295 GTX SLI Causing Screen Flicker

[pLexxy]

With the a better computer, i am getting flickering and some color shifting while playing games with the same monitor i used with an older computer. the flicker is either nonexistant of unnoticable while simply looking at the desktop. My old computer ran 7800gtx's in SLI with no screen flicker at all with my dell 2005fpw widescreen LCD. With my new computer's 295 gtx's in SLI, i am noticing screen flicker using 60hz @ 1680x1050 (same res as old computer ran). On top of this, the colors seem to shift back and forth between a red/blue cycle. the color shifting is subtle, but this example may help: when looking at an orange background it may pulse between a darker orange and a grayish orange.

any ideas on what could solve my flickering and color shifting problems? perhaps a new monitor with a higher refresh rate (although i don't believe there are LCD's with higher than 60hz rates)?

EDIT: old comp was on XP, new is on vista 64, and i did try running games i see flicker on with compatibility mode.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

Do you have 1x GTX295 for double Sli or 2xGTX295 for quad SLi?

 

[OvrClkr]

Good question cause if you are using dual 295's @ that resolution that is normally called "MEGA OVERKILL".....

 

[pLexxy]

quad. i know. i got the pc as a gift haha. i plan to buy a new monitor soon, but i'm trying to solve my problem with my current one.

 

[OvrClkr]

In order for you too see what dual 295's can bring to the table you need a very high-end system paired with at least a 27.5" gaming LCD @ 1920 x 1200 res.

Would be nice to have your system specs.......

 

[pLexxy]

i7 CPU 950 @ 3.07GHz
6 gb ram
2x 295 gtx quad sli
1 TB hd raid-0

and i'm aware i'm wasting the capabilities of the quad SLI power by using this old monitor, but i'm still sure my system shouldnt be producing flicker etc.

 

[successful_troll]

Good question cause if you are using dual 295's @ that resolution that is normally called "MEGA OVERKILL".....

“MEGA OVERKILL” is a very good thing.
Imagine that he can play crysis with max setting(1680x1050) and get 80fps average!!!

 

[OvrClkr]

i7 CPU 950 @ 3.07GHz
6 gb ram
2x 295 gtx quad sli
1 TB hd raid-0

and i'm aware i'm wasting the capabilities of the quad SLI power by using this old monitor, but i'm still sure my system shouldnt be producing flicker etc.

What PSU are you using?

 

[jerohmeee]

In order for you too see what dual 295's can bring to the table you need a very high-end system paired with at least a 27.5" gaming LCD @ 1920 x 1200 res.

Would be nice to have your system specs.......

I am confused on why people relate screen size to resolution? Why would would he need at least a 27.5 inch monitor to take advantage of quad gtx 295? Screen size has nothing to do with it. Only the resolution. So it would not matter if he had a 22' or a 24'' as long as its 1920x1200. Or am I wrong?

I just see so many people relating screen size to resolution like it has to do with performance towards FPS in a game. The only difference is pixel per inch where one could argue a 27.5'' would look crappier than a 24'' at the same resolution due to the pixel density.

But, I totally agree, bro, you need a higher resolution monitor to take advantage of those kinda specs.... hell get a 2560x1600 lol.

 

[chef7734]

In order for you too see what dual 295's can bring to the table you need a very high-end system paired with at least a 27.5" gaming LCD @ 1920 x 1200 res.

Would be nice to have your system specs.......

You do not need a 27.5" monitor. 24" 16x10 runs at 1920x1200 which is the same resolution on everything from 24" to 29" Then at 30" it jumps up to 2560x1600 with a dual link dvi cable. You should really know what you are talking about before giving out information. It is not the screen size but the resolution that determins how the card performs. You can use a 50" lcd tv or plasma and its resolution is only 1920x1080 which is far less demanding than a 30" lcd monitor.

 

[OvrClkr]

You do not need a 27.5" monitor. 24" 16x10 runs at 1920x1200 which is the same resolution on everything from 24" to 29" Then at 30" it jumps up to 2560x1600 with a dual link dvi cable. You should really know what you are talking about before giving out information. It is not the screen size but the resolution that determins how the card performs. You can use a 50" lcd tv or plasma and its resolution is only 1920x1080 which is far less demanding than a 30" lcd monitor.

