PDA

View Full Version : a bit OT video card question



gamera67
11-27-2005, 05:01 PM
I'm throwing around the idea of upgrading my sytem to an SLI board, AMD FX-57, and running dual Leadtek 7800GTX cards.
I could have sworn I saw here, that people had trouble running SHIII with dual video cards, but I was unable to find any info on it searching here or at com.help.
Anybody running dual video cards with this game? Is it working out for you?
Thanks in advance for any recommendations.

Kaleun1961
11-27-2005, 07:37 PM
Sorry, I can't help you with that question, but it has made me curious to know. What is the benefit of running dual graphics cards, besides hooking up two monitors? Would two cards bump up the frame rate in games, for instance?

gamera67
11-27-2005, 08:21 PM
Yes, FPS would be increased, you have two cards doing the work of one. I've seen benchmarks where two lower rated cards were out performing one 7800GT.
I don't really follow all of the benchmarking and over clocking to closely, I'm just wanting to get my games to look their best, and I like spending all of my money on electronic gadgetry. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
As far as hooking up dual monitors, from what I have read, you can't run dual monitors when you have two cards hooked together.
One card is designated a slave and only the main output on the master card works. That's what I read on one site, I can't say that is fact, since I have never had a dual video card set up to play with.

Baldricks_Mate
11-27-2005, 08:24 PM
Since there is only 1 AGP slot on a board, the 2 cards would have to be PCI slot?

gamera67
11-27-2005, 09:06 PM
PCI Express, not the same as regular PCI. That seems to be the way video cards are going now. You can't even get a Geforce 7800 series card in AGP.
Now c'mon somebody tell me they are running this game fine in dual SLI set up. I got an itchy Mastercard finger here.

snoopyowns
11-28-2005, 05:59 AM
If I say I'll give it a try will you buy me those upgrades? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I don't see why it'd cause a problem, I guess you could probably disable one before loading up SH3 if there are problems.

TheRealWulfmann
11-28-2005, 08:01 AM
Go to Firing Squad and ask. That is where "Sie Experten" are for hardware questions

http://forums.firingsquad.com/firingsquad?category.id=hardware

Wulfmann

gamera67
11-29-2005, 09:48 AM
@ snoopyowns...Sure I'll buy you the upgrades, you just have to take over my credit card payments for a year. deal? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

@ TheRealWulfmann..Thanks for the link, but I'm not really looking at a hardware question. I remember someone here had problems with just this game when running dual video cards, but I guess that person no longer comes around and I can't locate that old thread.
Anyway, I'm guessing if I went to a techy site and asked about dual SLI for SHIII, I would here the typical "What's that? Some kind of sniper game?" It's unfortunate the masses don't know about this game or are unwilling to give it a try.
I have decided to take the plunge. I just ordered an Asus A8N-SLI Premium board, an AMD X-2 4800, and two Leadtek 7800 GTX's.
My old motherboard,CPU, and 6800GT are going in the system I'm building for my Wife for X-mas, so if SHIII doesn't run on my rig, I guess I'll be kicking her off of hers so I can get my ship sinking fix. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
Thanks for your replies

TheRealWulfmann
11-29-2005, 10:11 AM
"Sie Experten" not knowing about SH3 is not really relevant. They would have told you not to waste your money on a FX-57 and how to OC a AMD4000 to run like an FX-57. That is why I run my ideas by these guys as when I don't I often find I spent more for something that does less.
My current system (AMD3500, 2X1024 PC3200RAM, X800GTO, Asus A8N-SLI) only the X800 is OCed to 525/1100 the rest is stock speeds.
SH3 runs super. The only slow down I get is near a big convoy but at 256TC it is fine. This is much higher than my 32 bit system. I am thinking of OC the CPU and MoBo to get that to 512. It is not that important because at 25 miles from the convoy I do not need to be doing more than 128TC to move on it but I want the buffer.
As far as seeing the models or action I have no stutter at all with this set up.
I suspect that no matter how much we power up the convoys will cause a little stutter on the map with TC.
The guys that have put 2 super cards on the SLI have seen only a little improvement. But, putting 2 lesser cards seem to cause a bigger increase.
The techies at Firing Squad have a better handle on this stuff.
Wulfmann

snoopyowns
11-29-2005, 10:16 AM
I don't believe you will have a problem. If there was a problem with the SLI setup earlier, it probably had to do with the Video Card driver itself, and there have been some pretty good changes done for SLI in 81.95.

