SLI Utilization Issues

[sephis 10]

Thanks chaps. Appreciate everyone's feedback.

I have been thinking about upgrading anyway recently as my 860 is extremely unstable with any overclock above 3.6ghz.

The i5 4670 seems to perform better than the 3770k in ARMA 2: OA

http://www.hardware.fr/medias/photos_news/00/41/IMG0041507.png

Edited June 10, 2013 by sephis

[Leon86 13]

I would not be so sure of that...look at where the 860 is and thats at stock speed, its an old chip but still has some power

that bench probably uses hyperthreading, which is useless in games. should be a ~60+% increase in performance.

[WalkerDown 1]

You did not buy the Alpha, you preordered A3 and got access to the Alpha as a preorder bonus.

False, he bought the game in its early access, accepting the "Steam Early Access" program, he did not pre-ordered anything, neither the current alpha is a bonus, the current alpha is exactly what he bought: a game in its early stage that is evolving. You can find this exact question on the FAQ:

Q: Is this the same as pre-purchasing a game?

R: No. Early Access is a full purchase of a playable game. By purchasing, you gain immediate access to download and play the game in its current form and as it evolves up and through 'release'.

A beta is not necessarily a 'near finished' version of the game by any means.

True.

---------- Post added at 17:16 ---------- Previous post was at 17:10 ----------

Thanks chaps. Appreciate everyone's feedback.

I have been thinking about upgrading anyway recently as my 860 is extremely unstable with any overclock above 3.6ghz.

The i5 4670 seems to perform better than the 3770k in ARMA 2: OA

http://www.hardware.fr/medias/photos_news/00/41/IMG0041507.png

http://www.hardware.fr/medias/photos_news/00/41/IMG0041507.png

I wouldn't upgrade anything.. instead I would downgrade (!) ... it's probably that a old CPU pushed at very crazy clock would performs better in A3 than a top-end modern CPUs. :)

Recently I've pushed my i7 950 to 4ghz and now i'm using a gtx 780 ... and guess what? I do the same scandalous low FPS (with an average of 35 fps @1600p that is crazy low if you consider that I do around 90 fps in any modern game..). I would suggest you to wait for the game optimization (if there'll be any in the future).

[bangtail 0]

False, he bought the game in its early access, accepting the "Steam Early Access" program, he did not pre-ordered anything, neither the current alpha is a bonus, the current alpha is exactly what he bought: a game in its early stage that is evolving. You can find this exact question on the FAQ:

Q: Is this the same as pre-purchasing a game?

R: No. Early Access is a full purchase of a playable game. By purchasing, you gain immediate access to download and play the game in its current form and as it evolves up and through 'release'.

Nope, the alpha is not the intended release product, it states that fact quite clearly in the top right corner of the loading screen(s).

Of course, it comes as no surprise that you are going to take it out of context for the purposes of your endless marathon of complaint.

He did not buy the Alpha, because the Alpha is neither the finished product nor is it necessarily representative of the finished product according to the developers in their own words.

His purchase entitled him to early access (in this case, an Alpha followed by a Beta).

So basically, yes - if he hadn't paid he would not have the access (to the Alpha and Beta) but similarly, the payment was for the finished product and not for the Alpha or Beta version(s) of the game (simply because you don't sell Alpha and Beta versions of games - unless you are an MMO developer ;) )

And one final thing - I've said this before, I'll say it again, even one Titan is not really enough for gaming @ 1600P (and I'm not just referring to A3 here).

While some games will run fine (mostly older games), others will not. 1600P has been my res for a very long time and I wish I could get away with one card, but so far, it simply has not been the case.

Even a 6 year old game (which is quite similar to ArmA in some respects) will not handle 1600P well on one GPU.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_Titan_SLI/9.html

And here's Metro:

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_Titan_SLI/16.html

Hitman: Absolution:

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_Titan_SLI/14.html

**Tests were taken with a 3820 @ 4.3 Ghz FYI**

Again, some games will run fine, but in terms of functional playability in every game - not going to happen.

