Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Single card or SLI

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
June 5, 2011 4:38:14 PM

Hi,

I was planning on getting a GTX 560Ti and then SLI'ing another card after a year or two. However, after a lot of thinking, I decided to get a single card that would last me for 2 to 3 years and then buying a different GPU as there would be newer technology and much faster than the current gen. cards.


The reason for it is because if I SLI another card later after a year or two, I will have to sell both the cards if I upgrade it in future. I may also run into trouble with using two cards in SLI (driver issues etc).


I am currently using a Phenom II x4 955 BE overclocked to 3.9 Ghz with an nforce motherboard Asus M4N75TD and a Cooler Master GX 750W PSU.

I have also heard of many people having issues with SLI and Crossfire X.


Now, I am planning to get the bang for the buck. I am stuck in between an Asus GTX 560 Ti and the XFX HD 6950 2GB (reference card).

Please help me out with this.

More about : single card sli

a c 1307 U Graphics card
June 5, 2011 6:11:10 PM

Between the two cards you list the HD6950 is the better and should last you 2-3 years. I personally prefer a single more powerful card than a dual card setup.
June 5, 2011 7:07:07 PM

irfan88 said:
Hi,

I was planning on getting a GTX 560Ti and then SLI'ing another card after a year or two. However, after a lot of thinking, I decided to get a single card that would last me for 2 to 3 years and then buying a different GPU as there would be newer technology and much faster than the current gen. cards.


The reason for it is because if I SLI another card later after a year or two, I will have to sell both the cards if I upgrade it in future. I may also run into trouble with using two cards in SLI (driver issues etc).


I am currently using a Phenom II x4 955 BE overclocked to 3.9 Ghz with an nforce motherboard Asus M4N75TD and a Cooler Master GX 750W PSU.

I have also heard of many people having issues with SLI and Crossfire X.


Now, I am planning to get the bang for the buck. I am stuck in between an Asus GTX 560 Ti and the XFX HD 6950 2GB (reference card).

Please help me out with this.

The best bang for your buck is this ......consider the fact that it is a great card that stays cool....the only con is that it takes up 3 physical spaces on your motherboard..but it is worth it..a friend of mine has 1 with 3 27 inch monitors and it looks and runs great.....http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
Related resources
June 5, 2011 7:40:56 PM

If you don't want the physx and cuda of the nvidia then go with the 6950,both are about the same and have great performance for value.
June 5, 2011 8:30:13 PM

The better question is what resolution do you game at and do you plan to play above 1920x1080? If you're gaming at 1080p or under then either of these cards are sufficient for 2-3 years.

For a single monitor/card the GTX 560 Ti is the best choice since it's cheaper, consumes less power, runs cooler and has a smaller profile. Plus the nvidia has better drivers for the most part.

Don't buy into that flashing 6950 hype; the primary advantage of the HD 69xx series is the 2GB VRAM which helps at resolutions above 1080p. At 1080p or below the 560 Ti overclocks to outperform the 6950 and on par the the 6970.

At 1080p get a 560 Ti, above that go with the 6950s.
June 6, 2011 4:28:05 AM

I've heard some people saying that the HD 6950 and the GTX 560Ti deliver the same type of performance. But when I look at anandtech bench and some other reviews, I see that the HD 6950 2GB is about 10% faster than the GTX 560Ti. Is that true or does it deliver the same kind of performance.
June 6, 2011 4:50:56 AM

THe 6950 is indeed a bit quicker than the 560Ti but you sacrifice Physx, CUDA, and better driver support with AMD. Nvidia just seems to be better at keeping up with the gaming industry and offering fixes/patches than AMD.

I personally much prefer a dual card setup to a single. I have yet to have any issues with my SLI setup while enjoying performance that shames any single card. And if I ever have to RMA one of my cards I still have another one to use...
a c 499 U Graphics card
June 6, 2011 4:58:07 AM

irfan88 said:
I've heard some people saying that the HD 6950 and the GTX 560Ti deliver the same type of performance. But when I look at anandtech bench and some other reviews, I see that the HD 6950 2GB is about 10% faster than the GTX 560Ti. Is that true or does it deliver the same kind of performance.

