690 or 670sli?

[pantsaregood]

I run Pci-e 3.0 16x 16x

Just that changed my 3dMark Scores by 600 Points..

So lets just lay it down like this..

Gain from 8x to 16x 1fps gain from 2.0 to 3.0 1fps..

But With next years 700 Series release 2.0 will be pushed to it's limits.. Making 3.0 the way to go..


Tri or Quad Sli at Extreme Res the diff can be 10+ Fps.

PCI-E 2.0 isn't going to be pushed to its limit for a pretty long time. Even at high resolutions (5760x1080), PCI-E 1.0 x4 vs. PCI-E 3.0 x16 only yields a 20% improvement in preformance - PCI-E 1.0 x8 (that's AGP x8 bandwidth) only yields a 7% increase in performance. This is using a GTX 680 for reference.

Dual-GPU cards sometimes suffer from lack of bandwidth, but the amount of bandwidth provided is unnecessary.

 

[hokies83]

PCI-E 2.0 isn't going to be pushed to its limit for a pretty long time. Even at high resolutions (5760x1080), PCI-E 1.0 x4 vs. PCI-E 3.0 x16 only yields a 20% improvement in preformance - PCI-E 1.0 x8 (that's AGP x8 bandwidth) only yields a 7% increase in performance. This is using a GTX 680 for reference.

Dual-GPU cards sometimes suffer from lack of bandwidth, but the amount of bandwidth provided is unnecessary.

690 Already does it...

So if we follow the path...

680 can be clocked to = and pass a Gtx 590

There for in Theory Gtx 780 will be able to reach Gtx 690 speeds.
Pushing Pci-e 2.0 to its limits.. What if you want more then 1?

Also there are plenty of benches out there proving my points so im not gonna argue the multi gpus at super res at 2.0 vs 3.0..

A quick google search will confirm it..

But by the time it is really used pci-e 2.0 will no longer be on any mbs they will all be 3.0.

 

[moonbogg]

670SLI for the win! Only cause thats what I have. I want you to want what I already have. I want you to think like me and agree with me. I want your affirmation. In addition, you'll save $200.00 and that right there is a free Samsung 830!

 

[guskline]

Moonbogg nailed it!

 

[pantsaregood]

690 Already does it...

So if we follow the path...

680 can be clocked to = and pass a Gtx 590

There for in Theory Gtx 780 will be able to reach Gtx 690 speeds.
Pushing Pci-e 2.0 to its limits.. What if you want more then 1?

Also there are plenty of benches out there proving my points so im not gonna argue the multi gpus at super res at 2.0 vs 3.0..

A quick google search will confirm it..

But by the time it is really used pci-e 2.0 will no longer be on any mbs they will all be 3.0.

Dual-GPU cards are a poor reference point because there is added latency and the slot actually splits the PCI-E bandwidth in half.

PCI-E 1.0 isn't at its limit yet.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Ivy_Bridge_PCI-Express_Scaling/1.html

The bandwidth limitations become most apparent at high resolutions. Even then, they're anywhere from minor to negligible. More bandwidth doesn't mean faster.

Also, you're missing the point. Under most circumstances, most video modern video cards could function perfectly fine under AGP x8 (or even x4). PCI-E 2.0 will absolutely be dead by the time it is pushed to its limit. AGP, bandwidth wise, would still be viable today if it hadn't been abandoned in favor of PCI-E.

 

[RussianSensation]

lol, how is it not possible if you're posting benchmarks for it? I didn't say i'm running it at 60fps. It's a slower paced single player FPS that runs just fine. Thanks for the review that actually backed up my claim.

Ya, I think what you meant is that you can play Metro 2033 at acceptable framerates (for you), but it can't truly be "maxed out" by any single-GPU as toyota noted. I guess when we say maxed out in a FPS, we somewhat expect around 60 fps average. It's almost like a standard so to speak, like that 60 fps unreachable average in Crysis for kicks and giggles even though Crysis is also one of those slower FPS games that doesn't need to run at 60 fps to feel smooth. Still I think toyota did mention that Metro 2033 would dip to 30-35 fps and he is right on that. Whether a gamer finds it acceptable varies but it can't really be fairly stated to "max out Metro 2033" since 30-35 fps is not exactly great for a FPS. It's doable for Single player.

Metro 2033 is one of those games though where I can't really see the added benefits of Tessellation and DOF is just a damn killer feature that I swear will need GTX690 SLI to max out.

 

[toyota]

Ya, I think what you meant is that you can play Metro 2033 at acceptable framerates (for you), but it can't truly be "maxed out" by any single-GPU as toyota noted. I guess when we say maxed out in a FPS, we somewhat expect around 60 fps average. It's almost like a standard so to speak, like that 60 fps unreachable average in Crysis for kicks and giggles even though Crysis is also one of those slower FPS games that doesn't need to run at 60 fps to feel smooth. Still I think toyota did mention that Metro 2033 would dip to 30-35 fps and he is right on that. Whether a gamer finds it acceptable varies but it can't really be fairly stated to "max out Metro 2033" since 30-35 fps is not exactly great for a FPS. It's doable for Single player.

Metro 2033 is one of those games though where I can't really see the added benefits of Tessellation and DOF is just a damn killer feature that I swear will need GTX690 SLI to max out.

actually its worse than that for Metro 2033. on full max settings he would not even be able to average but around 30fps for most of the game. and again on full max settings its just way too sluggish with dips into the low 20s in many spots and even the teens in some spots. its not a consistent 30 fps and its very much an unsmooth experience. I know that from reviews and from testing the game myself with my gtx670 oced past gtx680 levels. plus he is at a 10% higher res than I was testing at. thats why I told him that he probably does not even know what the real max settings are for the game. if he did then he would not be claiming to run this game smoothly at 1920x1200 on "max" settings with a gtx680.