WoWzers.... I never meant you cannot get 1920x1200 res on 24" screens I was just giving an example of what I would buy if I had the money to purchase dual 295's in the first place....

Hold your horses son.... I do know what I am talking about... If you are a fanboy of 24" screens then good for you... I just was suggesting that you can see so much more with a bigger/better screen taking into consideration that if you have the cash for those GPU's you should have the cash for any size LCD...

Sorry for the misinterpretation of my first post.......

 

[chef7734]

WoWzers.... I never meant you cannot get 1920x1200 res on 24" screens I was just giving an example of what I would buy if I had the money to purchase dual 295's in the first place....

Hold your horses son.... I do know what I am talking about... If you are a fanboy of 24" screens then good for you... I just was suggesting that you can see so much more with a bigger/better screen taking into consideration that if you have the cash for those GPU's you should have the cash for any size LCD...

Sorry for the misinterpretation of my first post.......

I am not a fan boy of anything. I don't own a 24" monitor I own several 26" monitors. The picture on a smaller screen with the same res will look better than a larger screen with the same resolution because of the pixel size. You stated something as fact and we were just correcting your statement.

 

[OvrClkr]

That is incorrect, if you compare a 24" @ 1920x1200 vs. a 26" @ 1920x1200 you will have the exact same image in detail.. I have a 19"/22"/24" and a 27.5" and as far as pixel size goes if I compare the 24" to the 27.5" there is no difference if they are both running @ the same res.....If you were comparing a 26/30" to a 45" LCD tv @ the same res then that would be another story.... And if there is a difference it is minimal and can not be detected by the naked eye....

 

[chef7734]

That is incorrect, if you compare a 24" @ 1920x1200 vs. a 26" @ 1920x1200 you will have the exact same image in detail.. I have a 19"/22"/24" and a 27.5" and as far as pixel size goes if I compare the 24" to the 27.5" there is no difference if they are both running @ the same res.....If you were comparing a 26/30" to a 45" LCD tv @ the same res then that would be another story....

That is incorrect. The larger the display at the same resolution means that each pixel is larger. Same amount of pixels to fill a larger screen means the pixels have to be larger. Come on you should know that it is basic math. Apparently you really have no clue if you are stating that a larger screen with the same res will look the same as a smaller monitor with the same res. Bu that is ok maybe your eyes can not see a difference and that is ok too.

Let me break it down for you

a 17" monitor at 1920x1200 has pixel pitch of .191 and 132.9 pixel/inch
24" at 1920x1200 pitch of .270 and 94.0 pixel/inch
27" at 1920x1200 pitch of .303 and 83.8 pixel/inch

this means pixels are larger and less per inch thus more pixalated image. Smaller monitor has more pixels per inch and more compact pixels thus less pixelated image and smoother textures.

 

[OvrClkr]

I agree, but I am just comparing detail on a 24" vs. a 27.5". If your statement was true nobody would by large monitors taking into consideration that you lose detail the bigger you go... So in all what I am trying to explain here is that you dont lose picture quality just cause you are using a bigger monitor....Maybe you will understand what I am trying to portray if I explain it this way....

In order for you to notice a loss in picture quality (DETAIL) @ the same res, you would have to compare : EXAMPLE : 30" LCD to a 45" LCD Tv or 24" LCD to a 32" LCD TV ...

 

[OvrClkr]

Here is another example...

If you have movie files on your PC, try viewing them in a box that measures more or less 4"x4".. Then Try viewing them in 5"x5".... the quality should be basically the same giving that the only difference here is that you get a bigger picture at 5"x5"....

Now if you compare a 5"x5" and you stretch it out to 20"x20" THEN you should see a significant difference in quality due to the screen being much bigger in size.....I hope you get my point...

 

[chef7734]

I agree, but I am just comparing detail on a 24" vs. a 27.5". If your statement was true nobody would by large monitors taking into consideration that you lose detail the bigger you go... So in all what I am trying to explain here is that you dont lose picture quality just cause you are using a bigger monitor....Maybe you will understand what I am trying to portray if I explain it this way....

