At what resolution is multiple GPUs a MUST?

At what Resolution is multiple GPUs a MUST?

  • 1440 x 900

    Votes: 1 0.5%

  • 1680 x 1050

    Votes: 6 3.3%

  • 1920 x 1200

    Votes: 45 24.5%

  • 2560 x 1024

    Votes: 21 11.4%

  • 2560 x 1600

    Votes: 111 60.3%
  • Total voters
    184
This has turned into a interesting thread.

The last SLI set up I had was on a s939 Opteron 185 @ 3 Ghz and dual 8800 GTS 640s.

I went from that to a C2D E6600 @3.2 Ghz and an 8800GTX...

Now with both platform and card upgrade I definately saw a big boost, but I remember not being overly impressed (other than #s in a benchmark) from 2x 8800GTS over 1x 8800 GTS in the Opty setup.

Does SLI scale any better these days?

I also can't speak for anything over 1920 x 1200, but for my setup, I feel my machine is pretty balanced. And plays everything I play with the smothness of warm butter :D

One thing I am convinced of though, at least for me, a GTX 285 is plenty of card for 1680 x 1050. Everyone is free to have a different opinion, but anything more on a 22" moniter would be a waste of cash IMO.
 
2560 for sure, but 1920x1200 as well if you like alot of aa with high frames.
 
It's a combination of resolution and the games you play. HL2:EP2, DoW2 and Bioshock are all perfectly fine on a single 285 at 25x16. I'm sure stuff like RTS's and WoW are fine as well.
 
The resolution as well as the game (Crysis for example), can "force" a gamer to get a mult-GPU solution to get the framerates up. I think most games do not need a multi-GPU solution as long as one decent card is used.
 
I game at 2560x1600 with Evga's 285 SSC. It handles every game I throw at it at max settings with no problems. The only exception is the obvious "Crysis". It chugs towards the end.

The only reason I plan to go SLI is to crank up the AA on the really demanding titles. Not sure I need it at this res, but I'd rather have too much then too little. Given I'll have to buy a 1k or larger PSU and deal with the added fan noise, I prefer the single card solution also. I guess over-kill has its sacrifices. :p
 
Rev. said:
I gave up on the convo in the other forum.

It is a company that builds custom PCs. Seems like a decent company.

There is a "guru" on thier forums the has 5,000 more posts than the company's own administrator advising a person that plays LotrO and Wow that SLI is a must to play at high res on his 1680 x 1050 LCD that was coming with his "Pre-build system" that has an i7 920 @ 3.33Ghz, 3 GB of RAM, and a GTX 285 (I just looked up the prebuilt specs).

His last comment was that a 9800GX2 would play all games at high settings because it was a dual GPU card....

Once someone says that, I know it is time to move on. Who knows, maybe he is doing that company a favor convincing people to buy what they don't need. As far as I can tell he doesn't work for the company, but hey...who knows LOL!
Click to expand...
That is fucked up! A single 285 or something will be fine, unless that guy was implying 16xQAA to be used. :rolleyes:
MiG31_Foxhound said:
1920x1200.

This really all depends on what you consider to be acceptable. I want to game at my native (1920) with everything cranked. Games like Stalker: Clear Sky and Crysis Warhead require dual GPUs to achieve that. Of course, the common retort is that those kinds of titles are rare, and most of what we're getting at the moment is console port trash and that thoroughbred PC games are a thing of the past.

This is a true albeit nearsighted sentiment. The current generation of consoles is aging very rapidly. Everything I see coming out for the Xbox just looks awful to me and I know that developers are straining to work with hardware that renders it increasingly difficult to advance the image quality of games. Titles like GTA4 illustrate that that developers have all but given up in the struggle to maintain reasonable framerate and push the IQ envelope. Instead, they're slashing FR in hopes of convincing people that a) image quality of games is still progressing and b) the hardware they bought still has life left in it.

