Anyone with a GTX 690 have any tips, what to expect? Game compatibility, ect

[wombinator04]

I've got two GTX 690s in a Quad SLI configuration, accompanied by an i7-3820 at 4.5 GHz, 8 GB of DDR3 at ~2000 MHz, an X79 motherboard, and a LEPA 1600W PSU.

Compatibility: NVIDIA has been very good about providing SLI support on a lot of games on the market, but how well the GPUs scale and if multi-GPU rendering is even supported (or effective) is more to do with the game. Battlefield 3, for example, enjoys very high performance scaling with SLI because it was developed with multiple GPUs in mind in addition to the fact that there are a ton of visual details on screen which allow the presence of additional GPUs to be more noticeable. World of Warcraft does support SLI and performance gains can be seen with it, but games of this nature share a common problem with older games and those that aren't visually intensive: a lot of the time, the CPU usually ends up with more work to do than the GPUs, meaning performance gains with SLI may be marginal if they're observable at all. In that case, it won't matter how many GPUs you add into your system; your CPU is still going to be more determinant of performance. The point where this occurs depends on your system specs and the visual settings of the game, and so it varies from game to game and system to system. It's also important to keep in mind that a better frame rate doesn't necessarily always occur at the point of highest GPU scaling - running with 1x multisampling and getting 180 FPS but low SLI scaling is a better position to be in (for raw performance) compared to 4x multisampling and seeing high scaling but at 130 FPS.

Overclocking: The 690s handle themselves very well beyond stock frequencies, but what ends up being stable for yours isn't necessarily going to be the same for mine, for example. One of my 690s overclocks better than the other, and when running SLI, you always need to limit your OC to the lowest common denominator if you insist on forcing synchronized frequencies. (This isn't required, but some people complain of instability when running them asynchronously overclocked. Your mileage may vary.) That stuff aside, both of mine can comfortably run at 135/+100/+220 (power target/GPU offset/RAM offset.) I'd suggest running the Unigine Heaven demo benchmark at the highest settings five or six times to roughly ensure stability at a particular clock speed.

Temperatures: You'd do well to watch the GPU temperatures, especially if you're gonna be overclocking. Set up a fan curve profile through EVGA Precision or MSI Afterburner to make sure you don't end up in a bad spot. Mine idle around 30C and reach their peak at around 82C, at which point the fans have long been howling at their fastest speeds.

My Heaven results: http://i.imgur.com/UQx9m.jpg

Lemme know if you have any specific questions.

Hey thanks. I'm only going to be running 1 of these suckers(until I can afford another one, lmao) but nice advice. I actually went with the 690 its generates a lot less noise and lower temps. The very slight performance gain you get with 2 gtx 580's isn't worth it.

[Defengar]

Not really for me. I use a 120hz monitor and I plan to get as much fps as possible on the highest settings, even 90fps won't cut it. Anything below 100fps bothers me. This will be paired with my 2500k 4.5Ghz.

a 690 will take any game currently on the market behind the barn and shoot it in the head as far as performance goes. The only thing I could think of that would challenge a 690 is Skyrim with that 100+ mod installed package that makes the game look almost photo realistic.

http://benmerrick3d.files.wordpress....100mods_03.jpg

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/185t...g/original.jpg

http://media.pcgamer.com/files/2012/...npAjJXCUwL.jpg

Why do you need 100 FPS though? its not humanly possible to notice any difference above 60 FPS in games.

* Mod note, editted pictures to links this time, but for future reference, don't embed images in excess of 800px in width

[Tahapenes]

Why do you need 100 FPS though? its not humanly possible to notice any difference above 60 FPS in games.

Yes it is, the human eye, as I already noted, sees changes down to 5 to 6 ms (which is 166 FPS to 200 FPS). The human eye can definitely detect beyond 60 FPS. It is an urban myth that the human eye can't see anything beyond 60 FPS.

[Afrospinach]

That's some nice bozo science you got. There's a difference between 60fps and 120fps. I guarantee that if you buy a 120hz monitor and run 100+fps, you will notice a huge difference.

Hell, even 70fps makes a difference.

Add to this that we all have a pretty wide tolerance difference. I know some people that are fine with tearing and jerkiness as long as they get teh pretty, others just can't even seem to perceive things that give me a headache, in this way I have a friend who is even worse than myself seeing things which I just don't register. I find counterstrike feels smoother and more responsive at 200fps vs 100fps even on a 60hz monitor, I don't know what to make of that.

