SLI and CROSSFIRE

It is well known that in order to achieve 60fps on demanding titles in 4K it requires multiple top tier graphics cards. Will there be any SLI support in project contingency? It really blows to have a second 980 running idle. This may seem like a small issue for a lot of users, but there are a LOT of SLI users especially with the 900 series. If there is not any SLI support it would be a real shame because nobody could experience the games true potential in UHD.

4K is pretty cool, but it's not really worth it (except under special circumstances). I have a 770 (unaltered/standard version) on a 1900x1200 screen and it plays Crysis 3 on max settings quite nicely. Definitely not 60fps but who needs 60fps.

I'd just be thankful if I can play CS:GO on minimum settings without dropping frames every round. For some reason each 5 minutes or so my framerate drops and then clears up again. Anyone know why? And what do SLI and crossfire mean, I've heard it's sort of like a dual-graphics card running at the same time-configuration..

60fps is extremely important for first person shooters. SLI is using multiple gpus for Nvidia and crossfire is for amd. You will understand how important 4K is for games when you see it. Not everyone who runs SLI is using ultra rigs. There are a LOT of SLI users.

Halo seemed to play fine on 30.

Except if I shot my gun it dropped to like 28, and if other people shot their gun at the same time it dropped to like 15.

It was ok at 30. 60 is actually smooth. Don't defend or accept things like 30fps on consoles. That type of bending over is why the new consoles were weak. Demand more and you shale recieve what is right.

Lets demand decent gameplay before 60fps Halo 4 on MCC is still bad.

Shouldn't most stuff work out of the box. As far as I am aware anything technical related to Crysis 3 will show in this game. If Crysis 3 supports SLI then shouldn't this game support it too.

yes I think there needs to be SLI support.

I can't stand to play games at anything below 60FPS it just looks choppy as hell honestly once you play a game at 120fps there's no going back

I'm currently running SLI 970 on a ROG swift 2560x1440 144hz

Neesy wrote:4K doesn't need to be an option for an arena shooter. If you're concerned about performance do what I do on CS:GO: Low and Very Low on most settings to get that crisp 250+FPS.

can't disagree with you more on this one. Why would you not want to allow people to use their 4k monitors there's literally no downside to allowing people to use their 4k monitors.
it's just that most people who use 4k monitors use SLI or crossfire as well to get steady frames in games which is why he's asking it to be enabled.

Yes hopefully since they are using CRYENGINE it will have built in SLI support. Though it might need some optimization.

I think I've heard though that Cryengine definitely prefers Nvidia though.

I wouldn't be surprised.

Are we talking about acceptable framerates and resolutions for playing first-person shooter games here now?
I'm a veteran at low-end PC gaming. Intel HD Graphics really made me appreciate squeezing more framerate to my games.
Let me tell you that many people have different experiences with framerate. For me, I'm used to playing Planetside 2 at 10 fps, and Warframe at a little under 30 fps, all at 720p. I tried playing Crysis, which chugged along nicely at 15-30 fps. Crysis 2 dropped me down to 9 fps, same with Battlefield 3. For BF3, I had to drop my window to 500*300, THEN I could finally get to 20-30 fps. In fact, achieving 45 fps in all my games is a large goal. In the end, I downloaded HiAlgo SWITCH to help me out, which worked wonders.
Now that I have a new laptop, I play all my games at 1366*768 (screen resolution), and I try to aim for 60 fps while keeping my games looking good. However, games are still playable at 30 fps in some games where graphical fidelity doesn't really affect the framerate much (Warframe and Planetside 2).
So, conclusion? Doesn't matter what framerate or resolution you play in. Just run what you can run. 4K and even 1440p is not really a must, and I'd say even 1080p is unnecessary, but hey, I've never used 1080p before and I'm quite content without it, so merely my opinion. 60 fps is a must for most people, but 120 fps, not quite. 30 fps is fine for people without high expectations. What's important is that you DON'T have to go overboard with framerate. Anything above your screen's refresh rate would be just a waste of GPU power. In fact, if you have a monitor that can only run at 60 Hz max and you're not afraid to sacrifice that little bit of response, turn on VSync to save some power and prevent your computer from heating up, as well as take away tearing.

I wish I could show you what playing at high resolution in high frame rate feels like. it's amazing!
and I'd like this game to support those amazing resolutions and high fps.(aka no frame limit)

I understand that those resolutions and frame rates might seem okay to you but trust me once you play at 120 fps and 1440p and or 4k you can never go back.

I'd also add that in my experience 120+ fps has helped my gaming performance, a noticeable increase in my KD

Ah, now that's just OP. I can understand that hardware should make a small difference and monitor aspect ratio plays a role but having an increase in fidelity and framerate so large it improves your ability?

There goes my faith in the gaming industry. I'm going to go play SMB3.

Heatguts wrote:Ah, now that's just OP. I can understand that hardware should make a small difference and monitor aspect ratio plays a role but having an increase in fidelity and framerate so large it improves your ability?

There goes my faith in the gaming industry. I'm going to go play SMB3.