Both of these are false. UE3 and Source no longer impress me, nor anyone I know, because we've been spoiled by CryEngine, Dunia, etc. The (console) consumer needs new hardware, and PC gamers need that to happen in order to attain PC titles that will challenge the current GPUs. Guess this turned into a little bit more than a simple answer, but it's my take on the situation regardless.
Click to expand...
Most people though, or console people don't know any better - not to sound smug.
Frraksurred said:
I game at 2560x1600 with Evga's 285 SSC. It handles every game I throw at it at max settings with no problems. The only exception is the obvious "Crysis". It chugs towards the end.

The only reason I plan to go SLI is to crank up the AA on the really demanding titles. Not sure I need it at this res, but I'd rather have too much then too little. Given I'll have to buy a 1k or larger PSU and deal with the added fan noise, I prefer the single card solution also. I guess over-kill has its sacrifices. :p
Click to expand...
That is kind of hard to believe... very hard to believe.

Crysis at 2660x1600? So that's you saying at very high? ... and only starts "chugging" towards the end - of the game?

Call me a cynic, but damn, that is very hard to believe.

My input - I voted 2560x1600, though 1920x1200 would not be unreasonable either - it depends on what you would be ok with.
 
I game at 2560x1600 and have a single 280 GTX driving it. I can play all of my games with high settings and just don't crank up AA and it works fine. At that resolution I don't notice much of a difference between AA settings so it doesn't bother me.

I don't really think there is a resolution that REQUIRES multi GPU.Personally I don't think it's worth the head ache, added restrictions, and costs associated with it.
 
lollerskater69 said:
I see people struggle with 260's at 1920x1200/1080, so thatws what I voted for.
Click to expand...

That is why I bought a 285 :)

I have a friend that frequents [H] who is an avid gamer, has a similar setup to mine, except he uses a 26" or 28" (can't recall atm) moniter and a GTX 260 (216 core) and he has no issues.

I fall the the camp the feels cost/issues make SLI not appealing to me. I will always go with a single card solution if it is possible.
 
lollerskater69 said:
I see people struggle with 260's at 1920x1200/1080, so thatws what I voted for.
Click to expand...

My 9800GTX was fine at 1080p, perhaps with out 4xAA some of the time. My GTX260 is just fine and dandy at 1920x1200. People who bitch about somethign like that are the suckers that absolutely need 8xAA. In a still image or if im sitting still in a game yeah i can tell a difference. During game play? Hell no. You dont notice 4xAA to 8xAA. Then again there are people who play games to have fun, and people who buy expensive hardware to make games look real good.
 
My GTX 260 has been working great at 1920x1200 on games such as FEAR2, GTR, Unreal 3, Quake Wars, and Fallout. In FEAR 2 with with 4xAA I get like 90fps avg. But I always turn shadows off in every game (except CS when I played that game), I find them annoying and ugly.
 
640x480, i cant get Full Throttle to be smooth with my 4870 at anything higher than 320x240, at 640x480 i really see the 4870x2 pull ahead
 
Nenu said:
You have heard of the GTX280 and GTX285??
Click to expand...
Well, "struggling" with a 260GTX would not be rescued too much by a 280/285.
nissanztt90 said:
My 9800GTX was fine at 1080p, perhaps with out 4xAA some of the time. My GTX260 is just fine and dandy at 1920x1200. People who bitch about somethign like that are the suckers that absolutely need 8xAA. In a still image or if im sitting still in a game yeah i can tell a difference. During game play? Hell no. You dont notice 4xAA to 8xAA. Then again there are people who play games to have fun, and people who buy expensive hardware to make games look real good.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

So... if someone want good graphics, there is no fun to be had?
st4rk said:
My GTX 260 has been working great at 1920x1200 on games such as FEAR2, GTR, Unreal 3, Quake Wars, and Fallout. In FEAR 2 with with 4xAA I get like 90fps avg. But I always turn shadows off in every game (except CS when I played that game), I find them annoying and ugly.
Click to expand...
:eek::eek::eek::confused:
 
1920x1200 is not gonna run well on a single gtx285 with AA and AF with games in the near future.
hell, i can think of a few games out now that wont run too well with those settings.
lost planet, crysis warhead, crysis, farcry 2, stalker clear sky, gta 4
 
grimreeferx09 said:
1920x1200 is not gonna run well on a single gtx285 with AA and AF with games in the near future.
hell, i can think of a few games out now that wont run too well with those settings.
lost planet, crysis warhead, crysis, farcry 2, stalker clear sky, gta 4
Click to expand...

