Jump to content

SLI in HL engine


mohawk

Recommended Posts

Alright you techies, I need some help.

 

In my box, I have an AMD +4400 and 2 7900GT's. When I have SLI enabled, I score approx 8000 on 3dmark06, get approx. 65fps in GR:AW and 150fps in the CSS video stress test with everything maxed out.

 

When I disable SLI, I get a much lower 3dmark06 score, approx 45fps in GR:AW BUT 175fps in the CSS video stress test with everything maxed out.

 

I gave you the details to rule out "SLI is not operating properly." The 3dmark06 and GR:AW benchmarks prove that it is. I've heard some rumors around that the HL engine doesn't work well (optimize) duel cards. Has anybody else ever experienced this or come across something similar?

 

Solutions I've tried: Reinstalling CS:S, and new beta drivers (9.28 and 8.43 tested).

 

:shrug03::shrug03::shrug03::shrug03::shrug03::shrug03::shrug03:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Member
(edited)

you've probably just hit the limit of your cpu. the lower results with two would make sense given the cpu overhead that sli requires. you should a ) oc your cpu or b ) buy a cpu more suited to your high endish rig.

 

 

edit - stupid emoticons when you put b and a bracket...

Edited by Cujo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
Member

found this interesting..

 

same hardware as before, but now running (as of today - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?...N82E16824001096 ) at 1680 x 1050.

 

Video stress test in source running off 1 7900 - 165 fps

Video stress test in source w/ SLI enabled - 190 fps

 

edit - wow.. may 23.. i haven't upgraded any of my components for a while!

Edited by mohawk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

well i assume you're running a higher resolution. what was your old res? your sli is probably more optimized for that res. you haven't changed anything else?

 

source stress test is much more gpu intensive then actual in game. hmm, i haven't run a stress test in a while. let me go see what i get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah - to summarize

 

Stress Test

1280 x 1024 - w/ 1 card - 150 fps

1280 x 1024 - w/ SLI - 175 fps

 

1680 x 1050 - w/ 1 card - 165 fps

1680 x 1050 - w/ 2 card - 195 fps

 

all other components the same

Native resolution of your LCD is 1680x1050...there is your answer. Native res takes stress off both your PC CPU and you monitor CPU.

 

On my old 17" 1280x1024 LCD with my Radeon 9200 I would get horrible (sub 20) FPS at anything lower than the native resolution (1280x1024) like 1024x768 or 800x600 but when I set it to the native resolution of the LCD I got a solid 60+

 

Same thing now with my 24" 1920x1200 LCD and my 7600GS, any other resolution causes scaling to be processed on both ends (PC and LCD) and will lower my FPS considerably (which is bad enough as it is at 80-85fps)

 

On another note, didn't we discuss the problem with rendering more frames per second that your monitor can actually handle? At anything over 120 FPS there's always going to be frames that are rendered but not displayed on an LCD...bah this is a whole other topic..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah - to summarize

 

Stress Test

1280 x 1024 - w/ 1 card - 150 fps

1280 x 1024 - w/ SLI - 175 fps

 

1680 x 1050 - w/ 1 card - 165 fps

1680 x 1050 - w/ 2 card - 195 fps

 

all other components the same

Native resolution of your LCD is 1680x1050...there is your answer. Native res takes stress off both your PC CPU and you monitor CPU.

 

On my old 17" 1280x1024 LCD with my Radeon 9200 I would get horrible (sub 20) FPS at anything lower than the native resolution (1280x1024) like 1024x768 or 800x600 but when I set it to the native resolution of the LCD I got a solid 60+

 

Same thing now with my 24" 1920x1200 LCD and my 7600GS, any other resolution causes scaling to be processed on both ends (PC and LCD) and will lower my FPS considerably (which is bad enough as it is at 80-85fps)

 

On another note, didn't we discuss the problem with rendering more frames per second that your monitor can actually handle? At anything over 120 FPS there's always going to be frames that are rendered but not displayed on an LCD...bah this is a whole other topic..

 

i understand what you're saying - however, first test was done on a 19" w/ native resolution, second on a 22" w/ native resolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah - to summarize

 

Stress Test

1280 x 1024 - w/ 1 card - 150 fps

1280 x 1024 - w/ SLI - 175 fps

 

1680 x 1050 - w/ 1 card - 165 fps

1680 x 1050 - w/ 2 card - 195 fps

 

all other components the same

Native resolution of your LCD is 1680x1050...there is your answer. Native res takes stress off both your PC CPU and you monitor CPU.

 

On my old 17" 1280x1024 LCD with my Radeon 9200 I would get horrible (sub 20) FPS at anything lower than the native resolution (1280x1024) like 1024x768 or 800x600 but when I set it to the native resolution of the LCD I got a solid 60+

 

Same thing now with my 24" 1920x1200 LCD and my 7600GS, any other resolution causes scaling to be processed on both ends (PC and LCD) and will lower my FPS considerably (which is bad enough as it is at 80-85fps)

 

On another note, didn't we discuss the problem with rendering more frames per second that your monitor can actually handle? At anything over 120 FPS there's always going to be frames that are rendered but not displayed on an LCD...bah this is a whole other topic..

 

is that a fact? i've never heard this before. where'd you come by it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...