If you were to buy a Multi-GPU setup, would it be SLI or Crossfire?

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
The only place where I see that SLI is "needed" is in those high resolution LCD's. Maybe for some of those that use CRT's as well. Also Dell actually made a "need" for dual DVI ports on VC's, with thier introduction of that Sweet MF'n 30" LCD!

My monitor does 19X14 @ 75Hz, so i like to play at that if possible. High res FTW!

don't you find 75hz to be rather low? i can't stand flicker . . . especially after playing games for hours on end, my eyes tend to 'hurt' and i will even get a headache

i can game at 12x10 at 75hz but much prefer the higher 80-85hz even if it means a lower resolution [for me that's 11x8@85hz on my 19" CRT . . . i am experimenting with the custom resolution of 12x9@80hz but still prefer 85+hz.]

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: apoppin
don't you find 75hz to be rather low? i can't stand flicker . . . especially after playing games for hours on end, my eyes tend to 'hurt' and i will even get a headache

Nah. I agree with what AT says in this review of some low end monitor:
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=1612&p=2

The typical rule is that the minimum refresh rate for a monitor at any given resolution is that it should be 75Hz or above.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: apoppin
don't you find 75hz to be rather low? i can't stand flicker . . . especially after playing games for hours on end, my eyes tend to 'hurt' and i will even get a headache

Nah. I agree with what AT says in this review of some low end monitor:
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=1612&p=2

The typical rule is that the minimum refresh rate for a monitor at any given resolution is that it should be 75Hz or above.

perhaps you don't game for very long at a single sitting or perhaps your eyes can handle "the minimum" . . .

i can't

i was just curious. . . and giving my own impressions

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

no shimmering in BF2

Alright, i have both a 7 series card, and BF2. I have yet to notice this shimmering. Is there a certain place i should be looking (ie: the horizon or something). If there is, then it obviously isn't a huge reason to completely count a card out of everything.

-Kevin

Don't play dumb. You know what it is.

I dont have a clue. I haven't seen it yet. I haven't noticed anything out of the ordinary except the abismal shadows in Far Cry (which im still waiting to be fixed)

-Kevin

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

no shimmering in BF2

Alright, i have both a 7 series card, and BF2. I have yet to notice this shimmering. Is there a certain place i should be looking (ie: the horizon or something). If there is, then it obviously isn't a huge reason to completely count a card out of everything.

-Kevin

Don't play dumb. You know what it is.

Well for some of us, we only know what it is cause some people wouldnt let it go for 4 months. :disgust:

 

[CP5670]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: apoppin
don't you find 75hz to be rather low? i can't stand flicker . . . especially after playing games for hours on end, my eyes tend to 'hurt' and i will even get a headache

Nah. I agree with what AT says in this review of some low end monitor:
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=1612&p=2

The typical rule is that the minimum refresh rate for a monitor at any given resolution is that it should be 75Hz or above.

perhaps you don't game for very long at a single sitting or perhaps your eyes can handle "the minimum" . . .

i can't

i was just curious. . . and giving my own impressions

Slightly lower refresh rates tend to be more tolerable in games than Windows for some reason. I find 85hz to be good enough in games even though I like at least 100hz in Windows.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: CP5670

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: apoppin
don't you find 75hz to be rather low? i can't stand flicker . . . especially after playing games for hours on end, my eyes tend to 'hurt' and i will even get a headache

Nah. I agree with what AT says in this review of some low end monitor:
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=1612&p=2

The typical rule is that the minimum refresh rate for a monitor at any given resolution is that it should be 75Hz or above.

perhaps you don't game for very long at a single sitting or perhaps your eyes can handle "the minimum" . . .

i can't

i was just curious. . . and giving my own impressions

Slightly lower refresh rates tend to be more tolerable in games than Windows for some reason. I find 85hz to be good enough in games even though I like at least 100hz in Windows.

since Rollo is only a gamer, i didn't compare Windows . . .

Now that you mention it, even a few minutes reading text at 75hz tends to drive me crazy - that's "why" i got my x850xt so quickly after my 9800xt died [my spare 8 MB PCI videocard would only do 75hz at 10x7]
However, gaming at 75hz for extended periods of time - hours - also gives me eyestrain and headaches [thati don't get at 85hz]

since - up-till-now - i never figured Rollo to be an "minimum kind of guy" in any Video Hardware - i asked.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Thorny

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Thorny
I will never need the kind of performance multi-gpu's provide, let alone pay for it.

LOL, and 640k is more than enough right? Never say never.

Oh, yeah, the poll. I voted SLI.

Well, I'm pretty sure all the power I'll ever need will be available in a single card solution. I think SLI and Xfire alike are both marketing ploys that get a consumer to pay more for less. To me multi-gpu solutions make no sense as an upgrade path, and the diminished return on investment makes little sense in the long run. But to me, buying any top of the line component makes no sense due to diminishing returns, YMMV

The price of graphics cards has gotten INSANE, and if it keeps up, I'll be out of the pc gaming market entirely. $300 used to get you a TOP of the line card, now it will get you half of a mid-level SLI setup. 640k may not have been enough, but I've made my last upgrade cycle if these prices hold.

Oh I definately hear you. Vid card prices have gone off the deep end. And you have a point. If the prices of these cards deters us from buying them, eventually the card companies will be forced to start initiating lower MSRP's from the start. But then again, we are talking high end when most people out there have Intel integrated. So, we are a minority for sure.

 

[deadseasquirrel]

Originally posted by: Thorny

I think SLI and Xfire alike are both marketing ploys that get a consumer to pay more for less.

For "less" what? Certainly not performance, as many benchmarks are available out there to prove that the increase in performance can be huge.

If you mean "less performance per dollar", then I agree with you, for the most part. As you mentioned, ANY high-end component will usually carry a worse price/performance ratio than a mid-range component (whether it be cars, boats, TVs, whatever). I say, "for the most part" because the SLI 7800GTs were a better buy than ANY OTHER high-end single card from both ATI and nVidia for a couple of months. SLI 7800GTs allowed buyers to spend LESS (or equal) and get much more performance.

Now, I know you have no interest at all in the high-end gear, but certainly you can see how your above doesn't hold water across the board. I have no doubt that it's not the right solution for you, nor many others out there. But to dismiss all multi-gpu solutions as marketing ploys is ignoring all of the evidence out there to the contrary.

 

[SniperWulf]

If I were building from scratch then I'd definately go with Crossfire

 

[beggerking]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Not everyone notices it. If you dont, I sure wouldnt go looking for it. But yes it is noticable on the horizon, but mostly just the ground, and grass. HL2 grass does the same in Lost Coast, badly. I notice it more, on a LCD, than a CRT. A buddy of mine just got a 2405FPW (same as me) and X1800XT. The AF is clearly better, and the ground doesnt shimmer like it does for me on GTX's. I dont want to get into this again, because its a matter of opinion if someone sees shimmering or not. Obviously some do, and some dont. I happen to, and it annoys me. Its not a "deal killer", but I dislike it a lot.

umm. you do know that x1800xt crossfire setup won't even run on some games right?...
and you are worried about shimmering?

 

[beggerking]

Originally posted by: Matt2

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Well it looks as though that 70% of the market is geared with some sort of Multi-GPU in mind. About 80 to 85% of that market is thinking or has gone SLI over Crossfire.

That's what being first to the market gets you.

umm.. its more for the stability/driver reason. Sli is just better than CF now..

 

[ForumMaster]

if i had the loot to buy a multi gpu solution, i would. Between SLI and Crossfire, i agree that the ATI motherboard look promising, however their stupid master card/external cable solution is just plain dumb. In order for CrossFire too work, i have to buy an expensive motherboard, a special "Master" card which is more expensive, and then the only way to connect these is buy an external cable...? Or i could go with SLI, buy any two cards that have SLI, have a mature and foolproof technology that is also elegant as well as more effective then CrossFire. What kind of question is this? Ofcourse i would/will go with SLI!

 

[Gamingphreek]

buy any two cards that have SLI

You have that slightly confused. Cross Fire allows the pairing of any cards. SLI only allows the pairing of the same model (7800GT & 7800GT). IMO it is pointless to pair two different cards, because it will just underclock and run in sync with the slower card though. BUt still nice that it can give you the option.

-Kevin

 

[apoppin]

Crossfire X1900 XTX faster than SLI 7800 GTX 512

Monday will be the day for Nvidia, as R580, Radeon X1900 XT Crossfire edition with another X1900 XTX card will outperform Nvidia's GTX 512 SLI in almost every single case. It runs faster in games and synthetic 3Dmark benchmarks.

It is simply faster in most ways, even when you use a lot of FSAA and Aniso. After weeks of absence, Nvidia just managed to ship some of Geforce 7800 GTX 512 cards in retail but ATI's R580 will end up cheaper and it is able to beat up 7800 GTX 512 SLI on performance.

IF i were buying, i'd at least wait till next week

 

[beggerking]

Originally posted by: apoppin


Crossfire X1900 XTX faster than SLI 7800 GTX 512

Monday will be the day for Nvidia, as R580, Radeon X1900 XT Crossfire edition with another X1900 XTX card will outperform Nvidia's GTX 512 SLI in almost every single case. It runs faster in games and synthetic 3Dmark benchmarks.

It is simply faster in most ways, even when you use a lot of FSAA and Aniso. After weeks of absence, Nvidia just managed to ship some of Geforce 7800 GTX 512 cards in retail but ATI's R580 will end up cheaper and it is able to beat up 7800 GTX 512 SLI on performance.

IF i were buying, i'd at least wait till next week

if 1900 isn't faster, then ATI has a problem. .. its a different generation of videocard. it should be faster..

 

[allies]

If I had the cash right now, I'd definitely go SLi. Crossfire is still in its infancy right now, and until the problems are ironed out, it's not a viable solution for those who want utmost stability and game compatiblity.

 

[wbsl3030]

 

[wbsl3030]

I'd would and did go with SLI because it is more stable at the moment. My experience with new products is to wait a while so that the bugs can be worked out. Although I am an ATI fan, if your planning to purchase something right now, go with SLI. If you can wait however, go with Crossfire. Somehow ATI is always ontop in the end.

 

[Kaeishiwaza]

Just can't really justify it, going to a dual card system. I have a single 7800GTX and it suits me more than fine. Maybe if I had an interest in BF2 instead of DOD:S it would matter, but right now there isn't anything that I'm interested in playing that would kill the card I have now. FEAR is SP so I can wait before I pick that up.

 

[deadseasquirrel]

Originally posted by: Kaeishiwaza
Just can't really justify it, going to a dual card system. I have a single 7800GTX and it suits me more than fine. Maybe if I had an interest in BF2 instead of DOD:S it would matter, but right now there isn't anything that I'm interested in playing that would kill the card I have now. FEAR is SP so I can wait before I pick that up.

I completely understand where you're coming from. Jeez, I haven't upgraded my video cards in 12 months. But lemme show you this and you tell me what you think about it--

I don't know what you could sell your GTX for right now.... maybe $400? I don't know. But if you did, and then bought 2 7800GTs for about $550, you'd be out-of-pocket $150 (assuming you have an SLI mobo with a decent PSU already). I know, it's a lot of money. But here's the thing. The SLI will increase performance over the GTX by about 40% on average.

I know you're perfectly happy with your current setup, so I'm not saying to do this. But, seriously, I challenge you to spend $150 on ANY OTHER component in your system and raise your gaming performance by 40%. It ain't gonna happen.

 

[Kaeishiwaza]

Well I don't have a SLI mobo. It does Crossfire though. But there are better XFire boards out there. So either way, going to a dual card set up is going to be more expensive than I want it to be.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: deadseasquirrel

Originally posted by: Kaeishiwaza
Just can't really justify it, going to a dual card system. I have a single 7800GTX and it suits me more than fine. Maybe if I had an interest in BF2 instead of DOD:S it would matter, but right now there isn't anything that I'm interested in playing that would kill the card I have now. FEAR is SP so I can wait before I pick that up.

I completely understand where you're coming from. Jeez, I haven't upgraded my video cards in 12 months. But lemme show you this and you tell me what you think about it--

I don't know what you could sell your GTX for right now.... maybe $400? I don't know. But if you did, and then bought 2 7800GTs for about $550, you'd be out-of-pocket $150 (assuming you have an SLI mobo with a decent PSU already). I know, it's a lot of money. But here's the thing. The SLI will increase performance over the GTX by about 40% on average.

I know you're perfectly happy with your current setup, so I'm not saying to do this. But, seriously, I challenge you to spend $150 on ANY OTHER component in your system and raise your gaming performance by 40%. It ain't gonna happen.

Two GTs is the bang for buck KING these days, for sure.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: Rollo
Two GTs is the bang for buck KING these days, for sure.

At the $600+ pricepoint, sure. It's certainly a better deal than a 7800GTX"Ultra" 512MB, and it beats a 7800GTX or X1800XT in performance (but also costs more). Is it three times as fast as a $200AR X850XTPE, though?

You've also gotta be willing to deal with the quirks of SLI (and they're still around, though much improved).

 

[DaveBC]

I want both!!