snoopyowns
11-29-2005, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by TheRealWulfmann:
"Sie Experten" not knowing about SH3 is not really relevant. They would have told you not to waste your money on a FX-57 and how to OC a AMD4000 to run like an FX-57. That is why I run my ideas by these guys as when I don't I often find I spent more for something that does less.
My current system (AMD3500, 2X1024 PC3200RAM, X800GTO, Asus A8N-SLI) only the X800 is OCed to 525/1100 the rest is stock speeds.
SH3 runs super. The only slow down I get is near a big convoy but at 256TC it is fine. This is much higher than my 32 bit system. I am thinking of OC the CPU and MoBo to get that to 512. It is not that important because at 25 miles from the convoy I do not need to be doing more than 128TC to move on it but I want the buffer.
As far as seeing the models or action I have no stutter at all with this set up.
I suspect that no matter how much we power up the convoys will cause a little stutter on the map with TC.
The guys that have put 2 super cards on the SLI have seen only a little improvement. But, putting 2 lesser cards seem to cause a bigger increase.
The techies at Firing Squad have a better handle on this stuff.
Wulfmann

I personally would not overclock a CPU. A lot of people do it, and I've tried it, there is not enough performance increase to justify the risk. If you are overclocking your cpu and it burns out, that is not covered in any warranty.

As far as the 7800's in SLI, that's correct, the tests show that two 6800's in SLI runs faster, however, that also is related to Drivers. I'd like to see those same tests run except using 81.95 drivers instead. It'll probably change and show a more clear advantage with the 7800's. Another factor to that is that the games used cannot take full advantage of the 7800. So for future games the 7800 in SLI will be much better.

gamera67
11-29-2005, 11:23 AM
Well I did pass on the FX-57, and I basically did buy an AMD 64-4000, I just have two cores running at 2.4Ghz, or will have I should say.

I'm also not much into OC'ing. I had my P4 overclocked last winter, but had to take it back to normal when summer rolled around due to heat problems. I really don't like doing it if its not needed and like snoopyowns, I saw no real performance boost.

basically, if you look at what I bought, I'm looking into the future.
Sure, I won't see much difference with a dual core CPU right now, but 6 - 8 months from now, I'm hoping it will pay off, same goes with the dual 7800's.
Time will tell if I wasted my cash or not.

Azordia
11-29-2005, 11:29 AM
Better question is, Gamera67, will the games that come out in the future be worth the input of finance? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The fact is, games are sliding, but wonderful for the eyes ofcourse. The new NFS is an eye candy, but what a load in terms of gameplay. You've got me drooling at the idea of two SLI 7800's for Elder's Scroll 4 though. :P

Thus far, I'm happy and proud to own a 6600GT OCed, it gets the job done with the right driver tweaks. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

snoopyowns
11-29-2005, 12:30 PM
Elder Scrolls 4.. mmmm....

Actually, Call of Duty 2 is the first game I have seen that actually has an SLI option on the graphics options. So it's optimized for SLI, I think that may have some to do with it, the game has to support SLI for efficient usage. Not sure, I'm not too technical on how the drivers actually work or how games are coded to support things http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

TheRealWulfmann
11-29-2005, 12:32 PM
If you want o OC and not have problems there are two important things that must be considered.
Using Arctic Silver5 for the heatsink/processor bond and a much better fan heatsink like the Thermalright XP90 for a CPU or the Arctic Cooling for video cards.

