8800GT SLI to GTX 295

[Pantlegz]

current setup in sig, thinking about upgrading to a 295 or a Q9550. How much around about would either help gaming, just a little bit of everything, @ 1920x1200?

 

[yh125d]

With that setup I'd get the CPU upgrade. quad + huge cache = good stuff. 8800GT SLI performs very well still, even at 1920x1200

 

[error8]

First of all, I wouldn't change anything at your system. I would just probably overclock that E8400 if you haven't done so yet.

GTX 295, needs all the cpu muscle you could give it, to really make it shine. But an E8400 at 4-4.2 ghz would probably be just fine. So, if you have nothing else to do with those money, I would get the videocard. In games it will prove more worthy then the cpu upgrade.

 

[mhouck]

Originally posted by: error8
First of all, I wouldn't change anything at your system. I would just probably overclock that E8400 if you haven't done so yet.

GTX 295, needs all the cpu muscle you could give it, to really make it shine. But an E8400 at 4-4.2 ghz would probably be just fine. So, if you have nothing else to do with those money, I would get the videocard. In games it will prove more worthy then the cpu upgrade.

I agree with Error. Right now there aren't that many games that take advantage of quadcores. Any game you play will show improvement with the 295. I don't know that it's a must have upgrade. If you feel you have to upgrade something then the 295 route would let you turn on max settings in every game that I know of. Additionally, if there are more games that utilize quad's later on you will be able to get 9550 even cheaper due to the 32nm's coming to market.

 

[Pantlegz]

I have, and could oc it to 3.6 to 4.0ish pretty easy with the TT. I just wasn't sure if it would be a waste bc I think my 8800's were limited by the cpu in most benchies. I'll play with it a lil more and see whats up, it's been a little while since I've OC'd it.

 

[Denithor]

If you're going to upgrade either you need to upgrade both.

Guru3D multiGPU review

Take a look at the last chart on that page and then read the rest of the article.

Basically, once you hit the level of dual GTX 260 (GTX 295) you need more CPU muscle to push it properly...the e8400 just doesn't cut it.

 

[octopus41092]

Save up?

 

[mhouck]

Originally posted by: Denithor
If you're going to upgrade either you need to upgrade both.

Guru3D multiGPU review

Take a look at the last chart on that page and then read the rest of the article.

Basically, once you hit the level of dual GTX 260 (GTX 295) you need more CPU muscle to push it properly...the e8400 just doesn't cut it.

It's interesting how they compare an i7 965/x58/ddr3 setup for the quads on the dual 260 setup and go e8400/680i/ddr2? for the dual core. Then on the dual 4870x2 they use x58 boards with both a e8400 and i7 965. Then the 4870 CF setup uses an x58 on the i7 and an x48 on the e4800.

From a consistency stand point, I don't see how those charts hold water. It's my understanding that at least some x58 boards can do both SLI and Crossfire. Comparing the 680i with dual channel ddr2 and a dual core to an i7 with tri channel ddr3 and an i7 is a joke. No wonder the dual core is putting out lower numbers.

Not to say that if it was sameboard all the way around with the same components all the way around the quad wouldn't win out. In the interest of a far presentation, I think the linked page is half-assed.

I would still suggest OC your CPU first and then upgrade to the 295 if you have to upgrade anything. If you aren't satisfied with the picture quality when you are gaming then go ahead. If not save up for the dx11 cards.

 

[techboie]

Get the CPU.

 

[mhouck]

Originally posted by: techboie
Get the CPU.

I'm assuming that he's not upgrading both components. If he gets the CPU, there aren't enough games out that utilize 4 cores and he won't have the 295 that requires the quad for optimal performance. The higher resolutions are more GPU dependant. Therefore, he won't see much if any performance change in gaming at his resolution. I don't see how that is a credible suggestion.

Edit:

Check out the link to the CPU forum and the multi-thread optimized games and other software.

Mult-Thread

 

[techboie]

6 months down the line get i7 + 6gb + 5870x2 or 4850x2 CF

 

[Puffnstuff]

I'm running two 8800gts 512's in sli and had a q6600. I was experiencing some fps slowdowns in crysis during demanding scenes until I upgraded to a q9550 which I'm running at 3.2. The difference between the cpu's is quite obvious as the fps slowdowns aren't as bad and the periodic freezing is gone. I still plan on upgrading my gpu's but the cpu upgrade did make a big difference on my system. Just something to consider plus if you look at the link provided in one of the previous posts cpu power is critical to multiple gpus.

