Steam VR Performance & SLI

[doublefrag]

It is futile whether I deactivate or activate SLI (2 x GTX 970).
The result is always the same.
My system is in the first third of the green part.

Does this means, that the HTC Vive do not support SLI yet?

[PopinFRESH]

Originally posted by Stelly:

...Btw the "rendering each gpu to each eye" would be slower than the other techniques of today. A VR headset doesn't have 2 eyes, it has just 1 screen. For decennia the output pipeline has been to render horizontally and push out a frame to the OS.

1) Both the Oculus Rift and the HTC Vive are actually 2 1200x1080@90Hz displays, not "just 1 screen".

2) Direct Mode...

-PopinFRESH

[Digitalclips]

Originally posted by exist2resist:

I have two AMD cards in crossfire and the xfire is no utilized either. It's too early in the game to tell and most games on release will not tax the system anyways. I'm sure both AMD and Nvidia will patch their drivers to support multi GPU VR tittles as we go.

AMD have just released new drivers for my set up. I just updated the AMD drivers to Crimson (May 2016). This on my new 3.50 GHz 12 Core Mac Pro Xeon with dual AMD FirePro 500 GPUs. I get >120 f.p.s. on the Steam VR test tool with Crossfire enabled and <70 with Crossfire disabled. I am running dual 27" monitors at 2560 x 1440. I tried one screen only and it made zero difference. GTA V also runs at >100 f.p.s. at 2560 x 1440.

[mesonw]

My laptop running a single 980M (20% weaker then a 970 in 3D Mark 11) comes in near the end of the Capable bar, scoring "5.3ish (Medium)" (average of two runs), yet with the -multigpu commandline arg utilising both my GPUs hits "8.5 (Very High)", near the top of the Ready bar. With some time still left until these headsets hit the streets, hopefully we'll see more engines and developers taking advantage of this in their games, making SLI/Crossfire a very real proposition for VR. I for one, am holding out hope!
There's no way I can afford to replace this laptop for a LONG time, so my fingers are most definitely crossed!
Plus surely any game worth its salt will offer reduced detail to make 90fps at 2160x1200 (the two screens together) perfectly doable. 1920x1080 amounts to 2.0736 million pixels. 2160x1200 is 2.595 million, just 25% more. So if you can hit 113fps in a game at 1080p, you've every chance of making the grade at the upcoming VR resolution. Of course, that's kind of a minimum; it is fairly tough to keep a game from dropping below that without killer hardware. And umm, ignoring the likelihood of non-linear scaling meaning 1080p@113 may not quite equate to VR@90.

I'm not sure how people are discovering their framerates in the Steam VR Performance Test; anyone care to enlighten me? I don't see it reported in the app itself.
Also this app runs in a fairly small window... but given I can't see any options to change that, presumably they're actually rendering the correct res internally to get a true reflection of performance?