Geforce 385.12 beta

that makes no sense

 

Wow, so much mis-information on SLI....

if you know how, -->999/1000 folks don't, --full SLI (quad)does scale very well for 30/100 games (95%scaling/100). 40/100 games scale mediocre (40-60%scaling/100), and the rest show marginal or no benefit



there are so many things one has to do to get to that level and requires knowledge on what to do (enough cpu's, lanes, correct cpu/lane config, OS real knowledge, feeding the SLI, etc) so that full sli, no micro-stutterring, deep smooth consistent performance is attained.

and for a certain few, SLI is the only way to get games to work at real 4K, 5K and 8K. One card... well, as of today, just can't do it, especially if you have the upper side of eye candy enabled.

you also have to know how to really enable it in the driver, after nvidia took great efforts to hobble it. And you'll have to DIY some components.


as for these driver 385.12, there are some improvements but not real fixes. Save one; one of the bandwidth limitation flags has been removed, which helps in some apps/games that specifically use it.

so work in progress.


but seriously, SLI (done right) not for a whimsical stab at it. I see folks talk about it in these threads in absolute terms as if it was that simple.


My humble advice: don't SLI at all, unless you're willing to understand how things really work. Fresh out of the box, with no real config, SLI is not worth it.

It worth it only if you are passionate about it and if you can appreciate the difference it makes.

 

Right, I'm not bashing people with tri or quad SLI. But the point is official support from Nvidia isn't there. They said you get what you get. Gamble is a gamble at that point.

If that is what someone wants to do and can afford to that is their decision. Same with 2-way.

Just 2-way is officially supported.

 

No....

NVCPL vsync on ingame off.

Fullscreen is better performance wise to bordereless..

 

No offense, if an article came from "Brad Chacos" then I won't waste a time to read because he's damn bias with SLI & Razer mouse.

At the end of the day, SLI is for those that like to be claimed themselves enthusiastic user e.g. JayzTwoCents.

 

I don't understand this way of thinking. I have been using SLI for years and for no other reason than I wanted it and more often than not, has provided the performance boost I wanted in the games I play. That's just me though...

 

There's nothing wrong if you got the cash, indeed SLI is working, but if you're plainly just playing games is really wasted. :3eyes:

 

G-Sync (NVCPL): Fullscreen
V-Sync (NVCPL): On
Framerate limit up to -5% from target ingame (ini file in some cases) when possible, RTSS (since there is no proper external equivalent) when not.

This one goes more into dept with the input lag:
http://www.blurbusters.com/gsync/gsync101-input-lag/

 

Again, that makes no sense. I game on a 65" 4K TV...many of the games I play would be unplayable at 4K with max settings if not for the second 1080 Ti in my rig.

 

Again, that makes no sense. I game on a 65" 4K TV...many of the games I play would be unplayable at 4K with max settings if not for the second 1080 Ti in my rig.

 

I think it's certainly one of the best gaming setups right now for that resolution, for sure.

Incidently, what games are you playing that benefits from your current setup?

 

Why max settings on 4K tho?, its not like you need msaa 8x or ssaa 4X on that resolution, even high settings looks fine on that resolution for me, just by being 4x 1080p is a great jump in IQ, Im using a 3840x1600 Monitor, is not entirely 4K, but has good IQ.

In my case i use sli because i really need the extra power for 3dsmax, maya and blender, and when im compiling/rendering a scene it help me to spend time playing in my first card while the scene/Logo/movie is rendering in the second.

I know i can do this without sli like having my old a 980 as a second card for the work since maxwell has nice performance in rendering stuff, but having a second 1080ti is really usefull when im not doing anything productive and i spend less time in productive stuff since the card is alot faster.

 

Why you need to max out the setting? You're rich, but the way you are thinking is not a gamer mindset.

I don't want to argue over here.. Enjoy your rig.

 

Two things I'd like to say here.

First of all, how much AA you need depends on screen resolution, viewing distance and screen size, not just resolution alone, so it's not necessarily a given that you "don't need" significant AA because the resolution is 3840x2160. If he's sitting quite close to that 65" 4K TV he will most definitely need significant AA. UHD @ 65" comes out to only 68PPI, so if you're not sitting far enough back you will definitely need AA (your "standard" monitor would be somewhere around 96DPI). That being said, at normal PC monitor screen sizes and "sitting at a desk" viewing distances, yeah, you don't need much AA at all.

