PDA

View Full Version : AFR of SFR-Quad sli and Direct3d


FearMeAll
07-04-06, 12:25 PM
Since my lcd monitor does the meager resolution of 1680x1050 I decided to see if I could see the performance benefits of quad sli on a higher resolution display. I dug out my 100pound crt from the closet and set the resoltion to 2048x1536. I ran Chronicles of Riddick, Prey, and Doom3 at this rez at 4x FSAA, 16x aniso, Quality with opts off. I was shocked at the results. Riddick ran the exact same as it did at 1680x1050. I had fraps going and I remembered my fps in certain areas with 1680 and Riddick apparently was still completely and totally cpu limited. Doom3 stayed pegged at 60fps ultra quality with self shadows enabled(thanks to a mod) as did the Prey demo. I was still at this rez not even tapping into 4 cards power.
These results were from Opengl games that seem to be running 4-way AFR in the load balancers. I was amazed at the performance and it made me want a dell 30" now that I have all this power.
However I am concerned about the future of direct3d and quad sli. Every single Direct3d game that uses AFR also uses split frame rendering as well in the gpu load balancer and the performance was not nearly as impressive. I know there is not official support and all that but does anyone on this forum know if 4way alternate frame rendering will be possible in direct3d applications? without this possibility to me quad sli will be a total waste of cash. Does anyone know if nvidia plans to make this possible? Right now AFR of SFR seems to give only about 2.3 times the performance of 1 card while 4wayAFR gives God knows how much.
If anyone knows please post.

FearMeAll
07-05-06, 08:17 PM
hmmm...guess no one knows yet. boy I'm ready for the end of summer.

OWA
07-05-06, 08:25 PM
Yep, we're all waiting like you. FEAR is the only game that seems to really work well in that mode so hopefully they'll be able to rectify that.

jAkUp
07-05-06, 08:47 PM
Yea, AFR just seems so much more efficient on paper.