Originally posted by: Jessica69
So very true. You gotta feel bad for all the suckers, errrrrr, consumers that bought the GTX280 already......visions of $$$ being flushed down the commode come to mind.
The pain........the pain of it all.........
Originally posted by: munky
Originally posted by: TC91
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Munky, why is SLI just NOW a good idea? Has gtx280 resolved the common issues with SLI?
i think hes talking about SLI 8800gt's (or similar) being a better option than a single gtx 280 for the price and performance.
Yep. Up until now a single new high end card offered about 2x the performance of two older generation cards, often with better image quality and features thrown in. So there was practically no reason for someone with the older card to get a second one as an upgrade to SLI. But now it actually makes sense to go SLI with cards like the 8800gt (and similar Ati cards in crossfire) for better performance and lower cost than a single gtx280, and you won't even be missing out on any new gaming features.
I got at least a doubling in performance with each generation of cards when I switched from a 9800p -> x800xt -> x1900xt.Originally posted by: jim1976
Originally posted by: munky
Originally posted by: TC91
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Munky, why is SLI just NOW a good idea? Has gtx280 resolved the common issues with SLI?
i think hes talking about SLI 8800gt's (or similar) being a better option than a single gtx 280 for the price and performance.
Yep. Up until now a single new high end card offered about 2x the performance of two older generation cards, often with better image quality and features thrown in. So there was practically no reason for someone with the older card to get a second one as an upgrade to SLI. But now it actually makes sense to go SLI with cards like the 8800gt (and similar Ati cards in crossfire) for better performance and lower cost than a single gtx280, and you won't even be missing out on any new gaming features.
That's not true m8 and you know it.. Did you forget the 6month cycles that we had prior to the G80 release?
G80 spoiled everyone of us with its amazing performance compared to the previous generation..
It's one thing to say that Nvidia could have brought up the GT200 series a bit earlier and another to say that we were used to see 2x the performance thus far in GPU history..
Those were all design decisions made by NV, which no doubt increased the costs, but that doesn't change the fact that in the face of competition the gt200 cards are overpriced. And not just competition from Ati, but also competition from their own midrange products.I think 4870 is a helluva gpu for the bang/bucks but this doesn't negate the fact that GTX280 is a monster as well.. They just couldn't achieve the clocks they were hoping for in order for these cards to perform much better..
GT200 series are not overpriced speaking "logically" for what they offer for the following reasons..
1. They didn't risk to go to 55nm process..So we are talking about a very expensive SKU in general.. (trasistor count,512bit bus,1 GB framebuffer etc)
2. They didn't expect AMD to produce such a great gpu (4870)
3. They concentrated on making it a more complete "GPGPU" rather than achieve the highest performance levels they could.
I'm not saying that we should care about all these but we definitely need to take every aspect into consideration..
I've no reason to see the gt200 architecture as more rational or futureproof. It might be more efficient in terms of shader utilization, but when considering its performance in relation to other aspects like transistor count, die size and cost, it actually lags behind the competition.It's an undeniable fact that 4870 cremates GT280 in terms of price/perf.. But..
I preferred to take the GTX280 route because I wanted the best single card solution right now to change my long living 8800GTX.
I also believe that in future scenarios the GTX280 will prove to be more "futureproof" in many D3D10 cases, due to its more "rational" architecture.
I'm also generally opposed to multi-gpu setups compared to a single faster card, but with the prices of a 8800gt hovering around $150, I'd be much more inclined to get a second one for SLI as opposed to a gtx280 for $600.Either way I didn't and I will not care about SLI/XFIRE solutions. I wanted a single card and I decided that the big premium that I had to pay for the GTX280 over the 4870 was worth it considering all the aspects.. I know the vast majority won't agree with me, and I find that perfectly rational, but I do believe there's a considerable consumer market for the GT280 besides the "showoff of the best performing single card"..
Originally posted by: munky
I got at least a doubling in performance with each generation of cards when I switched from a 9800p -> x800xt -> x1900xt.
