SLI and Crossfire compatibility
By
Big_SOB,
Posted on: 2010-06-22 18:00 in ALL ACCESS Gameplay Technical Issues Bugs
What's the workaround?
My characters - all on Virtue.
Gabe's Internet [censored] Theory
RMT spammers WILL steal your credit card.
Quote:
as of the current build on the test server, the slifbos 2 command has been disabled and is not accelerating SLI setups. |
Originally Posted by Big_SOB
Is CoX supporting SLI and crossfire yet or are we still using the "work around" addition to the shortcut? And if it isn't yet is that something that's going to happen in the near future? A RED NAME would be nice to see here...just wondering if anyone knows.
|
There is no known "official" method of enabling multi-gpu support at this time.
Stay tuned to The Television for further updates on Multi-GPU Support
I am very interested if Crossfire Support is coming.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by eltonio
This is over the top mental slavery.
|
Nvidia's SLI will work JUST fine with all the new ultra mode settings. This has been testing on 97.45 and the most recent driver set. I have an Dell 710, with quad core and 2 295 GTXs for Quad ALI
In the past (before ultramode) Nvidia couldn't release a profile because the problem was with CoX itself (well they DID have a profile but it was set to single GPU). The gaming community tried every possible setttings, and the game would crash or have horrific performance. This was due to nvidias poor openGL support for SLI, and CoX (IMO) mistake of going OpenGL when the "standard" for Windows based games is/was DirectX
Since Ultramode was released, I built my own profile using nhancer 2.5.9, and I get a massive speed boost out of the game.
I just set it to 4 way AFR and enter a hex code of 5800000 into the SLI Open GL settings. This works fine with 2, 3, or 4 way SLI. Granted this IS a generic profile, but it DOES work. I'm currently working on optimizing it.
Has Cox gone with DirectX from the start, we would have seen a true sli/xfire profile a long, long time ago. Unless a developer plans on many cross platforms, there's no reason to make an OpenGL windows game.
Just use nhancer and play with the profile settings until you get a profile you are happy with.
the only downside is you MUST enable the profile manually before you start the game.
I've been following this for years. The issue can't be blamed on nvidia or CoX. They are BOTH at fault. Nvidia for having piss poor open GL support and CoX's fault for not properly working with Nvidia on this.
Thanks for the info Tylendel. I just wanted to make sure I'm getting all the potential of the cards that I spent a lot of money on.
Quote:
97.45?|
Originally Posted by Tylendel
Nvidia's SLI will work JUST fine with all the new ultra mode settings. This has been testing on 97.45 and the most recent driver set. I have an Dell 710, with quad core and 2 295 GTXs for Quad ALI
|
Don't you mean 197.45? They would be completely driver.
Second: I've been testing with the release driver sets using a 9500 GT 2X sli setup and a Triple SLI GTS 250 setup.
Sorry, I can't confirm what you say.
Quote:
| In the past (before ultramode) Nvidia couldn't release a profile because the problem was with CoX itself (well they DID have a profile but it was set to single GPU). The gaming community tried every possible setttings, and the game would crash or have horrific performance. This was due to nvidias poor openGL support for SLI, and CoX (IMO) mistake of going OpenGL when the "standard" for Windows based games is/was DirectX |
Quote:
|
Since Ultramode was released, I built my own profile using nhancer 2.5.9, and I get a massive speed boost out of the game. I just set it to 4 way AFR and enter a hex code of 5. This works fine with 2, 3, or 4 way SLI. Granted this IS a generic profile, but it DOES work. I'm currently working on optimizing it. |
Um... do I need to really go into this?
Quote:
| Has Cox gone with DirectX from the start, we would have seen a true sli/xfire profile a long, long time ago. Unless a developer plans on many cross platforms, there's no reason to make an OpenGL windows game. |
I can destroy this in two words:
Windows Xp
Let me pop your little bubble here. Windows Xp is artificially limited to DirectX 9 by Microsoft directly.
