Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

660ti sli, is it worth it ?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
April 11, 2013 2:40:16 PM

Hi,

My current build is as follows;
I7 3770k @ 4.5ghz
kingston hyperx beast ram @2133mhz
asrock extreme 4 mobo
zotac 660ti amp edtion

I have recently bought the Asus VG248QE because of its 144hz refresh rate. I mainly play fps games so in multiplayer i will usually play on low settings so i can see better. On bf3 i get an average of 130 fps on any of the dlc maps and 150 on stock maps (64 man servers) and i can notice the difference between 130 and 150 fps on this monitor.

I was wondering for any users who have or have used 660ti sli how well do they scale and is there alot of micro suttering as i have been looking at review and they seem to scale pretty well but I'd like some info from people who have 660ti's or have used them :) 

More about : 660ti sli worth

April 11, 2013 2:49:53 PM

You really shouldn't be seeing any difference between those two framerates. Do you have VSync turned on? Not Adaptive, but ON?
April 11, 2013 2:54:46 PM

leo2kp said:
You really shouldn't be seeing any difference between those two framerates. Do you have VSync turned on? Not Adaptive, but ON?


Nope v sync is off, but i really can see the difference is minuet and doesn't make for a unplayable experience but it's not optimal. I can't even play games on a 60hz monitor would rather use crt.
Related resources
April 11, 2013 3:26:07 PM

How in the world are you getting such high FPS on Battlefield 3 with a 660TI? Unless you're playing on a very low resolution on not max settings.
April 11, 2013 3:59:59 PM

gridironcj said:
How in the world are you getting such high FPS on Battlefield 3 with a 660TI? Unless you're playing on a very low resolution on not max settings.


I'm playing on low settings as stated in the thread @ 1920x1080.
April 11, 2013 6:37:03 PM

gridironcj said:
How in the world are you getting such high FPS on Battlefield 3 with a 660TI? Unless you're playing on a very low resolution on not max settings.


Op did mention play on low setting.
April 11, 2013 7:25:22 PM

Duke Nucome said:
17seconds said:
A nice review of GTX 660 Ti's in SLI from a frame rating perspective. Seems to scale very well with relatively little frame time variance.


To the frametime bugs for people that like to play with Vsync on the frametime debacle is a non issue.


Op mentions that he turn it off and looks like he prefer for the frame to be high. Also that frame latency stuff is not a bug especially in multi gpu situation. Both amd and nvidia cards face the same problem. Nvidia solutions to it was frame metering. Amd themselves admit the problem and promise will bring their own frame metering solution in the coming months.
April 11, 2013 8:29:32 PM

renz496 said:
Duke Nucome said:
17seconds said:
A nice review of GTX 660 Ti's in SLI from a frame rating perspective. Seems to scale very well with relatively little frame time variance.


To the frametime bugs for people that like to play with Vsync on the frametime debacle is a non issue.


Op mentions that he turn it off and looks like he prefer for the frame to be high. Also that frame latency stuff is not a bug especially in multi gpu situation. Both amd and nvidia cards face the same problem. Nvidia solutions to it was frame metering. Amd themselves admit the problem and promise will bring their own frame metering solution in the coming months.


I agree, micro-stuttering is still an issue.

There is no "there it's solved" solution. It's actually quite complex as even single cards have the problem. The issue could be VASTLY improved but generally with methods that introduce delays (latencies) by buffering data to synch (similar to VSYNC).

A lot of the stutter is also poor gaming code. For example, Witcher 1 and Fallout 3/NV stutter like crazy. That may not be technically micro-stutter but it's annoying and still "stutter".

*I'm not sure what to recommend though. Not enabling VSYNC causes screen tearing. Buying another 660Ti causes its own issues. Personally, I'd much rather game at 60FPS with VSYNC. Most of my games run incredibly smooth.

Interesting point:
When is 60FPS not 60FPS?

Many people think that a system that can handle 80FPS+ will play exactly the same as a different system that can handle 120FPS+ when running at 60FPS VSYNC'd.

Nope.