 

[Denithor]

Originally posted by: mhouck
It's interesting how they compare an i7 965/x58/ddr3 setup for the quads on the dual 260 setup and go e8400/680i/ddr2? for the dual core. Then on the dual 4870x2 they use x58 boards with both a e8400 and i7 965. Then the 4870 CF setup uses an x58 on the i7 and an x48 on the e4800.

From a consistency stand point, I don't see how those charts hold water. It's my understanding that at least some x58 boards can do both SLI and Crossfire. Comparing the 680i with dual channel ddr2 and a dual core to an i7 with tri channel ddr3 and an i7 is a joke. No wonder the dual core is putting out lower numbers.

Not to say that if it was sameboard all the way around with the same components all the way around the quad wouldn't win out. In the interest of a far presentation, I think the linked page is half-assed.

I would still suggest OC your CPU first and then upgrade to the 295 if you have to upgrade anything. If you aren't satisfied with the picture quality when you are gaming then go ahead. If not save up for the dx11 cards.

Do you understand anything about modern cpus/motherboards?

I have to ask, because the e8400 won't physically fit on the X58 motherboards (wrong socket) and there isn't a dual-core chip available (yet) for the X58 boards.

They used a 680i motherboard because it supports the dual-core chip and SLI cards (duh).

DDR3 memory makes almost no difference whatsoever in system performance.

What they showed is simply this: the fast dual-cores just don't provide enough cpu muscle to push today's multiGPU setups effectively. The i7 processors, on the other hand, do.

And before you get your panties in a wad, check out this page. Wherein a QX9770 on a 790i board with DDR3 and TripleSLI GTX 280 gets its ass handed to it by a similar i7 setup.

Now, the Q9550 won't help as much as an i7 920 @ 3.6GHz but it's a much more cost effective option. I'd just hate to see you drop in a GTX 295 and be disappointed by the performance.

 

[mhouck]

Hoookay. So I had a really well written reply but then IE decided to act up.

Long and short: I do know something about CPU's and mobo's. I am not attacking your point. It's well taken. I have a quad and wouldn't go back. I went from a e6400 at 3.0 to a q6700 at 3.6 and saw increases in performance.

The point of my post earier was the charts you linked to compared a dual core cpu from one generation to a quad from the next. In terms of consistency they should have compared a Yorkfield to a Wolfdale. Additonally, they could have used a 790i as that would have allowed them to compare ddr3 to ddr3. Instead you have a an e8400 against a i7 965!

Thank you for linking to the 790i comparison. They still use the e8400 on a 680i when they easily could have thrown it in the same board and had a more valid comparrison.

Also, I was trying to be a wise ass with the x58 e8400 comment because that's what they list on the top of the 4870 x2 crossfire chart. (Yes they do correct it under the chart but give me a break.) I should have put a :beer: after it or something to signify sarcasm.

Any how, I don't disagree with your point. I just think that review is sloppy and no reason to make comparison's when the only core hardware components they kept consistent was the GPU's themselves. In science class you only want to change one variable in an experiment at a time.

P.S. I don't get my panties in a wad. I go commando.

 

[Denithor]

Originally posted by: mhouck
P.S. I don't get my panties in a wad. I go commando.

:laugh:

Certainly wasn't meant as a personal attack, don't take me too seriously.

Yeah, they should have run the e8400 on the 790i instead of the 680i but I think they tossed in those extra QX9770 slides as a bonus to appease comments on the article saying the same thing you were, unfair comparison. And they may not have had the 790i board available when they did the first round of benchmarking. Also, if you look around, you will find that there is virtually no difference between DDR2 & DDR3 memory on C2D chips (they have enough L2 cache that memory bandwidth just doesn't make a difference) so it's a moot point.

But it boils down to one thing - the i7 architecture simply offers more power than the C2D/C2Q chips can muster. As they say at the end of the article, the Core2 chips are fine for any single GPU setup today but just cannot compete with an i7 once you throw in multiple cards in CF or SLI mode.