The only way you can get DirectX 10 and DirectX 11 visuals on Windows Xp is to use OpenGL.
So even if you just intend to release on Windows only, there's still no reason to make a DirectX windows game.
Quote:
|
Just use nhancer and play with the profile settings until you get a profile you are happy with. the only downside is you MUST enable the profile manually before you start the game. |
Okay, I'm good with this. It's a great suggestion for everybody who plays the game wants to get the most out of their graphics.
Quote:
| I've been following this for years. The issue can't be blamed on nvidia or CoX. They are BOTH at fault. Nvidia for having piss poor open GL support and CoX's fault for not properly working with Nvidia on this. |
As much as I smash on Nvidia lately, even I will give them props for stellar OpenGL support when nobody else (Intel, ATi, Matrox, Via, S3, SiS) cared. It's only been recently that Nvidia's OpenGL support has tended to fall by the wayside.
Yes I meant 197.45 
I was just looking in device manager, and it always puts the decimals in different places
I have now upgraded to 257.21 and it has not adversely affected my SLI performance in CoX
Quote:
First off... I'll be MORE than happy to FRAPS you a video with my SLI load bars with the /showfps 1 settting in the game showing both with AND without SLI on. So I can confirm and prove this in a heartbeat. With Quad SLI going, I EASILY get a 50% boost in FPS, even more so of a fps boost if I kill Ambient Occlusion (AO be it OGL or DX is about the biggest FPS killer out there). So yes, if done right Sli can have a WHOPPING difference in CoX. I also have FAR more GPU power than your system does. So I will see a very large increase. My partner has 2 GTS 250s in SLI mode, and gets a benefit, but not nearly as I do in Quad SLI (but CoX still performs better for him and he can enable features he couldn't before). I've tried some other settings resulting in about a 100% fps boost, but it results in a LOT of artifacts in the water and other places.|
Originally Posted by je_saist
97.45?
Don't you mean 197.45? They would be completely driver. Second: I've been testing with the release driver sets using a 9500 GT 2X sli setup and a Triple SLI GTS 250 setup. Sorry, I can't confirm what you say. Not much of a standard, but I'll come back to this with one of your statements down the line. When I say that i create my own profiles, they are technically "shadow" profiles, that I manually activate before playing a game Own profile using a third party utility: http://forum.nhancer.com/showthread.php?t=264 Um... do I need to really go into this? Bull Manure. I can destroy this in two words: Windows Xp Let me pop your little bubble here. Windows Xp is artificially limited to DirectX 9 by Microsoft directly. The only way you can get DirectX 10 and DirectX 11 visuals on Windows Xp is to use OpenGL. So even if you just intend to release on Windows only, there's still no reason to make a DirectX windows game. So, download a third party program, don't expect the vendor to support me out of the box. Okay, I'm good with this. It's a great suggestion for everybody who plays the game wants to get the most out of their graphics. ... and we still disagree. As much as I smash on Nvidia lately, even I will give them props for stellar OpenGL support when nobody else (Intel, ATi, Matrox, Via, S3, SiS) cared. It's only been recently that Nvidia's OpenGL support has tended to fall by the wayside. |
There is also nothing wrong with using nhancer. I have used to to modify nvidia's preset profiles to get much better performance out of my games. Nvidia doesn't always do the best job on setting up profiles, and sometimes they need to be tweaked a bit.
Lastly Windows XP is dead and obsolete. So I don't even consider it. I play CoX on Win7 X64 ultimate. But yes, MS did prevent anything beyond DX9 on XP. And yes if you want to go around than you can use opengl. IMO no point XP is dead and needs to be buried. So there's no reason (unless you are cross platform developing) to use openGL anyway as DX11 will perform much better (DX10 was an utter failure IMO). So I can see CoH sticking to opengl to support people who refuse to get rid of Xp.