I would say yes. As someone who has been PC gaming for about five years now it is true. The minimum for me is 60 FPS on any game at 1080p but I'm willing to lower the resolution for higher FPS if needed. Having higher FPS allows you to be more responsive and if used well can help in the battlefield. A clear display at 1080p helps you see all the details you need to take in clearly giving you an advantage. Lets take our friend over here as an example and lets take any other PC gaming enthusiast as another example. Both of them are play Game A and our friend here is running it at 10-20 FPS while our Mr. PCgamer is running it at 60 FPS stable. There are 20 enemies on the field. Mr. PCgamer is going to always going to come out on top due to the higher FPS count. Our friend here couldn't see the guy in the trees though due to his resolution being too low and making everything look blurry making him have to take a second look. Mr. PCgamer saw him clearly and got that kill too though. Oh yea, btw all NES games run at 60 FPS as that was the standard back then for platforming and such. Just thought you should know.
TD:LR: Graphical fidelity plays a huge roll in combat. Please don't game on laptops.

Interesting fact there.

Also I would play on something other than a laptop if I had another computer that wasn't a laptop. Which I am working on getting.

Well, unfortunately, I'm a student from Hong Kong currently studying in the US. This means that I need a laptop to bring with my constant travels.
Also, as for the 'higher resolution means higher visibility of enemies', I call bull. True, it will affect gaming a little bit, but in the end, the screen sizes would be pretty much the same for us due to us sitting at a comfortable distance from the monitors. Let's say that on a 1080p screen, you can see the enemy player in, like, a 5x5 pixel area. In a 720p screen, it would be a 3x3 pixel area. However, the pixels in that 1080p screen would be smaller, so in the end, you'd still see that enemy player as the same size as you would see the enemy player on a 720p screen. Not just that. 5x5 is still ridiculously small, and you would be too focused on other more visible players that you wouldn't really notice that guy far away.
My own conclusion is that 1080p, 1440p and even 4K gives only a bit of an advantage over 720p, and even then, it would depend on how close the screen is to your eyes.
The framerate, however, is another story. A higher fps will always be superior. However, for different people, there are different standards to framerate. Take Planetside 2, for instance: it's a very CPU intensive game, and my laptop CPU can't really handle it that well. As such, I can only play at around 30 fps in large battles, which also means that I have less response and and it would be harder to predict where I'm pointing at due to that lower response time. Luckily for me, I've pretty much mastered 10 fps gaming, so I'm cool with that.

HatchetHaro wrote:Well, unfortunately, I'm a student from Hong Kong currently studying in the US. This means that I need a laptop to bring with my constant travels.
Also, as for the 'higher resolution means higher visibility of enemies', I call bull. True, it will affect gaming a little bit, but in the end, the screen sizes would be pretty much the same for us due to us sitting at a comfortable distance from the monitors. Let's say that on a 1080p screen, you can see the enemy player in, like, a 5x5 pixel area. In a 720p screen, it would be a 3x3 pixel area. However, the pixels in that 1080p screen would be smaller, so in the end, you'd still see that enemy player as the same size as you would see the enemy player on a 720p screen. Not just that. 5x5 is still ridiculously small, and you would be too focused on other more visible players that you wouldn't really notice that guy far away.
My own conclusion is that 1080p, 1440p and even 4K gives only a bit of an advantage over 720p, and even then, it would depend on how close the screen is to your eyes.
The framerate, however, is another story. A higher fps will always be superior. However, for different people, there are different standards to framerate. Take Planetside 2, for instance: it's a very CPU intensive game, and my laptop CPU can't really handle it that well. As such, I can only play at around 30 fps in large battles, which also means that I have less response and and it would be harder to predict where I'm pointing at due to that lower response time. Luckily for me, I've pretty much mastered 10 fps gaming, so I'm cool with that.

How can you call bull on something you've truly never experienced unless you have then pardon for the assumption. The details given through high resolution are very helpful to players who want to be competitive. As someone who has gamed in the early days at 480p all the way to today to where I am gaming at full 1080p I can safely that resolution does and will matter. There is little difference between 720p and 1080p but to say 4k does not come with little advantages over 720p is false. Even if you don't believe me ask yourself this question. Why do players at the competitive level go for the highest graphical fidelity in both FPS and resolution with a monitor that provides little latency and displays at higher frequencies.
TD:LR: To the casual player resolution arguments are dick size comparison comments. To the hardcore gamer the highest resolution and FPS is crucial.

General_101 wrote:How can you call bull on something you've truly never experienced unless you have then pardon for the assumption. The details given through high resolution are very helpful to players who want to be competitive. As someone who has gamed in the early days at 480p all the way to today to where I am gaming at full 1080p I can safely that resolution does and will matter. There is little difference between 720p and 1080p but to say 4k does not come with little advantages over 720p is false. Even if you don't believe me ask yourself this question. Why do players at the competitive level go for the highest graphical fidelity in both FPS and resolution with a monitor that provides little latency and displays at higher frequencies.
TD:LR: To the casual player resolution arguments are dick size comparison comments. To the hardcore gamer the highest resolution and FPS is crucial.

Good point. I've never actually tried 1440p gaming, let alone 4K, but from my experience with HiAlgo SWITCH I've always done pretty well on lower resolutions, maybe even better due to the better performance. Besides, you can always scope in most FPS games to aim better at that 'blurry blob' on your screen in low resolutions. So, to me, 360p was not that much worse than 720p. Trust me, when you're moving, you hardly notice the resolution difference. You just point at whatever moving target you see and mash the left-mouse button.
But that's just my own experience.
Also, I'm not a competitive player at all. I'm what competitive players call a 'filthy casual'. I play games just for fun. There was a time when I was really good in TF2, but that was quite a few years ago.

Not playing every game in 8k 480fps? What are you? Casul?

I've been stomped by people playing on an oldschool CRT while I'm using a 41 inch 1080p flatscreen, I'd say the only thing that actually matters is a decently constant framerate.