the software support... especially crossfire... ugh!
 
JayJapanB said:
You sure as wouldn't get 120.
I was bottle necking at around 75-100fps(IIRC) with my 670 @1080
Nothing I lowered brought me closer to solid 120fps.
That said I was happy with those frames from one 670 however I see the Op's issue.

I now pull over 60fps @1440 which doesn't quite add up compared to 1080.
Moral to the story: As others said, very likely a cpu limitation.
Click to expand...
You only have an I7-920; he has a much faster CPU.
 
GoldenTiger said:
That game, and many many others. :( It's a shame because their hardware is good-looking and cheap, but the software support... especially crossfire... ugh!
Click to expand...
And there are just as many games where the 7970 is faster. That's why I said the GTX 680 and 7970 are on par, and the 7970 GHz is about 10% faster. And clearly SLI isn't much better considering the OP's and others opinions in this thread alone.
 
Mr. K6 said:
And there are just as many games where the 7970 is faster. That's why I said the GTX 680 and 7970 are on par, and the 7970 GHz is about 10% faster.
Click to expand...

The 7970 ghz is actually within a couple of percent in the vast majority of tests, which is even less impressive when you consider the ones it is 5% or so are literally 1-2 fps different, i.e. are a non-factor in actual gameplay. My comment had nothing to do with speed, though, I was referring to glitches, crappy profiles, microstutter, bad frametimes, etc. that plague the Radeon series of cards and have for generations.
 
GoldenTiger said:
The 7970 ghz is actually within a couple of percent in the vast majority of tests, which is even less impressive when you consider the ones it is 5% or so are literally 1-2 fps different, i.e. are a non-factor in actual gameplay. My comment had nothing to do with speed, though, I was referring to glitches, crappy profiles, microstutter, bad frametimes, etc. that plague the Radeon series of cards and have for generations.
Click to expand...
How about you take it easy on the koolaid. ;)
 
GoldenTiger said:
No koolaid required, K5. Go look at reviews for yourself. Many mention the same flaws I do, and I have tried them personally to see.
Click to expand...
You can't even spell my name correctly, why would I assume you can see benchmark scores either? Like I said, nvidia marketing did an excellent job with you. ;)
 
Mr. K6 said:
You can't even spell my name correctly, why would I assume you can see benchmark scores either? Like I said, nvidia marketing did an excellent job with you. ;)
Click to expand...

Oh, sorry, I guess I typo'd, I'm on a notebook at the moment. Since we're accusing eachother of being shills and all though, I'd say AMD must have paid you handsomely!
 
GoldenTiger said:
Oh, sorry, I guess I typo'd, I'm on a notebook at the moment. Since we're accusing eachother of being shills and all though, I'd say AMD must have paid you handsomely!
Click to expand...
I pointed out your misinformation. That doesn't make me a shill, it just makes me a level-headed person. Save the defense act for someone who cares.
JayJapanB said:
Out of curiosity. Can you get a relatively consistent 120hz in bf3? Not saying maxed.
Click to expand...
I can get 120FPS at 1080p, but not 120Hz since my monitor is a 60Hz panel. I have to get rid of MSAA, but with everything else on Ultra/High/Max I average about 120. I would think with GTX 670 SLI he should have the graphical horsepower to to get 120FPS consistently even with MSAA on, so it's most certainly his CPU holding him back.
 
Mr. K6 said:
I pointed out your misinformation. That doesn't make me a shill, it just makes me a level-headed person. Save the defense act for someone who cares.
Click to expand...

Yes, *I* pointed out your misinformation. That indeed does not make *me* a shill. But hey, as I said, if we're going to be accusing randomly and falsely.... (I don't think you're a shill, I just think you're uninformed)... ;).
 
GoldenTiger said:
The 7970 ghz is actually within a couple of percent in the vast majority of tests, which is even less impressive when you consider the ones it is 5% or so are literally 1-2 fps different, i.e. are a non-factor in actual gameplay. My comment had nothing to do with speed, though, I was referring to glitches, crappy profiles, microstutter, bad frametimes, etc. that plague the Radeon series of cards and have for generations.
Click to expand...

Actually I had far more issues with GTX680 and 670. My 7950s have been a far smoother experience. I'm playing a game that I couldn't play with Kepler at all now (Fallout New Vegas).

Keplers drivers haven't been perfect either and I've also been hearing of some issues popping up since I sold my cards. Nvidia isn't perfect either.
 
BababooeyHTJ said:
Actually I had far more issues with GTX680 and 670. My 7950s have been a far smoother experience. I'm playing a game that I couldn't play with Kepler at all now (Fallout New Vegas).
Click to expand...
what issues did you have with Fallout New Vegas and Kepler? I don't recall any issues specific to that line of cards.
 
cannondale06 said:
what issues did you have with Fallout New Vegas and Kepler? I don't recall any issues specific to that line of cards.
Click to expand...

Well, right off the bat I can tell you about the vsync stutter issues. That was very common. I'm still not so sure thats completely fixed. In some games it caused stutter. In others vsync straight up didn't work. In other triple buffering didn't work (amnesia).

There are common performance issues in some games. From what I've read GTA4, Stalker Clear Sky, and Serious Sam 3 seem to be among the more common ones. I ran into performance issues in a few more games. 3d vision performance was just awful for me. Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas would just crash like crazy. This is all on a system that did great with Fermi based cards. I was really disappointed coming from GTX480s.

I'm not saying that every issue that I've mentioned is some universal issue other than maybe the vsync issues. I'm just relaying my experience.

I haven't run into any game breaking bugs with my 7950s, I sure as hell can't say that about kepler.
 
after the stutter bug was addressed(for the most part) with newer drivers, whatever issues I had with those games were also there on any other setup.
 
yeah BF3 is a beast.

I was running Q6600@ 3.6 + GTX670 and getting hammered on the CPU even though it was only using like 60%.

I upped that bitch to a 3930k and doing much better......No where close to 120 FPS though. I'm at like 60 running Surround 1080p.
 
cannondale06 said:
after the stutter bug was addressed(for the most part) with newer drivers, whatever issues I had with those games were also there on any other setup.
Click to expand...

IDK, I waited around six months and never saw any improvements. I don't regret my decision to sell the cards.
 
I get around 105 fps average at 1080P with a single vanilla evga 670 and 2500k at 4.4. With adaptive vsync, the game runs really smooth and it also keeps the temps and thus fan noise down. A good aftermarket 670 like the gigabyte or msi and a 2600K at 5ghz can run this game at 120 fps if you balance the settings right and use adaptive vsync.

Turn shadows, mesh and effect to medium, no aa, all else high. Game looks like this

bf32013-02-0310-16-47-883_zpsf0fd8eee.jpg
 
BababooeyHTJ said:
IDK, I waited around six months and never saw any improvements. I don't regret my decision to sell the cards.
Click to expand...
I returned my gtx670 right around the time the driver fixes came out but my gtx660ti plays games just fine now. only stutter issue I have seen is with adaptive vsync in Metro 2033. for some reason it stutters then tears even in spots where I am getting way over 60 fps without adaptive vsync on. regular vsync works just fine in Metro 2033 though on the same settings though as I am not dropping below 60 fps anyway. that is on just DX11 high settings with only AAA and no dof, tessellation or physx of course.
 
I must be lucky, vsync always works and never had stutter issues on my 680's..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top