Sli or not to sli

[jhengst1962]

Hello,
With BF3 and COD/MW4 come, would it be wise to add another GTX560 Ti OC. If so, can I add another mfgr's card?

 

[inzone]

If you can post your computer spec's we can give you an informed answer. There are things we need to know cpu, psu ,hdd ,ram OS, case. I don't know what your psu is so I don't know if it has enough watts to support two cards.

 

[jyjjy]

Just give the GTX 560 Ti an nice high OC. It should be fine for now.

 

[AR73]

At eurogamer expo the devs said maxing BF3 would require twin 580s in SLI

You can mix manufacturers cards.

But you need to post the spec of your PC since you might need some other upgrades eg power supply.

 

[AR73]

Won't let me edit but forgot to add, we'd want to check the specs of the cards were compatible too (eg same ram speed). I do not know what happens if they do not match, but I know it will work if they do match.

 

[jyjjy]

At eurogamer expo the devs said maxing BF3 would require twin 580s in SLI

The game is in Beta you know. You can look at actual benchmarks at this point. From the numbers I'm seeing with a high OC he may want to leave AA off but that's about it. I would at least try the game on one card before deciding if a second is necessary.

 

[Gothams Finest]

Don't listen to the people who are telling you not to SLI, they are probably jealous.

Of course adding another GTX560 Ti would be worth it but it depends on the rest of your computer (PSU, CPU, Motherboard etc)

http://uk.geforce.com/optimise/guides/battlefield-3-beta-performance-guide

A single GTX560 Ti gets around 50fps with "High" settings not "Ultra", at "Ultra" the fps will be less.

Two 560s in SLI get 80fps at "High" so on "Ultra" with SLI 560 Ti you should have no problem maxing it out with over 60 fps.

 

[yummerzzz]

That's not true unless you're playing @ 1600p.
Various Forums members have already tried the BEta and able to max it out with a single GTX 480 and still stay pretty close to 60fps

There was no DX11 features in the BETA.

 

[jyjjy]

Don't listen to the people who are telling you not to SLI, they are probably jealous

This is ridiculous. Telling him to try the game with one card before deciding if he needs a second is just common sense. Don't project your standards on what other people need when even you state his current setup can get 50 fps on high settings. For some people going from high to ultra and 50 fps to 60 isn't actually worth $230. Shocking, I know, but true.

 

[Mrthorp]

i played the beta, all my settings were either "high" or ultra" by default, and i am running a 5770. my monitor is an old CRT, and im running 1600x1200.

try the game with your card, if you dont like it then you ask yourself this question..

Another thing to consider is the stuttering that can happen by SLI/Xfire cards. Toms has a great article about it. seems a general rule is the better your card, the less stuttering. personally, ive never noticed it, or i just dont see all that well.

 

[Gothams Finest]

This is ridiculous. Telling him to try the game with one card before deciding if he needs a second is just common sense. Don't project your standards on what other people need when even you state his current setup can get 50 fps on high settings. For some people going from high to ultra and 50 fps to 60 isn't actually worth $230. Shocking, I know, but true.

Don't project your standards neither you hypocrite. How do you know going from high with 50 fps to ultra with over 60 isn't worth it, in his opinion? And that is only for one game, look at difference in performance for these games, it almost doubles the FPS.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-560-ti-sli-review/9
http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-560-ti-sli-review/11
http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-560-ti-sli-review/7

The question he asked was, is it worth buying another GTX 560 Ti? and the answer is of course it is! It will improve performance by a mile. Maybe you can't afford $230, but if the OP is enquiring about it, then it is more then likely that he can, and it would be money well spent.

 

[jyjjy]

Don't project your standards neither you hypocrite. How do you know going from high with 50 fps to ultra with over 60 isn't worth it, in his opinion?

How am I a hypocrite? I'm the one telling him to overclock and try the game on one card then decide for himself. You are the one repeatedly asserting that getting a second card is definitely the way to go. Frame rates that average above 40 are smooth and above 60 are meaningless on most monitors. Of the 3 charts you linked only the first shows a meaningful improvement and Metro 2033 is a ridiculously hard to run game and an extreme outlier. The GTX 560 Ti can OC a huge amount, around 30% which puts it's performance at slightly above a stock GTX 570 on average. At that point there is only a handful of games that you can't max out and run smoothly at 1080p. IMO it is entirely inappropriate to vehemently assure someone that spending several hundred dollars to be able to bump up the final few setting in a handful of games is unquestionably worthwhile and it's even worse to insultingly attribute differing opinions to "jealously."

 

[Gothams Finest]

How am I a hypocrite? I'm the one telling him to overclock and try the game on one card then decide for himself. You are the one repeatedly asserting that getting a second card is definitely the way to go. Frame rates that average above 40 are smooth and above 60 are meaningless on most monitors. Of the 3 charts you linked only the first shows a meaningful improvement and Metro 2033 is a ridiculously hard to run game and an extreme outlier. The GTX 560 Ti can OC a huge amount, around 30% which puts it's performance at slightly above a stock GTX 570 on average. At that point there is only a handful of games that you can't max out and run smoothly at 1080p. IMO it is entirely inappropriate to vehemently assure someone that spending several hundred dollars to be able to bump up the final few setting in a handful of games is unquestionably worthwhile and it's even worse to insultingly attribute differing opinions to "jealously."