Why don't I run XP? It can't see the 16GB of ram that I use, and XP x64 is an utter failure, and any 32bit MS OS limits an application to using no more than 2GB of ram per application. Plus with the 4GB hard limit XP has, and many graphic cards having 512-1.5GB of video ram on them.. well do the math... try to quad sli on XP with 4 1GB cards... it's impossible. 2 1GB cards will leave you with only 2GB of ram to use. Like I said. XP is dead and obsolete... as well as any 32bit OSes. Why MS even released Win 7 in a 32bit version is beyond me.. I'm just happy that the next OS after Win 7 will be 64 bit only.
My point being, with current video hardware, memory demands of modern games, game designers shouldn't even consider XP a factor any longer.
And the nhancer thread? That's something I've already read a long time ago. I have no idea why you linked it. If I'm missing something, please enlighten me. A 4-Way setting to nhancer of 5800000 to the open GL section works fine (although it does cause some artifacting with water in the game). And seems to work well for 2,3, or 4 way sli
My whole point is this:
1) I could care less if I don't have vendor or CoX support for using a non standard profile, and most people who want to use SLI probably don't care either, and if you do have a problem, you kill the shadow profile.. and poof.. you get full support from CoX and nvidia
2) People WANT to use SLI. So I'm giving them options. Plan and simple. As I use nhancer to tweak my coh profile, I will post profile codes for people to put into nhancer to try it. And each one will have its pros and cons clearly stated. And if a shadow profile causes someone issues, they just delete it and go back to the stock nvidia cox profile of single gpu.
3) The day CoX, and Nvidia actually come out with a REAL, predefined SLI profile, I think monkey's will fly. This is something Cryptic (now NC soft), and Nvidia have been "working" on for .. what? over 6+ YRS now? It's been SIX YEARS since people have been asking for an SLI support.
Quote:
Taken from Steam's Hardware Survey Page:|
Originally Posted by Tylendel
Lastly Windows XP is dead and obsolete. So I don't even consider it. I play CoX on Win7 X64 ultimate. But yes, MS did prevent anything beyond DX9 on XP. And yes if you want to go around than you can use opengl. IMO no point XP is dead and needs to be buried. |
Code:
Windows XP 32 bit32.99% Windows 7 64 bit 26.65% Windows Vista 32 bit 14.01% Windows 7 12.07% Windows Vista 64 bit 6.75% MacOS 10.6.3 64 bit 5.31% MacOS 10.5.8 64 bit 1.03% Windows XP 64 bit 0.56% Windows 2003 64 bit 0.32% MacOS 10.6 64 bit 0.13% Other 0.18%
Quote:
There's also this: http://windowsteamblog.com/windows/b...deadlines.aspx|
Originally Posted by Zortel
Taken from Steam's Hardware Survey Page:
Code:
Windows XP 32 bit32.99% Windows 7 64 bit 26.65% Windows Vista 32 bit 14.01% Windows 7 12.07% Windows Vista 64 bit 6.75% MacOS 10.6.3 64 bit 5.31% MacOS 10.5.8 64 bit 1.03% Windows XP 64 bit 0.56% Windows 2003 64 bit 0.32% MacOS 10.6 64 bit 0.13% Other 0.18% |
which leads back to this: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/f...4-03xpeos.mspx
And this: http://apcmag.com/xp_still_killing_v..._volume_hp.htm
And this: http://www.microsoft-watch.com/conte...ome_share.html
I could keep going on but I won't.
The fact is, Microsoft has been repeatedly trying to kill off Windows Xp since 2008. They still haven't been able to kill it off, giving it extension after extension, because, WONDER OF WONDERS, it's still selling.
As Steam shows, a really large number of gamers on the Steam Network still use Windows Xp. It's not an old chart either. That's the June Chart: http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/ It's not going down in a hurry either. The rate of change from the previous month was just -0.81%
Now, you could make a legitimate point that maybe a large chunk of those Windows Xp installs are actually Linux installs running atop Cedega, WINE, or Crossover Gaming, which would only report a Windows Xp identifier. There is a possibility of that, but Steam's gotten better at detecting what OS players actually use, as indicated by the Other category, which tracks a higher than MacOSX usage: Other 0.18% So, it's not likely that the hardware survey is Steam simply detecting incorrectly.