XP-90 link
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16835109119
You must choose a 90MM fan for this.

Acrtic Cooling link;
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?Manufacto...y=62&Submit=Property (http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?Manufactory=2107&PropertyCodeValue=0&PropertyCodeValue=0&PropertyCodeValue=0&PropertyCodeValue=0&PropertyCodeValue=0&PropertyCodeValue=0&PropertyCodeValue=0&PropertyCodeValue=0&PropertyCodeValue=0&PropertyCodeValue=0&description=&MinPrice=&MaxPrice=&SubCategory=62&Submit=Property)

To not upgrade the cooling will cause excessive heating and no OC should be done without being able to monitor temps.

You might want to ask about dual cores at Firing Squad. It is my understanding that will not help your game and that a new version which will do much to help your game is around the corner and soon..

Dual core to me is having two PCs networked. I can not get much for still very useful stuff (AMD2700, IDE HDs 9800VC) so why trash them when they still can play games decent but not with my 3500?????
That means I do everything but games on the smaller PC and crank up the big PC when I go on patrol air or Untersee or in a FPS or in my BMW-Williams on the F-1 track
It saves wear on the nicer stuff and though out of date my old system is over kill for anything but games.
Wulfmann

JU88
11-29-2005, 04:09 PM
SLI is waste of money if you ask me, i can sort of understand if you have a 6600 or 6600GT and want cheap boost by adding a second one, but its far more practical to have a single 6800GT /7800GT/GTX or ATI equivilant, SLI-ing say two 6800GTs or higher is:

very expensive,

you dont get anything near double the performance as you might think you would in theory,

too many games still dont support SLI

those unsupported non SLI compatible games may actually run worse on SLI than on a single card.

SLI ing two high performance cards wont boost your gaming experience anyway -as one 7800GTX is more than good enough for any current game on the market.

Two is not always that much better than one in terms of pC hardware, this doesnt just apply to SLI, tests have shown that RAID 0 or 'striping' two matching hard drives doesnt boost performance much, i tried it with 2 seagate 160gb SATAs and it sucked.
And duel core CPUs are a silly investment if your main use for your pc is gaming, hardly any games make use of a duel core chip at present, though this will change in the future.

In short: when it comes to PC hardware 'twin' does NOT equals double performance - just double the money http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

gamera67
11-29-2005, 11:43 PM
Azordia...yes I think future games are going to be worth my investment, otherwise I'd have been in line at Wal-Mart getting a 360 the other day. PC gaming is not dead yet, not by a long shot and every time the new consoles pass by PC games, the PC technology catches up and surpasses the console technology.

Wulfmann...honestly, I'm not trying to be a d**k with you, but I do use arctic silver and I'm currently using a Thermalright XP-120 on my system. I needed that heatsink just to keep my Pentium under control with out it being OC'ed.
Granted the Prescott pentiums run hot and I have never owned an AMD system, so I have no experience overclocking an AMD.

I did find you guys this article online tonight.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/28cpu-games_6.html
of interest was the Quake 4 benchmarks for the dualcores.

Unreal Tournament 2007, will support multithread, Elder Scrolls 4 is supposed to, and AMD and INTEL are pushing for all games to support it. Everything will be going multithread sooner than later (IMHO)
and yes, a good single core will still run these and future games just fine, but since I decided to go through with this upgrade now, as I said I am doing what I think will best suit me not only a year from now, but 5 years from now.

Here's a couple more interesting articles.
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/quake_4_cpu_performance/
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050509/cual_core_athlon-14.html
http://reviews.designtechnica.com/review3030_perf15160.html

snoopyowns
11-30-2005, 05:16 AM
<quote>Two is not always that much better than one in terms of pC hardware, this doesnt just apply to SLI, tests have shown that RAID 0 or 'striping' two matching hard drives doesnt boost performance much, i tried it with 2 seagate 160gb SATAs and it sucked.</quote>

I'm not quite sure where your RAID setup went wrong, but mine is incredible. Run SiSoft Sandra test on a single, then set it up in a RAID 0 and do that same test, you will get a huge increase in test performance. My windows will boot up in 5 seconds from pushing the button on the pc, instead of 30 seconds it took me before, granted before I was using a 5400 RPM with ATA133, and now they are SATA150 in RAID 0.