Lost planet was a shitty port. Crysis is Crysis...FC2 runs fine on a 260 with 4xAA, and by fine i mean 50+ fps constant, GTA4 is vRam and CPU dependant. And again, i run GTA4 just fine with quite a few settings pretty high.

Whats funny is that i bet most people here saying that a 260/280 will or wont run something...dont even have the card.
 
Koko56 said:
That is kind of hard to believe... very hard to believe.

Crysis at 2660x1600? So that's you saying at very high? ... and only starts "chugging" towards the end - of the game?

Call me a cynic, but damn, that is very hard to believe.
Click to expand...

Completely understandable. I tried getting some screen shots but I only have the trial version of FRAPS, so it doesn't capture the fps. However, my averages were about 17fps. High was 28, low was 13. Ugly numbers for sure, but in Crysis they seem smoother then you would expect. I should clarify that I used no AA in Crysis or Warhead, all the other games used highest value offered by the game (i.e. I did not force 16x in Nvidia's Control Panel unless it was an older game without the option). The end of the game is like one notch above a slide show, very annoying but better then I expected. I tried out a lot of games that night, so I probably only played Crysis for about 20 to 30 minutes. That may make a difference as well.
 
nissanztt90 said:
Lol. Do you even know what your talking about?
WTF? Do go on...


My point clearly went over your head. There are people who refuse to play a game with out AA. Wheres the fun in that?



Having trouble keepin up?

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

*sigh* well, not really, but just to... nm

Yes it did go over my head, given your self-righteous attitude.

My point did go over your head too - the smiles were related to the shadows.
nissanztt90 said:
Lost planet was a shitty port. Crysis is Crysis...FC2 runs fine on a 260 with 4xAA, and by fine i mean 50+ fps constant, GTA4 is vRam and CPU dependant. And again, i run GTA4 just fine with quite a few settings pretty high.

Whats funny is that i bet most people here saying that a 260/280 will or wont run something...dont even have the card.
Click to expand...

Frraksurred said:
Completely understandable. I tried getting some screen shots but I only have the trial version of FRAPS, so it doesn't capture the fps. However, my averages were about 17fps. High was 28, low was 13. Ugly numbers for sure, but in Crysis they seem smoother then you would expect. I should clarify that I used no AA in Crysis or Warhead, all the other games used highest value offered by the game (i.e. I did not force 16x in Nvidia's Control Panel unless it was an older game without the option). The end of the game is like one notch above a slide show, very annoying but better then I expected. I tried out a lot of games that night, so I probably only played Crysis for about 20 to 30 minutes. That may make a difference as well.
Click to expand...
So that is still on Very High settings? At 2560x1600? Well, considering, those FPS are "amazing". As for the other games, still pretty impressive - but again, depend on what you can tolerate or are used to FPS-wise.
 
lucky777 said:
It's never a must.
Click to expand...

Actually that's a very good point. You can scale details back to increase performance.

People wail about Crysis 2560x and you could probably play it with medium settings at that res on quite a few single GPUs.

It only becomes vital to "playable" FPS mins if you want to run max quality settings @ a high res with AA in a demanding game.

If a single GPU is hitting lows of 12FPS but a multi GPU setup is only dipping to 28-30FPS, I'd go with the latter every time.

Of course you can avoid a lot of this by being content with something like a 1440x LCD and medium filtering.
 
well i can run crysis nat 1650 x 1080 on my 8800GTX Overclocked to ultra speeds and medium/high details no problem. does get on the stuttery side a bit, but I'm going to waitm till 4850's are $90, then upgrade :p
 
AmongTheChosenX said:
well i can run crysis nat 1650 x 1080 on my 8800GTX Overclocked to ultra speeds and medium/high details no problem. does get on the stuttery side a bit, but I'm going to waitm till 4850's are $90, then upgrade :p
Click to expand...