As of right now, Windows XP is still very much alive. It will continue to be alive for several more years. All of those millions of computers with Windows XP installed simply aren't going to be tossed into a dumpster over-night.
Again, the only way a games vendor can hope to reach their clientele, just staying within Windows, is to use OpenGL.
DirectX is a Multi-billion dollar mistake the gaming industry can't afford to make.
Period. Stop. End of Story.
Thankfully, many commercial developers have realized just how badly DirectX is harming their ability to support customers and we've seen a trending away from Microsoft's proprietary format.
Quote:
Last I checked, 6.47% is not less than 0.18%.|
Originally Posted by je_saist
as indicated by the Other category, which tracks a higher than MacOSX usage
|
Quote:
| Again, the only way a games vendor can hope to reach their clientele, just staying within Windows, is to use OpenGL. |
@macskull, @Not Mac | XBL: macskull | Steam: macskull | Skype: macskull
"One day we all may see each other elsewhere. In Tyria, in Azeroth. We may pass each other and never know it. And that's sad. But if nothing else, we'll still have Rhode Island."
"One day we all may see each other elsewhere. In Tyria, in Azeroth. We may pass each other and never know it. And that's sad. But if nothing else, we'll still have Rhode Island."
Quote:
Yes, it's dead. There's no polite way to say it: anyone who has components made in the last 3 years and is still using XP is either ignorant of what's going on or stubborn to the point of ignoring what's going on aorund them. There are, plainly put, limitations to what XP can DO, and if you've bought a recent computer, XP 32 is foolish. XP 64 even more useless. It doesn't matter that 1 in three people have their craniums buried in their rectums. Technology _has_ to move on.|
Originally Posted by Zortel
Taken from Steam's Hardware Survey Page:
Code:
Windows XP 32 bit32.99% Windows 7 64 bit 26.65% Windows Vista 32 bit 14.01% Windows 7 12.07% Windows Vista 64 bit 6.75% MacOS 10.6.3 64 bit 5.31% MacOS 10.5.8 64 bit 1.03% Windows XP 64 bit 0.56% Windows 2003 64 bit 0.32% MacOS 10.6 64 bit 0.13% Other 0.18% |
By the way: If XP really truly could support Direct X 10 and above, then some "consumer rights" crusader would have found a way to make it work on XP. At it's absolute best, after the most active attempt to make it happen in early 2008, the Alky project managed to make it work for nearly 10% of DX 10 games. And do you know how it did this? By writing on the fly compatibility packages per game that would compile shaders and other assorted things down to Dx9 instructions.
If the game actually USED DX 10, rather than had what was essentially a soft check for the version number? They couldn't make it work. You know why? Because XP does not have the framework to HANDLE DX 10, and Microsoft decided not to bother spending the man hours necessary to make it work on an obsoleted OS. What the hell's the point in running DX10 games anyway if your OS can't even address more than 3GB of RAM in the first place?
At some point you have to look at all the man hours to keep up and say "Hey, guys, we need to release a new OS!"
PS: As per the Steam OS Survey: It doesn't hurt that, out of that entire listing, XP 32 bit is the easiest to pirate by a giant long shot. XP Service Pack 2, specifically. I foggily remember around May Chet F stating that only 11% of the XP users were showing as SP3. Guess that means that, even if we GENEROUSLY allow for 20% of users that can't or won't upgrade to SP3 for whatever legit reason, we're still left with the fact that about 60% of the users of XP are most likely stealing it anyway.
And frankly? If you're not even willing to pay for your OS? I'm not concerned with backwards compatibility for you and this is probably Microsoft's take on it as well.
Well first, consumers in general do not upgrade their OS once they bought a computer. As far as they care, it's a toaster. They have enough problems navigating websites, I can't imagine the disaster if they try to upgrade the OS from the one that's installed. And eventually, after the Nth trip to the local computer repair shop to flush out the den of malware and viruses they will go buy a new computer, with whatever OS that's installed.
