64xQ FSAA with GTX 295 quad SLI Possible

Printable View

01-07-2009, 02:06 AM
jasonelmore

1 Attachment(s)

64xQ FSAA with GTX 295 quad SLI Possible

With the new 185 beta drivers released we are starting to see the 295's feature's unvield. And apparantly 64XQ FSAA is possible via the Nvidia Control panel according to this story.

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,6..._295_quad_SLI/

Quote:

The combination of the Geforce driver 185.20 Beta and four GT200b GPUs also known as GTX 295 quad SLI is capable of the so called 64xQ FSAA. For this each graphics processor calculates 16xQ FSAA, the results are combined and applied to the image currently rendered. But 16xQ FSAA is not 16x MSAA but 8x MSAA with eight additional Coverage Samples (16 Coverage Samples altogether).

Chris Ray took a screenshot of the driver option, but game screenshots or benchmarks with are not available yet. Although Nvidia's latest dual GPU card is quite powerful, as our GTX 295 preview revealed, even a quad SLI setup might have to suffer from a noticeable impact on the performance when displaying with 64xQ FSAA.
01-07-2009, 02:24 AM
STaRGaZeR

Quote:

Originally Posted by jasonelmore

With the new 185 beta drivers released we are starting to see the 295's feature's unvield. And apparantly 64XQ FSAA is possible via the Nvidia Control panel according to this story.

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,6..._295_quad_SLI/

Maybe they'll reach ATI's 8xAA quality now? ;)
01-07-2009, 02:31 AM
Warboy

Quote:

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

Maybe they'll reach ATI's 8xAA quality now? ;)

Your sarcasm is funny. That is sarcasm right?
01-07-2009, 02:38 AM
Shintai

4x is enough for me.
01-07-2009, 02:40 AM
dan7777

are these cards guna be worth it ? upgrade from a gtx260-216 may step up
01-07-2009, 02:45 AM
jasonelmore

well tommarow's the big day. I can't believe there have'nt been any leaked photo's of EVGA's or XFX's cards or any other company.
01-07-2009, 03:06 AM
Der_KHAN

ridiculous...

like that's gonna help me get AA in GTA4 or TAA in Crysis...
01-07-2009, 03:14 AM
Xello

Pretty ridiculous, can't wait to try it!
01-07-2009, 03:19 AM
SNiiPE_DoGG

so this is 64 passes of anti aliasing per frame?

this thread title should be changed to "64xQ FSAA with GTX 295 quad SLI Impossible, but still listed in the menu"
01-07-2009, 03:30 AM
giorgos th.

oh yeah......64xQ would be awsome for a slideshow....:D
01-07-2009, 03:32 AM
dan7777

wonder if crysis wars will be playable maxed out of course with max AA ??? anyone any ideas
01-07-2009, 03:32 AM
jasonelmore

Quote:

Originally Posted by SNiiPE_DoGG

so this is 64 passes of anti aliasing per frame?

this thread title should be changed to "64xQ FSAA with GTX 295 quad SLI Impossible, but still listed in the menu"

Snipe trolls another nvidia thread
01-07-2009, 03:40 AM
dan7777

Quote:

Originally Posted by jasonelmore

Snipe trolls another nvidia thread

why not ??? lol
01-07-2009, 04:07 AM
Sr7

Quote:

Originally Posted by SNiiPE_DoGG

so this is 64 passes of anti aliasing per frame?

this thread title should be changed to "64xQ FSAA with GTX 295 quad SLI Impossible, but still listed in the menu"

lol that would be a completely blurred mess. No this is 64 samples.
01-07-2009, 04:12 AM
Macadamia

64 coverage samples, 32 in others. And it's alternate samples so you see only 16x CSAA in screenshots.

