MORE DANG SLI PROBLEMS

could someone please help me  

Have you tried experimenting with the graphics cards at all? Try using just one of them and see what kind of performance you get. Then maybe try just using the other one and see how that goes. In general Vista does produce lower frame rates than XP, and that to me seems like its your biggest complaint.

I'm not expert when it comes to SLI, seeing as I've never used it personally, but using each card individually should identify whether the problem is with the SLI, or lies somewhere else.

For future reference please don't reply to your own post after 35 minutes. If someone can help you, they will.

ok im sorry for that immediate reply to my post. and i have tested each card individualy. upon further reaserch i have found that the chipset drivers provided by ASROCK were older than the ones provided by Nvidia for the same chipset. i then installed those and with the same settings as my friend as explained in the previouse post, i now have these results.

Loop 1

* Total Frames: 3247, Total Time: 51.01s
* Average Framerate: 63.66
* Max. Framerate: 76.71 (Frame:592, 8.82s)
* Min. Framerate: 31.09 (Frame:0, 0.03s)

Loop 2

* Total Frames: 3179, Total Time: 51.01s
* Average Framerate: 62.32
* Max. Framerate: 76.35 (Frame:201, 3.65s)
* Min. Framerate: 31.35 (Frame:4, 0.16s)

Loop 3

* Total Frames: 3144, Total Time: 51.00s
* Average Framerate: 61.65
* Max. Framerate: 76.30 (Frame:200, 3.67s)
* Min. Framerate: 30.90 (Frame:1, 0.06s)

Average Results

* Average Framerate: 62.54
* Max. Framerate: 76.37
* Min. Framerate: 31.41

does this seem right for my setup? and i do know that vista lowers frames but i ordered it because it came with a free upgrade to windows 7 and i needed a 64bit os.

I say if you are averaging over 60 and the mins are over 30 then there is no problem.

dude in ur other thread u said "his monitor resolution is 1280x1024 while mine is 1600 x 900 "

why are you comparing two diff resolutions..thats pathetic.

i was comparing the two because my frames were so low for the resolution that i was set at and even when i switched to his resolution my frames were still lower than his which told me that sli was not working.

Have you enabled the SLi indicators?

Its hard to tell exactly what you are asking. Your OP is not very specific.

If you took a computer running XP and installed Vista on it, everything is going to be slower. Vista is not as efficient of an OS. Why would you expect anything but slower frames in that scenario.

If you want real help you need to give real info - like a complete list of the hardware including monitor size and resolution. If you are SLIing two 9600s or even 9800s at 1920x1200 with antialiasing on I think those are good rates. If you have twin 295s and that is at 800x600 with no antialiasing then something must be wrong.

I suggest the original poster, post some specs and some ways he tried to do to fix the problem so we don't suggest already done ideas.

Provide some more info as to your hardware setup, computer parts...your friend's...be specific

I think this is mentioned in your other thread, did you try with one card, then the other. Any not working or which one has a big difference in performance.

Another idea - you enabled SLI inside the game? Sli in the nvidia program, sli bridge working?

So just provide more info, or else your problem will never be solved.

i mentioned this all befor in my old form. and yes the sli indicator bars go all the way up on both ends, at least with these new chipset drivers. my rig is as follows

my full rig:

Phenom II 945 x4 @ 3.0GHz

Corsair 750W PSU

260 gtx sli

K10N780SLIX3-WiFi motherboard ( http://www.asrock.com/mb/overview. [...] X3-WiFi&s= )

4GB patriot DDR2 1066

WD caviar black hdd

vista business x64

my friends rig that i compared frames with is basicly the same as mine but a motherboard with a newer chipset (980a SLI), a Phenom 9550, and one 260 instead of two

Monitor type and Screen resolution? And we would need your friends also since you seem to be comparing them.

If you are not comparing the same screen resolution and all the same graphics settings it isnt a fair comparison.

i have already stated the resolution in the other form and i stated that i used his same game config including his res to test my sli

You made a new thread so you need to post everything again. It really isn't too hard. And since this is such a big deal for you, I would recommend being a little less lazy and cooperating a little more.

I don't think the hardware is your problem since some games run fast as usual. If your hardware was failing (ie the SLI bridge) all of your games would crash as soon as you enabled SLI.


Were you tweaking the global SLI settings? Did you try to reset all SLI settings to default?

ok, sorry. here are the game settings: Demo(Ranch Small), 1024x768 (75Hz), D3D9, Fixed Time Step(No), Disable Artificial Intelligence(No), Full Screen, Anti-Aliasing(4x), VSync(No), Overall Quality(Custom), Vegetation(Very High), Shading(Ultra High), Terrain(Ultra High), Geometry(Ultra High), Post FX(High), Texture(Ultra High), Shadow(Very High), Ambient(High), Hdr(Yes), Bloom(Yes), Fire(Very High), Physics(Very High), RealTrees(Very High)


his res is 1024x768 and my res is 1600 x 900 but i used his res to test the game

yes i have, but it looks like the results i have gained from that last test seemed correct, or has anyone with my sort of setup achieved higher frames?

"his res is 1024x768 and my res is 1600 x 900 but i used his res to test the game"

You can't see why his has more frame rates in some games?

i understand that but at the same time my sli configuration should not be so low for my sli setup

Here's some numbers:

1024x728 = 786432

1600x900 = 1,440,000

You might notice it's really close to being twice as big.

I think you may be dealing with more of a "lack of need for SLI" problem than SLI problem.
Read this article.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i5-lynnfield,2...
Until they get up to 1920x1200 resolutions, they arent taxing the GPUs enough and something else is actually limiting the max frame rates.
Or this article - notice the i7s get huge framerate increases with multiple GPUs but the PhenomIIx4s dont gain much - often they gain nothing with twin 285s over a single 285.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i5-gaming,2403...

You may want to put your monitor on your friend's machine and see what frame rates he gets at 1600x900, but even that may not be enough to really tax your graphics cards to have substantial gains over a single 260. You may have to wait until you get a 1920x1200 or hgiher resolution monitor before that second 260 will give you noticeably different results.

Thats the real problem I see with everyone so excited about mutliple GPUs. Unless the rest of your system is top quality and heavily overclocked and you are playing at extremely high resolutions, a single stronger GPU usually gives better results.

yah, ive been thinking about the issue at hand and came to that conclusion, thank you for the info. this problem is solved