SLI Utilization Issues

[danil-ch 165]

My rig is an i7 860 @3.6ghz, 8GB DDR3 1600, 2x GTX680's SLI .

I had I7-860 and GTX580's SLI not long ago. And 3.6ghz is not enough your CPU is capable of much more. That CPU can reach 4.2ghz with stock cooler and 4.5 with water cooler.

With the your configuration it is very important to get high frequency.

[Dwarden 1124]

stop degrading this thread into another CPU or multicore discussion , this was and is related to SLI/CF ... which is something totally different

[Mellonpopr 10]

stop degrading this thread into another CPU or multicore discussion , this was and is related to SLI/CF ... which is something totally different

ok, can you answer the question about the SLI part of it and ignore the cpu part? "has there been any communication with the video card hardware vendors on the subject? if so, what's being done about it? any idea when a fix will be implemented?"

[chortles 263]

There is a claim on these forums, but rather than spread rumors I'll just say that apparently the vendors (or rather: NVIDIA and AMD) were talked to and did have a reply.

[Dwarden 1124]

read what I wrote, it's up to IHVs to implement the support properly in theirs drivers ... and yes we do communicate with them on regular basis ...

[chrisb 196]

Not being a SLI person myself, why do you feel the need to use more cards than one to run this game or indeed any games..

What are the benefits above one card that runs a game really well ?

Also I would think its more down to the card manufacturers to ensure that SLI works well, seeing that its them that advertise the SLI capability of their cards, not the devs..

Not sure, as said, I don’t, and never have run more than one card at a time, good ones mind..;)

[Mellonpopr 10]

Not being a SLI person myself, why do you feel the need to use more cards than one to run this game or indeed any games..

What are the benefits above one card that runs a game really well ?

Also I would think its more down to the card manufacturers to ensure that SLI works well, seeing that its them that advertise the SLI capability of their cards, not the devs..

Not sure, as said, I don’t, and never have run more than one card at a time, good ones mind..;)

multiple reasons:

1 - at one time the gtx 460 was a top of the line card, eventually games become more demanding and you simply add another 460 to the mix and get double the performance. Now it performs on par with a GTX 580 which is a little slower than a GTX 670

2 - two sli cards can be faster than a single top of the line card. for example SLI GTX 670 is faster than a single GTX 690 and the twin cards are cheaper.

in a perfect world we'd all have top of the line cards but that does little good without a top of the line processor, memory and motherboard etc... I was pricing a new system out and it's looking like 1000-1500 to get what I want. It's tempting but then I say to myself, all of that just to play a single game doesn't make much sense when other current games run at higher resolution with better details and get better frame rate on existing hardware.

Edited June 9, 2013 by Mellonpopr

[bangtail 0]

Not being a SLI person myself, why do you feel the need to use more cards than one to run this game or indeed any games..

What are the benefits above one card that runs a game really well ?

Also I would think its more down to the card manufacturers to ensure that SLI works well, seeing that its them that advertise the SLI capability of their cards, not the devs..

Not sure, as said, I don’t, and never have run more than one card at a time, good ones mind..;)

1 card isn't an option for me @ 1600P - I've tried it before and there just wasn't enough horsepower.

SLI does have other advantages as well - like redundancy :)

As I said in a previous post, I usually recommend people stay away from SLI unless they are fairly PC savvy (and have a long fuse) - it can be a lot of work.

[kklownboy 43]

That's perfectly fine, but you have to remember what was put in the recommended requirements field:

OS:Windows Vista SP2 or Windows 7 SP1

Processor:Intel Core i5-2300 or AMD Phenom II X4 940 or better

Memory:4 GB RAM

Graphics:NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 or AMD Radeon HD 7750 with 1 GB VRAM or better

...

Yes the "recommended"... What are the recommended settings? Recommended Display resolution? Your 460 isnt even a recommended. Just to go bit more on "recommended"; A3/A2/A1 are not "recommended" game types relative to COD ,Batfld-X...