Those were all design decisions made by NV, which no doubt increased the costs, but that doesn't change the fact that in the face of competition the gt200 cards are overpriced. And not just competition from Ati, but also competition from their own midrange products.
I've no reason to see the gt200 architecture as more rational or futureproof. It might be more efficient in terms of shader utilization, but when considering its performance in relation to other aspects like transistor count, die size and cost, it actually lags behind the competition.
I'm also generally opposed to multi-gpu setups compared to a single faster card, but with the prices of a 8800gt hovering around $150, I'd be much more inclined to get a second one for SLI as opposed to a gtx280 for $600.
6 month cycles were refreshes, obviously you won't get a doubling of performance every 6 months. But in my case, the generational transitions did offer a doubling of performance.Originally posted by: jim1976
That's why I talked about the 6 month cycles, something we had forgotten nowadays.. About your gpu "course" I have to check I can't recall, 2x the performance seems a bit much..
I wen't 9800p->6800gt->7800gtx->x1900xt->8800gtx->gtx280.. It was only with G80 that I show a REAL doubling in performance for a looong time..
It may be worth it to you, but if someone was looking for a cost effective upgrade from a 8800gt, going SLI would be a smart alternative to a new gtx280, and that's something that wasn't true before, for example, getting a second 7800gt when the x1900xt was released. You simply did not get so much performance for the money in the years past, and there is practically no new features this generation either.Yes they are and that's why I said that we as consumers don't have to care about all these, but the fact remains that Nvidia holds the single card throne for a long time, and it will probably stay like this in the near future.. And this is what counts for me..In other words.. Overpriced? Yes.. Cannibalized ny their own products and competition? yes.. Worth it? For me yes despite the 4870 presence..
Considering that Ati has 800 shaders as opposed to 240, I'd say they can afford to have somewhat lower utilization. If Ati decided to make a 1400 shader, 1.4B transistor gpu the size of g200, they would probably have the fastest card around, despite having lower utilization, simply because they have more performance per mm^2 and per transistor.I've no reason to see the gt200 architecture as more rational or futureproof. It might be more efficient in terms of shader utilization, but when considering its performance in relation to other aspects like transistor count, die size and cost, it actually lags behind the competition.
And that is a small thing? If games are inclined that way, you know the outcome..
So in your case, the SLI logic doesn't apply. But from a consumer point, it applies now a lot more than it did before.As I said.. Decisions.. I just don't factor the multi gpu solutions..
Originally posted by: jim1976
And that is a small thing? If games are inclined that way, you know the outcome.
Originally posted by: nanaki333
i'm curious to see the power draw compared to just 2 4870 in crossfire. i would have 2x 4870 in my machine, but i want to see how this thing is on heat, power, and if it really will be ~15% faster than just 2 4870s in crossfire. i guess my 9800GX2 will have to wait a little longer to be upgraded....
Originally posted by: nanaki333
i'm curious to see the power draw compared to just 2 4870 in crossfire. i would have 2x 4870 in my machine, but i want to see how this thing is on heat, power, and if it really will be ~15% faster than just 2 4870s in crossfire. i guess my 9800GX2 will have to wait a little longer to be upgraded....
Originally posted by: munky
6 month cycles were refreshes, obviously you won't get a doubling of performance every 6 months. But in my case, the generational transitions did offer a doubling of performance.
It may be worth it to you, but if someone was looking for a cost effective upgrade from a 8800gt, going SLI would be a smart alternative to a new gtx280, and that's something that wasn't true before, for example, getting a second 7800gt when the x1900xt was released. You simply did not get so much performance for the money in the years past, and there is practically no new features this generation either.
Considering that Ati has 800 shaders as opposed to 240, I'd say they can afford to have somewhat lower utilization. If Ati decided to make a 1400 shader, 1.4B transistor gpu the size of g200, they would probably have the fastest card around, despite having lower utilization, simply because they have more performance per mm^2 and per transistor.