(Aka this is the same deal with ATI's Temporal AA, although that one had a 60fps framerate pre-requisite)
01-07-2009, 04:29 AM
Sr7

64xQ gives 64 true samples. Without the Q (for "Quality") you are going to have some true samples and some virtual samples, so absolute quality is lesser but perf is higher.
01-07-2009, 04:30 AM
AbelJemka

GTX already struggles with AA due to lack of framebuffer...
Will be great to see this with Jedi Knight, may be playable with game :ROTF:
01-07-2009, 04:33 AM
Sr7

Quote:

Originally Posted by AbelJemka

GTX already struggles with AA due to lack of framebuffer...
Will be great to see this with Jedi Knight, may be playable with game :ROTF:

Err which GTX are you talking about? The 260 and 280 have 896MB and 1GB respectively...
01-07-2009, 04:52 AM
bedlamite

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shintai

4x is enough for me.

Well, I agree.
01-07-2009, 05:17 AM
Vinas

Quote:

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

Maybe they'll reach ATI's 8xAA quality now? ;)

QFT

Nvidia graphics have always been much worse quality IMO. Switching from the 8800 series was night and day difference.

EDIT: Although is 64x really necessary? Do people game with 60ft screens or something?
01-07-2009, 05:18 AM
Simps

OMG, can't wait for pics of games running high res and 64xQ AA. That must look good, and with quad sli and a core i7, a lot of titles should be playable with 64xQ, on some native resolution of 19" - 22" monitors.
01-07-2009, 05:20 AM
Sr7

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinas

QFT

Nvidia graphics have always been much worse quality IMO. Switching from the 8800 series was night and day difference.

EDIT: Although is 64x really necessary? Do people game with 60ft screens or something?

That's funny because most sites do IQ comparisons and always come to the conclusion that the IQ is identical.

They even show screenshots and you can diff them in photoshop and see how similar they really are.
01-07-2009, 05:26 AM
STaRGaZeR

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warboy

Your sarcasm is funny. That is sarcasm right?

Unfortunately not.
01-07-2009, 05:28 AM
joshd

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sr7

That's funny because most sites do IQ comparisons and always come to the conclusion that the IQ is identical.

No not identical. There are invariably small differences in the way scenes are rendered, even between different model cards, let alone ati vs nv.
01-07-2009, 05:29 AM
SNiiPE_DoGG

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sr7

That's funny because most sites do IQ comparisons and always come to the conclusion that the IQ is identical.

They even show screenshots and you can diff them in photoshop and see how similar they really are.

lets not make this another IQ battle because we all know that:

a) its pointless

b) penny will become rabid in his ban-box if we do

my point earlier about the 64x AA being impossible was that each gpu has to do 16 samples of AA. Even if 4xGPUs worked well in real world situations (ati or NV) this would still be a giant load on the GPU and with the current gen I doubt it is possible to actually play games with this setting enabled.
01-07-2009, 05:39 AM
RejZoR

Oh dear what ppl come up to with all sorts of stuff and mix everything in one huge useless blob.
This has nothing to do with Temporal AA, it has nothing to do with 64 passes per frame.
Besides, i still think 64xQ FSAA is rather pointless when 8xFSAA (Edge Detect) already renders perfectly smooth edges.
I use 4xFSAA EdgeDetect most of the time anyway and i don't see any real need for higher sampling rates except in very very old games that are capped at 640x480 or 800x600 and you want to play them on big screen.
They should invent a completelly new and more efficient FSAA mode instead just trahing out raw increase in samples.
NVIDIA's Quincunx years ago was step in right direction, AMD's Edge Detect repeated that success again. Matrox was using Fragment AA. Thats what i want and am still waiting. Where is nearly free 4xFSAA?
01-07-2009, 05:51 AM
Warboy

Quote:

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

Unfortunately not.

Then I don't get it, Nvidia was doing fine in AA. The only thing I still haven't tried was ATI's new style of AA in the 4xxx series cards.
01-07-2009, 05:53 AM
Sr7

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshd

No not identical. There are invariably small differences in the way scenes are rendered, even between different model cards, let alone ati vs nv.

:rolleyes: Obviously, I was generalizing. But between different models of the same generation, the image quality can be identical, if they use the same chip architecture, precision, and compiler. Between series, you will obviously see differences in IQ.

Like I said, you can diff the images and see how little difference there really is in IQ. What people usually flock to is the brighter default colors that many see on ATI cards. Most people generalize as "better" when something is simply different. Both cards can be made to have the same color/brightness as the other. They just have different defaults.
01-07-2009, 05:54 AM
Macadamia

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sr7

64xQ gives 64 true samples. Without the Q (for "Quality") you are going to have some true samples and some virtual samples, so absolute quality is lesser but perf is higher.