I know many professionals, including software developers who insist on running XP. Most aren't comfortable with the new UI and extensive "baby proofing". Some rely on apps that don't work 100% with Windows 7, most use niche products that interfaces some expensive external hardware or annoyingly enough, internally developed software that rely on IE 6's quirks with nobody willing to rewrite it or replace it.
As for more savvy home computer owners, ones who would dare to upgrade, Vista was such a bomb that many reverted back to XP. It really isn't until recently that with >512MB video cards and dirt cheap RAM that 64-bit OSes became attractive which leaves 64-bit Windows 7.
I would expect Windows XP to be in the single digits within 2 years as Windows 7 becomes the dominate OS. I just hoping that Microsoft drops the idea of treating the PC OS like a phone OS and drop the whole idea of a Windows 8 app store.
Father Xmas - Level 50 Ice/Ice Tanker - Victory
$725 and $1350 parts lists --- My guide to computer components
Tempus unum hominem manet
Quote:
Many machines were still being sold with XP back when I was looking last December (including pretty much all netbooks, especially the ones reasonably priced for their hardware stats). And I don't mean at some obscure techie website, but at stores like BestBuy!|
Originally Posted by NobleFox
Yes, it's dead. There's no polite way to say it: anyone who has components made in the last 3 years and is still using XP is either ignorant of what's going on or stubborn to the point of ignoring what's going on aorund them.
|
Most gamers didn't want to touch Vista with a 10-foot pole, and there's very little reason for them to dish out over a hundred for a Windows 7 upgrade (which, FYI, is easier to pirate than XP). A massive percentage of desktop systems still run XP (I'd imagine that if you factored in non-gaming systems, the number would be far higher, since Steam's results would be biased towards early adopters and people with newer systems), and it's their damn choice. Windows Vista and 7 have new features, but most people don't give a damn about them- they're using computers for the applications, not the OS, and most anyone would want to use support XP since that's what most people use.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ShadowNate
;_; ?!?! What the heck is wrong with you, my god, I have never been so confused in my life!
|
Quote:
What you would like to see happen from a technology standpoint and what IS are often - and definitely, in this case - two entirely different things. People learned to have no confidence in Vista, and because of Vista, are very wary of Windows 7. The college where I work has been purposely buying computers with Windows 7 licenses downgraded to Windows XP for compatibility to the software we run and teach - and you know what? The major computer vendors (Dell, HP, etc.) have been allowing this.|
Originally Posted by NobleFox
Yes, it's dead. There's no polite way to say it: anyone who has components made in the last 3 years and is still using XP is either ignorant of what's going on or stubborn to the point of ignoring what's going on aorund them. There are, plainly put, limitations to what XP can DO, and if you've bought a recent computer, XP 32 is foolish. XP 64 even more useless. It doesn't matter that 1 in three people have their craniums buried in their rectums. Technology _has_ to move on.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by NobleFox
And frankly? If you're not even willing to pay for your OS? I'm not concerned with backwards compatibility for you and this is probably Microsoft's take on it as well.
|
Full versions of new OS's are not cheap to buy. Upgrading (as opposed to nuke and pave with the new OS) can sometimes (often) give you nasty little issues depending on your configuration - and is generally not something the average computer user is comfortable with.
Remember - it's not the l33t tech heads they have to sell new things to - it's the average Joe.
Storm
Serenity is not freedom from the storm, but peace amid the storm ...
Frankly, I couldn't care if 80% of the population out there still used XP. It was a great OS, but it simply can not take full advantage of modern hardware (like 4 GPUs with 1GB of vram each). je_saist, please try submitting links to data that's not 12-36 months old. I could care less what was going on in 2008. If you are going to slap out links to stats, at least show them as of 2010
NobleFoxx, Actually DX10 and DX11 could EASILY have worked on XP. MS just denied it to XP as a means to attempt to force gamers to dump XP. And someone did hack DX10 onto XP, but DX 10 was a failure. 10.1 sort of redeemed it, but DX 11 is really what DX10 should have been.