In order for you to notice a loss in picture quality (DETAIL) @ the same res, you would have to compare : EXAMPLE : 30" LCD to a 45" LCD Tv or 24" LCD to a 32" LCD TV ...

It all depends on the persons eyes. I can see a difference in the pixels from 24" to a 27 inch and that is why I settles with 26" monitors. The smootheness of the picture is better on a 24 than a 27 period. Thats why you have aa and af to smooth out the squareness look of the pixels.

 

[SIRIUSDOG]

lets answer his question

 

[mesab66]

The more an image is made to fit a larger screen AT THE SAME RESOLUTION and - very importantly - AT THE SAME (standard monitor) VIEWING DISTANCE then the greater the undesirable effects of a 'large' pixel size - effects such as 'jaggies'.
You don't 'lose' detail the larger the monitor - the same identical image is always presented - however, at the same resolution, the above negative effects of pixel size become more apparent providing, of course, you are close enough to the monitor to see the pixels (this won't be so much of a problem if you move to the optimal viewing distance for the monitor size - most users sit closer than the optimal distance!).
At standard computer monitor distance (the average for everyone), in order to reduce the effects of pixel size, as the monitor size increases then so should the screen resolution. In reality, monitor resolutions available from the graphics system/card jump in relatively large increments, and so, those available are usualy not OPTIMAL. However, as a general rule of thumb (ignoring panel type, etc), try to get a monitor with the highest resolution available in that size for your chosen display (of course, more expensive).
A 30" 2560x1600 would be approaching the justification of having 2 x 295's!

As an additional observation, a 60" 1080p tv screen will look crap if viewed from 1 foot away - you WILL see the pixels. As you move away and approach the OPTIMAL VIEWING DISTANCE (and optimal environment-lighting,etc) then picture quality approaches optimal. As you move further away from the optimum distance you nullify the benefits of a larger screen size and thus pour money down the drain and become the laughing stock of those better informed as you show off the 'huge' display - I've witnessed this so many times!

For the screen flicker problem, what NVIDIA drivers have you installed? What game are you playing? what is running in the background? have you optimised (disabled unnecessary services/tasks/etc) vista64 - is it a recent clean install? Latest service pack? Monitor cabels rechecked? how old is the monitor? can you try the card in someone else's machine? rechecked the motherboard (all cards/modules seated properly/wires attatched/etc)?

 

[chef7734]

The more an image is made to fit a larger screen AT THE SAME RESOLUTION and - very importantly - AT THE SAME (standard monitor) VIEWING DISTANCE then the greater the undesirable effects of a 'large' pixel size - effects such as 'jaggies'.
You don't 'lose' detail the larger the monitor - the same identical image is always presented - however, at the same resolution, the above negative effects of pixel size become more apparent providing, of course, you are close enough to the monitor to see the pixels (this won't be so much of a problem if you move to the optimal viewing distance for the monitor size - most users sit closer than the optimal distance!).
At standard computer monitor distance (the average for everyone), in order to reduce the effects of pixel size, as the monitor size increases then so should the screen resolution. In reality, monitor resolutions available from the graphics system/card jump in relatively large increments, and so, those available are usualy not OPTIMAL. However, as a general rule of thumb (ignoring panel type, etc), try to get a monitor with the highest resolution available in that size for your chosen display (of course, more expensive).
A 30" 2560x1600 would be approaching the justification of having 2 x 295's!

As an additional observation, a 60" 1080p tv screen will look crap if viewed from 1 foot away - you WILL see the pixels. As you move away and approach the OPTIMAL VIEWING DISTANCE (and optimal environment-lighting,etc) then picture quality approaches optimal. As you move further away from the optimum distance you nullify the benefits of a larger screen size and thus pour money down the drain and become the laughing stock of those better informed as you show off the 'huge' display - I've witnessed this so many times!

For the screen flicker problem, what NVIDIA drivers have you installed? What game are you playing? what is running in the background? have you optimised (disabled unnecessary services/tasks/etc) vista64 - is it a recent clean install? Latest service pack? Monitor cabels rechecked? how old is the monitor? can you try the card in someone else's machine? rechecked the motherboard (all cards/modules seated properly/wires attatched/etc)?

Thanks for your input.