These are NOT true samples.

These are probably utilizing RGMSAA (with CSAA components) and combining 4 frames from 4 GPUs.

A single frame from FRAPS will give you 16x CS quality. In motion only then it works as "64x"...

Oh well. ATI's Crossfire Edge Detect goes up to 48x, and is 24x MSAA equivalent per frame (while 16x CS is between 8x and 16x mostly)
01-07-2009, 06:35 AM
STaRGaZeR

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warboy

Then I don't get it, Nvidia was doing fine in AA. The only thing I still haven't tried was ATI's new style of AA in the 4xxx series cards.

Following your line of thought, if NV is doing fine then ATI is doing better than fine in AA. The only better thing in NV cards is AF quality, and that has been like that since the 8800 series.
01-07-2009, 06:37 AM
RPGWiZaRD

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shintai

4x is enough for me.

+1. And even with my current low res 19" CRT @ 1280x960.

Instead of battling who's got the most gimmicky AA/AF quality etc, rather come up with some new useful improvements or improve the other modes to be faster, 64x is getting ridiculous!
01-07-2009, 06:58 AM
bedlamite

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD

Instead of battling who's got the most gimmicky AA/AF quality etc, rather come up with some new useful improvements or improve the other modes to be faster, 64x is getting ridiculous!

Yeah, cheap 4x AA please ;)
01-07-2009, 07:03 AM
RaZz!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shintai

4x is enough for me.

i had that opinion as well, but after trying 8xAA on the radeon 4850 i fell in love with it :p:
it looks so much better compared to 4xAA especially if you use adaptive aa respectively transparency aa. edge detect aa gives another IQ-increase, but it eats too much performance so imo it's not worth it (even if i use 8xAA edge detect + adaptive AA in bf2, which is quite an old game, the fps go down the drain with all the grass and fences that are rendered with AAA :p:).

but 64xAA sounds like a complete overkill, 8xAA on ati/16xAA on nvidia is more than enough if you ask me :) however, if they manage to keep the fps drop low, i'm all in for higher modes as well :D
01-07-2009, 07:13 AM
RejZoR

Quote:

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

Following your line of thought, if NV is doing fine then ATI is doing better than fine in AA. The only better thing in NV cards is AF quality, and that has been like that since the 8800 series.

Actually if i remember there were slight inperfections in AF algorithms, while Radeons have perfect filtering ever since introduction of HQ AF mode.
GTX 260/280 also have perfect AF now.
01-07-2009, 07:14 AM
dan7777

16AA in crysis wars is nice to see 25fps barely playable 8AA fine and dandy
01-07-2009, 07:57 AM
Eternalightwith

Why MUST it look good?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simps

OMG, can't wait for pics of games running high res and 64xQ AA. That must look good...

Yeeeesss.... alot of old games. Like before 2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simps

and with quad sli and a core i7, a lot of titles should be playable with 64xQ, on some native resolution of 19" - 22" monitors.
01-07-2009, 08:34 AM
highoctane

One of these days some research firm is going to do the graphics card equivalent of the pepsi challenge.

They're going to set up multiple rigs with different video cards and ask the players what video card is in each machine while they play a game and what they fell the level of filtering is being applied.

Hell this should be done at CES!
01-07-2009, 08:50 AM
RejZoR

Thats impossible to perform because i really doubt anyone can tell the difference between modes beyond 8x FSAA, not to mention tens of xQ, xS, Narrow, Wide, Edge Detect. I can spot a Wide/Narrow tent and Quincunx, but i doubt anyone could ever tell for sure what kind of FSAA is used. I could tell which FSAA level is higher if i could diagnose same scene on different computer but no way to spot that if you're running different scenes.
01-07-2009, 09:01 AM
NapalmV5

AA :down: :down:

gimmie 3840x2160/2400p and zero/no AA and ill die happy @ 2012
01-07-2009, 09:42 AM
[XC] Synthetickiller

Quote:

Originally Posted by dan7777

are these cards guna be worth it ? upgrade from a gtx260-216 may step up

Dan, start a thread on this. Both of us ask the same questions with every gtx285/295 thread/topic. The question will really be, will nvidia's support for this card be the same as the GX2 cards the produced in the 7000 & 8000 series? If so, I'd go 285, but that's me.