4850 wouldn't be an upgrade from an 8800 GTX.
 
this is very relative.... If i am going to get a new system/card I want to be able to play every current game at the maximum settings at my resolution. So for me my x2 is a "must" since I want ALL of the eye candy turned up... to me whats the point, this is [H] , I want my 8xAA that I cant really distinguish from 4xAA just because its there.
 
I would say it depends on the game. Most games that I have played on my [H] testing rig (which does not currently support SLI) run just fine at 2560x1600 with a GTX 280 or 285, and many of them with an HD 4870.

And personally, for my eyes, going past 4X AA is pointless at 1920x1200 or 2560x1600. Yes, I can see the difference, but it just isn't a big deal to me. It will never be perfectly smooth, especially on angles close to orthogonal. 4X AA is good enough for me.
 
Thank you, Mark!

I do like most responses to this thread. I created the pole to see what others thought here at [H]. I wanted to see if I was all alone on this issue.
I can't stand "know it all" jerks like the one on the other forums that instead of answering the stupid question, he tell him he NEEDS multiple GPUs for his 22" LCD.

The guy was about to buy a pre-build machine having these specs:
Intel Core i7-920 Processor @ 3.33Ghz
Intel X58 Chipset Motherboard
3GB 1333MHz System Memory
NVIDIA GTX 285 Video Card

He specifically stated that He "putz around" on WoW (I mean comon, what do you NEED for WoW), LotRO, and later on in the year D3 (no clue about this one).

All I did, was reply that neither Wow, nor Lotro will need multiple GPUs, and that he would be just fine gaming with that pre-built machine...in fact, very happy gaming with it.

The thread turned into a back and forth, because NO ONE tells THIS guy about hardware apparently.

You can spend $10,000 on a PC if you want "All the options" ... if you have that kind of money to do it...go for it. Have fun. But dont tell other people that they NEED all those bells and whistles to PLAY WOW!

hehehe...

Thanks for all the responses.
 
I have a "multi-GPU" 9800GX2 and 7900GTX SLI before that. I had a 17" screen. I clearly had no need for the SLI; it was my first "big rig" and as such I went all-out ridiculous. I now have dual 22" and a 17" and really, the only reason I have three GPUs is because I need the 7900 to drive the two secondary screens so the 9800 stays in SLI mode. Even then, I doubt I actually "need" the 9800GX2... Great for transcoding TV shows to iPod though!
 
Blacklash said:
Of course you can avoid a lot of this by being content with something like a 1440x LCD and medium filtering.
Click to expand...
Yeah but the "Holy shit" factor decreases also! :p
Rev. said:
Thank you, Mark!

I do like most responses to this thread. I created the pole to see what others thought here at [H]. I wanted to see if I was all alone on this issue.
I can't stand "know it all" jerks like the one on the other forums that instead of answering the stupid question, he tell him he NEEDS multiple GPUs for his 22" LCD.

The guy was about to buy a pre-build machine having these specs:
Intel Core i7-920 Processor @ 3.33Ghz
Intel X58 Chipset Motherboard
3GB 1333MHz System Memory
NVIDIA GTX 285 Video Card

He specifically stated that He "putz around" on WoW (I mean comon, what do you NEED for WoW), LotRO, and later on in the year D3 (no clue about this one).

All I did, was reply that neither Wow, nor Lotro will need multiple GPUs, and that he would be just fine gaming with that pre-built machine...in fact, very happy gaming with it.

The thread turned into a back and forth, because NO ONE tells THIS guy about hardware apparently.

You can spend $10,000 on a PC if you want "All the options" ... if you have that kind of money to do it...go for it. Have fun. But dont tell other people that they NEED all those bells and whistles to PLAY WOW!

hehehe...

Thanks for all the responses.
Click to expand...
Damn... That PC...

I would understand having concern if the res was like 1920x1200, but 1680x1050? Come on! :p
 
Mark_Warner said:
And personally, for my eyes, going past 4X AA is pointless at 1920x1200 or 2560x1600. Yes, I can see the difference, but it just isn't a big deal to me. It will never be perfectly smooth, especially on angles close to orthogonal. 4X AA is good enough for me.
Click to expand...

Agreed 100%, which was my original point. And i have good vision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top