Some test review results from techPowerUp :

June 6, 2011 5:35:03 AM

Ok, in that case i will stick on to nvidia GTX 560Ti as 2-5 fps does not make any difference on 1920x1080 resolutions.

I will probably add another one later after a year or two as a single GTX 560Ti will last me atleast for 2 years.

When i add another one in SLI, I will probably get a Bulldozer CPU and an Asus sabertooth motherboard (looks good with nvidia colours on it).

please correct me if i am wrong.
a c 216 U Graphics card
June 6, 2011 6:08:46 AM

irfan88 said:
Ok, in that case i will stick on to nvidia GTX 560Ti as 2-5 fps does not make any difference on 1920x1080 resolutions.

I will probably add another one later after a year or two as a single GTX 560Ti will last me atleast for 2 years.

When i add another one in SLI, I will probably get a Bulldozer CPU and an Asus sabertooth motherboard (looks good with nvidia colours on it).

please correct me if i am wrong.


In 2-3 years you might regret you didn't have the 2GB card. There are some rare cases now that the 2GB's make very notable improvements in performance (quite rare), but the trend is always asking for more in the future.

If you really would rather go with 1GB, 6950's also come with 1gb versions that cost the same as the 560ti. The don't have PhysX, but unless you play one of the 20 games that's ever been written for it, it won't matter. The 6950 has MLAA as a little advantage, although I find both features to be an afterthought.

That said, there is nothing wrong with the 560it. They are comparable.

The reason you thought the 560ti performed the same or better, is because some fanboys like to compares overclocked 560ti's to stock 6950's. They both overclock.
June 6, 2011 6:32:49 AM

so you tell me what am I supposed to do!!!!! I have an nforce motherboard with phenom II x4 955 3.9 ghz. If I get a 560Ti, I will not be doing SLI on it until the next two years. So if I were to opt for SLI, then it will be the AM3+ motherboard with a bulldozer CPU.

If I go with the HD 6950 2GB, I can crossfire it with another one after 2 years on the bulldozer motherboards as they tend to support both SLI and crossfire.

But from what I've heard from, I will not likely opt for a crossfire due to driver issues. Instead I can opt for a better card that would release and would be much powerful.

So what do you suggest me to do.
a c 499 U Graphics card
June 6, 2011 6:39:33 AM

irfan88 said:
so you tell me what am I supposed to do!!!!! I have an nforce motherboard with phenom II x4 955 3.9 ghz. If I get a 560Ti, I will not be doing SLI on it until the next two years. So if I were to opt for SLI, then it will be the AM3+ motherboard with a bulldozer CPU.

If I go with the HD 6950 2GB, I can crossfire it with another one after 2 years on the bulldozer motherboards as they tend to support both SLI and crossfire.

But from what I've heard from, I will not likely opt for a crossfire due to driver issues. Instead I can opt for a better card that would release and would be much powerful.

So what do you suggest me to do.

But then again what about the NVIDIA's Kepler GPU on 28-nanometer process technology being introduced near the end of this year?
a c 216 U Graphics card
June 6, 2011 6:44:29 AM

irfan88 said:
so you tell me what am I supposed to do!!!!! I have an nforce motherboard with phenom II x4 955 3.9 ghz. If I get a 560Ti, I will not be doing SLI on it until the next two years. So if I were to opt for SLI, then it will be the AM3+ motherboard with a bulldozer CPU.

If I go with the HD 6950 2GB, I can crossfire it with another one after 2 years on the bulldozer motherboards as they tend to support both SLI and crossfire.

But from what I've heard from, I will not likely opt for a crossfire due to driver issues. Instead I can opt for a better card that would release and would be much powerful.

So what do you suggest me to do.


I don't know what drivers issues there are with crossfire, that aren't present with SLI. I've used both in the last year, and I had no issues with either except for games that didn't support dual cards.