In responce to this topic, 64x? WTH! I don't even think I run AA at all. Where's the setting for that in UT3? lol. I don't have really any other current games to test it with unless I fire up farcry 2, that must have AA, right? :rofl:
01-07-2009, 10:01 AM
STaRGaZeR

Quote:

Originally Posted by RejZoR

Actually if i remember there were slight inperfections in AF algorithms, while Radeons have perfect filtering ever since introduction of HQ AF mode.
GTX 260/280 also have perfect AF now.

The main difference between both algorithms is that on ATI if you don't look straight to a certain object the driver thinks that object shouldn't get the same level of AF as the ones right in front of you. This angle problem is not fixed even with HQ AF unfortunately, and I think ATI specifically wants it to be like that for some strange reason. Maybe perfomance, but nowadays AF is peanuts for every card out there. I can't find the article about the angles with screenshots and all that, but this two links are also interesting:

http://www.beyond3d.com/content/reviews/3/5
http://www.beyond3d.com/content/reviews/47/3

And the AF algorithm hasn't changed since R600 AFAIK.
01-07-2009, 10:01 AM
AuDioFreaK39

*update*

Fudo just emailed me that he just spoke to Nvidia at CES and they told him the drivers are faulty and should not be used. :(

What is going on??
01-07-2009, 10:26 AM
LiquidReactor

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warboy

Your sarcasm is funny. That is sarcasm right?

He's got a point, lol :rofl:

I've played three same games on same monitor Samsung T220 with a 3850 Agp and 8800 Ultra and 8xaa in CCC still looks better then 8xQaa.
01-07-2009, 11:32 AM
LordEC911

Quote:

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

And the AF algorithm hasn't changed since R600 AFAIK.

Yep, and R600 AF is just a slightly tweaked/improved algorithm from the R580 AF.
01-07-2009, 12:26 PM
Kingcarcas

Ehh...i thought if you had toooooo much AA it was a bad thing? The game will actually look worse...
01-07-2009, 01:20 PM
RejZoR

Based on what exactly? More samples you use, the more precise the edge is calculated and smoothed. It's similar to resolution itself. Play Quake 3 at 320x240 and at 1920x1600 on same 22 inch screen. While in 320x240 all distant objects would look like moving blocks, you'd actually see all the detail on 1920x1600. The higher you go, the more detail you have. In fact if you'd go high enough with resolution, there would be no need to use FSAA anymore most probably. But we're talking in a 5 digit numbers for horizontal and vertical line...
01-07-2009, 01:32 PM
ToTTenTranz

Decent performance with transparent/adaptive anti-aliasing at 4x (maybe 8x for hardcores) is a lot more important than 64x...

There's really no difference to be seen from 8x upwards.
01-07-2009, 01:39 PM
OverDozeD

IMO it's pointless to use 64XAA in any game! Nvidia remains the same
01-07-2009, 01:56 PM
Cybercat

Quote:

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

Following your line of thought, if NV is doing fine then ATI is doing better than fine in AA. The only better thing in NV cards is AF quality, and that has been like that since the 8800 series.

Aside from powerlines in some games being done better than NVIDIA, there is no perceptible difference. You're only exaggerating reality.
01-07-2009, 02:20 PM
T_Flight

Quote:

Originally Posted by jasonelmore

Snipe trolls another nvidia thread

I would start to worry about the state of the space time continuum if that did not happen. We would need a quantum physicist to help us understand the damage to repair the distortion if that happened. :)
01-07-2009, 02:24 PM
SNiiPE_DoGG

well its not really trolling if I called their BS and it turns out 64-sample AA doesn't work at all..... is it?
01-07-2009, 02:25 PM
generics_user

seriously, anything more than 8xAA is a waste of time, especially on lcd displays with high pixel density.

nvidia and ati better focus on making better sli and cf drivers instead of some marketing crap like this is (not that cf drivers are bad, but they could be better)
01-07-2009, 02:59 PM
Natalia

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shintai

4x is enough for me.