Secondly, you will not run any highly demanding game at 3840x2160 with 8x MSAA and get 60+FPS, that's just not happening with current Pascal cards, they are much too slow. You can only use that much AA on old games or games which are very modest with their demands. SSAA 4x is almost entirely out of the question, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't get 60FPS even in something like Overwatch, which is otherwise very, very easy to run. If you hear about max settings and 4K you can assume it does not refer to ridiculous things like SSAA 4x or MSAA 8x, because graphics cards with that much horsepower simply do not exist and MSAA has been absent in a lot of modern, very demanding titles in the first place (straight-up SSAA too, but we get resolution scaling sometimes). My 2 1080s are barely enough to push 60+FPS with light or no AA at 4K in some titles, 2 1080Tis won't be running extreme SSAA, what with them being ~1/3 faster or thereabouts.

 

some mis information out there.

Titan XP x4 in full quad sli, does render many games at real 4k (4096x2160), 5K and even pumps 8K out at consistent higher than 60fps. A titan xp single, has not been able to do that in any scenario I have, its seems to be too much for it.

2nd
no, there is absolutely no reason to indulge in any of the deeper AA settings when your up at or past 4096x2160. Its just a pointless burden and at best blurs textures, when sharp is what one is after if they invest in 5k and 8k. Most of my games are maxed eye candy but I seldom do more than smaa or fxaa, and occasionally it looks better with no AA at all.

frankly at 8k, I don't even consider AA.

I do indulge in maxing all the other settings, and I do get consistent high frame rates.


There is a catch: for SLI about 1/3 of the games I try actually get near 92% + scaling, the second 1/3 is mediocre at around 60% scaling, the last 1/3 sees little improvement from SLI


and remember, one actually has to understand how to really et it up, theres more to it than just enabling SLI and trusting nvidia to do the rest.


with the 385 driver I have seen only one beneficial improvement in SLI and that was a flag for bandwidth that actually seemed to start working. Other than that, the optimizations helped one of my medical imaging needs, and a few unique settings. While others reported improvements in gaming, I have not seen it at the single card level.

 

I would have gone SLI as well if I was playing at 4k. I like to play at max settings as well. When 144 hrtz 4k monitors come out, I may grab one and a second 1080 TI. Enjoy your setup

 

Gears of War 4 (Since the mGPU update a few months back), Metro Redux, GTA V, Watch Dogs 2 to name a few.

Really? Max settings is more than just anti-aliasing...not trying to sound condescending but anti-aliasing is the least of my concerns @ 4k but textures, lighting, shadows, etc @ max quality require a decent amount of horsepower.

Look at my comment above...

1) I am not rich, I work, have a family and enjoy gaming when I have the time.

2) Going based off your logic, some one is only a gamer if they ARENT able to run games @ highest setting/resolution? Hope I am misunderstanding you on some level.

3) Lastly, second time you have brought up the "Rich/Money" topic...again, I am a 35 year old man with a good job who fortunately has the means available to him to invest in a hobby he has enjoyed for over 20 years. To assume I am not a gamer just because I am now an adult, with money, is ignorant on your part. Not many "gamers" here can remember the struggles of running a PC with a 233Mhz Pentium, 32MB of EDO RAM and a nVidia Riva 128 PCI graphic card with 4MB of ram, I can.

Not looking to argue either, just stating facts. You game at the resolution and settings your PC allows and so do I.

 

Some people just can't grasp common sense in subjects like this.

They just see GTX 1080 and not what its capable and not capable of.

"IT'S a GTX 1080 so it must be able to handle 4K maxed out with AA!"

Sure maybe close to max in some games not all and no AA....

I know that's why I got a second later on. Even 2K at 165hz Gsync required it.

 

You have to max out settings even at 4k if you use a 65 inch monitor. I only have one 1080ti and I run Witcher maxed out at 4k at 60 fps all day long. Lol, but that does not stop me from wanting a second ti.

 

Well thats true, specially in games like ghost recon wildlands, that game looks really beautiful and really makes ultra settings worth, unlike some games that just add tons of tesselation and poligons and tons of AA in ultra settings that rally don´t do anything really worth of apreciating but droping your framerate by a lot.

I miss the times when ultra really meant ultra.