Edited June 10, 2013 by BangTail

[DunHiLa 10]

Hate to rain on your parade but your post makes absolutely no sense. Hyperthreading has nothing to do with anything and in fact most hardcore users disable hyperthreading anyway like myself. Architechture and how the CPU gets work done are the most important factors. Intel chips get more done per cycle than AMD,It's a proven fact. Once again you are comparing 2 totally different games and that is not going to work.

More cores do not always equate to a faster chip either. Back in the days the old AMD 64's were a chip that was better than anything Intel had in it's staple. It's just not the same these days, AMD has nothing in there lineup that compares to what Intel has to offer.

So on that note, you can either think about your post and maybe do some research and see what information is out there, or keep living in a fantasy world where you think the AMD chip is superior. I will stand by my original diagnosis though, Your CPU is just not powerful enough. Maybe try the Cpu count command and park 4 of your cores and see what happens.

You are right mate,that is why the new Xbox One and Playstation 4 are running Intel Quad Core Processor..wait,that's not true :D

[bangtail 0]

You are right mate,that is why the new Xbox One and Playstation 4 are running Intel Quad Core Processor..wait,that's not true :D

Quit while you're behind, you really don't have a clue what you are talking about.

JFYI, both companies (Sony and MS) went with AMD for financial reasons.

It's common knowledge that Intel CPUs are better - only a fool would argue to the contrary given the available evidence.

[max power 21]

Can we please get back on topic?

And I don't mean after someone else gets a word in edgewise, or after you say one last thing. Please take the intel vs. amd dispute to PM.

[sultanofswing 10]

Can we please get back on topic?

And I don't mean after someone else gets a word in edgewise, or after you say one last thing. Please take the intel vs. amd dispute to PM.

I am biting my tongue so hard right now you have no Idea, LOL.

[max power 21]

Well thanks for all of the biting you're doing. I appreciate it.

[DunHiLa 10]

Quit while you're behind, you really don't have a clue what you are talking about.

JFYI, both companies (Sony and MS) went with AMD for financial reasons.

It's common knowledge that Intel CPUs are better - only a fool would argue to the contrary given the available evidence.

Yes,that is the only reason,sure.I really like it when people read a couple of benchmark test and scores and think they know everything :D.You should stop talking before doing some more research mate.

[sultanofswing 10]

Yes,that is the only reason,sure.I really like it when people read a couple of benchmark test and scores and think they know everything :D.You should stop talking before doing some more research mate.

Sorry I can't bite my tongue.

YOU are the one that is complaining about poor FPS, YOU are the one that came on this public forum asking for help. WE on the forum are the ones trying to help YOU but you do not want the help.

I will only state this one time and it will be my last time, I think the mods should probably close this thread.

INTEL chips get more Done than AMD chips Clock for Clock. It's just that simple. Correct me if I am wrong but you have a top notch video card and a top notch AMD cpu but are struggling to get even 10FPS? Everyone else here with Intel chips seems to be getting better FPS than you and they have even slower Video cards than you do. Hell my single GTX660 is getting 40-70fps most of the time. Why is that? Wonder if it has something to do with the CPU? Nah, Cant. :butbut:

Max Power I apologize but this guy was asking for it. I will simply put my Throne back on top of my PC and walk away, You can close this thread if you so desire!

[Mellonpopr 10]

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2012/-20-Crysis-II,3175.html

[ric 1]

that bench probably uses hyperthreading, which is useless in games. should be a ~60+% increase in performance.

Im not saying there wont be an increase in power, all im saying is he still have a powerful chip, here is a test of a 3770k vs the 860 clock for clock...yes the 3770 is faster but when he ran the heaven 3.0 test with both CPU's @3.5 on a 670FTW card the there was almost no difference in FPS @1920X1200 :) that means the limiting factor was the 670 :) so can the 860 handle a 680? i don't really know but the 670 is still a good card.

Let me say again that the 3770/4670 ARE better chips and will perform higher....it just might not be the case with A3 and i say this because i get the same problems with my 2500k @4.2GHz http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2257414

---------- Post added at 23:30 ---------- Previous post was at 23:24 ----------

Sorry I can't bite my tongue.

YOU are the one that is complaining about poor FPS, YOU are the one that came on this public forum asking for help. WE on the forum are the ones trying to help YOU but you do not want the help.

I will only state this one time and it will be my last time, I think the mods should probably close this thread.

