SLI working

[335th_GRAthos]

Wise decision!

Out of personal experience (I have been building my own rig for the last 25years, last 6years SLI configurations), the cycle of graphics cards is about 1,5years. Every 1,5years the new GPU has twice the performance for the same price.
It thus makes it impractical to buy a second GPU even if it is cheaper, because the performance will not be there (compared to the GPU cards available at that time).

Especially for this game it will be the case: The game requires 2,1Gb of VRAM and higher and much faster GPU performance than currently available in the market. My prediction ids that the next (or over-next) GPUs will show a 50% increase in performance with this particular game and these will be the graphics cards we want to have!

My 2cents only, I do not work for ATI or NVIDIA nor do I sell hardware so, everybody does what he thinks best.

~S~

[ingsoc84]

Understand completely. As for sli, I've heard that two cards does not essentially give you twice the vram of the sinle card,..so is it the case that one card opertaing at 2.1vram or higher will always be better fps than say two 570's?
How are your frame rates with the two 570? I run original textures, grass off..forests low, buildings low, land shades low, fps is improving with these adjustments, but I'd like to see them consistenly 50=60....another question, would I get much of a benefit from increasing my cpu from say 3.3 to 3.5, or is the gpu really the key here?

Thanks again for your help, makes the choices easier to hear from someone who has been building for years, I've been at it for about 10 years, I've always thought one beefy card is better than two cards in sli, probably should have got the 580, wanted the 590, just too pricey, and I was hearing of bugs with it. The game obviously is still in its teething period as far as bugs, enhancements and improvements, so probably best to wait till the tree has been fully shaken and everything falls into place, which is probably at least 6 months down the road if not more like 9. SH5 was pretty bad untill the issues were all worked out, and when the modders got ahold of the stable game, it really shined at that point, and is awesome, if you like subsims


thanks again!

[335th_GRAthos]

Originally Posted by ingsoc84

I've heard that two cards does not essentially give you twice the vram of the sinle card,

Correct, I have two GTX570 cards, but my VRAM is 1,3Gb (only).

Originally Posted by ingsoc84

..so is it the case that one card opertaing at 2.1vram or higher will always be better fps than say two 570's?

Yes under conditions: if insufficient VRAM is the bottleneck then, the card with more VRAM will perform better.
Which is the bottleneck in the case of CoD (among other things...)
My point is that today, the GTX580 with 3Gb VRAM is the card to buy (and not the smaller version with 1,5Gb "only").
My personal opinion posted many times is that even the GTX580 is not good enough for the game and we have to wait for two generations of GPUs to see real performance...

Originally Posted by ingsoc84

How are your frame rates with the two 570? I run original textures, grass off..forests low, buildings low, land shades low, fps is improving with these adjustments, but I'd like to see them consistenly 50=60....another question, would I get much of a benefit from increasing my cpu from say 3.3 to 3.5, or is the gpu really the key here?

Screenshots with fps, with/without SLI, GPU1 & GPU2 %utilisation look at page1

From what I have read in various forums it seems that higher CPU speed helps, never saw hard evidence though. Personal opinion, if you know how to and it is easy, you should do it (within reason). I increased my i7 from 2.9GHz to 3.6GHz it probably made a little difference.

Looking at your HDD model and the available RAM you have, I would recommend you invest your time on something else:

Originally Posted by 335th_GRAthos

Without RAMDRIVE, sound was there, no problems at all.
HOWEVER I noticed significant difference in performance: I got some 0,5sec stutters, happened at the most critical moment every time, dogfighting, mostly when a Bf109 was coming from high above at high speed and I turned my head to the sky to track it. I presume it is the speed that the system needs to load the textures of the new object.

So definitively I will stick to my RAMDRIVE (especialy since I have a slow (normal) hard disk and no SSD).
Personally, after this experience, I consider the money to add another 6Gb RAM (and make RAMDRIVE) better invested than money to spent on an SSD.
I will post it at the RAMDRIVE thread, too.

~S~

[Cataplasma]

Originally Posted by 335th_GRAthos

My personal opinion posted many times is that even the GTX580 is not good enough for the game and we have to wait for two generations of GPUs to see real performance...

My personal opinion is that a GTX580 is good enough to launch a rocket in space.
Technologies are useless without a proper employment, people have to learn now how to do better things using at best what is in their possession.
I design for industries and this thirst for new technologies makes me laugh...but maybe I should cry.
Using a 3Gb gc to play COD is like put a rocket engine on a kite

[335th_GRAthos]

LOL!
I must admit your comments are not out of place! I still have one 5.1/4 floppy disk with Turbo-Pascal on it...and wonder why new SW comes in 5-7Gb packages.


Despite that my comment stays: "even the GTX580 is not good enough for the game" (this game)

The graphics are an overkill? Surely (I hope you have seen Tuckie's YouTube Video in high definition (340Mb), it shows how much detail has been put inside).
The graphics are badly programmed? Possibly (I am not an expert)

But I am not unhappy neither with my SLI nor with my frame rates.

And remain hopeful for the near future.

~S~