However, I have seen people with 68xx cards in crossfire having issues (I don't know if it's the card or their system), but I have not seen people with 69xx cards have issues with crossfire. If there are issues, it doesn't appear to be present with the 6950.

Both are good choices. Go with what you feel better about. I personally chose the 6950 due to MLAA.
June 6, 2011 6:45:22 AM

I am not worried about the GPU's that would release by the end of this year. I just want to buy a GPU that would last me for 2 to 3 years. please suggest me what I've asked for!!!!!!! :pfff: 
a c 216 U Graphics card
June 6, 2011 6:46:51 AM

I suggest the 6950 2gb. It's fast, it has MLAA, and 2gb may be important in the next couple years. And if you find yourself needing a little extra power, you can unlock the shaders and/or overclock them pretty well.
a c 169 U Graphics card
June 6, 2011 6:52:58 AM

wow,I thought which one to choose after that 2 paged topic you made few weeks ago :D 
My reply is still the same.Both GTX 560Ti and 6950 are great and can handle all games fine.But if you want to add a second card later on without changing your CPU and MB,then get a GTX 560 now and add another later
June 6, 2011 12:19:02 PM

he he he,

sorry Maziar.

the reason why I started the topic was because after a lot of thinking, I feel that there would be much more powerfull cards after two or three years which would be much faster than SLI GTX 560 Ti's. So I felt that it would be best if I can get a single card now and then buy another card later after 2 or 3 years.

I am ok with the GTX 560 Ti but the reason I am getting worried now is because of the statement made by bystander.

"In 2-3 years you might regret you didn't have the 2GB card. There are some rare cases now that the 2GB's make very notable improvements in performance (quite rare), but the trend is always asking for more in the future."

That was the statement that made me worry. Please tell me what to do. You are the ultimate boss of tom's hardware. He he he :) 
a c 169 U Graphics card
June 6, 2011 12:59:48 PM

No problem at all,I've been in the same situation many times :) 
Well,first of all no one knows how the next gen cards will perform;also,if you wait for something,you can't every buy anything because there is always something new around the corner.
Let's have a look at an old card such as 4870.If anyone have bought it they day it was released and add another later on,they shouldn't be disappointed(performance wise) because 2 4870s perform pretty much like a 5870.The same thing goes for GTX 560Ti.2 of them can handle all games perfectly fine and will give you more performance than 1 GTX 580.So unless anything special happens,they can handle games perfectly fine for 2-3 years.
As for memory,well unless you play on resolutions higher than 1080p,then 1GB is fine.
Still,both are great choices.The reason I recommend GTX 560Ti is because you have a SLI capable motherboard and can add another later but if you go with 6950,you have to change your motherboard and probably your CPU in order to have CF support.
June 6, 2011 1:18:04 PM

ok then Maziar. thanks for your time. So it is going to be the GTX 560 Ti after all.

I will be gaming only at 1080p resolution. I will likely get a stock ASUS GTX 560Ti DC II (not overclocked) now and overclock it myself. I will get another one probably after 2 years or so (they'll be pretty cheap). Even if I change the motherboard in future, AM3 + boards are going to support SLI, so no worries.

a c 216 U Graphics card
June 6, 2011 1:38:48 PM

When I mentioned before, "in 2 years you might regret not having 2gb". I'm not saying for sure you wouldn't need more, but with both Nvidia high end cards and ATI's high end cards moving to higher amounts of ram, there is a decent chance that developers will start pushing the need for more ram.

With 1080p it's not needed now. We don't know what will be needed later. Time will only tell. But then again, your 2 years may be up and you will just get a new card, so it may not matter.
June 6, 2011 2:12:08 PM

I was thinking of the same thing after looking at the comments mentioned in the link:

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/computers/nvidias-life-after-...


Here, its mentioned that Kepler series of cards would be 3 to 4 times faster than the fermi cards and would be released in 2011. Then there is also Maxwell which would be 16 times faster than the Fermi cards and would release in 2013.

