From the AT GigaByte review it doesn't seem like SLI does much at 1280 res. games

[davidos]

except Far Cry..... not worth it IMHO.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

I agree. Like most new hardware technologies it will take some time before the software can catch up and make use of the hardware advancement. It may be a year or more before the majority of games and Apps can really take advantage of SLI. And right now software develovers don't have much incentive to develop SLI apps on 32bit windows. But once windows64 is released in the spring "game on".

 

[flawlssdistortn]

I think SLI is an engineering cop-out. They're basically combining existing technology and making consumers pay double. Why this instead of focusing on the next line of cards with some new inovations? I am not impressed.

 

[KingofFah]

Because it is cheaper. Say you buy a high end card for 500$ now, then you buy another 500$ card a year from now. As long as there isn't a major DX release, it would be cheaper to get either 2 low ends and combine them (as we've seen with some 6600gts outperforming a single 6800U in D3) or get one 400$ card now and another down the road, so that you don't have to ditch something you paid so much for. As long as the percentage gain is good enough (we assume it will be better in the future, but there is still a large gain from SLI at higher res), it saves a lot of money (500$ wasted and then another 500 vs $<800 for two cards still in use).
It basically deals with the problem of being entirely outdated in 6 months. It now offers the opportunity for users to utilize what they have already bought to make a system that can run future games (how much increase was there from 800XT to 850XT? the same as 1 card to 2?).
I think SLI is good thing.

 

[flawlssdistortn]

Then where's the AGP SLI huh?

 

[jm0ris0n]

Originally posted by: flawlssdistortn
Then where's the AGP SLI huh?

It can't be done. Trust me, if it could it would be out

 

[LTC8K6]

Is it CPU limited in those tests?

I think SLI makes no sense unless you can afford to buy 2 higher end cards at once.

 

[ChineseDemocracyGNR]

CPU limited on an Athlon 64 FX-55...

 

[flawlssdistortn]

does that mean the CPU couldn't provide enough instructions to fill the GPUs' pipelines? What exactly does CPU limitations refer to btw?

 

[Rhin0]

Originally posted by: flawlssdistortn
does that mean the CPU couldn't provide enough instructions to fill the GPUs' pipelines? What exactly does CPU limitations refer to btw?

The CPU is the bottlenet, it isn't fast enough to keep up. Basic explanation.

 

[gobucks]

using it as an upgrade makes perfect sense, especially when your architecture has the newest features, i.e. PS3.0, which ATI will be implementing in their R520 next year. Basically, if you buy a 6800GT now for $400, then upgrade in a year, you will end up spending like $400, and probably not netting you that much. On the other hand, if you buy a 6800GT now for $400, then another in a year for $200 (like the 9800 Pro is right now), you will get a ~80% speed boost for half the upgrade cost. Plus, if by some chance next gen hardware is THAT much better, you can just sell off your 6800GT and buy a new gen card, and you could always SLI that down the road if that's the best option at the time.

Anyways, sure, SLI is not as good as a single card, but the gains are substantial. Performance will only go up as the hardware gets older, because games will become more GPU bound on older hardware. Right now, even at 1280x1024, the performance is still CPU-bound enough that it can't take full advantage of the 2 cards. But when tomorrow's game requires the same amount of horsepower to run at 1280x1024 that today's game needs at 1600x1200, then gains at 1280 will be equivalent to gains at 1600, plus gains from driver enhancements. Also, it's looking like nvidia is using SLI as an alternative to the bane of the computing world: the refresh (ugh...). Refreshes are worthless pieces of crap, and the X850 is a perfect example. Squeeze a few extra MHz out of a core, only to raise the price of admission by $50. With nVidia's SLI, they can just sit back and refine the NV40 process to improve yields and reduce costs, much as ATI did with the 9800 Pro rather than making the X700 AGP. This way, they can ensure that they still have good price/performance, and for those who want the best performance, it's still with nVidia. After all, if nvidia could lower the 6800GT to, say, $300 (which they might, since the 6800 isn't great at that price point compared to the 6600GT), i think a lot of people would look at a $600 6800GT SLI array over an X850XTPE setup for $550.

Basically, I like SLI, cause I like the "FX insurance" it provides. After all, if, a while ago, you bought a 9700 Pro, and wanted to upgrade, and your choices were a 9800 Pro or an FX5900 (or even the refreshes, the 9800XT or 5950 Ultra), would't you rather have like an 80% speed boost over your old card for for like $150 rather than the marginal improvements of the expensive new cards? On the other hand, if you had a 5950 Ultra, and want to upgrade to something twice as fast, like the 6800GT or Ultra, you can do that too, if it's worth it to do so. I like SLI because you only have to use it if it's in your best interest to do so. Oh, and if ATI really thought SLI was stupid, they wouldn't be planning SLI products AS WE SPEAK, which they are.

 

[KingofFah]

Good post, gobucks. You stated most of what I was getting at. I guess some people don't see it that way; they must have a lot of money to spend on nex gen cards everytime they come out, but even then it is more like they are buying it to say they have the latest card.