AT recommends eschewing SLI

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024
The rest of my post stands, notwithstanding your clarification. Fair and Balanced is bad comedy, and frankly it's getting old Rollo.

Where the "Fair and Balanced" comes in is that I'm not the one posting a bizarre off topic rant about another posters motives.

I don 't care what your motives are- I just know a thread discussing SLI doesn't need the book of bullsh*t you dropped into it.

Your attacks are whats getting old.

Don't like it that I agree with Creig $20 isn't much money to spend to have the option to try SLI in the future?

Head over to FI and start a thread about big bad Rollo and the satanic "QFT" post. :roll:

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024
The rest of my post stands, notwithstanding your clarification. Fair and Balanced is bad comedy, and frankly it's getting old Rollo.

Where the "Fair and Balanced" comes in is that I'm not the one posting a bizarre off topic rant about another posters motives.

So you're eschewing the issue entirely and putting 'fair and balanced' on me? I'm not the one with it in my sig, pushing it on people in threads all over the place!

I don 't care what your motives are- I just know a thread discussing SLI doesn't need the book of bullsh*t you dropped into it.

More "me-first" Rollo-ness. So you can make stuff up but I can't post legitimate qualms and issues about your past inconsistencies, particularly when in spite of this you claim yourself to be fair and balanced?

Your attacks are whats getting old.

The only thing I attacked was your lies and silly mod campaign, which is based on an eye-rolling fallacy.

Don't like it that I agree with Creig $20 isn't much money to spend to have the option to try SLI in the future?

I at least give you the benefit of the doubt and read your posts. You obviously didn't read mine, the difference amounted to $30-$57 Canadian after taxes (25 to $48 US). Unless you're buying an inferior/lower quality brand, the difference is not $20, at least not in most parts of the world.

Head over to FI and start a thread about big bad Rollo and the satanic "QFT" post. :roll:

Never said you were Satan, or even a bad person. Just that your posts are often full of crap and you talk out of both sides of your mouth as you see fit.

 

[nRollo]

I did not start the Rollo for Mod thing, only went along with it.

If it angers you to see it in people's signatures, perhaps you should not read it?

They/I have a right to put it there, and it does you no harm.

If I were a mod, I would send you a warning for these posts explaining that psychoanalysis of other members is probably best left to their shrinks, and this is a forum for discussing video cards.

 

[jiffylube1024]

I know you would Rollo, and you'd also perma-ban M0rph and anybody who speaks against you or takes an anti-Nvidia stance. Which is why you're not going to become a mod. Because you're not fair or balanced.

 

[KristopherKubicki]

Back on topic or get locked.

Kristopher

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: KristopherKubicki
Back on topic or get locked.

Kristopher

Fair enough 😉 . I've said what I needed to say about an issue I was having regarding misinformation, so I will return on topic. I can only ask that people read my posts with an open mind, without any bias and then come back to me and tell me what you think.

--------

I personally think the AT article made a very good point. We all know that SLI has been quite a success from a marketing perspective (rightly so: it has sold millions of units!). But there certainly aren't millions of people running SLI at this moment in time, and running a new generation of card rather than doubling up on the last generation makes sense for most users.

Furthermore, there are a couple of other issues regarding SLI (overrated, but nonetheless potential snagging points). If you're running two SLI cards that need external power connectors on them, you need either a PSU with these plugs or adaptors for them. Regardless, you better have a good PSU because two cards suck down extra power and produce extra heat and noise.

The bridge chip for SLI is a good solution; the extra heat sandwiched between the two cards and the subsequent increase in case temperature isn't...

 

[eastvillager]

Is only what we've been saying forever. The speed with which new lines come out in this industry, and the performance leaps between those lines gives you a fairly small window of SLI viability, and it is usually focused on SLI with the fastest part currently available.

On the SLI mobo issue, sure, buy one, even if you're not sure of your SLI plans. At the very least, you're guaranteeing there is plenty of room for a nice quiet aftermarket cooling solution for initial video card. I tend to go for the latest and greatest with videocards, and give my old stuff to friends, they could quite easily end up getting their 2nd card from me for free.