Yeah, I have a hard enough time seeing past 4x at the high resolutions we play at these days.

64xQ ... who cares. Just make 4x or 8x faster.
01-07-2009, 03:23 PM
Caparroz

This is as usefull as a 9400GT with 1GB of frame buffer. And people actually buys 9400GT's with 1 GB of ram... :shakes:
01-07-2009, 03:28 PM
cegras

He voiced the sentiments of almost everyone out there, what's wrong with what Snipe said?

Even 8xCSAA / Q / whatever it's called is not noticeable from 4 on 1440 x 900, and it's low resolutions where AA matters.
01-07-2009, 04:04 PM
STaRGaZeR

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cybercat

Aside from powerlines in some games being done better than NVIDIA, there is no perceptible difference. You're only exaggerating reality.

This is the same as "people can't see more than 60FPS", go figure.
01-07-2009, 04:09 PM
MrHydes

Quote:

Originally Posted by jasonelmore

well tommarow's the big day. I can't believe there have'nt been any leaked photo's of EVGA's or XFX's cards or any other company.

well here they are...

Quote:

http://i377.photobucket.com/albums/o...s/IMG_2254.jpg

complete PC with GTX 295 consuming only 120 a 130 Watt IDLE 138W instaling vista

Vista 64 with drivers 185.20

http://i377.photobucket.com/albums/o...s/IMG_2255.jpg

Quote:

http://www.expreview.com/img/news/20...puz_gtx295.png

http://chrisray.soterial.com/295/card/295side.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by PedroRocha

Setup:
- I7 920 @ 4.2GHz Air Cooled (True)
- EVGA X58 SLI
- 2 x EVGA GTX295 @ 690-1200

Vantage with PhsyX Disable :

http://pedrorocha.planetaclix.pt/GTX...tageP31680.jpg

Crisys 1920x1200 VeryHigh

http://pedrorocha.planetaclix.pt/GTX...ysVeryHigh.jpg

Average FPS = 72 / Max FPS: 112 a 1920x1200 VeryHigh
01-07-2009, 04:09 PM
Final8ty

Quote:

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

This is the same as "people can't see more than 60FPS", go figure.

By the people who have never had more than 60fps on a screen that can show more than 60fps. :)
01-07-2009, 04:17 PM
Cybercat

Quote:

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

This is the same as "people can't see more than 60FPS", go figure.

The difference is that while the framerate people can see can't be summarily quantified scientifically with any sort of consistency or credibility, anti-aliasing can be analyzed pixel-by-pixel within each frame using simple software techniques available to anyone, effectively discarding the fallible human element of perception from the equation.
01-07-2009, 06:04 PM
STaRGaZeR

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cybercat

The difference is that while the framerate people can see can't be summarily quantified scientifically with any sort of consistency or credibility, anti-aliasing can be analyzed pixel-by-pixel within each frame using simple software techniques available to anyone, effectively discarding the fallible human element of perception from the equation.

You're forgetting that analyzing any form of video using individual screenshots is useless. Even if you compare them one by one in sequence, the human perception changes with movement and focus. Something a machine can't do. And there you have the real and visible (for humans) difference.
01-07-2009, 06:16 PM
Cybercat

Quote:

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

You're forgetting that analyzing any form of video using individual screenshots is useless. Even if you compare them one by one in sequence, the human perception changes with movement and focus. Something a machine can't do. And there you have the real and visible (for humans) difference.

It's useless huh?

In that case, perhaps you should start a petition to end the taking of screenshots altogether. Obviously we aren't benefiting from them in any way.
01-07-2009, 07:05 PM
alexio

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cybercat

It's useless huh?

In that case, perhaps you should start a petition to end the taking of screenshots altogether. Obviously we aren't benefiting from them in any way.

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic, but infact he is right. It is the same thing like when you compare different video codecs. Individual images may look sharper with one codec, but it's more about fluid motion. That is also one of the reasons why some forms of exotic AA actually look no better than just plain ol' 4xAA when they are compared in reviews using screenshots.