[BicycleMafioso]

Can we please not have (another) discussion about how many frames the human eye can discern per second?
While I realise new people come and spout the same things and haven't read the debunking of olde, it's been widely established that 20/24/30/45/60/112.4 are not the limits how many frames the human eye can see.
First thing first, the human eye is analog and second of all, everyone is different. Most people can tell the difference between 60 and 120 fps (on a monitor that supports >60 Hz of course), and most people when 'trained' should be able to see the difference between 120 and 240.
And beyond that, everyone is different, so an arbitrary number at 20 would make no sense.


On-topic: One GTX 690 has better internal SLI than two GTX680 will have, garnering better minmum frame rates especially. It's however clocked a fair bit lower so the average might not be as high. It's, either way, a phenomenal piece of hardware that will not disappoint and be a great contender outside of the standard monitor demands.
And yes. Some games do not utilise dual GPU technology, but this (I'm told) should work a little better with the dual GPU-PCBs than two GPUs on separate PCBs. For the most compatibility, full-screen and non-windowed is recommended.

[jmacphee9]

just read this

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frame...humans_see.htm

great read fizzbob /thumbsup

[Scrubity]

The human eye can detect changes down to 5 to 6 ms, so doing the math, that means the human eye can potentially detect 166 to 200 fps. So, you're flat out wrong.

Thought it was down to 16 ms?

[Cyanotical]

The only thing I could think of that would challenge a 690 is Skyrim with that 100+ mod installed package that makes the game look almost photo realistic.

nah, mine aren't really bothered by skyrim

[This name sucks]

nah, mine aren't really bothered by skyrim

Implying 2.

What the hell would you ever need half the power your computer has for. That thing must have cost like $5000

[Cyanotical]

Implying 2.

What the hell would you ever need half the power your computer has for.

i could respond with why are you willing to settle for anything less than the best that is available?

but these are subjective points of view, that can't really be argued over the internet

[glo]

You're going to need more than a 690 if you expect to max newer games at higher resolutions above 100 FPS.

[Nab]

Why do you need 100 FPS though? its not humanly possible to notice any difference above 60 FPS in games.

Please don't... There is a day and night difference between 60FPS and 120 FPS. I bet you never even used an 120hz monitor.

OT: I don't think you'll be able to run games like Far Cry 3 or Crysis 3 On ultra details at 120fps. But you sure can get close.

[Deleted]

Please don't... There is a day and night difference between 60FPS and 120 FPS. I bet you never even used an 120hz monitor.

OT: I don't think you'll be able to run games like Far Cry 3 or Crysis 3 On ultra details at 120fps. But you sure can get close.

120fps in farcry 3 with ultra settings seems impossible, the game is poorly optimized.

[Milkshake86]

Can we please not have (another) discussion about how many frames the human eye can discern per second?
While I realise new people come and spout the same things and haven't read the debunking of olde, it's been widely established that 20/24/30/45/60/112.4 are not the limits how many frames the human eye can see.
First thing first, the human eye is analog and second of all, everyone is different. Most people can tell the difference between 60 and 120 fps (on a monitor that supports >60 Hz of course), and most people when 'trained' should be able to see the difference between 120 and 240.
And beyond that, everyone is different, so an arbitrary number at 20 would make no sense.


On-topic: One GTX 690 has better internal SLI than two GTX680 will have, garnering better minmum frame rates especially. It's however clocked a fair bit lower so the average might not be as high. It's, either way, a phenomenal piece of hardware that will not disappoint and be a great contender outside of the standard monitor demands.
And yes. Some games do not utilise dual GPU technology, but this (I'm told) should work a little better with the dual GPU-PCBs than two GPUs on separate PCBs. For the most compatibility, full-screen and non-windowed is recommended.

Except you fail to state the obvious, the eye can discern between things below 30 fps. Where as above 30 Fps it can be synthetically seen by frames not being fully rendered. Youtube does not look choppy @ 30 FPS, nor would you likely be able to tell it was @ 120, the factor things being drawn in your face at highspeed but every now and then it smashes up, similar to how in old movie theater's with the reel too reel setups people with sharp eyes could catch when the reel was changed while others are like "huh", so no its false 60 FLUID frames will look exactly like 120 FLUID frames.

Simply put @ 60 Fps you have 3600 frames per minute, @ 120Fps you have 7200, so if only 3/4's of the frames are 100% rendered what would look smoother??? The faster one...so yes by that rationality you can discern 60Fps from 120Fps, however not one soul on the planet is going to sit down and watch a full HD quality movie @ 60 FPS then 120FPS and notice a difference unless they got goggles on.

[THEORACLE64]

My GTX 690 is on the way to my PC. Can someone that has one give me any tips on what to expect? Like game compatibility, sli, overclocking, ect.

I heard that some games won't utilize the 2nd graphic processor.

It's only compatible with Tetris, sry.

[BicycleMafioso]

Yeah, this is still not the "how many frames can I see at once"-thread.

Closed.