 

[jiffylube1024]

eastvillager, won't you be my friend 😉 .

 

[n7]

I'm not sure about in teh US, but in Canaduh, the difference between most good SLI/Crossfire mobos & non-SLI/Crossfire mobos is $50 or more it seems.
To me, $50 is a huge amount. I can use the $50 saved toward a 7800GTX instead of a 7800GT, for example 🙂

I think really this thread has proved there can be uses for SLI/Crossfire, but only in certain situations, & overall, it simply isn't a good value option.

It seems to me like a nice niche market.
When the mobos become an extra $5, then sure, i'd get one, since heck, why not.

But i really doubt that's gonna happen, & even it did, i still really doubt i'd ever use the feature.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024

Furthermore, there are a couple of other issues regarding SLI (overrated, but nonetheless potential snagging points). If you're running two SLI cards that need external power connectors on them, you need either a PSU with these plugs or adaptors for them. Regardless, you better have a good PSU because two cards suck down extra power and produce extra heat and noise.

Here's why we put up with the "hardship" of a little extra case heat/noise/psu Jiffy:
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/quake_4_cpu_performance/page7.asp

It's better to play Quake 4 at 16X12 4X8X at 86fps than it is 55fps.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/fear_cpu_performance/page7.asp

It's better to play FEAR at 16X12 4X8X at 54fps than 30fps.

That's it in a nutshell- if you're looking for "thrifty value" or "coolest, quietest case" SLI isn't for you.

SLI is for people who have some spare cash and a desire to play all their games in ways they could not with single cards.

Those of us who bought into know this, and it's funny how 99% of the "SLI is bad" posts are by people who've never used it.

If you can be happy settling for much less, good for you, you won't need as much money.

 

[jiffylube1024]

I wasn't talking about 7800GTX SLI; I was talking about mid-range SLI and every other SLI. Of course you'll put up with the heat and noise if you're getting performance figures otherwise unattainable. In every other case, it seems, it's better to run a single card (eg 6600GT's vs 6800GT/Ultra, 6800GT's vs 7800GT/GTX, etc).

Again with the euphemisms and exaggeration Rollo. Even most people with cash to burn find spending $500+ on video hardware excessive. A 6800GT or 7800GT are not 'thrifty value' for 99% of people.

Also, "play all their games in ways they could not with single cards" made me laugh. You get higher frames. That's it. You get to run 4X AA or 6X AA at 1600X1200 (or 20xx by 15xx), versus not being able to do that playably with a single card. It's not going to project a 3d image in front of you, or interact in VR or anything. You make it sound so magical. I'll pocket the extra $300 and run 2X AA in most games, thank you very much.

I think most people settle just fine for a single 7800GT or GTX; games run well enough that they aren't losing sleep over it 😉 .

 

[dug777]

i don't think people are saying it's bad, just that it's a crappy upgrade path for most people...and bloody expensive to jump straight in, which is the only real way to go imo.

 

[nRollo]

Another reason you need SLI:

COD2 on a X1800XT
Ouch. 38 fps at 12X10 4X8X and only 30fps at 16X12 4X8X.

COD2 on SLI
58fps at the 12X10 4X8X and 45fps at the 16X12 4X8X.

With differences this large, the 7800GTX SLI might as well be prjecting a 3d hologram, because I think we can all agree 58fps average is a lot more playable than 38fps average.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Unless you're buying an inferior/lower quality brand, the difference is not $20, at least not in most parts of the world.

Given that the majority of AT members are in the US, and it is quite easy to find SLI boards from top tier manufacturers in the US with a small premium, I would say that saying it is an additional $20 premium for SLI is quite reasonable. There is a $20 premium for an Asus board, a $17 premium for Abit, Epox has a $24 premium, Gigabyte has a whopping $9 premium with DFI demanding the highest premium by far @$38(all prices NewEgg).

Not seeing a major problem finding a SLI board for less then a $20 premium.

In addition if any websites had bothered to benchmark greater than 1600x1200 the 7800GTX would likely pull ahead thanks to its extra optimizations over the NV4x at high resolutions.