So in your case, the SLI logic doesn't apply. But from a consumer point, it applies now a lot more than it did before.
Originally posted by: ronnn
Originally posted by: jim1976
And that is a small thing? If games are inclined that way, you know the outcome.
Buying for the future likely remains a waste. In this era of consoles, by the time we get real dx 10.1 or physics whatever.......... your current card will be worth $75 on ebay.
Still we might get 1 level with a bit of fog ..............
Originally posted by: ronnn
Yep that makes sense, as it is available - and early adopters always pay a premium. :beer:
And it IS a viable option for others, despite the associated pitfalls of multi-gpu rendering. Getting >gtx280 performance for $300 less would be a pretty strong incentive to try SLI, even for someone who generally prefers a single faster card.Originally posted by: jim1976
SLI/ XFIRE have the known problems besides the advantages.. If you're ok with them that's fine by me.. I just stated my opinion on the matter, which was that they are not a viable option for me..
Again, you're judging performance based on theoretical figures, like FLOPS and shader count. Yes, the rv770 can and does beat the gtx280 in some pure shader benches, like the 3dmark perlin noise. But even while the game performance doesn't match the theoretical figures, the rv770 still beats the gtx280 in performance/area even when you scale the gt200 to 55nm.And if Nvidia decided to risk it and go 55nm we could have seen much better clocks and maybe GDDR5.. It would have outclassed RV770 any day again, since this particular architecture clearly needs higher clocks to demonstrate its raw power.. We can't talk like that.. It's pure speculation.. Besides that theoretical GFLOPS are approximately 930 for 280 and 1200 for RV770.. Can you say that this is depicted in the benchmarks?
Ive seen no evidence to suggest that the gt200 is better at DX10 code. In Crysis and WiC DX10 benches the 4870 is on par with the gtx260, while in Bioshock it even beats the gtx280. The rv770 might not be better at DX10, but likewise, it's not worse. At any rate, you're comparing a $300 card to a $600 card, and let's not forget the topic of this thread - the dual gpu r700 that the real competitor to the gtx280.A 280 is on average 10-15% faster than 4870 nowadays, and if you narrow the benchmarks to heavy D3D9 and "D3D10" ones you get a 20-25% increase on average.. So on the one hand one can say that nvidia has the upper hand in future games.. On the other hand one can say that ATI has the upper hand with the 10.1 support.. The real truth can only be seen from the choices of the game devs, and the programming route they will take for their games..
Anyway.. Whatever the truth is,you have to agree though that for higher resolutions with AA despite the very good AA scaling of RV770 , GTX280 is a better solution. Bigger fillrate and more bandwidth are key elements for that as you surely know..
... and that's where I leave this subject. Back to the thread topic.I'm talking about myself and I'm quite sure from the pov of a significant gamer portion..
Once again SLI and its features/problems are not a viable option for me.. But it sure is for a lot of ppl..
Originally posted by: jim1976
Agreed we can discuss this further in another topic, I don't wanna spam this one..
The last sentence was my personal opinion from the my first post in this topic..
You have to ask yourself though.. Is it more rational to compare an x2 card with a single card solution (just because they cost more or less the same) than comparing a 300$ gpu with a 600$ gpu?
Have we reached the day that a single card can be directly compared to a single card solution solely due to the price factor?
All I'm trying to say is that each option has its own advantages and disadvantages..
OTOH you'll have better perf with an x2 card but with the known problems (see 4870x2), and on OTOH an unorthodox price/perf gpu BUT single solution.. (see GTX280)
Pick yer poison.. End of story ..
Originally posted by: Kuzi
Originally posted by: nanaki333
i'm curious to see the power draw compared to just 2 4870 in crossfire. i would have 2x 4870 in my machine, but i want to see how this thing is on heat, power, and if it really will be ~15% faster than just 2 4870s in crossfire. i guess my 9800GX2 will have to wait a little longer to be upgraded....