To achieve Vsync in game with recommended HW, the Display resolution needs to be UNDER 1080p. And the in game settings set to "normal". Any higher resolution/setting will use up all of the VRAM. The CPU recommended setting isnt for MP, its for SP. As are all "recommended" settings.

Multiplayer is a mixed bag, the mission/server/#players. I can only imagine we will get more performance through the Alpha and into the Beta stage. We have already. The missions/server I have been playing in MP, my fps are upto my vsync(85) and only hit the dreaded 20s in a certain area with a certain direction during some trigger... A mission issue/still alpha island.And even then i just look the other way its back up.

Even tho 24/27in Display panels are cheap $, that doesnt mean a four generations ago Midrange card (460) that wasnt faster than 285, isnt DX11.1, and is short on the ability to run shaders efficiently; should render A3 @1080p with vsync. Its not recommended. Now COD or BatFld-X its fine. But A3 is on par with CrysisX, MetroX for HW @1080p+

Last, a CPU @4z+ is what I recommend. Its easy to achive, its in the spec of all modern CPUs[2.6 and above (AMD/Intel)] on air, and in voltage spec for your warranty. Been this way for five years.

[Mellonpopr 10]

I would prefer that the game be fixed rather than everyone be required to get a 4ghz+ processor and top of the line video card. I think you're forgetting the fact that the number one reported item on the bug tracker is very poor utilization of multi-core cpu/sli. There are countless people like me reporting 50-60% cpu usage on core 1 with 30% or no usage of the other cores and Sli cards showing 30% usage which is causing the dismal frame rate. Obviously if those were fully utilized then we would have good frame rates. Going majorly overkill on cpu/video card upgrades is like putting a band-aid over a punctured lung. It's not addressing the real problem.

[griffz 1]

your CPU is the bottleneck . your SLI is boried , waiting for the CPU .

my advice , reduce object quality and object distance visibility.

[Mellonpopr 10]

your CPU is the bottleneck . your SLI is boried , waiting for the CPU .

my advice , reduce object quality and object distance visibility.

if a 3.7ghz quad core cpu causes a bottlekneck that holds up the SLI video card, don't you think that's a major problem with a game? It's stock clock is 3.0, it's already pushed up 700mhz to help. Should I need a 4ghz cpu to run this game with decent frame rate?

[max power 21]

if a 3.7ghz quad core cpu causes a bottlekneck that holds up the SLI video card, don't you think that's a major problem with a game? It's stock clock is 3.0, it's already pushed up 700mhz to help. Should I need a 4ghz cpu to run this game with decent frame rate?

Yeah, a problem called 'in development'.

And when OFP, Arma, and Arma 2 all came out there was hardly a computer on earth that could run them on anything approaching max settings, and really good computers would run them on average settings. These games are just really demanding.

[Mellonpopr 10]

Yeah, a problem called 'in development'.

And when OFP, Arma, and Arma 2 all came out there was hardly a computer on earth that could run them on anything approaching max settings, and really good computers would run them on average settings. These games are just really demanding.

yes but these game are really demanding for the wrong reason, not because they are incredible advancements in technology, but because they aren't utilizing the hardware properly and because the developers are trying to milk another game out of the same old tired engine instead of fixing the real problem.

I wish you were right and the final version will have full SLI and Multi-core support but I don't think that's going to be the case. No developer has said it will be so why do you think it will?

[sultanofswing 10]

As has already been stated in this thread and as far as I am concerned for the ARMA series of games and SLI you need a powerful CPU. You need a powerful CPU with SLI regardless of the game but not all games are created equal.

If you want to know if your CPU is bottlenecking your video cards then here is all you need to do.

Use MSI Afterburner and its On screen Display and log both GPU 1 and 2 Usage.

While playing the game pay attention to the usage, If you see usage that is hovering around 40-50% on each card then you have a bottleneck and it is the CPU.