Don't project your standards on what other people need

That is why you are a hypocrite.

You said to me don't project your standards evan though you are projecting your own!

Your own standards are and I quote

Frame rates that average above 40 are smooth

how do you know your standards are the same standards of the OP? You don't know. You may be happy with FPS under 60 but the OP might not be.

You are assuming that the OP is happy with his current set up, why would he be asking about upgrading it if he is happy with it?


You can not deny that two 560 Ti have much better performance then a single GTX560 Ti, and will also keep playing new games on high settings for a lot longer. Stop acting as his financial advisor.

 

[vitornob]

Well...
Looks like BF3 Beta was capped in 'medium' details, many people was saying that from medium to ultra wasn't any performance difference, or quality difference.

If this was true, I do believe that maxing the game would require 2x GTX 580.
Since I do have SLI GTX 460 (similar or a little faster than 1 GTX 580 in many reviews), and have problems sometimes with lags in some intensive action (1680x1050 resolution, all maxed in 'ultra' = 'medium')

 

[Gothams Finest]

Well...
Looks like BF3 Beta was capped in 'medium' details, many people was saying that from medium to ultra wasn't any performance difference, or quality difference.

If this was true, I do believe that maxing the game would require 2x GTX 580.
Since I do have SLI GTX 460 (similar or a little faster than 1 GTX 580 in many reviews), and have problems sometimes with lags in some intensive action (1680x1050 resolution, all maxed in 'ultra' = 'medium')

These are the differences between the four presets available: Low, Medium, High, and Ultra.

Low Quality
Even at Low Quality, Battlefield 3 looks decent. The game uses the same realtime radiosity lighting engine that is used across all graphics presets, so even at low quality, there are tons of dynamic lights, colours reflect and bleed, and high dynamic range (HDR) lighting is in full effect. But the picture, though realistic, is fairly coarse. Shadows are jagged and can look like saw teeth. Textures are blurry unless viewed up close (a higher resolution loads when things get too blurry). And trees and grass look very flat without the rich self-shadowing that's provided by ambient occlusion. Fence aliasing is also very distracting at low quality.

Medium Quality
At Medium Quality, the fidelity and detail is significantly improved. The most noticeable difference is that all shadows are now soft; there are no more chunky pixels to be found. Ambient occlusion is now enabled in the form of SSAO or Screen Space Ambient Occlusion. This means trees and grass cast shadows on themselves, giving them a richer, lusher look. "Antialiasing Post", which refers to antialiasing done as a post process using shaders, is now set to Low. This removes most of the jagged edges in the scene, making the image much smoother.

High Quality
Now this is what Battlefield 3 is supposed to look like. High Quality adds an extra layer of architectural detail on the beautiful Parisian buildings in the Metro level. Windows and columns are rendered with real geometry which in turn cast shadows on themselves thanks to ambient occlusion. Overall, objects and structures look a lot more 3D. Textures are also much sharper thanks to 16x anisotropic filtering. The game is simply beautiful at this point.

Ultra Quality
At Ultra Quality, everything looks better but in a more subtle than dramatic way. The most obvious improvement comes from the 4x MSAA setting which is enabled by default using Ultra Quality. Up until Ultra Quality, all antialiasing is handled by a post processing shader , which though powerful, can miss certain objects. For example, at High Quality, fences and thin lines form crawling patterns when you move passed them. At Ultra Quality, the addition of 4x MSAA removes most of the offensive moiré patterns.

 

[Gothams Finest]

I have to agree with jyjy,
unless we've seen final benches , until the OP has the actual game and tries it out, another 560Ti is not really justified

That is fine mate, we are all entitled to our opinions.

 

[vitornob]

These are the differences between the four presets available: Low, Medium, High, and Ultra.

Low Quality
Even at Low Quality, Battlefield 3 looks decent. The game uses the same realtime radiosity lighting engine that is used across all graphics presets, so even at low quality, there are tons of dynamic lights, colours reflect and bleed, and high dynamic range (HDR) lighting is in full effect. But the picture, though realistic, is fairly coarse. Shadows are jagged and can look like saw teeth. Textures are blurry unless viewed up close (a higher resolution loads when things get too blurry). And trees and grass look very flat without the rich self-shadowing that's provided by ambient occlusion. Fence aliasing is also very distracting at low quality.

Medium Quality
At Medium Quality, the fidelity and detail is significantly improved. The most noticeable difference is that all shadows are now soft; there are no more chunky pixels to be found. Ambient occlusion is now enabled in the form of SSAO or Screen Space Ambient Occlusion. This means trees and grass cast shadows on themselves, giving them a richer, lusher look. "Antialiasing Post", which refers to antialiasing done as a post process using shaders, is now set to Low. This removes most of the jagged edges in the scene, making the image much smoother.

