Discussion in 'Videocards - NVIDIA GeForce' started by bugsixx, May 7, 2016.
The majority of people who say that haven't had it.
I've been running 970 SLI and 980Ti SLI so yes, I know what I'm talking about. 970 SLI worked fine but I did notice a decline in "SLI support day one" when new releases hit the shelves. Later I just decided to try single GPU (also for thermal/acoustic reasons) with 980Ti but later wanted to give it another shot and bought a second 980Ti which I struggled with for a couple of months before I gave up and sold it.
Sure, the experience wasn't all bad, for example Frostbite games worked perfectly and gave awesome scaling. But most other games either had poor scaling or no scaling at all. I mean, paying 650€ to go from 75 to 100fps in Witcher 3 isn't really awesome. Nowadays almost no games seem to have a working SLI profile at launch, at least from what I've read.
But guys, you might have the most epic experience ever and really feel that it's worth it. Feel free to recommend it, I was just giving my opinion.
In all honesty, I would much rather run one GPU. Sadly, at my resolution, that just isn't an option at the moment.
SLI is awesome when it is properly supported.
Support is certainly not what it used to be imho.
I was just making a true statement, not pointing at anyone.
Witcher 3 gives me 90% scaling so dunno what your issue is there.
Probably due to having a cpu with only 16 lanes.
Multi GPU support is poor in recent games due to being crap ports from consoles, which perform poorly even with single issues.
So i let those be outliers, not going to buy a game where a dev's team is run by monkeys.
personally ran SLI for 670's, then 980's - its all good when it works, however what saddens me a lot is what happened to SLI in recent years. ( at least as long as i used it ) Less and less titles had actual sli support. Some just had Profile enabled which performed HORRIBLY at most cases. Then you have crap like AAA+ games coming out with No support or " we will make a patch one month after release ". And that goes for major titles, smaller titles either never have SLI support or have negative scaling.
And then of course all the negative aspects of SLI such as micro-stutter, higher temperatures e.t.c.
What makes me positive of SLI is DX12/ Vulkan, Nvidia's decision to focus on SLI two cards. Hopefully those things will make SLI with two cards more or less mainstream.
As guys said above, SLI is great, when it works.
Make SLI great again!
Problem is that some things graphics programmers use on engines, such as Unreal Engine 4, will not work on SLI as how it's currently implemented.
If the implementation is up to the devs (DX12), maybe they will then start utilizing workarounds which enable SLI to work with multi frame data techniques.
Couldn't help but looking at your avatar when reading your statement But fine, I get it.
I've also heard that Broadwell-E or similar is needed but those CPUs were (when I bought my 6700K) quite expensive. If that's the case, then SLI should have some information regarding CPU requirements, wouldn't you agree? And Witcher 3 wasn't the only problem, FarCry Primal also had terrible scaling and the Division scaling wasn't any better than Witcher 3.
This couldn't be due to a thermal problem since my cards did throttle a bit but well within "normal" limits. I filled my case with fans but the themal output of dual 980Tis was too much. I guess going water would have been optimal but also very pricey.
My point is simply that due to scaling problems that have emerged more and more in recent years, SLI isn't worth the price per frame if you know what I mean. 970 SLI on the other hand was well worth the money when it worked (albeit acoustic issues, in other words quite loud system, partially due to my Corsair Air 540 I presume). What made me go single GPU at that time was simply because those games I was playing that didnt support SLI ran worse, and I thought it would be smarter to have the best single GPU card to ensure maximum performance in all scenarios.
Well they can't make a blanket statement saying needs a minimum of X CPU because the differences will vary on a game to game basis.
For example doom 3 scales like crap on a CPU with 16 lanes, 40 lane CPUs gets excellent scaling.
Witcher 3 is another example, i gained like 30% more FPS from going 5820K > 5930k (16x16 vs 16x8).
Many other games see a good 10-20% boost as well, just depends.
I know far cry primal doesn't support SLI but some are seeing 60% gains, which isn't too bad.
around 3mins in is a comparison of lanes.
I went from 570 SLI to 680 SLI to 780 SLI to 780Ti SLI to 980 SLI to 980Ti SLI and now 1080 SLI..
Aside from games that doesn't have SLI support, I have no problem in using SLI..Games with SLI support are more than those that doesn't..
For me, It's better to have extra GPU processing power when you need it than to find out you have to lower settings just to have good playable framerates..
I had SLI 680's for awhile and I can't say I'd ever go back to SLI.. Like many others say.. When it worked.. It worked great. But more often than not.. No SLI support and you'd have a $xxx paperweight in a PCIE slot..
Also, way too many people believe SLI is working when it's actually not.. Just because both GPUs have a load doesn't mean SLI is working..
So it is like I said? If you have a super beefy CPU and a super expensive 16x16 mobo like Agent-01 and Odellot, then I suppose you're golden in almost all situations...something which you seem to confirm yourselves.
But if you have a normal CPU like me and styckx, then SLI might work OK a few times but most of the time it wont.
SLI has, in other words, become a luxury.
PS. If I only could borrow a 1080 and prove my point, then we'd know for sure.
Yep but the point being is,
Saying xx game has poor scaling could be due to the CPU.
It's not always M-GPUs fault if CPU is holding them back.
So we agree that SLI requires powerful hardware to function adequately?
A 6850K would probably be what you buy today to get those 40 PCI-E lanes plus a mobo like the Gigabyte X99P SLI...that's 1000€ just to run the damn thing
That is true. But that is to run with full 16x/2 and 8x PCIe left over for anything else that needs it. My 6800k will do 16x/8x and leave over 4x PCIe for NVMe, utilizing 28 lanes total. I felt this is hogwash for the money spent $500 CPU (inc tax) and almost $300 for X99 AII. So for $200 more you get the extra lanes and full bandwidth plus room for exotic storage options and cards etc if you need it. I complained alot about this price/performance ratio as well but many seem to think I am acting ridiculous. If I can give you any advice before you upgrade, (especially if your concerned with pricing) keep your eye out for what AMD's Zen offering will do as I understand their 8 core counterpart and mobo with extra pcie lanes will probably have the same price/performance ratio as my current setup but give you the exotic PCIe lanes as Intel's top chips. It looks to be very plausible as AMD is trying to be competitive with Zen, a fully Gen 3 product, with DDR4 AM4 offering.
I'd like to try NVMe, seems fancy. I have no plans on upgrading right now but I do need more GPU power. I'll have to settle for 1080Ti for now and then we'll see further down the line. True that AMD Zen could be interesting later on.
A 960 EVO 250GB @€120 would be great imo! :thumbup:
It's good to have a 40 PCie lane...Already using 38 Lanes..16x2 for SLI, 4 for 950 Pro and 2 for Soundcard.
Can't wait for the 960 Pro to became Available here in our Country..I will put my 950 Pro to Our Family PC and upgrade to 960 Pro in my Main Rig..
Is it worth upgrading from 950 to 960? Same capacity?