Perhaps, although that wasn't the case with every title with the NV4X core chips- D3 as an example the NV4x in SLI maintained a decent lead over the 7800GTX even when running 20x15. It would have been nice if AT had done a real review so we would know.

However, all the GTX needs to do is drop a few dollars and make that a moot point. And, when you figure in power usage, noise, heat, lack of features such as TAA, and poor performance at resolutions higher than 1600x1200, many buyers would think that $60 premium for the GTX over the GS SLI is worth it even right now.

The GTX needs to drop closer to $50 then a few, power useage the GS is built using their mobile build process- it isn't as power hungry as the GT, resolutions over 16x12 we can't say for certain one way or the other unfortunately, hopefully we will see a decent review by one of the sites at least, and for TAA- nV still hasn't enabled that on the NV4X? I don't understand why they continue to demand they retain the lowest IQ in the industry. That really irritates me.

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: deadseasquirrel

Originally posted by: lifeguard1999
anything less that 1600x1200 8xAA 16xAF shows that a 6800GS in SLI is slower than a 7800GTX.

Anyone who buys SLI and plays at anything lower than what you listed is wasting their money. SLI, in most games, doesn't even wake up until you hit 16x12.

At a $400 price point total for 2, it's cheaper and performs better than a GTX at $60 more (at high resolutions with AA/AF). That's pretty impressive.

It is pretty impressive. However, where are the HDR tests? Farcry doesnt give any more performance with HDR for SLI that I am aware of. HDR was so important for some people before. Saying it performs better across the board isnt true.

Its hard to argue against SLI 6800GS's. To me its basically, if you run at 1600x1200, it may be better for you. Although the difference is pretty small, they are faster. At least is most games. You lose TSAA though. And they are cheaper.

The GTX is likely to be faster above 1600x1200, which sadly most reviewers dont review. Me being at 1920x1200, the GTX is probably the better buy. There are still a few small SLI issues to consider as well.

Its really too bad this card wasnt avail last year, its a pretty killer deal at $200. But I guess that would shoot them in the foot, which it still may. Short avail is something to be aware of if you plan to buy one now, then buy one later.

In short, I agree with Chris. Ive said long ago, that I think SLI is only a good idea if you buy two cards at once, or very close together. This buy one now, buy one a year or two later doesnt look to be wise. How many people who bought a 6800U when it came out, would buy another now? The GTX is more advanced, although slightly slower overall. A GTX cost almost as much as a 6800U, to me its a poor idea to buy another 6800U. Especially with games coming out that benefit from 512mb ram. FS has CoD2 numbers up, with the 512mb card out performing the 256mb version in all resolutions.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: Ackmed

It is pretty impressive. However, where are the HDR tests? Farcry doesnt give any more performance with HDR for SLI that I am aware of. HDR was so important for some people before. Saying it performs better across the board isnt true.

The other side of that is that Far Cry HDR is the only HDR that does not benefit from SLI.

Its hard to argue against SLI 6800GS's. To me its basically, if you run at 1600x1200, it may be better for you. Although the difference is pretty small, they are faster. At least is most games. You lose TSAA though. And they are cheaper.

Agreed.

The GTX is likely to be faster above 1600x1200, which sadly most reviewers dont review. Me being at 1920x1200, the GTX is probably the better buy. There are still a few small SLI issues to consider as well.

Agreed

Its really too bad this card wasnt avail last year, its a pretty killer deal at $200. But I guess that would shoot them in the foot, which it still may. Short avail is something to be aware of if you plan to buy one now, then buy one later.

I think the "shoot in the foot" is the key here- no need to offer this level of performance for $200 at a point in time when people were paying more for this level of performance.

In short, I agree with Chris. Ive said long ago, that I think SLI is only a good idea if you buy two cards at once, or very close together. This buy one now, buy one a year or two later doesnt look to be wise. How many people who bought a 6800U when it came out, would buy another now? The GTX is more advanced, although slightly slower overall. A GTX cost almost as much as a 6800U, to me its a poor idea to buy another 6800U. Especially with games coming out that benefit from 512mb ram. FS has CoD2 numbers up, with the 512mb card out performing the 256mb version in all resolutions.