So if I keep the GTX 560Ti till 2013, there is no point getting another card in SLI. I will probably get a Maxwell or a Kepler series card.

I am really confused now.

I think its better for me to get a single card right now and then buy any of those two (Maxwell or a Kepler series card) later on when they release. :( 
a b U Graphics card
June 6, 2011 2:17:37 PM

I haven't read all the replies but i'll just give my two pence on the original question.

Single powerful cards are always the gold standard, if you have the money, go for single cards instead of getting two lesser ones and SLI'ing/Crossfiring. This reduces hassle, PSU requirements, worry etc.

If you are of a tighter budget, getting a less powerful card now may be the best option, with the view to put a second in SLI or Crossfire later down the line because you simply cannot afford a single powerful card.

But i personally always recommend a single powerful card over two together if the poster has the financial capability to get a single card. However exceptions will be made in rare cases (I.E two 460's in SLI compared to a 480 :D ).
a c 169 U Graphics card
June 6, 2011 2:57:58 PM

irfan88 said:
I was thinking of the same thing after looking at the comments mentioned in the link:

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/computers/nvidias-life-after-...


Here, its mentioned that Kepler series of cards would be 3 to 4 times faster than the fermi cards and would be released in 2011. Then there is also Maxwell which would be 16 times faster than the Fermi cards and would release in 2013.

So if I keep the GTX 560Ti till 2013, there is no point getting another card in SLI. I will probably get a Maxwell or a Kepler series card.

I am really confused now.

I think its better for me to get a single card right now and then buy any of those two (Maxwell or a Kepler series card) later on when they release. :( 

Relying on rumors won't ever let you buy anything.When the next gen cards come out,you'll hear rumors about the newer cards and the cycle goes on.If you need a card right now,then buy it and don't think of SLI/CF for now.Because a single GTX 560/6950 can handle games perfectly fine on 1080p
No one knows the specs of the future cards and all of them are rumors.
June 6, 2011 3:15:14 PM

ok. I will probably do that and get a single card for now. Time will tell what the next gen cards have to offer. I will probably look at the benchmarks when the next gen graphic cards come out and then decide whether to SLI/crossfire or buy a new gen card.

June 6, 2011 6:04:10 PM

Get a GTX 560 Ti now and don't worry about it.

The GPU will always be more of a limitation than VRAM for both the 560 Ti (it has a 2GB version) and the 6950. For example ubersampling in Witcher 2 destroys framerates partially by going above the 1 GB framebuffer if you have everything else set on high. For a GTX 580 and a pair of 460s in SLi which have almost identical performance, ubersampling on still produces about the same frames even though the 580 has a 1.5GB frame buffer as opposed tot he 460's 1GB.

Basically for resolutions and settings that will use more than 1 GB of VRAM, a single 560 or a single 6950 will not be giving you acceptable frames anyways. For 1080p without ridiculously stupid and proprietary settings such as Witcher 2's ubersampling (which doesn't really do anything) and Metro 2033 in general both a single 560 Ti and 6950 are more than sufficient and nvidia has better drivers. The only advantage of the 2 GB VRAM of the 6950 is for multiple cards with multiple monitors.

This bystander clown who brings up stupid things like MLAA (which is AMD's equivalent of CSAA by nvidia), ignore him. If a game in the future does use more than 1 GB of VRAM then a single 560 or 6950 will both be insufficient.

If you aren't afraid to overclock you can get a 560 non-Ti and put that at ~950 core to max out just about every game.
a c 216 U Graphics card
June 6, 2011 6:17:55 PM

ignoranceabound said:
Get a GTX 560 Ti now and don't worry about it.

The GPU will always be more of a limitation than VRAM for both the 560 Ti (it has a 2GB version) and the 6950. For example ubersampling in Witcher 2 destroys framerates partially by going above the 1 GB framebuffer if you have everything else set on high. For a GTX 580 and a pair of 460s in SLi which have almost identical performance, ubersampling on still produces about the same frames even though the 580 has a 1.5GB frame buffer as opposed tot he 460's 1GB.