Anyway, 64xAA is ridiculous ;)
01-07-2009, 10:05 PM
Kingcarcas

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cybercat

It's useless huh?

In that case, perhaps you should start a petition to end the taking of screenshots altogether. Obviously we aren't benefiting from them in any way.

We should, everyone will criticize without taking into account their own monitor and how it's calibrated. Not to mention the person who took the screenshots display.
01-07-2009, 10:35 PM
koei

I have a feeling this 64/64Q is more for bragging rights than anything useful in both quality and performance.
01-08-2009, 08:14 AM
STaRGaZeR

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cybercat

It's useless huh?

In that case, perhaps you should start a petition to end the taking of screenshots altogether. Obviously we aren't benefiting from them in any way.

Yes, it's useless. And that petition is even more so :p:

What you suggest is the best "technical" aproach you can make about something as subjetive as the human vision. But you can't rely on it to decide which one is better.
01-08-2009, 10:10 AM
Levish

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simps

OMG, can't wait for pics of games running high res and 64xQ AA. That must look good, and with quad sli and a core i7, a lot of titles should be playable with 64xQ, on some native resolution of 14" - 15" desktop monitors.

FTFY

1024x768 4TL
01-08-2009, 10:36 AM
RejZoR

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexio

Anyway, 64xAA is ridiculous ;)

Most of ppl were saying the same thing when i was running 16xFSAA on GeForce 2 Pro. V-Rally 2 worked pretty well with that (by "pretty well" i mean the framerate was actually still playable) setting and quality of edges was insane back then. Not a single jaggie. Not sure what res i used with it. Probably 800x600 or 1024x768. Unfortunatelly they removed the support for 16xFSAA in later Detonator drivers.

For example with HD4850 i used 8xFSAA Edge Detect and 16xFSAA on Max Payne 2 and framerate was still so high i could use 3 times the sampling rate and anisotropic multi and framerate would probably still be far over 60fps.
So yeah it's cool to use insane FSAA on older games and finally get graphics you could just dream off when the game came out.
01-08-2009, 11:13 AM
Manicdan

the only reason for the 64xAA, and i know nvidia knows it, is cause they will sell a few more units, to the people with too much money and no understanding of video cards, but somehow believe it means its better. its a sales tactic, nothing more.
01-08-2009, 02:46 PM
dan7777

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manicdan

the only reason for the 64xAA, and i know nvidia knows it, is cause they will sell a few more units, to the people with too much money and no understanding of video cards, but somehow believe it means its better. its a sales tactic, nothing more.

yup your defo right there i will never pay £400 for that card rip off if ya ask me price drop soon enuf lol:up:
01-08-2009, 02:49 PM
Shintai

Quote:

Originally Posted by koei

I have a feeling this 64/64Q is more for bragging rights than anything useful in both quality and performance.

Couldnt have said it better. I would almost say that for anything over 8.
01-08-2009, 03:02 PM
ToTTenTranz

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrHydes

well here they are...

Hey... what's with the excellent multi-gpu scaling with Crysis?! It didn't use to be like that!
01-08-2009, 05:35 PM
EniGmA1987

ATI's Edge-detect AA at its minimum setting of 12x is plenty fine for me. It looks great even on a 90" monitor.
01-09-2009, 08:19 AM
Xello

Quote:

Originally Posted by EniGmA1987

ATI's Edge-detect AA at its minimum setting of 12x is plenty fine for me. It looks great even on a 90" monitor.

You would see a vast improvement of 64x vs 12x on a 90" monitor ;)

Bigger pixels need higher levels of AA for the same image quality of smaller pixels.
01-09-2009, 04:50 PM
EniGmA1987

Well I know a difference would be much more easily seen between 12x and 64x on a 90" screen, but the 12x edge-detect still looks great. So why would anyone need to run 64x? It is completely pointless, and as others have said it probably wouldnt even be capable of actually playing a decent res game at those levels.
01-09-2009, 04:59 PM
Sly Fox

You can always run Doom with 64X.

At 2560++ res I doubt even quad SLI is going to handle any of the best looking games to run smoothly.

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:36 AM.

XtremeSystems