Competition is good!

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: SickBeast
A single 8800GTX will beat just about anything in SLI for less money

i had the opportunity of comparing sli vs gtx (only had 320mb gts avail tho) and found that at the res my monitor runs (1680x1050) the sli'd 320mb were at least as fast or faster than the single GTX, and the price would be about the same.

the system really wasn't any noiser with 2x gts over 1. power consump certainly would vary, but as i didn't have anything to measure the draw, i couldn't say by how much. at any rate, my corsair hx620 didn't have a problem with any of it.

perhaps at 19k res and above the picture may change, but my monitor isn't capable.

Why on earth would you need that much shader power at such a low resolution? My 320mb 8800GTS is overkill for me at 1920x1200 in most scenarios!

cause it's faster?

even at my res, and the fact that i'm sure in some circumstances i'm cpu bound (2.6Ghz X2), in several games my 640GTS was considerably faster than my 320mb GTS, and sli'd 320mb proved as fast or faster than a my 640mb GTS or even a superclocked GTX.

worth the money? i dunno; that's for the guy spending it to decide, but there are definately performance improvements to be had.

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: SickBeast
A single 8800GTX will beat just about anything in SLI for less money

i had the opportunity of comparing sli vs gtx (only had 320mb gts avail tho) and found that at the res my monitor runs (1680x1050) the sli'd 320mb were at least as fast or faster than the single GTX, and the price would be about the same.

the system really wasn't any noiser with 2x gts over 1. power consump certainly would vary, but as i didn't have anything to measure the draw, i couldn't say by how much. at any rate, my corsair hx620 didn't have a problem with any of it.

perhaps at 19k res and above the picture may change, but my monitor isn't capable.

Why on earth would you need that much shader power at such a low resolution? My 320mb 8800GTS is overkill for me at 1920x1200 in most scenarios!

You are nutz my friend. 8800GTS 320mb is overkill at 1920x1200?

What games are you playing? My X1900XTX pulls 14 fps at 1920x1200 in STALKER. I can't imagine that the 8800GTS 320mb is over twice as fast as the X1900XTX. Even if it was, 28 fps is hardly overkill.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Matt2

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: SickBeast
A single 8800GTX will beat just about anything in SLI for less money

i had the opportunity of comparing sli vs gtx (only had 320mb gts avail tho) and found that at the res my monitor runs (1680x1050) the sli'd 320mb were at least as fast or faster than the single GTX, and the price would be about the same.

the system really wasn't any noiser with 2x gts over 1. power consump certainly would vary, but as i didn't have anything to measure the draw, i couldn't say by how much. at any rate, my corsair hx620 didn't have a problem with any of it.

perhaps at 19k res and above the picture may change, but my monitor isn't capable.

Why on earth would you need that much shader power at such a low resolution? My 320mb 8800GTS is overkill for me at 1920x1200 in most scenarios!

You are nutz my friend. 8800GTS 320mb is overkill at 1920x1200?

What games are you playing? My X1900XTX pulls 14 fps at 1920x1200 in STALKER. I can't imagine that the 8800GTS 320mb is over twice as fast as the X1900XTX. Even if it was, 28 fps is hardly overkill.

I haven't tried STALKER yet. It doesn't appeal much to me, and it appears to be poorly coded just like FEAR was; the graphics aren't that great and it tanks in terms of performance.

I've been playing HL:E1, C&C3, and some Far Cry. I don't have time to game more than that.

 

[Keysplayr]

There are a series of "Why" questions that need to be answered here. I'll try to sum them up.

Q: Why 640GTS over 320GTS?
A: Larger monitors are becoming the norm. Higher resolutions are becoming the norm.
That extra 320MB is a substantial amount of memory expecially when folks love to use higher levels of AA or when a game calls for greater frame buffer sizes for textures. 320 is fine for games that no matter what res and settings never use more than that. But as we have seen, there are quite a few games that exist that utilize much more than 320MB.

Q: Why even consider SLI or Xfire?
A: Why not? Even if it were just an enthusiast experiment (and it has been for countless many) it still brings to the table a technological coolness factor.

Q: Why SLI'd GTS's over a single GTX?
A: If one can overlook (or simply not care about) the extra power, heat and maybe some noise of 2 cards over one, the performance potential is far greater than any single GTX. The higher resolution we go, the longer the SLI'd GTS's legs seem to be. Cost factor is not that large of a difference, especially with the GTS's available for just under 300 bucks.
Take a look at the multi GPU benches here on AT's article "Calling a spade, a spade" and see what dual GTS's bring over a single GTX. For about 50 or sixty dollars more than the cost of a single GTX, one could have much better performance and the ability to go as high res as possible with minimal hits on frames. Higher minimum framerates are a major benefit as well. Combined, 2 GTS's have 192 scalar shaders and 640MB of frame buffer. That is some serious power there. Worth considering especially if you have an itch to scratch.

I must admit, I am a little torn. I purchased the ASUS P5N-E SLI board so I would have the "option" to SLI if I ever wanted to. Not that I definitely would. But at least I have the option. I can if I want to. I am currently weighing my choices.

1. Get a second GTS and SLI them.
2. Sell my GTS and get a GTX.
3. Do nothing and enjoy my GTS.
4. Give up PC gaming (not likely).

I am leaning towards option 3 for now. I wish to see just how far GTS pricing will drop (if at all) from where it is now. Option 2 seems like an awful lot of hassle for a bit more power for a large price. (GTX prices are not falling). So, if the GTX prices do not fall dramatically, and I see no reason for this to happen, I will go with 2 GTS's. Why? because I would like to try it, and I wouldn't mind that extra horsepower.

Anyone else?

 

[SickBeast]

Honestly I could see the massive shader power of 2 GTS'es being quite effective in modern games like Crysis. Time will tell.

The power requirements aren't that bad. I'm thinking a 750w PSU could handle it.

My one issue is SLI support under Vista, and the simple fact that SLI seems to be the last thing nVidia deals with in their driver fixes.

It's impressive/unusual that nVidia gave so much extra power to the GTX.

 

[niggles]

Originally posted by: hans030390
I says this thread is pointless and that Crysis should be the game to test the cards on.

Agreed, although I have to say that this thread is somewhat entertaining. What do they say about arguing on the Internet? Once Crysis is out we'll not only have a game to test, we'll have a game to play. My one GTS 640 runs most things at almost everything turned up without issue, I want to see the games that'll put that to the test.