Basically for resolutions and settings that will use more than 1 GB of VRAM, a single 560 or a single 6950 will not be giving you acceptable frames anyways. For 1080p without ridiculously stupid and proprietary settings such as Witcher 2's ubersampling (which doesn't really do anything) and Metro 2033 in general both a single 560 Ti and 6950 are more than sufficient and nvidia has better drivers. The only advantage of the 2 GB VRAM of the 6950 is for multiple cards with multiple monitors.

This bystander clown who brings up stupid things like MLAA (which is AMD's equivalent of CSAA by nvidia), ignore him. If a game in the future does use more than 1 GB of VRAM then a single 560 or 6950 will both be insufficient.

If you aren't afraid to overclock you can get a 560 non-Ti and put that at ~950 core to max out just about every game.


Wow, are you wrong in so many ways.

CSAA is not a post process AA, so it does not work on games which won't support AA of any kind. MLAA is a post process AA, which will work on any game. Read this: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/anti-aliasing-nvidi...

It has a nice review of what is available. I realize you are a fanboy, but that doesn't mean you have to lie to promote your agenda.

As far as 2gb's of ram goes, it almost never is needed, now. I already said that, but almost doesn't mean never. Have you played Dirt 2 in the LA stadium races with everything maxed? I turns into a slide show even with 1.2gb of ram (470's in SLI), with 2gb's of ram, it runs smooth on a single 6950.

Given that the latest high end cards are starting to provide more ram than 1gb, there is a decent chance developers will start providing options to utilize it. I have noticed Witcher 2 has some interesting features, as you already gave that as an example. Ubersampling seems unusable by all accounts (I can confirm this as well), but it certainly is very noticeable on what it does. It's essentially a very high quality SSAA. But what is also interesting is that Ultra settings do not use their largest textures. Rift also has a lot of settings beyond ultra, things that do require extra memory to handle.

I don't think 1gb is a problem at 1080p, but without a time machine, you don't know if there is going to be a problem in the future.
June 6, 2011 6:33:28 PM

You're asserting that the extra VRAM actually helps even at those settings. Turned into slideshows with 470 SLi huh? Someone's lying.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/293?vs=330 So how does a single 560 Ti get 50 fps at 2560x1600. Don't respond; you were just exposed.

Both MLAA and CSAA are driver implementations by nvidia and AMD the aim to improve image quality without decreasing performance; my point was that they both have these "advantages" so you shouldn't point one out and not the other.

I'm not sure what my agenda is; I've already promoted the 560 Ti for 1080p or below and the 6950 2 GB for resolutions above that.

Look at this wild BS this kid spews before listening to him:
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/317905-33-which-bette...
a c 216 U Graphics card
June 6, 2011 6:52:59 PM

ignoranceabound said:
You're asserting that the extra VRAM actually helps even at those settings. Turned into slideshows with 470 SLi huh? Someone's lying.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/293?vs=330 So how does a single 560 Ti get 50 fps at 2560x1600. Don't respond; you were just exposed.


You did notice that I specifically mentioned the LA coliseum stadium in my comment, with everything maxed. The rest of Dirt 2 ran smooth. The only way for you to see it, is if I make a video, or you load that stadium race yourself. It's part of the X games USA races.

The benchmarks don't go into that stadium, or you'd better believe there would have been some changes in drivers or the game.


Quote:

Both MLAA and CSAA are driver implementations by nvidia and AMD the aim to improve image quality without decreasing performance; my point was that they both have these "advantages" so you shouldn't point one out and not the other.


CSAA is actually much closer to EQaa in AMD's AA settings. And the transparencies are a lot like aMSAA of AMD's. While all those are nice. MLAA is quite unique. It's the only AA method that can be forced on in any gaming situation because it doesn't require anything from the game.

Quote:

I'm not sure what my agenda is; I've already promoted the 560 Ti for 1080p or below and the 6950 2 GB for resolutions above that.

Look at this wild BS this kid spews before listening to him:
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/317905-33-which-bette...