It's harder to make a case for SLI as an upgrade solution to be sure, buit there are games where a single 7800GTX is considerably slower than a 6800GT/U SLI rig. If those games are your preference, and you value minimum framerate over TAA, the dual 6800s can be a better buy.

 

[gsellis]

Just a little food for thought. That $50 + $200-550 you spend on the second video card could go to maxing processor instead. With some games being CPU bound, that might be the better solution. Depending on what you play, of course.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: gsellis
Just a little food for thought. That $50 + $200-550 you spend on the second video card could go to maxing processor instead. With some games being CPU bound, that might be the better solution. Depending on what you play, of course.

The thing is, if you have one top end video card, you'll never come close to the level of benefit a second vid card provides on GPU limited games.

Whether you have a $330 3800+ or a $800 FX55, you're going to be 5-10fps apart.

SLI gives you 20-40fps in a lot of situations.

 

[deadseasquirrel]

Originally posted by: gsellis
Just a little food for thought. That $50 + $200-550 you spend on the second video card could go to maxing processor instead. With some games being CPU bound, that might be the better solution. Depending on what you play, of course.

When you play at levels like 1600x1200 4xAA 8xAF, all processors bench almost identically. See here with Quake4 at that setting. An A64 3000+ for ~$130 gets 54.6fps. A ~$990 FX-57 gets 55.4fps (on a previous page.

So, you could spend over $800 more for a top-end CPU and have NO difference in frame rate, OR you could go SLI and have results like this where SLI gave a 36% boost at those same settings.

The choice between faster processor or SLI isn't about what games you play, it's about what settings you play on. LCD monitors limited to 1280x1024 often see no improvement with SLI. i.e. you would be better off with a faster processor there. Using those same pages as reference, the FX-57 gets 112fps at 1024x768, compared to 83.3fps for the 3000+.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: KristopherKubicki

Hardly. My entire point was don't get suckered into buying a video card now in the hopes of using it in SLI if that video card is going to cost just as much, if not more down the line. What if we had all bought GeForce 5900 Ultra's two years ago under the premise that SLI would effectively provide a stable upgrade path for all those 5900 Ultras that would be readily purchaseable for $100 in 2005. Obviously, that didn't happen, and it's not going to happen with 6800 Ultra either.

Kris had an excellent point that I hadn't thought of -- for a low volume card it might not be available later. It's notable that new 6800 Ultras are now more expensive (!!!) than more powerful 7800 GT's.

SLI DOES make sense if you're going to buy a high volume video card that will exist in a few years still and hopefully cost less than it does now. But even with that logic, who is to say NVIDIA's next generation 6200 equivalent doesn't beat the piss out of a dual 6600GT configuration and cost less than buying a second 6600GT in the first place? Speculating on future availability, pricing and performance always always dissapoints.

You know, I think even this is debatable. SLI would make sense if the prices of older cards would fall faster. Take the 6600 GT. Would it really be worthwhile to buy a new one right now for $140 in order to SLI it? You might be better off eBaying your current one (expect about $75 I reckon) and then taking that $215 to purchase a single 256-bit card with 256 MB of RAM (especially with the possiblity of modding certain cards like the PCI-E GTO and GTO2).

I guess some of it depends on your time-frame, too. Getting a second 6600 GT a year or two from now might not be a bad upgrade if you're a Tightwad Gamer (TM). One big factor, as Kris mentioned, is how mainstream the cards are. I mean, two or three years from now eBay wil probably be flooded with used 6600 GTs.

That having been said, for a difference of $25 on a motherboard I'd consider getting an SLI board just to have the option. Who knows, maybe you'll bump into your second video card on clearance for 75% off. The MSI SLI board is nice since you get the Soundblaster chip which helps justify some of the added cost over a regular nForce4 Ultra board.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

You know what would really rock? If nVidia set up SLI so that you could use different card series from any manufacturer. So, add a 7800 GT to your system that already has a 6600 GT. That way you can still receive some value from your 6600 GT.