As far as gaming goes though, Loading is a lot faster, and for certain games that overly use high amount of memory like BF2, Instead of getting a snag when it has to load more textures, it is smooth.

Personally, I think he's looking to the future where as you guys are just talking about how it is now and will be a few months from now, but he's looking at a year from now.

TheRealWulfmann
11-30-2005, 08:43 AM
Gamer never thought you were being anything. We are exchanging ideas and references, no more.
I do not have experience with Intel CPUs because most gamers use AMD. They OC much better as I have been told and there seems to be much more experience with them. My suggestions were for AMD and not for any Intel stuff.

I believe you don't see much improvement in high end SLI VCs now because the one card on a good system will run the game well enough. But, that will )may, could??)change at some point.
My disaggreement is I wait for that development because everything will be cheaper next month than today and why not buy it when I need it at a better price insuring something else did not make my high dollar spend obsolete even before I could use it effectively.
Just one opinion.

Wulfmann

snoopyowns
11-30-2005, 10:17 AM
"Most gamers have AMD" I think that's more of a myth. If anything it's like 55% AMD or something, it's not definite of a line. And AMD has been known for easier overclocking but lately it seems they are doing what Intel does and restrict it as much as possible.

I probably would have waited too, but not by choice http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif More that lack of any kind of money tends to hurt your spending limit. If I had the money I would have gone with a Single 7800 GTX, but I am constantly upgrading my PC. Every 4 to 6 months I purcahse a new part that replaces "the weakest link" on my PC. So eventually all parts get replaced, but it's slow over time and spreads out the purchases and tends to be cheaper way of doing it as well.

TheRealWulfmann
11-30-2005, 10:45 AM
Snoop, don't really know how many but in the areas I am involved it is more than 75% AMD and 95%-100% when the person builds his PC for gaming and not just add games to the PC.
I am not trying to win a pissing contest as I have no loyalty to any corporation.
When people go to tech forums and ask about building a gaming PC I have never seen a response that suggest they use an Intel CPU.
Intels do some things better than AMD but not for gaming or so say "Sie Experten"

Wulfmann

bunkerratt
12-01-2005, 11:29 AM
hell if you compare the ccpu's lets 3ghz intel to 3ghz amd...depending on the features of each...look at the price..amd is a cheaper chip..thus.. imho..you run what you can afford..i'll stick with intel and ati graphics http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

snoopyowns
12-01-2005, 12:28 PM
That kind of brings up a question. So whats the deal with AMD's naming scheme, I hated it from day 1 when they put it out. I knew it'd be misleading. So does a AMD 3400+ equal a P4 3.4? Seriously. Whats with the naming! Back in the good old days it wasnt like this.

Overall I perfer AMD, more bang for the buck. Nvidia all the way!!

TheRealWulfmann
12-01-2005, 05:13 PM
It has more to do than just the CPU rating but it is beyond my head. As one guy put it why does it take a 6 liter corvette motor to keep up with a 3 liter Porsche motor. There is more to it than just the bare number we sometimes seam to rate things by. Mt 3500 is a 2.2 GHZ and so is my 2700.
I too do not understand what the AMD numbering means other than a means of recognizing a different model

Bunker, I guess you think your Intel P4 3.0 is faster than the AMD 2.8 FX57 because that number is bigger?
Go over to Firing Squad and enlighten those self proclaimed experts and we will go over and watch!
Wulfmann

evilbrew
12-02-2005, 06:37 PM
I think you will find the amd ratings are the the equivalent speed rating of a pentium
e.g an amd chip marked up as a 2800+ runs at the same rate of a pentium 2.8 ghz but the amd is actualy a slower chip some where near the 1.6ghz mark but because of the way it it makes better use of caching it will perform better This is also why amd`s are always cheaper than intel see here http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/..._11599_11604,00.html (http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_11599_11604,00.html)

gamera67
12-03-2005, 12:26 AM
AMD's naming scheme always baffled me too. A lot of people have told me the number is supposed to correlate with a Pentiums speed.