Wild BS? It's only "Wild BS" because you say so?

Anyways, what to promote is opinion obviously, just don't lie to do so.
June 6, 2011 7:44:46 PM

So you're telling me the coliseum at 1920x1080 uses more VRAM than these tests at 2560x1600. You are a an absolute clown.

You can apply MSAA to any video game. Good job being wrong again.
a b U Graphics card
June 6, 2011 9:19:14 PM

The 560Ti is a nice card, but, IMO, a tad overpriced compared to the 6950(2gb), which is usually a little faster, and will certainly not be likely to face framebuffer limitations with games anytime soon...
a c 271 U Graphics card
June 6, 2011 9:40:37 PM

mdd1963 said:
The 560Ti is a nice card, but, IMO, a tad overpriced compared to the 6950(2gb), which is usually a little faster, and will certainly not be likely to face framebuffer limitations with games anytime soon...

So what card are you using now?
a c 216 U Graphics card
June 6, 2011 11:22:47 PM

ignoranceabound said:
So you're telling me the coliseum at 1920x1080 uses more VRAM than these tests at 2560x1600. You are a an absolute clown.

You can apply MSAA to any video game. Good job being wrong again.


Are you seriously ok with this behavior mousemonkey?

As to you, here is a post on the subject. Yes, that is what I'm saying.

I found it a lot easier to find the issue with more in depth response to this map a few months ago, but this does acknowledge the issue. Turning down the water settings fixes it for most. Having 2gb of video ram also fixes it (although not discussed here). The post I read when I ran into the problem a while back suggested to turn down a setting with the crowd size or quality settings.
http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/archive/index.php...
June 6, 2011 11:25:29 PM

You linked a steam forum board archive that has like 4 posters. I don't even have to try to make you look stupid.
June 6, 2011 11:29:43 PM

I thought you could get banned for posting misleading and wrong information; shouldn't this bystander fool have been banned the first time he posted?
a c 216 U Graphics card
June 6, 2011 11:42:16 PM

ignoranceabound said:
You linked a steam forum board archive that has like 4 posters. I don't even have to try to make you look stupid.


Why don't you type ,"dirt 2" LA stadium low fps, into google and see for yourself how many comments you see about the LA stadium and bad FPS. You can watch videos which show how they turn up all the settings, except "crowd" or some other setting.

You are the one that's misleading constantly. You tell me that MLAA is the same as CSAA? I showed you a link that prove you wrong. You use name calling as your defense. You tell me that LA stadium doesn't hurt performance at max settings? I proved you wrong with links, you tell me it means nothing.
June 6, 2011 11:48:29 PM

CSAA and MLAA are pretty much the same thing like I said above: Both MLAA and CSAA are driver implementations by nvidia and AMD the aim to improve image quality without decreasing performance; my point was that they both have these "advantages" so you shouldn't point one out and not the other.

You "proved" me wrong with that crappy steam forum post with 4 people in it. Not only that but it was using GTX 480s in SLi while you stated above that 470s in SLi use 1.2 GB of memory and that's why it was slow. Not only did I disprove this asserting that the memory limit will make the 470s run like a "slideshow," but these 480s have 1.5 GB of VRAM so obviously the VRAM limit was not an issue. Even the 470s have more than 1.2 GB of memory required for those settings; I should have looked more carefully above and called out your BS there.

You're just a computer illiterate clown who has no business giving any tech advice.

And yes, I am saying that if there is lag in LA stadium it's certainly not due to VRAM as I've demonstrated here and above.

Want to stop embarrassing yourself?
a c 216 U Graphics card
June 6, 2011 11:58:13 PM

So you are saying that since the 1.5gb 480's couldn't run LA stadium at max settings, it's not due to Vram, as a counter to me having good FPS with 2GB's?