The extra processing power can make a game run much smoother. For example, try playing Half Life #1 at 60FPS. It's SMOOTH AS BUTTER! Now take a more demanding game and it can feel far more sluggish. What's going on is a little complicated. To oversimplify, even though some details are happening 60x per second, some of them aren't happening that fast as processing is too slow.

Cheers.
April 11, 2013 9:23:39 PM

Duke Nucome said:
photonboy said:
renz496 said:
Duke Nucome said:
10649054,0,395051 said:
A nice review of GTX 660 Ti's in SLI from a frame rating perspective. Seems to scale very well with relatively little frame time variance.
said:


To the frametime bugs for people that like to play with Vsync on the frametime debacle is a non issue.
said:


Op mentions that he turn it off and looks like he prefer for the frame to be high. Also that frame latency stuff is not a bug especially in multi gpu situation. Both amd and nvidia cards face the same problem. Nvidia solutions to it was frame metering. Amd themselves admit the problem and promise will bring their own frame metering solution in the coming months.
said:


photonboy said:
I agree, micro-stuttering is still an issue.


Where ?

photonboy said:
There is no "there it's solved" solution. It's actually quite complex as even single cards have the problem. The issue could be VASTLY improved but generally with methods that introduce delays (latencies) by buffering data to synch (similar to VSYNC).

Vsync "There it's solved".

photonboy said:
A lot of the stutter is also poor gaming code. For example, Witcher 1 and Fallout 3/NV stutter like crazy. That may not be technically micro-stutter but it's annoying and still "stutter".

Witcher 1 runs like buttery smooth on both nvidia and AMD IMO as do Fallout3 and NV.

photonboy said:
*I'm not sure what to recommend though. Not enabling VSYNC causes screen tearing. Buying another 660Ti causes its own issues. Personally, I'd much rather game at 60FPS with VSYNC. Most of my games run incredibly smooth.

Agreed because all the games that I play have no issues with my prefered method of play which is with Vsync on.



said:


Hi,
Sigh.

Micro-stuttering:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-7990-devi...

I can't find the link, but in a recent review of the new TITAN, several different reviewers basically said:
"I'd much have the Titan to avoid micro-stutter and other profile issues associated with SLI than get the GTX690 which has higher frame rates in games that support SLI.."

VSYNC:
No, turning VSYNC on doesn't magically solve all stuttering issues. It's actually discussed in the above micro-stutter link. It can and does improve things though it varies by the game. It's not a 100% solution though and many games still have severe stutter in SLI with Adaptive VSYNC enabled. It's also going to depend how powerful the system is. The further above 60FPS a system can average, the LESS it's likely to have frame time issues when actually running at 60FPS. A system that benchmarks at 180FPS will have far less stutter at 60FPS than a different system that "only" averages 100FPS in benchmarks (comparing nearly identical architecture).

Adaptive VSYNC also turns OFF VSYNC when you drop below the target (i.e 60FPS) to prevent the stutter/resynch issue so any benefit to micro-stutter is lost once VSYNC is off again.

*The DYNAMIC VSYNC option in RadeonPro is worth investigating for Crossfire users (see above link). I can't test this myself, nor can I find a reliable analysis based on several games.

Far Cry 3/NV:
I'm glad your games are "butter smooth", which is odd because you appear to be the only one. I can easily maintain 60FPS but I get lots of pop-in and sudden stuttering due to the way textures are loaded from the HDD or SSD. There's no solution other than the fastest drive. I improved the situation by using a Samsung 840 Pro but it's not as good as most other games. Same for Witcher 1 especially in Vizema.

There's even a "STUTTER REMOVER" for Fallout 3/NV which works very well. It made a HUGE difference in that game. There's a reason it was made.

It would be interesting to know what hardware is required to get "butter smooth" in Fallout 3/NV because I can't with a GTX680, i7-3770K, 16GB DDR3 2133MHz, the stutter removal mod, and the game on a Samsung 840 Pro SSD.
April 11, 2013 10:36:30 PM

Duke Nucom
"Funny cause I game just fine today with Vsync on just as I did when I started gaming back in the day. At 60fps in every game that supports it I see msi afterburner reports a claimed 16ms frametime and it's as smooth as butter just as it was before this frametime debacle"

Not sure how to respond...
There's no "frametime debacle" or "conspiracy" going on. Why do you think there's a "Framerate Meter" on the GTX690 to attempt to improve the micro-stutter issue?