INTEL chips get more Done than AMD chips Clock for Clock. It's just that simple. Correct me if I am wrong but you have a top notch video card and a top notch AMD cpu but are struggling to get even 10FPS? Everyone else here with Intel chips seems to be getting better FPS than you and they have even slower Video cards than you do. Hell my single GTX660 is getting 40-70fps most of the time. Why is that? Wonder if it has something to do with the CPU? Nah, Cant. :butbut:

Max Power I apologize but this guy was asking for it. I will simply put my Throne back on top of my PC and walk away, You can close this thread if you so desire!

sultan this is not an AMD vs INTEL issue, i get 28 FPS and down to 15....and i have a 2500K @4.2GHZ with a EVGA 660SC...its not so much the CPU'S as it is the game ...remember the "recommended" is an x4 940 and i5 2300...most of us have better then that.

[purepassion 22]

That's a last warning. If you can't take the AMD vs Intel debate elsewhere or to PM, this thread will be locked without hesitation and infractions will be handed out. You got yet another warning so just swallow it and don't complain if you don't manage to do so ;)

With that being said, let's continue with the SLI issues.

[sultanofswing 10]

Back on the topic of SLI. SLI worked fine for me with 2 660's. I saw anywhere from 80%-100% GPU usage on both GPU's with everything on max settings. When I took the 2nd 660 out of the system I had to lower my settings to achieve playable framerate, So yes SLI worked fine on my end.

I will agree that maybe the game could use more optimization. Will it ever be optimized? Who knows.

What I also think may be happening is that people are lowering there Graphic settings down because they get bad FPS so GPU usage goes down a lot. Turning the settings up like Post processing, AA and AF will utilize the GPU's a lot more but the FPS drops horrendously.

[Mellonpopr 10]

I agree and it's strange. at lower resolutions x720 I get very good FPS without much detail turned on, somewhere in the 60-80's on average and GPU usage is 35%. But the game doesn't look very good. When I run a higher resolution such at x1080 it drops to 40-60fps on average with the same detail settings and the game looks much better. My GPU usage goes to about 60% on each.

I don't understand why the FPS drops 20 in this scenario if the GPU usage hasn't gotten anywhere near 100%. I've logged everything and I'm staying well under my memory size and verified that the cooling is working properly, the core and memory clock rates do not drop.

I even watched CPU usage, it's the same at both resolutions.

The only thing I can think of is that maybe the memory size is okay but the speed is not?? I wish I had a newer card to pop in and test with. I really don't want to shell out 650.00 for the GTX 780 I'm looking at and find out that in THIS game it makes no difference.

[sultanofswing 10]

I agree and it's strange. at lower resolutions x720 I get very good FPS without much detail turned on, somewhere in the 60-80's on average and GPU usage is 35%. But the game doesn't look very good. When I run a higher resolution such at x1080 it drops to 40-60fps on average with the same detail settings and the game looks much better. My GPU usage goes to about 60% on each.

I don't understand why the FPS drops 20 in this scenario if the GPU usage hasn't gotten anywhere near 100%. I've logged everything and I'm staying well under my memory size and verified that the cooling is working properly, the core and memory clock rates do not drop.

I even watched CPU usage, it's the same at both resolutions.

The only thing I can think of is that maybe the memory size is okay but the speed is not?? I wish I had a newer card to pop in and test with. I really don't want to shell out 650.00 for the GTX 780 I'm looking at and find out that in THIS game it makes no difference.

I personally would not shell out that kind of money on a new card for THIS game. I would at least try a 2gb card and see what it does. Although I would like to see what a 780 would do.

[Mellonpopr 10]

I personally would not shell out that kind of money on a new card for THIS game. I would at least try a 2gb card and see what it does. Although I would like to see what a 780 would do.

I did have my eye on the much cheaper 670 but I think the 780 will last me quite a bit longer and it comes with 3gb or DDR5 IIRC. 650.00 is a lot of money but it's nearly as fast as the 1000.00 titan and 690. Later I can add another 780 to the mix and scale up as needed.

[sultanofswing 10]

I did have my eye on the much cheaper 670 but I think the 780 will last me quite a bit longer and it comes with 3gb or DDR5 IIRC. 650.00 is a lot of money but it's nearly as fast as the 1000.00 titan and 690. Later I can add another 780 to the mix and scale up as needed.