I don't see why it would be technologically impossible to design a system that would allow people to do that. However, I can't imagine that nVidia would want to do it since it might encourage people to just buy a 7800 GT instead of a 7800 GTX. (Imagine if a 6600 GT + 7800 GT beat a 7800 GTX...)

Maybe ATI should consider that as a way to pull the rug out from nVidia and to reclaim the title of graphics king. Using the 6600 GT plus 7800 GT example, when you go to buy your 7800 GT for an upgrade instead of having a single card with 20 pipelines now you get two cards and a total of 28 effective pipelines; you get more value for your upgrade dollar since your rig would be more powerful with the new card plus old card than merely the new card alone. (Of course all sorts of technological barriers have to be overcome but engineers overcome barriers all the time.) OK ATI--there's your strategy--now make it happen.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

I'm trying to figure out how going with 6800GSs in SLI would be a bad option for anyone looking at a 7800GTX. Cheapest GTX on the Egg is $463 shipped, even figuring on the extra $20 for a SLI mobo 6800GSs in SLI are still cheaper- and they are faster in every game save HL2. I guess I just can't figure out why they wouldn't be considered a better deal- win nearly every bench and cost less [/b]and[/b] have an identical feature set....?

Don't know if anyone's mentioned this yet, but if the price of a single 7800 GTX were only slightly more expensive than two 6800 GS's with equal performance then it really would be better to get the single 7800 GTX simply because you'd have the option to add a second 7800 GTX in the future but you couldn't add two more 6800 GS's. (Another issue would be power consumption and the generation of heat that comes from having two cards.)

 

[lifeguard1999]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

You know what would really rock? If nVidia set up SLI so that you could use different card series from any manufacturer. So, add a 7800 GT to your system that already has a 6600 GT. That way you can still receive some value from your 6600 GT.

I don't see why it would be technologically impossible to design a system that would allow people to do that. However, I can't imagine that nVidia would want to do it since it might encourage people to just buy a 7800 GT instead of a 7800 GTX. (Imagine if a 6600 GT + 7800 GT beat a 7800 GTX...)

Maybe ATI should consider that as a way to pull the rug out from nVidia and to reclaim the title of graphics king. Using the 6600 GT plus 7800 GT example, when you go to buy your 7800 GT for an upgrade instead of having a single card with 20 pipelines now you get two cards and a total of 28 effective pipelines; you get more value for your upgrade dollar since your rig would be more powerful with the new card plus old card than merely the new card alone. (Of course all sorts of technological barriers have to be overcome but engineers overcome barriers all the time.) OK ATI--there's your strategy--now make it happen.

While possible, it is not practicable. The 7800 GT would be doing (for example) 80% of the work while the 6600GT would be doing 20% of the work. Not to mention that it is not perfectly scalable, so there are inefficiences inherent in SLI.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: lifeguard1999

While possible, it is not practicable. The 7800 GT would be doing (for example) 80% of the work while the 6600GT would be doing 20% of the work. Not to mention that it is not perfectly scalable, so there are inefficiences inherent in SLI.

Those are some of the barriers that would have to be overcome.

 

[BFG10K]

While this is certainly all true, many people don't have a monitor that does more than 16X12 comfortably.

Many people can't afford SLI either so what's your point? You need to stop see-sawing between "best performance" and "many people" whenever it suits your nVidia agenda.

The only viable SLI is the high-end one which is used to attain maximum possible performance. If you can't go above 1600x1200 then you're really wasting your time and money with such a configuration.

The rest of the SLI configurations are a waste of time and money because they cost more and have far more noise/heat/power requirements than faster single cards.

Perhaps, although that wasn't the case with every title with the NV4X core chips- D3 as an example the NV4x in SLI maintained a decent lead over the 7800GTX even when running 20x15.

That's true but the difference wasn't big enough to justify a 6800U SLI setup as such a setup is both costly and noisy as hell compared to a single 7800 GTX, not to mention the SLI issues that still persist even though certain nVidia trolls claim there are none.

Overall the 7800 GTX is faster at high resolutions and it's far more elegant and usable than a pair of 6800Us. A 6800U is loud enough by itself; two of them together should be outlawed for noise pollution.