I do believe the 4870x2 will be the fastest card available when it's released, but I don't think it'll be much faster than two 4870 cards in CF. There are a few reasons for this, but the main reason could be that these 4870x2 cards may have lower core clocks compared to the 4870, example 700Mhz vs 750Mhz. This may have to be done to lower power consumption and heat.
Unless ATI surprises everyone and the R700 will be two 45nm chips
AMD?s team in Austin managed to use two R700 dual-GPU graphic cards (four RV770 chips) to get a score of X12515. This was done with four GPUs, while Nvidia uses three GTX280 boards to achieve a similar score. The R700 boards were clocked at 778 MHz, while the GDDR5 memory was clocked at 980 MHz QDR (that's 3920 "MHz", or just 3.92 GigaTransfers/sec), we were told.
Originally posted by: nitromullet
Originally posted by: chizow
Originally posted by: thilan29
the chip they use is different and so won't necessarily be x8/x8. And in all likelihood, if there was a bottleneck in that part of the card from the 3870x2, ATI would have replaced it this time around.
What do you think the bridge chip does? Unless the PLX gen 2 chip is able to make an x16 PCIE 2.0 slot into an x32 PCIE 2.0 slot then it will result in an x8/x8 PCIE 2.0 on a single slot.
It really depends on what the PCIe bridge does... It may not provide communication between the PCIe slot and both gpus. It's possible that only one gpu has communication with the PCIe slot and that the bridge chip provides communication between the two gpus. In this type of arrangement, you would essentially have dual sets of PCIe X16 lanes. One set of X16 lanes on on the motherboard, and another set internally on the card.
From looking at the 16x/16x/4x/4x 4-way crossfire results:
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2201032&enterthread=y
http://www.tweaktown.com/artic..._crossfirex/index.html
I think it becomes pretty clear that for multi-gpu scaling beyond 2 or 3 gpus, that motherboards are not going to provide enough usable bandwidth to facilitate the communication between all these gpus. Hopefully, ATI has recognized that and is working on a remedy with the 4870X2.
Originally posted by: magreen
That article and "analysis" by John Peddie was nothing but buying into AMD marketing. The 256-bit memory bus w/ faster ram? A stroke of genius? Gimme a break. Every techie knows you can do that. Making smaller chips that work together? They haven't done it yet. They've yet to release a card to compete with this generation's high end. The 4850/70 are very nice value cards. But don't count your X2 chickens before they hatch. Their proprietary bus instead of XFire is the one thing mentioned in that article that could put them ahead. But it's a complete unknown. "AMD bests nvidia with graphics chip strategy"? FUD.
...damn Peddiephiles.
That is a very valid point. This article is a tad bit premature in crowning winners. IMO, if 4870 X2 is to GTX 280 as 3870 X2 was to 8800GTX/Ultra, I wouldn't consider it a clear victory for ATI. That being said, the individual 4870 looks to be a much better card than the 3870 and it beats the GTX 260 in almost every benchmark I've seen, so it does look promising for ATI.
Originally posted by: chizow
Again, it doesn't matter what kind of interconnect is between the GPUs, if I had to guess that's what the CF sideport is for. You still run into the problem of the physical PCIE 2.0 slot the card is placed into. AFAIK you cannot make this larger than x16 if the physical traces and the slot itself are limited to 16 lanes. Even if you were passing everything through a single GPU and not splitting the PCIE bus you'd have ~2x data (approx. 4870CF) passing over an x16 bus rather than 1x data over an x8 bus. Normally you would think this sufficient but based on the Tweaktown review of 4850CF on P45 and X48 that's not the case.
Yes PCIE 2.0 doubles bandwidth but based on the Tweaktown review, running CF with two x8 PCIE 2.0 lanes starts showing degraded performance on 4850CF. Considering the 4870s would require more bandwidth that might be more pronounced. The linked Tom's comparison does show PCIE 1.0a x8 (PCIE 2.0 x4) decreased performance but little/no change with PCIE 1.0a x16 (PCIE 2.0 x8) and PCIE 2.0 x16.