You do have a point. If you got the coin then You would be one of the first that would find out what it will do with Arma 3.

[DunHiLa 10]

Sorry I can't bite my tongue.

YOU are the one that is complaining about poor FPS, YOU are the one that came on this public forum asking for help. WE on the forum are the ones trying to help YOU but you do not want the help.

I will only state this one time and it will be my last time, I think the mods should probably close this thread.

INTEL chips get more Done than AMD chips Clock for Clock. It's just that simple. Correct me if I am wrong but you have a top notch video card and a top notch AMD cpu but are struggling to get even 10FPS? Everyone else here with Intel chips seems to be getting better FPS than you and they have even slower Video cards than you do. Hell my single GTX660 is getting 40-70fps most of the time. Why is that? Wonder if it has something to do with the CPU? Nah, Cant. :butbut:

Max Power I apologize but this guy was asking for it. I will simply put my Throne back on top of my PC and walk away, You can close this thread if you so desire!

I am stuggling to get 10 FPS on my AMD CPU not because it's weak mate but because this game has some serious issues.It's a software problem not a hardware one and if you read just a couple of posts up you will see a person with an Intel Quad Core that also has the same problem as mine,even though his CPU by your words should have more power than mine.How does that happen I wonder?!I want the help but from people that know how to help in my case not from a fanboy that read a couple of benchmarks and know thinks he can solve all of the world's problems.

[WalkerDown 1]

He did not buy the Alpha, because the Alpha is neither the finished product nor is it necessarily representative of the finished product according to the developers in their own words.

He (like anyone here) bought the game at its current stage of development.

Btw that's a off topic argument, we're discussing about the poor engine performance due to the fact that the engine is not capable of using properly the resources (especially the modern CPUs). This is a old argument anyway, and anyone unfortunately knows it already, I were suggesting the OP to not to upgrade anything, because it's not a problem of his setup but a problem of the game itself (since even with a top hi-end 6-corse CPU accompanied to a couple of titans, the game does not run smooth as it should be), so it could be more convenient to wait for a fix (if there will ever be one...), a fix to this issue I mean:

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=716

...that has 1491 votes already.

[liquidpinky 11]

He (like anyone here) bought the game at its current stage of development.

Btw that's a off topic argument, we're discussing about the poor engine performance due to the fact that the engine is not capable of using properly the resources (especially the modern CPUs). This is a old argument anyway, and anyone unfortunately knows it already, I were suggesting the OP to not to upgrade anything, because it's not a problem of his setup but a problem of the game itself (since even with a top hi-end 6-corse CPU accompanied to a couple of titans, the game does not run smooth as it should be), so it could be more convenient to wait for a fix (if there will ever be one...), a fix to this issue I mean:

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=716

...that has 1491 votes already.

To be fair, it is actually meant to have been a discussion on poor SLi implimentation. Which we have proven to be not the case.

Everyone pointing out that the CPU is not fast enough has also given the correct, but very unpopular, answer.

Now the fact that we need to have 5GHz CPUs on the other hand to have any semblance of a decent FPS deosn't make it acceptable however and idealy performance could do with sorting out.

Or I will have to switch to Liquid Nitrogen and maybe do a little more overclocking.

[ric 1]

I even watched CPU usage, it's the same at both resolutions.

answered your own question :)

[sephis 10]

To be fair, it is actually meant to have been a discussion on poor SLi implimentation. Which we have proven to be not the case.

Everyone pointing out that the CPU is not fast enough has also given the correct, but very unpopular, answer.

Now the fact that we need to have 5GHz CPUs on the other hand to have any semblance of a decent FPS deosn't make it acceptable however and idealy performance could do with sorting out.

Or I will have to switch to Liquid Nitrogen and maybe do a little more overclocking.

Just got my i5 4670 and MSI Z87-G45 installed. Updating now everything now. Will be interesting to see if those bashing the CPU were right.

[purepassion 22]

Well I have the same and it's running fine for me with a 7870XT. >30fps in the town with AI squads on Ultra settings and 2k View/Object.

The CPU is absolutely good enough for Arma 3 but it might just bottleneck 2 680's