You definitely can't judge a CPU by its rated speed these days.

Wulfmann...to explain it with my extremely limited knowledge.
The P4's share pipelines and AMD doesn't. Thats why a slower AMD will out game a P4, but because P4's share pipelines they are better at multitasking and office type programs.
hahaha that's as technical as I can get on the subject.

bunkerratt
12-03-2005, 01:03 AM
i never said it was faster wulf...it's a socket 775 lga chip..for me to overclock this setup is easy..it's on the mobo..as far as the graphics go..i really have no problems with ati..i have ran nvida..it's a users choice..and yes it's colled by artic colling..with good paste and hand lapped too even..all cables in the case are rounded and shielded the hdd has a coller set on it ..and i have no shortage of power either..i'm by no means saying that this is super system...but it's super stable ..performs awsome..so..here..have a hit..and the beers in the fridge..lets sink some tonnage.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

TheRealWulfmann
12-03-2005, 10:28 AM
A stable system is the only one worth having. No upgrade that is unstable is worth the headache. Sounds like your system is fine and in a few months we will all be obsolete again, maybe weeks?

Wulfmann

Kaleun1961
12-03-2005, 01:04 PM
I think apples to apples benchmarks are the best way to compare different CPU's. When I went to spec my system I was hung up on a 256 meg video card. My tech guy said to go with a 128 Nvidia card, which actually outperformed some of those fancier 256 meg cards.

It's not so much the speed as the efficiency that counts. When I play hockey I can outskate shorter guys whose legs are going faster than mine. I have large, heavily muscled legs. When I skate I do so with a long stride but with lots of thrust. A shorter guy skating next to me makes more strides but is slower than me. I am making fewer strides than him, but those strides are doing more work than his less efficient but more frequent strides; thus a slower but more powerful pace outperforms a higher stride frequency.

JU88
12-03-2005, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by gamera67:
Well I did pass on the FX-57, and I basically did buy an AMD 64-4000, I just have two cores running at 2.4Ghz, or will have I should say.

I'm also not much into OC'ing. I had my P4 overclocked last winter, but had to take it back to normal when summer rolled around due to heat problems. I really don't like doing it if its not needed and like snoopyowns, I saw no real performance boost.

basically, if you look at what I bought, I'm looking into the future.
Sure, I won't see much difference with a dual core CPU right now, but 6 - 8 months from now, I'm hoping it will pay off, same goes with the dual 7800's.
Time will tell if I wasted my cash or not.


AMD Athlon 4000 isnt a duel core, or do you mean an X2 4200??

gamera67
12-04-2005, 01:17 AM
Originally posted by JU88:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gamera67:
Well I did pass on the FX-57, and I basically did buy an AMD 64-4000, I just have two cores running at 2.4Ghz, or will have I should say.

I'm also not much into OC'ing. I had my P4 overclocked last winter, but had to take it back to normal when summer rolled around due to heat problems. I really don't like doing it if its not needed and like snoopyowns, I saw no real performance boost.

basically, if you look at what I bought, I'm looking into the future.
Sure, I won't see much difference with a dual core CPU right now, but 6 - 8 months from now, I'm hoping it will pay off, same goes with the dual 7800's.
Time will tell if I wasted my cash or not.


AMD Athlon 4000 isnt a duel core, or do you mean an X2 4200?? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Neither. Wulfmann mentioned buying a 4000 and OC'ing it to FX-57 specs.
I recently ordered an X2-4800 and I was just saying the 4800 was like two 4000's just because the cores had the same speed.