Compare a 2gb card on LA stadium, and then you can make that claim.
a c 216 U Graphics card
June 7, 2011 12:01:33 AM

And to say that CSAA is the same thing is crazy. Sure, they both do AA, but one works in all situations, one will not. That's the only point of MLAA. I'd never use it over aMSAA, SSAA or EQ-AA, or even MSAA, or CSAA or any other type of AA, if the game I used it on worked properly with them. MLAA gives people AA when other types don't work or are buggy. (there is a growing number of console ports with problems of either not working with AA at all, or giving some weird outline effect).
June 7, 2011 12:12:34 AM

MSAA works on all games; we don't need AMD's MLAA to use anti-aliasing on games that do not have a specific setting in the menus....

Now back to that whole VRAM ignorance you're spouting off...
a c 216 U Graphics card
June 7, 2011 12:15:08 AM

ignoranceabound said:
MSAA works on all games; we don't need AMD's MLAA to use anti-aliasing on games that do not have a specific setting in the menus....

Now back to that whole VRAM ignorance you're spouting off...


I wish MSAA would work on all games. Here is a sample that was reviewed here with all forms of AA. Only MLAA worked on all games.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/anti-aliasing-nvidi...
June 7, 2011 12:21:49 AM

You can make a profile and force MSAA on all games with the nvidia drivers (probably AMD too).
a c 216 U Graphics card
June 7, 2011 12:24:49 AM

ignoranceabound said:
You can make a profile and force MSAA on all games with the nvidia drivers (probably AMD too).


Because MSAA does require information from the game in order to work, it won't work on games that don't provide that info. It's pretty common with console ports, since the game engines are designed to not use AA.
June 7, 2011 12:34:10 AM

No; it'll work on all games even if there' no nvidia profile because you can make a profile.

Just go away.
a c 216 U Graphics card
June 7, 2011 12:37:00 AM

ignoranceabound said:
No; it'll work on all games even if there' no nvidia profile because you can make a profile.

Just go away.


http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/anti-aliasing-nvidi...

What do you call this, a lie? They tried to force it on through profiles, it didn't work on all games.
June 7, 2011 12:40:38 AM

I call that an outdated article with old drivers that have definitely been replaced.

I'm sure you're BSing or just clueless what to do but what games does the nvidia profiler not work on?
a c 216 U Graphics card
June 7, 2011 12:50:46 AM

Divinity 2 does not support AA in any form. When I did try to force it on it created a strange outline effect. I played this game on 470's in SLI. I later tried to force AA on with the 6950, and it also would not work.

Two Worlds and Two Worlds 2 didn't work right. They create a blurred effect around objects, but not an MSAA effect.

Arcania (gothic 4) also did not work with MSAA and it desperately needed it. I take this one back, it has MSAA, it just doesn't do enough. It's just a bad game, port or not.


Those were all console ports, if you are interested.
June 7, 2011 2:07:33 AM

enough already. Instead of giving important and valuable advices to the people on the forum, you people have started fighting instead.

and sorry from my end. I didn't want you people to fight just because of my post.

Now will you please suggest me what I should be doing. Should I go with a single card that would last me for 2 to 3 years (HD 6950 or GTX 560Ti) or SLI later after a year with a GTX 560 Ti considering the fact that Kepler cards would be released in 2011 and Maxwell in 2013.

Please suggest me something.
June 7, 2011 2:28:58 AM

I already gave you sound advice; for your single monitor get the 560 Ti and don't worry. SLi and CF are only really useful with one monitor with older cards such as the 9800 GT.

It wasn't much of a fight as this guy showing off his general ignorance; maybe you should read my posts and realize that I was trying to not only give you sound advice but to point out how you were given misleading information.
June 7, 2011 2:34:37 AM

Ok, then I will get a GTX 560Ti now. I am sure that it will atleast last me for 2 years or so and if the need is required for more graphics, I will probably add another card for SLI or buy a new gen. card such as kepler or maxwell based on their benchmaks.

thanks for your help.
June 7, 2011 2:36:12 AM

2 years down the line they're going to have a better card for $250 that will probably outperform or be on par with the two 560 Ti's in SLi. Why not save the money now especially since the 560 is far from EOL.
!