Well back to the original topic.. at this point, it doesn't matter if XP is dead or not, the issue in this thread is SLI
... people have been complaining that CoX hasn't been multi gpu friendly for 6 YEARS. Games don't have to be specifically coded for SLI. That's the whole point of it. The driver and the cards are supposed to do all the work and render each frame (or split frame) without the software knowing it (in theory). Of course the way games are coded, some games work fine with SLI and others have issues even when made with SLI (or xfire in mind).
My original point was people have been on the makers of CoX's butts for 6 YEARS. Granted part of this was nvidia's poor support of OpenGL for a time, but I can not blame them as DX was the WINDOWS standard, and for years Windows was (and still is) the primary gaming platform for desktop gamers (mac and linux have had a very small percent of the gaming market share). Now that apple and pcs have identical HW and can run either OS, I do agree, that coding in OpenGL makes porting it from one OS to another much easier.
Well now that CoX has undergone a graphics engine enhancement, sli is doable.
Like I said: A 4-Way setting to nhancer of 5800000 to the open GL section works fine (although it does cause some artifacting with water in the game). And seems to work well for 2,3, or 4 way sli. (At least it works well for me and the computers I have tested it on: Vista x86/x64, Win7 x32/x64 machines that I have access to)
http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/new...-extension.ars
Quote:
Yet reprieve for Windows Xp. |
OEMs themselves will have to stop preinstalling downgraded copies of Windows XP on October 22, 2010. However, end-users will now be able to downgrade PCs with OEM installations of Windows 7 Professional and Ultimate to the corresponding version of Windows Vista or Windows XP Professional, and will be allowed to do so for the duration of Windows 7's lifecycle. Microsoft says that this change is in response to business demands; it would be confusing if some Windows 7-licensed PCs included downgrade rights but others did not. The change in policy means that the licensing conditions will be uniform, and the same conditions will apply regardless of when the machines were purchased. |
There's really not much more to say on this topic. Windows Xp is not going away. It will continue to be a target for any developer.
OpenGL is still the only way to target all versions of Windows.
DirectX is still a multi-billion dollar mistake. Period. Stop.
For the record, you can still pay extra for Dells and the get XP downgrade option. My latest work laptop has Win7 64bit but I won't be able to run our current ERP software on it due to it being an ancient PoS. That's what the desktop is for. Yay remote desktop.
As for the rest of this thread, while it took over 5 years to get it done, the vast majority of the long standing ATI issues have been dealt with. Give it another couple years and the game will get tweaked to utilize multiple GPUs as well.
And you still won't get 60 FPS in some of the redside zones at 1920X1200.
Be well, people of CoH.
Quote:
In theory it should be automatic. However in practice it's not that simple, at least according to the game developer guidelines from nVidia and ATI for multi-gpu support. It's a litany of things of what not to do with your 3D engine if you want to see a performance gain from multiple GPUs and some of those things they discourage you to do can actually degrade performance in a single GPU system by reducing inherent CPU/GPU parallelism.|
Originally Posted by Tylendel
... people have been complaining that CoX hasn't been multi gpu friendly for 6 YEARS. Games don't have to be specifically coded for SLI. That's the whole point of it. The driver and the cards are supposed to do all the work and render each frame (or split frame) without the software knowing it (in theory). Of course the way games are coded, some games work fine with SLI and others have issues even when made with SLI (or xfire in mind).
|
It's not that you have to write code to enable it, it's more that you have to write code to maximize it's effectiveness and to avoid code that could hobble it. It also has to do with how much work the GPU needs to do to render a frame. The more polygons, higher rez textures, complex shaders the GPU needs to deal with as well as the resolution, the better the odds that a second GPU will help noticeably.