High Quality
Now this is what Battlefield 3 is supposed to look like. High Quality adds an extra layer of architectural detail on the beautiful Parisian buildings in the Metro level. Windows and columns are rendered with real geometry which in turn cast shadows on themselves thanks to ambient occlusion. Overall, objects and structures look a lot more 3D. Textures are also much sharper thanks to 16x anisotropic filtering. The game is simply beautiful at this point.

Ultra Quality
At Ultra Quality, everything looks better but in a more subtle than dramatic way. The most obvious improvement comes from the 4x MSAA setting which is enabled by default using Ultra Quality. Up until Ultra Quality, all antialiasing is handled by a post processing shader , which though powerful, can miss certain objects. For example, at High Quality, fences and thin lines form crawling patterns when you move passed them. At Ultra Quality, the addition of 4x MSAA removes most of the offensive moiré patterns.

Wow, many thanks for the precise explanation. I did not tried other settings than ultra to real check any differences.

But, if this ultra quality is the final and highest quality in this game, I'm a little disapointed, it not looks like the videos I saw before in the internet.

 

[Gothams Finest]

You might find these interesting vitornob.

 

[jyjjy]

That is why you are a hypocrite.

You said to me don't project your standards evan though you are projecting your own!

Your own standards are and I quote how do you know your standards are the same standards of the OP? You don't know. You may be happy with FPS under 60 but the OP might not be.

You are assuming that the OP is happy with his current set up, why would he be asking about upgrading it if he is happy with it?


You can not deny that two 560 Ti have much better performance then a single GTX560 Ti, and will also keep playing new games on high settings for a lot longer. Stop acting as his financial advisor.

Frame rates over 40 being considered smooth is the general consensus, not just my personal opinion I made up. The OP did NOT say he was unsatisfied with his current performance, he asked about the wisdom of adding a second card for games that have yet to be released. Once again I'm the one telling him to use his OWN judgement by trying the games on a single card and seeing if he personally is satisfied while you were cramming the idea of a second card being absolutely the right thing to do down everyone's throat and insulting those who have a different opinion.

 

[JackNaylorPE]

No harm in waiting to see ..... my son's playing the beta w/ twin 560 TI's OC'd to 1000MHz......on a 120 Hz monitor and reports no complaints (not seen myself). Before that, he said, he had no lag either in Alpha where ya couldn't use SLI. He is however having issues with Alice which, which he tells me, w/PhysX on and Ultra settings is not playable.

 

[Gothams Finest]

Frame rates over 40 being considered smooth is the general consensus, not just my personal opinion I made up. The OP did NOT say he was unsatisfied with his current performance, he asked about the wisdom of adding a second card for games that have yet to be released. Once again I'm the one telling him to use his OWN judgement by trying the games on a single card and seeing if he personally is satisfied while you were cramming the idea of a second card being absolutely the right thing to do down everyone's throat and insulting those who have a different opinion.

I am not cramming anything down anyones throat I am merely stating my opnion, something which you have great objection to. You seem to not like other people having an opnion.

Remember it is you who was so ignorant to attack my opninion in the first place, so don't talk about me "insulting" your opnion, hypocrite.

I am entitled to my opnion (as are you) but if you believe that 40 fps is adequate then that is your opinion not "the general consensus" (unless you can provide proof that 40 fps is "the general consensus")

My opinion is 60 fps is optimal. Your assuming that the OP agrees with you, when he hasnt evan responded yet, he might be wanting to max it out with a minimum of 60 fps. We dont evan know what resolution he's going to use, so stop saying that a single GTX 560Ti will be fine because you dont evan know what his expectations are.

I answered his question, two GTX 560 Ti's are better then one, which is a fact. That is what he was asking for, not for people like you to tell him how he should and shouldn't spend his money.

You are ignorant and you assume too much.

 

[Gothams Finest]

Just give the GTX 560 Ti an nice high OC. It should be fine for now.

 

[yummerzzz]

Frostbite 2.0 is just a improved frostbite 1.5 engine.
I dont see how it can become the next Crysis in graphics requirement

I.e Tesselation

 

[jjb8675309]

well im in the same boat as the OP and personally I think I will be scaling back a couple small settings way before I spend another $220 on a second ASUS DC2 GTX 560ti. With an oc the thing is a beast imo practically a gtx 570...

bottom line is if you have the money and the system to run it then there is no reason not to sli, but otherwise the OP will probably be fine with a single card

moreover no one will know the exact performance until the final product is released so bickering about the differences between high and ultra (although interesting, and I personally appreciate the info) is not going to matter much. It may serve as a basic ballpark of the performance of the final product but who knows. And like Greg@home said a new frostbite engine should not be that graphically revolutionary compared to some other titles.

In the end theres a lot of valid arguments to consider but personally Id stick with a single card, oc it to high hell, and save your money for next gen...

 

[jjb8675309]

AND OP, what the heck are your full system specs already!?