Quote:
"The GTX 690 uses hardware based frame metering for smooth, consistent frame rates across both GPUs... "
(not true, but better than without BTW)

NVidia has even discussed that they will further improve this technology for the GTX 700 series.

If the experts in the field all agree, and have the charts to prove it (including those I linked), I'm not sure why you think you're right and they're wrong. I suspect the "16ms" you see reported is just showing the average of 60FPS. That doesn't mean you're actually achieving constant, individual frame times of 16ms because that's basically IMPOSSIBLE (see any review, even with VSYNC).

Anyway, I'm glad you perceive every game VSYNC'd at 60FPS as having no stuttering. Good for you.
April 12, 2013 3:06:18 AM

Would like to point out that v sync on my monitor is 144fps not 60fps due to the high refresh rate as stated.
April 12, 2013 3:22:48 AM

if you can notice the difference between 130 and 150 fps on a 144 hz monitor, then you have magical eyes. You know you would actually get a smoother playing experience by turning on vsync and setting refresh rate to your lowest expected fps, this will give you more even frame times. running without vsync you actually will get more stuttering and more uneven frame times. However if your already getting such high fps, get the second 660ti and set 144 refresh and vsync. running more fps than your monitor hz setting doesnt do anything except give screen tearing. the monitor cant refresh more than 144fps even if your video card can.
April 12, 2013 3:28:42 AM

newbie1337 said:
Would like to point out that v sync on my monitor is 144fps not 60fps due to the high refresh rate as stated.


I understood that.

The problem is that it's so high that you might not be able to achieve 144FPS anyway. Points:
1) You can set games to "HALF VSYNC" in your NVidia control panel. In your case that would be 72FPS.

2) Apparently, if you enable VSYNC the game resynchs to HALF the rate (72FPS) if it can't achieve 144FPS, then half again (36FPS) if it can't achieve 72FPS. Many people swear this, but when I try to verify it FRAPS doesn't show this so I'm not quite certain what's going on.

I guess if you have VSYNC OFF and can only get about 100FPS, but then turn it ON and the screen tearing disappears it must be synching with the monitor at 72FPS.

*Don't flame me guys. This is a point I'm a little unsure on. Any links would be appreciated..

3) Adaptive VSYNC works a little different from VSYNC (have to manually force it on). For example, if you have it enabled then the game ONLY uses VSYNC if it's above the target (i.e. 144FPS+) but turns it OFF again if you drop below the target. With VSYNC OFF again you get screen tearing so you may not wish to use this. So with your 144FPS monitor you could actually be running a game at 140FPS and still have screen tearing!

4) I suggest you EXPERIMENT by using:
a) VSYNC OFF
b) VSYNC ON
c) Adaptive HALF VSYNC (only useful if you can achieve ABOVE 72FPS)

Cheers.
April 12, 2013 3:38:10 AM

Question:
Do you mind stating WHY you prefer to play on LOW settings? You say to "see better" but what does that mean.

I've just never heard of someone wishing to play on low settings.
April 12, 2013 4:01:12 AM

GTX Titan would probably be the best card for you, wanting them very high framerates without SLI. Very expensive though!
April 12, 2013 6:22:28 AM

My guess is that it disables stuff like shadows and rendering of some undergrowth, which makes it easier to spot other players lying around in bushes or tall grass.. Actually kind of cheating. But I'm not sure that's what OP meant...
April 12, 2013 7:15:08 AM

photonboy said:
Question:
Do you mind stating WHY you prefer to play on LOW settings? You say to "see better" but what does that mean.

I've just never heard of someone wishing to play on low settings.


When playing on low settings the game still looks decent but doesn't go over the top with added effects which impair in game vision to see the opponent. Coming from a background of playing games for the competitive side like counter strike I prefer to see the opponents to seeing all the whistles and bells.
April 12, 2013 7:16:37 AM

RobCrezz said:
GTX Titan would probably be the best card for you, wanting them very high framerates without SLI. Very expensive though!


