Originally posted by: BFG10K
My point is that for those people more efficient 19X12> performance is irrelevant.
Somebody with a high-end SLI budget is foolish for picking up such a configuration if their monitor tops out at 1600x1200.
You're making this too easy BFG:
Quake 4
55fps single card vs. 86fps double card at 16X12 4X8X? Tough call there, it's only a 56% increase. :roll: Yeah, what a "waste".
FEAR
Hmmm 30fps single card vs 54 fps double card at 16X12 4X8X? Another "waste"?
COD2
Hmmm single card performance 24fps vs 45 fps for SLI?
I could go on, but I think most are starting to get the point? It's pretty
obvious that new games benefit
greatly from SLI- except to you.
LOL- do you honestly think I'd take your advice?
That wasn't advice, that was yet another example of your blatant double standards.
I have no double standards, and your examinations of my motives are OT and have no place in a discussion of video hardware. As we can see above, you're not even
close to being right about this, so you attack the poster rather than the argument.
Hmmmm. Seems to me there's no less than five SLI setups that you'd be far better off with?
So if I had a Voodoo1 a GF2 MX would be viable because I'd be better off with it? What sort of ridiculous logic is this?
Pretty good logic actually. You see BFG, what I was saying is that you're not in a position to state that only 7800GTX is "viable" because there are five SLI setups that utterly destroy the graphics you are using. So to
you they are ALL "viable".
As for your inference, as I've stated many times but apparently you don't bother reading,
obviously you can make the best/easiest case for the highest end SLI. (7800GTX)
However, as I've noted, it's possible to make a case (bang/buck) for 7800GT SLI, 6800U SLI, 6800GT SLI, and now 6800GS SLI because all beat their single card cost counterparts at framerates at some newer games. (which mysteriously seem to love SLI)
Only if having much higher minimum framerates, SLI AA, and the ability to play new games like FEAR at 16X12 is a "waste" to you.
But if you're CPU limited - as you often will be in a high-end SLI setup in most games at 1600x1200 - you won't get a higher minimum framerate.
The problem with this is that new games aren't CPU limited and it's narrow minded to say they are.
FEAR
16fps minimum vs 36 fps minimum at 16X12? Do you think the other games I listed above have such massively higher averages without having higher minimums? How does that math work?
As for your SLI AA modes, those have been available on single nVidia cards since the NV4x days. Of course you'd never know this since you only regurgitate whatever settings the hardware websites feed you.
No, actually I don't conveniently ignore the
fact that single cards lack the power to run SLI AA even close to as well as SLI.
Well, that might be true if there were any faster single cards, but of course the 6800U SLIand 6800GT SLI can handily beat the fastest single cards at some games,
Just like an X800XL can beat a 6800U in
some games, a comment you had trouble comprehending when I made it in the past. Typical Rollo double standards - suddenly "some games" are acceptable as evidence.
The point you're ignoring is that usually the games where the older SLI beats newer single cards are new GPU limited games where a person really needs all the graphics muscle they can get. Like I said BFG, not everyone scales down their graphics expectations just to have a quieter case.
A single 7800GTX setup is superior to both a 6800GT SLI and 6800U SLI setup for numerous reasons which includes overall performance advantange.
Like I've said, it's harder to make a case for older gen SLI, but the fact remains that if minimum fps and average fps are your primary concern, the older SLI are a faster rig at some newer games.
Watching you argue that 1600x1200 is just fine even while you harp on how must-have SLI is in order to reach high resolutions like 1920x1440 is really quite comical. It's unbelievable how two-faced you are in order to advance your nVidia propaganda.
As noted in the post you're replying to, we all have different needs. My monitor will do 19X14 at 76Hz, which while not optimal, is acceptable to me. So that is the resolution
I shoot for. Their are millions of people who's moinitors won't do anything higher than 16X12, and I just proved new games show a big difference at 16X12 in this thread. What's "comical" is that you didn't know enough about the subject to post accurate information.
My son would be grounded for acting like you BFG, did your parents bother to teach you any manners?
LOL, now the
unfair and
unbalanced moderator wannabe is trying to psychoanalyze my parents.
Flame away BFG, I could care less about your opinion of me. You're just trying to get the thread locked IMO because you are wrong about every point you make, and I'm proving that politely and with references. You're just stating opinions without links to back them up.
I think we all know what is more credible.
Rather rich considering when you were liquored up you decided that instead of talking to the real people at your party it was more important for you to notify a bunch of anonymous internet posters in the video forum that you were having an anniversary party, using an anti-ATi troll thread no less. Must've been a slow party, eh? :roll:
It's nice you want to analyze the quality of the parties I attended on my anniversary, but totally OT.
If you want to analyze someone I suggest you get a professional of some description to take a look at your antics.
One of my degrees is in psychology from one of the oldest and most respected schools in our country BFG. Technically speaking, I'm pretty close to a "professional".
1. No one with a 19-20" LCD has any reason to care about your "high resolutions".
What on Earth are you talking about? There are LCDs that size that can do 1920x1020 and its also their
native resolution which makes it
very important for those users to care.
While there may be a few <21" LCDs that support that res, the vast majority of 19-20 are 16X10 or less.
2. THe CRT owners have the choice of the preference of the level of performance the 7800GTX provides at high res, or the level the 6800U SLI provides at 16X12. Win/Win!
Except if the SLI setup is slower, costs more, is noisier and is harder to offload two cards. That's a lose/lose situation compared to one card.
It's been proven in this thread and others the SLI setup isn't always slower, the higher minimum fps offset, LOL at the "harder to sell", and some trade noise for better graphics.
3. Like I've said before, some are willing to trade some noise for having modern settings on their video cards and not having to do hokey stuff like turn off shadows or use lowly "Performance" texture detail.
And like I've said before certain individuals pimp certain manufacturers and throw logic and rational thinking out the window. Examples of this would be "WOOT, games cower at 1024x768 on 5800U!" and "6800 SLI/6600GT SLI is viable!"
No valid arguments, so you attack the poster. OT
It's all about preferences BFG.
No, it's all about you being the nVidia propaganda minister.
[/quote]
It's all about me being right, providing valid info with backing links, compared to the "valuable" contribution of your baseless opinions with no links or experience to refute mine.
