SLI is not working in 1.31

[jort]

I have 3 GTX 280's and only one is used. If I try to force the game to use all 3, then the frame rate takes drops way lower then only using 1 card.

Anyone able to run SLI with the new offline beta?

[hound8]

had ssome good luck with 2 cards here

[jort]

Did you confirm SLI is actually working in game.... Did you enable the SLI indicator and see the SLI graph overlay while the game is running?

[GOPHUR]

Needs more feedback.

[kpfzer]

omfg.. why 3x 280????????????????????

[jort]

Gophur,

Default NVIDIA settings only uses one card. I run at 2560x1600 and the one card in 1.31 with all max settings will undertake full load and the fan will run at 100% ( the other 2 cards sit there twiddling their thumbs).

I tried forcing the following modes so that the other cards take the processing load:

Force Alternate Frame rendering 1

Force Alternate Frame rendering 2

3-GPU Alternate Frame rendering 1

3-GPU Alternate Frame rendering 2

All the forced modes will cause the fame rated to plummet into the single digits.

[jort]

omfg.. why 3x 280????????????????????

Lol, the 3 280's were not for this game, but would be nice to take advantage of. It was more for running crysis at 2560x1600 a couple of years ago.

[branko]

Was the same in 1.30.x

SLI settings make framerate worse (much worse).

NVDIA's recommended profile for WWIIOL is the single GPU setting, move away from that and the framerate dies.

Test Results (using 1.30.3): http://forums.battlegroundeurope.com/showthread.php?t=303255

[Merc88]

I have 2 8800 ultra's on XP and I'm not seeing a SLI issue.

Merc88

[jort]

I have 2 8800 ultra's on XP and I'm not seeing a SLI issue.

Merc88

Hi Merc88,

I would assume you are not seeing any issue as only 1 of your 2 cards are being used in the game. If you disable one, you will likely notice that you will not loose performance as only one was used.

When you actually try and force SLI for the game will take a huge hit

[Bacon55]

No SLI on this end either, 2 GTX 260s C216 - Win 7 x64 Ultimate.

[odds]

I was never able to get SLI to work right with this game, since SLI first came out.

The best way I found to see if the game is using the 2nd card is to watch the GPU temps, usually 1 stays at idle temp.

This also use to be a problem on X2 cards, the ones that have 2 GPU on 1 card. 1 Gpu would do nothing.

[Werkelijk]

I think the real issue here is there is not enough work to be pushed onto the cards.

reason I say this is because I got a 9800 GTX, if I run 8xAA with 16x AF, my fps average goes UP ingame instead of down.

280 GTX's are really high end for this game, with 16xAA and 16x AF you should hold a 50-80fps average if the CPU is good enough.

[branko]

I think the real issue here is there is not enough work to be pushed onto the cards.

reason I say this is because I got a 9800 GTX, if I run 8xAA with 16x AF, my fps average goes UP ingame instead of down.

280 GTX's are really high end for this game, with 16xAA and 16x AF you should hold a 50-80fps average if the CPU is good enough.

(I think) I know what you're saying, but with a 3gHz quad-core CPU, I shouldn't be limited by that (nor my 4GB of RAM) - At least not at the framerates I am getting.

However, I tried your 16xAA and 8xAF and I can report a tiny increase in FPS (around 5%).

So there is something in what you are saying, but (shirley) if the cards were underworked, FPS would go up (from around 20% of where I was at with 1.30)?

Anyhow ... SLi - Needs looking into.

(And merry xmas one and all ... I'm off to the outlaws, so not quite all)

[lutorm]

(I think) I know what you're saying, but with a 3gHz quad-core CPU, I shouldn't be limited by that (nor my 4GB of RAM) - At least not at the framerates I am getting.

I beg to differ. Given that the game isn't threaded, your quad-core is a single-core 3GHz from a game performance perspective, and that's not very fast.

What quad-core is the question, I guess. If it's a C2D, then your cpu is slower than my E8500@4.2GHz and I seem to be CPU limited with just one 4870.

Did you try running at different resolutions and see how it scales? Maybe SLI would help if you're running at 2560 or some outrageously high res...

[jort]

1.30 did not tax a single 280 at all. With 1.31 with full shadows, shaders, clutter AA and AF running at 2650x1600 it is way more than a single card can handle.

EVGA Precision tool will show the clock speeds/temp/fan speed of each GPU on my G15 keyboard display. 1.31 will kill one GTX 280 now and the other SLI card(s) are not able to help.

[lutorm]

1.30 did not tax a single 280 at all. With 1.31 with full shadows, shaders, clutter AA and AF running at 2650x1600 it is way more than a single card can handle.