I'm happy with going with SLI no point buying a new gpu when i already have a 660ti just looking to see opinions as i haven't used SLI since i had my 7950gt's and was wondering how things had improved.
April 12, 2013 9:47:43 AM

newbie1337 said:


I'm happy with going with SLI no point buying a new gpu when i already have a 660ti just looking to see opinions as i haven't used SLI since i had my 7950gt's and was wondering how things had improved.

As you can see from the charts above, the GTX 660 Ti does a good job of frame metering with very little noticeable microstuttering. Turning on VSync may not be an attractive option, given the built in frame metering technology, which didn't exist on your old 7950GT's. You will always have the option to play around with the settings to find what works best for you.

Here is some more info from PC Perspective:

"NVIDIA’s Adaptive Vsync shows basically 0 variance and only very minimal variance on the Smooth Vsync option at the 96th percentile. So even though performance is lower on average, the experience is smoother. NVIDIA’s additional Vsync options are definitely a strong point in favor of its technology though the Smooth Vsync only exists on SLI configurations.

However, enabling Vsync creates a whole host of other potential issues that gamers have to deal with. Even though the goal of removing visual tearing is met with the option turned on, you do add latency to the gameplay experience, as much as 60ms in some cases, from input to display. Putting back pressure on the GPU pipeline, for both NVIDIA and AMD, means that some frames are going to be running behind schedule or behind the input timing of the game itself. Many gamers won't want to deal with those kind of input problems and that is why many still play games with Vsync disabled."
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Frame-Ratin...
April 14, 2013 12:02:57 AM

VSYNC and screen tearing:

It VARIES quite a lot (between games AND between systems playing the same game). For example, I tried to play Far Cry 3 with VSYNC OFF and the tearing was absolutely horrible, yet in a different game it was barely noticeable.

Also, if you run two different systems at 60FPS VSYNC'd, the more powerful one will have less lag issues with VSYNC ON. This can easily be shown by running Half Life #1 or L4D. In HL my 60FPS VSYNC experience is silky smooth, in more demanding games I can notice the lagging at 60FPS VSYNC'd.
April 14, 2013 2:50:59 AM

Duke Nucome said:
photonboy said:
VSYNC and screen tearing:

It VARIES quite a lot (between games AND between systems playing the same game). For example, I tried to play Far Cry 3 with VSYNC OFF and the tearing was absolutely horrible, yet in a different game it was barely noticeable.

Also, if you run two different systems at 60FPS VSYNC'd, the more powerful one will have less lag issues with VSYNC ON. This can easily be shown by running Half Life #1 or L4D. In HL my 60FPS VSYNC experience is silky smooth, in more demanding games I can notice the lagging at 60FPS VSYNC'd.


The mouse input lag inherent with Vsync is negligible at best and it has never held me back in competitive online shooters. I play with Vsync on all the time in every game I own and play because tearing = headaches and eye strain for me.


I also use VSYNC all the time.
However, the reason WHY games feel sluggish is far more complex than whether VSYNC is on or not. As I've said, a game like HL1 can be very, very smooth at 60FPS.

I still find it odd that newbie1337 plays a game at 130FPS without VSYNC (he has a 144FPS monitor) and intentionally puts the settings on LOW. Weird. He gave his reason though which doesn't quite make sense to me. There are many settings which make things EASIER and less distracting, not harder (for example, Anti-Aliasing).

Personally, with his monitor I would force Adaptive HALF VSYNC on. This would force 72FPS. He could first benchmark to get about 80FPS on average with higher quality settings (disable any "distracting" ones). No screen tearing, better quality and maintaining 72FPS in my opinion is optimal for his setup.
April 14, 2013 8:15:05 AM

photonboy said:
Duke Nucome said:
photonboy said:
VSYNC and screen tearing:

It VARIES quite a lot (between games AND between systems playing the same game). For example, I tried to play Far Cry 3 with VSYNC OFF and the tearing was absolutely horrible, yet in a different game it was barely noticeable.