If GPU usage is 80-100% on both cards then your CPU is not bottlenecked.

Here are a few of my own examples from my system with this game.

E8400@4ghz and 2 GTX660's. GPU usage would never go over 50% on each Video card(CPU was just too slow even at 4ghz)

i7940@4ghz and 2 GTX660's. GPU usage was always around 90-100% on each Video card

i7940@3ghz and 2 GTX660's. GPU usage would hover around 70% on each Video card.

So as you can see from the testing that I have done in order to fully utilize both card's in SLI you definitely need a powerful CPU. Well here comes the problem with that. As we all the know the ARMA series of games are extremely CPU intensive. So what do you see as the problem? We have a extremely CPU hungry SLI setup and we are playing a game that is Extremely CPU hungry as well. What you get is a game that just does not play very well when things start getting crazy and there are big battles going on.

The other day I removed one of my GTX660's from my system that is still on the i7@4ghz. I fired up Arma2 and Arma3 and guess what? FPS was cut nearly in half. So at the end of my discussion I will touch on the Topic of your thread, SLI Utilization issue.

There is no issue with SLI utilization. If you have a powerful CPU SLI will be utilized., The issue is that the game engine itself is CPU hungry and SLI is CPU hungry and the 2 just do not work well together. The best way to play this game is with no SLI and a powerful CPU.

I hope this helps clear up some issues for some people.

[Dwarden 1124]

how many times I need repeat developers can't do anything about SLI / Crossfire ... it's not standard, there is no special API or else ...

you send data to GPU, drivers will cope with it, drivers or driver profile will determine if you got SLI / Crossfire and decide what multiGPU rendering mode is used

so stop whining about something You don't even understood how it works ....

[Mellonpopr 10]

As has already been stated in this thread and as far as I am concerned for the ARMA series of games and SLI you need a powerful CPU. You need a powerful CPU with SLI regardless of the game but not all games are created equal.

If you want to know if your CPU is bottlenecking your video cards then here is all you need to do.

Use MSI Afterburner and its On screen Display and log both GPU 1 and 2 Usage.

While playing the game pay attention to the usage, If you see usage that is hovering around 40-50% on each card then you have a bottleneck and it is the CPU.

If GPU usage is 80-100% on both cards then your CPU is not bottlenecked.

Here are a few of my own examples from my system with this game.

E8400@4ghz and 2 GTX660's. GPU usage would never go over 50% on each Video card(CPU was just too slow even at 4ghz)

i7940@4ghz and 2 GTX660's. GPU usage was always around 90-100% on each Video card

i7940@3ghz and 2 GTX660's. GPU usage would hover around 70% on each Video card.

So as you can see from the testing that I have done in order to fully utilize both card's in SLI you definitely need a powerful CPU. Well here comes the problem with that. As we all the know the ARMA series of games are extremely CPU intensive. .

this is good information, thanks for sharing. my gpu usage is low, 35% area so with your explanation that would mean that my CPU is too slow. The problem isn't the CPU though, it's only at 60% on the first core, the rest are nearly dormant. The reason the CPU isn't running to it's full potential is the game engine, it's not utilizing the multi-core properly and that in turn may be why the GPU is waiting on it and is also under utilized as well.

running a higher clock speed cpu helps because you're improving the performance of the 1st core of the cpu, the rest aren't doing much of anything for you. If the game used all 4 cores to their full extent, you wouldn't need more clock speed as a crutch.

[sultanofswing 10]

On my i7@4ghz all 4 cores are being utilized atleast by 50%

Here is a shot of my CPU usage on the infantry showcase. I am still on the single GTX660 and am maintaining solid 45-50fps.

http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg54/onesick94hb/cpuusage_zps6322c1f9.jpg (117 kB)

Not sure what's up with this site but it won't let me use the IMG tags.