Father Xmas - Level 50 Ice/Ice Tanker - Victory
$725 and $1350 parts lists --- My guide to computer components
Tempus unum hominem manet
Quote:
Again, try running 4 modern GPUs on XP = FAIL (or maybe 512-1M of ram available if you are lucky).|
Originally Posted by je_saist
http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/new...-extension.ars
Yet reprieve for Windows Xp. There's really not much more to say on this topic. Windows Xp is not going away. It will continue to be a target for any developer. OpenGL is still the only way to target all versions of Windows. DirectX is still a multi-billion dollar mistake. Period. Stop. |
To an average gamer, XP will work, but not for a power gamer. To a power gamer who wants to use top of the line hardware, XP is dead for them.
Quote:
Again, I could care less if it is still supported. It can not run top end, modern hardware. So for me, it's dead. For any serious gamer, it's DEAD.|
Originally Posted by je_saist
http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/new...-extension.ars
Yet reprieve for Windows Xp. There's really not much more to say on this topic. Windows Xp is not going away. It will continue to be a target for any developer. OpenGL is still the only way to target all versions of Windows. DirectX is still a multi-billion dollar mistake. Period. Stop. |
Sure, go ahead and keep using it if you want a 4GB memory cap. Keep using it if you want every MB of video card memory to eat away at your system ram. Want to run a top of the line SLI or xfire video card(s)? 2 of them will kill your system ram down to 2GB, 3 down to 3GB, 4 GPUs are not possible unless you use 512MB video cards.. and 512MB for textures isn't enough for most games. They want cards with 768MB-1.5GB of vram.
Yes you can game on XP. DX 9, 10, and 11, are and still will be the standard for windows. 90% of the game released for windows use DX and not openGL.
I'm saying it's dead because it CAN NOT do what a modern 64bit OS can do (and XP 64 bit is a failure).
So if you want to live in the stone ages... keep XP.
Quote:
Not every serious gamer wants to (or can) spend more on their computer than on their car. The 'serious gamer', as you call them, make up just a tiny, tiny fraction of the market. XP is in its sunset years, but it's definitely still alive and a large portion of the market.
|
Originally Posted by Tylendel
For any serious gamer, it's DEAD.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ShadowNate
;_; ?!?! What the heck is wrong with you, my god, I have never been so confused in my life!
|
Quote:
I'm tempted to say, let it go. I can give all of the evidence in the world, it's not going to change what that player thinks or does.|
Originally Posted by Kitsune Knight
Not every serious gamer wants to (or can) spend more on their computer than on their car. The 'serious gamer', as you call them, make up just a tiny, tiny fraction of the market. XP is in its sunset years, but it's definitely still alive and a large portion of the market.
|
Thanks for helping though, catnip cookie?
you make it sound like everyone is using SLI and Crossfire. Last time I checked, SLI and Crossfire was just way too expensive for the performance increase they provided.
A 600$ increase on the budget for a 10% increase in performance (at the very best) is really not worth it for many, even power gamers that are inteligent enough to know when they are throwing money out the window.
I am a power gamer and a computer tech and I can see only 1 application where SLI and Crossfire could potentially be of use and that's not even gaming: It's video / 3d rendering.
so for a average user (don't forget that more than 90% of the gamers aren't power gamer with loads of cash) SLI is useless. Why would a company like NCSoft and Paragon Studio, invest time and effort in something that less than 10% (and that even seems high to me) will use?
And the only argument you seem to be able to make it that TO YOU XP is dead, however, Vista and Windows 7 aren't even officially supported by NCSoft. The code was done 6 years ago for, guess what, Windows XP and 2000. It was never designed for the new redesigned core of Vista and 7. Even less for 64bit. We are lucky enough that it works.
Saying XP is dead because you want it to be, doesn't make you very credible. Also you fail to prove why they should invest time into SLI and Crossfire beside that YOU want them to.
Is CoX supporting SLI and crossfire yet or are we still using the "work around" addition to the shortcut? And if it isn't yet is that something that's going to happen in the near future? A RED NAME would be nice to see here...just wondering if anyone knows.