Also, if you run two different systems at 60FPS VSYNC'd, the more powerful one will have less lag issues with VSYNC ON. This can easily be shown by running Half Life #1 or L4D. In HL my 60FPS VSYNC experience is silky smooth, in more demanding games I can notice the lagging at 60FPS VSYNC'd.


The mouse input lag inherent with Vsync is negligible at best and it has never held me back in competitive online shooters. I play with Vsync on all the time in every game I own and play because tearing = headaches and eye strain for me.


I also use VSYNC all the time.
However, the reason WHY games feel sluggish is far more complex than whether VSYNC is on or not. As I've said, a game like HL1 can be very, very smooth at 60FPS.

I still find it odd that newbie1337 plays a game at 130FPS without VSYNC (he has a 144FPS monitor) and intentionally puts the settings on LOW. Weird. He gave his reason though which doesn't quite make sense to me. There are many settings which make things EASIER and less distracting, not harder (for example, Anti-Aliasing).

Personally, with his monitor I would force Adaptive HALF VSYNC on. This would force 72FPS. He could first benchmark to get about 80FPS on average with higher quality settings (disable any "distracting" ones). No screen tearing, better quality and maintaining 72FPS in my opinion is optimal for his setup.


I bought a 144hz monitor for the reason that any game on a 60hz monitor looks laggy to me there is no point in using half v sync as i might aswell of just used a 60hz monitor and saved the £300. I don't use v sync on any games as i find the input lag with my mouse utmost displeasing and puts me at a disadvantage to my opponents.
April 15, 2013 5:33:17 PM

newbie1337 said:
photonboy said:
Duke Nucome said:
photonboy said:
VSYNC and screen tearing:

It VARIES quite a lot (between games AND between systems playing the same game). For example, I tried to play Far Cry 3 with VSYNC OFF and the tearing was absolutely horrible, yet in a different game it was barely noticeable.

Also, if you run two different systems at 60FPS VSYNC'd, the more powerful one will have less lag issues with VSYNC ON. This can easily be shown by running Half Life #1 or L4D. In HL my 60FPS VSYNC experience is silky smooth, in more demanding games I can notice the lagging at 60FPS VSYNC'd.


The mouse input lag inherent with Vsync is negligible at best and it has never held me back in competitive online shooters. I play with Vsync on all the time in every game I own and play because tearing = headaches and eye strain for me.


I also use VSYNC all the time.
However, the reason WHY games feel sluggish is far more complex than whether VSYNC is on or not. As I've said, a game like HL1 can be very, very smooth at 60FPS.

I still find it odd that newbie1337 plays a game at 130FPS without VSYNC (he has a 144FPS monitor) and intentionally puts the settings on LOW. Weird. He gave his reason though which doesn't quite make sense to me. There are many settings which make things EASIER and less distracting, not harder (for example, Anti-Aliasing).

Personally, with his monitor I would force Adaptive HALF VSYNC on. This would force 72FPS. He could first benchmark to get about 80FPS on average with higher quality settings (disable any "distracting" ones). No screen tearing, better quality and maintaining 72FPS in my opinion is optimal for his setup.


I bought a 144hz monitor for the reason that any game on a 60hz monitor looks laggy to me there is no point in using half v sync as i might aswell of just used a 60hz monitor and saved the £300. I don't use v sync on any games as i find the input lag with my mouse utmost displeasing and puts me at a disadvantage to my opponents.


I get that mostly.
I was trying to make recommendations for games in GENERAL, as there are many games that are incredibly smooth even with VSYNC ON at 60 or 72FPS. (HL1 probably runs smoother on my system at 30FPS VSYNC'd than many games at 60FPS VSYNC'd.)

Another game that would run really smooth on your system would be Bioshock #1. For that game, you'd likely want to put the quality on MAXIMUM and use the Adaptive HALF VSYNC to run at 72FPS.

Online MMO's tend to be a different breed of game though, and you already have network latencies which produce delays.

Again, when you start a new game try all the different VSYNC settings to see what's optimal for that particular game. I've got several games that suffer from such severe screen tearing with VSYNC OFF that they're unplayable.
!