Edited June 9, 2013 by sultanofswing

[DunHiLa 10]

I can barely get 6-10 fps in this game,how is everyone else getting over 30?I haven't been able to find any answer to my question for the past 2 months since the Alpha has been active and it's driving me crazy because I also bought the Deluxe Edition and payed extra cash.

[Mellonpopr 10]

I just did an interesting test...my system is a I7 950 3.0ghz overclocked to 3.7ghz currently. Dual GTX 460's in SLI. CPU usage on core 1 is about 80%, the usage on core 2, 3 and 4 are about 30%. My GPU usage is 35%. I lowered my GPU core clock speed and memory speed to half and my GPU usage went up to about 50%. The interesting thing is that the frame rate was exactly the same. That confirms that in my setup the limiting factor is the CPU at 3.7ghz and only core 1 being used mostly. I'm going to overclock further to 4ghz and see how that affects the FPS and GPU usage.

[sultanofswing 10]

I just did an interesting test...my system is a I7 950 3.0ghz overclocked to 3.7ghz currently. Dual GTX 460's in SLI. CPU usage on core 1 is about 80%, the usage on core 2, 3 and 4 are about 30%. My GPU usage is 35%. I lowered my GPU core clock speed and memory speed to half and my GPU usage went up to about 50%. The interesting thing is that the frame rate was exactly the same. That confirms that in my setup the limiting factor is the CPU at 3.7ghz and only core 1 being used mostly. I'm going to overclock further to 4ghz and see how that affects the FPS and GPU usage.

I'll be interested to see what happens. What memory do you have and what speed is it rated at?

---------- Post added at 21:11 ---------- Previous post was at 21:10 ----------

DunHiLa, What are your system specs?

[Mellonpopr 10]

I just did an interesting test...my system is a I7 950 3.0ghz overclocked to 3.7ghz currently. Dual GTX 460's in SLI. CPU usage on core 1 is about 80%, the usage on core 2, 3 and 4 are about 30%. My GPU usage is 35%. I lowered my GPU core clock speed and memory speed to half and my GPU usage went up to about 50%. The interesting thing is that the frame rate was exactly the same. That confirms that in my setup the limiting factor is the CPU at 3.7ghz and only core 1 being used mostly. I'm going to overclock further to 4ghz and see how that affects the FPS and GPU usage.

at 4ghz fps is up about 10, cpu and gpu usage look about the same. again, lowering the GPU core/memory speeds in half made no different to FPS. I've been on the fence about whether to get a new cpu or new graphics card and it seems for this game the CPU is my bottleneck and unless I'm getting a new CPU that can do 5ghz (there's no such thing), it's pretty much pointless.

[xFullBoost 10]

my 2700k @ 4.8ghz infantry showcase 5mins high settings vis 1100/5300/100

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v371/AnarkiLP/arma3SLIandCPUusage001_zpsc0157a30.jpg?t=1370726312 (338 kB)

idk if thats good or bad

CPU is my bottleneck and unless I'm getting a new CPU that can do 5ghz (there's no such thing), it's pretty much pointless.

i can hit 5ghz. so there is such a thing.

Edited June 9, 2013 by xFullBoost
updated

[sultanofswing 10]

at 4ghz fps is up about 10, cpu and gpu usage look about the same. again, lowering the GPU core/memory speeds in half made no different to FPS. I've been on the fence about whether to get a new cpu or new graphics card and it seems for this game the CPU is my bottleneck and unless I'm getting a new CPU that can do 5ghz (there's no such thing), it's pretty much pointless.

Disable 1 card in the system and see if the 4 cores show some usage then. Are you using HT? Any command lines in Arma3?

I wanna see a CPU-Z screen of your setup. CPU and memory side.

[sultanofswing 10]

my 2700k @ 4.8ghz infantry showcase 5mins high settings vis 1100/5300/100

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v371/AnarkiLP/arma3SLIandCPUusage001_zpsc0157a30.jpg?t=1370726312 (338 kB)

idk if thats good or bad

Can you disable Hyperthreading?