• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

SLI Minimum FPS - How's your experience been?

Mayh3M

Mayh3M

Mayh3M

Associate
Joined
11 Dec 2014
Posts
1,093
Location
Oxford
I've ordered two 980 Tis to drive my 3440x1440 60hz screen.

Without G-Sync, I'll need to make sure minimum frame rates are at around 60. But with recent SLI benchmarks being released, it seems minimums don't really increase that much:

http://www.maximumpc.com/nvidia-gtx-980-ti-2-way-sli-crushing-performance/
http://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/1970-gtx-980-ti-sli-benchmark-vs-sli-980-titan-x/Page-2

The two reviews are slightly at odds with one another, with the first showing around a 40% gain to minimum frame rates on average at 2560x1440. So I've checked out some other popular games to see how they performed with the older 980 SLI, including Assassins Creed Unity and Hitman Absolution. These games seem to show a proportionately higher increase in minimum frame rates.

What I know for sure is that GM 200 loves over-clocking. With a solid OC, you'll see an increase of 10 FPS. If I do go SLI, I planned to keep them at stock. So I'm thinking that maybe I should just buy one hydrocopper instead and with a 1500+mhz, I might experience similar minimums to two stock 980 Tis. I'd also finally get around to custom cooling my entire system which is something I've been lazy on.

What do you think I should do? And what are your experiences with SLI when it comes to minimum frame rates?
 
The thing with SLI or any multiple card setup for that matter is the CPU in nearly all cases regardless of cost becomes the bottle neck in situations where you see minimum fps well below the average . When a game is very optimised , the lows are closer to the average regardless of configuration , yes it may be a couple of frames but nothing you'd notice being in high double digit frames anyway , this would apply to battlefield . However soothing like GTA V which has a lot more dependency on the CPU the minimums become far more apparent as it stuggles to keep up with the GPUS output .

IMHO I havent noticed to big a detriment to minimums in SLI ... When and where I become seriously CPU bound I usually would have done with just a single card .

For the minimums to improve , the usage needs to improve , so the res needs to be higher , in your case you should be vp very adequate with that screen to get optimal scaling and optimal minimums .
 
TX SLI here

Tried COD AW (4K maxed out) - Glued at around 65-70FPS
Witcher 1440p (maxed out with HBAO+) and 4K High-Ultra settings no AA
GTA V (4K everything maxed, FXAA but PostFX and Grass on normal)

Never saw anything below 50FPS-55FPS to be honest
 
Question is how are they measuring the minimum FPS - if there is a one off dip due to loading in assets its always going to show poor minimums - you need something like percent of time under 30fps or 95th percentile type results really.
 
Rroff said:
Question is how are they measuring the minimum FPS - if there is a one off dip due to loading in assets its always going to show poor minimums - you need something like percent of time under 30fps or 95th percentile type results really.
Click to expand...

You can use fraps frametimes.csv results with FRAF benchviewer that gives you a detailed graph in milliseconds.

I'm really sensitive to FPS drops/stutter/microstutter etc and usually run my benches through FRAFs if something feels odd. I've been a crossfire/sli user for many years, the TX seems to be the best experience over all the setups I had 580s/680s/970s/R9-290s.

The one off dips you mention is why I prefer the TX. A bigger frame-buffer means less swapping (if at all).
 
Last edited:
sli 670 4gbs, gta 5 1440p 4x msaa mostly cranked to max settings bar grass, min of 63fps
bf4 easily over 60fps min 1440p

i use DSR to goto 1440p
 
Seems Tomb Raider is the only game that is very well optimised for SLI. When it comes to minimum frame rates, seems majority of games provide anywhere from 20-30% and at best 40-55% with a few exceptions here and there. Minimum frames should be increases 70% minimum and SLI should be well worth it.
I think I'l probably just go 1 single 980 Ti and OC the hell out of it, but we'l see, maybe I'm being a bit too gloomy, and SLI isn't such a bad thing. JayzTwoCents was comparing the 980 Ti to a 970 after all, so I wonder if SLI can live up to its own.
 
Odd thread. When I originally posted this it didn't show up for like the entire day.

Anyway thanks for responses. I've definitely settled on 980 Ti SLI at stock superclocked speeds.

With a single card I've always used Nvidia V-Sync in the control panel and that's been great. What I'll do is use Adaptive V-Sync instead to account for any unusual dips with SLI.
 
Kaapstad said:
The Witcher 3
2160p maxed
Quad SLI

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
9361, 115250, 67, 90, 81.223
Click to expand...

Drool...

Kaapstad, bring us tomorrows performance today :)

As my next upgrade may likely be a single card in a couple of years, I still won't get that performance. Lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom