is there any point to SLI?

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2258&p=6

105 vs 51 fps....that's about 15%, right Schadenfroh?

LOL

no doubt, when comparing it to infinity

 

[LT4CAMSS]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: LT4CAMSS
DAMN IT ATI!!! I wish this re-taping misfortune did not happen. We need these cats to release the new cards. I wanna know whether a SLI config w/ an X2 will be good or a XFire config w/ an X2. By the time these cats release a mobo+card combo, socket M2 won't be far off. What a dillemma, no?

Edit: BTW, I've seen a system w/ SLI w/ my own eyes get literally double the performance. It's definitely an amazing thing for one with the loot to spend.

How are we supposed to know. Cross Fire hasn 't even been released yet (only prelim benches).

Not a dillemma. You can keep pushing this upgrade back for ever. There is always something right around the corner. If you want max performance SLI is your only option as of right now as is Nvidia until ATI releases the R520 with Cross Fire (I dont think Cross Fire X850's will match a 7800GTX, much similiar to SLI 6800GT/ Ultras)

-Kevin

Kevin/Gamingphreek - Absolutely...I agree w/ you and see your point. One is little more than vaporware at this point, and the other is on the market and offering great relative performance now. However, my point was that it's sad that a re-taping on the R520 had to occur. It's sad that the gfx card market is alil different from the cpu market. Why sad? B/C whereas we usually have two options to look over and choose from w/ cpus and they *usually* come out at around the same time, we don't have that option this time (or any of the last releases if my memory serves right) w/ the gfx market. AMD released 64-bit cpus and Intel followed suit not too long after. AMD and Intel both released dual core at around the same time. A little research and comparing showed us that at this time (for a lot of us, especially gamers), AMD was the better pick. Were we able to do that w/ ATI and nVidia this round? Unfortunately, no. But then again, it's a different market and maybe I'm the one w/ high expectations.

Oh, lol...I wasn't planning on putting the X850XT(s) in XFire. My comment was addressing the R520. Peace...

 

[Gamingphreek]

If you already have to X850's you wasted your money. YOu need 1 existing then you need to buy the Crossfire version of the card for the second card.

Elfear, i see where you are coming from but look at the minimum framerates and what not. The 7800GTX is often leading by 10fps and when you go to 20x15 the lead is even more pronounced. Look at the Guru3d review of HL2. You need to give it a chance to stretch its legs in some places.

-Kevin

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: Elfear

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: Elfear

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
(I dont think Cross Fire X850's will match a 7800GTX, much similiar to SLI 6800GT/ Ultras)

-Kevin

I don't know if I agree with you there. Generally X850XT PE > 6800 Ultra so x2 should be even better. From all the reviews I've seen on the web the 7800GTX isn't that much faster than the X850XT PE anyway, until you get above 1600x1200 in resolution or in a few certain games. We're talking 5-10% from most of the reviews I've seen.

Not to take away any of the 7800GTX's thunder (probably be my next card) just throwing my opinion out there. Of course with Cross-fire yet to be released this is mostly conjecture on my part.

The point is you'd never run a 7800GTX under 16X12 4X8X, and it's a lot faster than any ATI card at that setting.

Not sure what you mean by a lot. Here are a few benchmarks I found:

FarCry 1600x1200 4AA/8AF
FarCry 1600x1200 4AA/8AF
FarCry 1600x1200 4AA/16AF Catacombs
Half-Life 2 1600x1200 4AA/?AF
Half-Life 2 1600x1200 4AA/8AF Town
Half-Life 2 1600x1200 4AA/8AF Canals
Half-Life 2 1600x1200 4AA/8AF
UT2004 1600x1200 4AA/8AF
UT2004 1600x1200 4AA/?AF

The 7800GTX is the fastest card out on the market right now but I wouldn't say it's a lot faster than ATI's current flagship card. At least in the games I play. I'm sure in Doom3 the X850XT gets it's butt handed to it, but that's pretty much a given.

Let's see:

1. Four HL2 benchmarks. I agree with you, the 7800GTX isn't much faster at HL2, the game ATI paid Valve many millions for.

2. UT2004, from your link:

On this page we'll quickly run through a couple of severely CPU limited games. Therefore only one chart per game, in all charts 4xAA and 8xAF is enabled at default for all cards.
It's in reality displaying some very nasty CPU limitation here, yes even with an Athlon 64 4000+ processor!

So this old engine isn't really showing graphics card performance at all, either can run faster than the cpu can push it.
Nonetheless, THG has apparently found or made a demo that taxes the cards:
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20050622/nvidia_7800_gtx-21.html
144fps for the 7800 vs 104 for the X850XTPE isn't exactly "close"?

3.Far Cry benches can be fairly demo dependent as well:
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20050622/nvidia_7800_gtx-15.html
52fps on 7800 vs 36fps on X850XT PE means in this situation, the X850XT PE isn't even playable.

 

[zendari]

No. The only card worth SLIing is the 7800 GTX, and 2 of those is overkill.

 

[BadAcid]

What about driver controlled vertical sync? It's not a monitor issue as I've seen it on every monitor I've ever had, and it's not video card issue, it's an option, turn it on or off, but if SLI doesn't give you that option, then I don't see how you can claim it's the best image quality available (as you've done in many threads), just because it's not an issue for you.

 

[Elfear]

Originally posted by: Rollo
Let's see:

1. Four HL2 benchmarks. I agree with you, the 7800GTX isn't much faster at HL2, the game ATI paid Valve many millions for.

2. UT2004, from your link:

On this page we'll quickly run through a couple of severely CPU limited games. Therefore only one chart per game, in all charts 4xAA and 8xAF is enabled at default for all cards.
It's in reality displaying some very nasty CPU limitation here, yes even with an Athlon 64 4000+ processor!

So this old engine isn't really showing graphics card performance at all, either can run faster than the cpu can push it.
Nonetheless, THG has apparently found or made a demo that taxes the cards:
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20050622/nvidia_7800_gtx-21.html
144fps for the 7800 vs 104 for the X850XTPE isn't exactly "close"?

3.Far Cry benches can be fairly demo dependent as well:
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20050622/nvidia_7800_gtx-15.html
52fps on 7800 vs 36fps on X850XT PE means in this situation, the X850XT PE isn't even playable.

Like I said the 7800GTX is the fastest card out on the market, but for a majority of the review sites I looked at, it wasn't leading by that much. Tom's seems to show a much larger gap than the rest. Maybe a different demo was used or benching methods were different. Who knows.

I will agree that drivers for the beast are very new and given some time to mature will probably show some nice gains.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: zendari
No. The only card worth SLIing is the 7800 GTX, and 2 of those is overkill.

Please explain that philosphy. If you have a 6800GT and dont want to drop another $500 on a new video card spend the 300 and get another 6800GT and you have near 7800GTX performance right there.

-Kevin

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: zendari
No. The only card worth SLIing is the 7800 GTX, and 2 of those is overkill.

Please explain that philosphy. If you have a 6800GT and dont want to drop another $500 on a new video card spend the 300 and get another 6800GT and you have near 7800GTX performance right there.

-Kevin

Or you sell the current 6800 GT for $250, buy a 7800 GTX, and pocket the $50 difference, getting a similar level of performance (thanks to SLI not giving anywhere near 100% boost across games), and have all the benefits of a single card?

Not to mention the 6800s, SLI or not, completely suck past 16x12.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: zendari
No. The only card worth SLIing is the 7800 GTX, and 2 of those is overkill.

It's nice you don't like SLI.

It's also nice that those of us who have are enjoying much higher performance than everyone else.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: zendari
No. The only card worth SLIing is the 7800 GTX, and 2 of those is overkill.

Please explain that philosphy. If you have a 6800GT and dont want to drop another $500 on a new video card spend the 300 and get another 6800GT and you have near 7800GTX performance right there.

-Kevin

Or you sell the current 6800 GT for $250, buy a 7800 GTX, and pocket the $50 difference, getting a similar level of performance (thanks to SLI not giving anywhere near 100% boost across games), and have all the benefits of a single card?

The problem is, the settings they "suck" at past 16X12 you need 7800GTX SLI to play at anyway.

6800GT SLI can run some high res settings very nicely, and it might be argued you don't need 4X AA at 20X15 nearly as much as you do on the resolutions you have experience with.

Not to mention the 6800s, SLI or not, completely suck past 16x12.

:roll:

You just don't like SLI, so you don't bother to note that there are other settings where 6800GT SLI does very well above 16X12?

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_nforce4_intel_edition/page18.asp

It might be argued that at 20X15 AA is much less an issue? You're just used to low res gaming where you need it or things look all jagged.

P.S. I just turned off AA, played some UT 2004 "Chrome" at 19X12 0X16X, and I had to look for aliasing.

 

[zendari]

I guess Rollo is smarter than Nvidia's Nick Stam?

Text

The 6800 series chips were designed to provide excellent performance up to 1600x1200, and although they support higher 3D resolutions, they lack certain hardware features to deliver strong performance at 2048x1536. The 7800GTX was designed to deliver much higher raw performance at 2048x1536, and better performance scaling from 1600x1200 to 2048x1536.
There are many features and performance optimizations (like zcull) that on NV4x are optimized for 2 Mpixels, and on G70 are optimized for 3 Mpixels. Like ATI, we also can operate on part of the screen at resolutions beyond our design point (the level at which the chip was originally designed to perform optimally). For example, an NV40 running @ 2048x1536 might be around 60% efficient with some of its optimizations like zcull.


But lets check out the benchmarks, shall we?

Doom 3
At 20x15, the 6800 U is 23% slower than the x850xtpe? At Nvidias flagship title?

Farcry
Scales a bit better here, the x850 is the one that has problems, even still its faster than the 6800 U.

Halflife 2
Check it out! 6800 U SLI gets beat by a single x850 xtpe, which is utterly trounced by the 7800 GTX.

Riddick
Loses again to the x850 XTPE at 20x15, SLI again is barely over a much cheaper single 7800 GTX.

SCCT
Again in SCCT, now the x850xtpe is 50% faster than the 6800 U.

3dmark05
the 6800 U and SLI actually do well for once....in 3dmark05.


Maybe your eyes are old and you can't see jaggies, but I can even at high resolutions.

 

[fstime]

Interesting post.

 

[PSUstoekl]

honestly...is there anyone here with a 2048 monitor?

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: zendari
I guess Rollo is smarter than Nvidia's Nick Stam?

Text

The 6800 series chips were designed to provide excellent performance up to 1600x1200, and although they support higher 3D resolutions, they lack certain hardware features to deliver strong performance at 2048x1536. The 7800GTX was designed to deliver much higher raw performance at 2048x1536, and better performance scaling from 1600x1200 to 2048x1536.
There are many features and performance optimizations (like zcull) that on NV4x are optimized for 2 Mpixels, and on G70 are optimized for 3 Mpixels. Like ATI, we also can operate on part of the screen at resolutions beyond our design point (the level at which the chip was originally designed to perform optimally). For example, an NV40 running @ 2048x1536 might be around 60% efficient with some of its optimizations like zcull.

Nick saying that 7800s are better at 20X15 has nothing to do with what we are talking about, which is SLI? Or did you forget that? Reminder, we're talking about SLI.

But lets check out the benchmarks, shall we?

Doom 3
At 20x15, the 6800 U is 23% slower than the x850xtpe? At Nvidias flagship title?

So what? Both are unplayable. Reminder, we're talking about SLI- 6800SLI destroys ATI.

Farcry
Scales a bit better here, the x850 is the one that has problems, even still its faster than the 6800 U.

So what? Both are unplayable. Reminder, we're talking about SLI- 6800SLI destroys ATI.

Halflife 2
Check it out! 6800 U SLI gets beat by a single x850 xtpe, which is utterly trounced by the 7800 GTX.

So what? All except 7800 are unplayable.

Riddick
Loses again to the x850 XTPE at 20x15, SLI again is barely over a much cheaper single 7800 GTX.

So what? Both are unplayable. Reminder, we're talking about SLI- 6800SLI destroys ATI. Really only 7800s playable at this setting.

SCCT
Again in SCCT, now the x850xtpe is 50% faster than the 6800 U.

So what? Both are unplayable. Reminder, we're talking about SLI- 6800SLI destroys ATI.

Maybe your eyes are old and you can't see jaggies, but I can even at high resolutions.

Probably because the frames stay on the screen for 10 seconds each?

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: PSUstoekl
honestly...is there anyone here with a 2048 monitor?

Mine does 19X12 at 85Hz and 19X14 at 75Hz. Ben Skywalker has a 2048 monitor.

 

[zendari]

Rollo, I was talking about 6800s in general, not specifically 6800 U SLI. Why would I compare a $800 6800 U SLI setup to a $400 x850 XTPE setup?

Playable/unplayable isn't defined by you.

Why get a 6800 U or GT SLI over a 7800 GTX when it can't compete at highres gaming? Since, as I said earlier, the 6800s scale miserably.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Again in SCCT, now the x850xtpe is 50% faster than the 6800 U.

Of course there is the small tidbit that the Xxx series run in SM1.1 because they do not support 3.0. Im sure that is responsible for a VERY large percentage of performance.

-Kevin

 

[rockstar]

There is no point in getting SLI if you actually play games (not benchmarks) and value vsync. If you enjoy image tearing in DX games then SLI is for you! I personally would love my SLI setup if vsync was fixed, but apparently Nvidia doesn't value image quality over benchmarks. I'm really disappointed that the next generation of cards has already come around and there is still no fix for vsync. Speed doesn't mean crap if you have image tearing.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: TStep
Although I most likely won't use SLI as I don't really require it right now (12x10 limited), I like it. The more options for me, the better. If it spawns manufacturers to think out of the box, great. Who knows, tomorrow I may get a 16x12 monitor or get a hair up my a$$ and decide it's time to tinker with SLI. Options don't hurt anyone.