EVGA Precision tool will show the clock speeds/temp/fan speed of each GPU on my G15 keyboard display. 1.31 will kill one GTX 280 now and the other SLI card(s) are not able to help.

Yeah, at 2560 the graphics card might start limiting the fps. Just out of curiosity, could you run the benches at 2560, 1920 and 1600 resolutions and post your fps?

Edit: Here's what I get for benchremagen/vehicles/antwerp with all settings on high:

1920x1200: 33 / 19 / 23

1680x1050: 33 / 19 / 23

1280x1024: 36 / 20 / 23

1024x768: 36 / 20 / 23

So, essentially there is no effect on fps even though the workload for the GPU at 1024x768 is only 1/3 of that at 1920x1200. That's not the characteristic of a GPU-limited situation. The fps should scale directly with # of pixels if that's the case.

So, the only explanation is that turning on effects lowers fps because the cpu has to do more work to handle those effects.

Also, you can't judge the gpu load (more than very roughly) by looking at the temp or fan speed.

Edited December 23, 2009 by lutorm

[jort]

Yeah' date=' at 2560 the graphics card might start limiting the fps. Just out of curiosity, could you run the benches at 2560, 1920 and 1600 resolutions and post your fps?[/quote']

I am at work now, but sure I can gather some data in about 9 hours

Since you are looking for numbers, do you want the FPS with Performance or quality graphics?

[kamel]

Just out of interest... my rig.

core 2 due 8500

gtx260

8 gig RAM

Running in 5040 x 1050.

Now pretty much any of the eye candy on or off hardly affects fps at all.

Overclocking the vid card makes no diff.

Overclocking the CPU makes a HUGE differance.

Turning on AA affects FPS... overclocking the vid card negates that.

CONCLUSION.

Under normal usage... your vid card at normal res shouldn't be being taxed much.

CPU much more important.

[boz]

Battleground Europe has never supported SLI.

[Bacon55]

I beg to differ. Given that the game isn't threaded, your quad-core is a single-core 3GHz from a game performance perspective, and that's not very fast.

What quad-core is the question, I guess. If it's a C2D, then your cpu is slower than my E8500@4.2GHz and I seem to be CPU limited with just one 4870.

Not necessarily.

CPU architecture has just as much to do with performance as frequency.

My i7 920 at 3.8 Ghz absolutely creams yours in performance, one core for the game or not.

[jort]

Just out of interest... my rig.

core 2 due 8500

gtx260

8 gig RAM

Running in 5040 x 1050.

Now pretty much any of the eye candy on or off hardly affects fps at all.

Overclocking the vid card makes no diff.

Overclocking the CPU makes a HUGE differance.

Turning on AA affects FPS... overclocking the vid card negates that.

CONCLUSION.

Under normal usage... your vid card at normal res shouldn't be being taxed much.

CPU much more important.

Are you using a new 5xxx series ATI Card? That bad boy would be a generation ahead and would have twice the power of a 280. Sounds like you are using 3x 22" monitors with eyefinity.

If you pulled off the resolution on a nvidia card, I would love to know the Single monitor you used and what DVI cable you used to push that resolution

My CPU is only running about 25% capacity and no single core is going over 65% with a spike. In my case the CPU does not appear to be the bottleneck.

.

Edited December 24, 2009 by jort

[kamel]

Are you using a new 5xxx series ATI Card? That bad boy would be a generation ahead and would have twice the power of a 280. Sounds like you are using 3x 22" monitors with eyefinity.

If you pulled off the resolution on a nvidia card, I would love to know the Single monitor you used and what DVI cable you used to push that resolution

My CPU is only running about 25% capacity and no single core is going over 65% with a spike. In my case the CPU does not appear to be the bottleneck.

.

It's an Nvidia GTX260[216]. Not ATI. Running 3 x 24" monitors on Triplehead2go.

But like I said... the vid card isn't bottlenecking unless I turn on AA or AS. Overclocking the 3.16 Ghtz CPU to 4 ghtz increases FPS by a helluva lot.

[lutorm]

Not necessarily.

CPU architecture has just as much to do with performance as frequency.

My i7 920 at 3.8 Ghz absolutely creams yours in performance, one core for the game or not.

Um, what did I say that makes you think I don't think architecture makes a difference?

I said "If it's a Core2Duo" (true, I should have said core2quad, but Core2 is what I was referring to.) Your i7 is not a core2 at all.

Edited December 24, 2009 by lutorm

[noda503]

please, can someone explain me what AA, AF, or AS means?, just for my info and for the rest of the world who dont speak english and usually dont use acronimous.

Thakns in advance