Think of it this way. There are several ways to get a gig of ram: 4x256, 2x512, 1x1g. We'd all scream to high heaven if we only had one or two dimm slots now wouldn't we.

Like an external video card?

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: PSUstoekl
honestly...is there anyone here with a 2048 monitor?

Good point... now that video cards are capable of resolution that high, we need monitors that are as well.

Originally posted by: PSUstoekl
Honestly...for the money...two video cards produce framerates maybe 15% higher for double the price, and only if you have at least 1600x1200 (which I don't). Do you guys think that this will eventually become a decent solution for those of us who just wanna play games?

As I see it, much work still needs to be done.

Obviously SLI is not for you. That doesn't mean the technology is worthless to everyone. You don't have a high resolution monitor, and you obviously don't care about things like AA and AF or you'd understand the benefits. You may be closer to "the average computer user" than someone like Rollo, but SLI is not meant for the average computer user.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: rockstar
There is no point in getting SLI if you actually play games (not benchmarks) and value vsync. If you enjoy image tearing in DX games then SLI is for you! I personally would love my SLI setup if vsync was fixed, but apparently Nvidia doesn't value image quality over benchmarks. I'm really disappointed that the next generation of cards has already come around and there is still no fix for vsync. Speed doesn't mean crap if you have image tearing.

SLI doesn't support vsync? ouch.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Again in SCCT, now the x850xtpe is 50% faster than the 6800 U.

Of course there is the small tidbit that the Xxx series run in SM1.1 because they do not support 3.0. Im sure that is responsible for a VERY large percentage of performance.

-Kevin

Learn to read kevin.

Chaos Theory has a Shader Model 3.0 path, and we used it on the GeForce cards, but we didn't turn on any of the extra effects; it was simply a performance enhancement.

How would the 6800 U done without its performance enhancement I wonder.

 

[fstime]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: zendari
I guess Rollo is smarter than Nvidia's Nick Stam?

Text

The 6800 series chips were designed to provide excellent performance up to 1600x1200, and although they support higher 3D resolutions, they lack certain hardware features to deliver strong performance at 2048x1536. The 7800GTX was designed to deliver much higher raw performance at 2048x1536, and better performance scaling from 1600x1200 to 2048x1536.
There are many features and performance optimizations (like zcull) that on NV4x are optimized for 2 Mpixels, and on G70 are optimized for 3 Mpixels. Like ATI, we also can operate on part of the screen at resolutions beyond our design point (the level at which the chip was originally designed to perform optimally). For example, an NV40 running @ 2048x1536 might be around 60% efficient with some of its optimizations like zcull.

Nick saying that 7800s are better at 20X15 has nothing to do with what we are talking about, which is SLI? Or did you forget that? Reminder, we're talking about SLI.

But lets check out the benchmarks, shall we?

Doom 3
At 20x15, the 6800 U is 23% slower than the x850xtpe? At Nvidias flagship title?

So what? Both are unplayable. Reminder, we're talking about SLI- 6800SLI destroys ATI.

Farcry
Scales a bit better here, the x850 is the one that has problems, even still its faster than the 6800 U.

So what? Both are unplayable. Reminder, we're talking about SLI- 6800SLI destroys ATI.

Halflife 2
Check it out! 6800 U SLI gets beat by a single x850 xtpe, which is utterly trounced by the 7800 GTX.

So what? All except 7800 are unplayable.

Riddick
Loses again to the x850 XTPE at 20x15, SLI again is barely over a much cheaper single 7800 GTX.

So what? Both are unplayable. Reminder, we're talking about SLI- 6800SLI destroys ATI. Really only 7800s playable at this setting.

SCCT
Again in SCCT, now the x850xtpe is 50% faster than the 6800 U.

So what? Both are unplayable. Reminder, we're talking about SLI- 6800SLI destroys ATI.

Maybe your eyes are old and you can't see jaggies, but I can even at high resolutions.

Probably because the frames stay on the screen for 10 seconds each?

Cant accept Nvidia 6 series gets beat badly by ATi or somthing?


Anyone can reply with "SO WHAT?? 6800GT DESTROYS YOU, KTHXBYE"

 

[BFG10K]

is there anyone here with a 2048 monitor?

Most SLI owners no doubt.

SLI doesn't support vsync?

If you're running SLI I doubt you'd care about vsync.