Hasn't SLI & CrossFire Made life worse?

[elpres05]

THREAD CLOSED!

No point in debating something when the whole world is against you.

Conclusion: ( as per the posters )

Buy SLI, spend $ 1000 on two 7800GTX's and play games over 60FPS all the time.

 

[Leper Messiah]

 

[Ackmed]

There are many holes in your arguement. Ill just take a few.

Originally posted by: elpres05
First of all, the move from AGP to PCI-E, which was meaningless as it still hasn't faced the bandwidth challenge. PCI-E would than offer Multiple graphics capability, another way to increase profits.

The move to PCI-E is not meaningless. Its not just about more bandwidth. AGP cannot do what PCI-E can, I suggest you read up on if before making such comments again.

Originally posted by: elpres05
There ain't a single game which demands an SLI, all games can be played maxed out on a single high end graphics card.

Perhaps if you only play 3Dmark, or are stuck in a yesteryear res of 1024x768. The simple fact is, not everyone runs games at a lower resolution. And some people like high quality options on, such as AA/AF, etc. I run at 1920x1200, and my single GTX just couldnt play the games fast enough for me, at that res. Sure I could have turned down the res, but I did not want to. Whats the point of having a huge screen, and not using it to its fullest.

Originally posted by: elpres05
The life of SLI is no greater than a single card and as what we have learned for years, a card bought today is beaten comprehensively within 12 months.

False. SLI or Crossfire both give you better performance than a single card. While I have reservations about SLI, and the "buy a card now, and another a year later" thought process, SLI is still faster than one card. And thus has a better "life".

Originally posted by: elpres05
SLI is worth as long as you play games based on older engines. For instance, you can play UT games for years to come, but something like FEAR has to come to spoil the party, not to mention 3dmark which was the only reason for which i bought a new card.

You have this backwards. SLI is great for newer games, such as F.E.A.R. In fact, many (including me) would argue that its the poster child for multi GPU solutions. 3Dmark being the only reason for you to buy a new card, tells me all I need to know about you...

In short, dont complain about newer tech coming out. You do not have to upgrade. Dont try to rain on people who have the money, and want to spend it on upgrades, to enjoy gaming more.

 

[Capt Caveman]

OP, you are incorrect on so many of your points. You were better off spending the time reading/researching than posting.

 

[Wreckage]

As much as I hate to say it, I agree with Ackmed :Q

I may not have the money for a SLI system but I can clearly see it's ability. I have been using computers for 15+ years so I am more than accustomed to standards changing. EISA, ISA, PCI, AGP, PCIe, etc.

I think SLI gives people who want more power (and have the money) more options. I think games are starting to exceed what a single card can do. However, I have no problem playing my XboX at 480i so I have no problem playing my PC video games at 1280x1024.

If you are unwilling to upgrade why should that hold the rest of the world back?

 

[Corporate Thug]

where is the afore mentioned poll???

 

[elpres05]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
There are many holes in your arguement. Ill just take a few.

Originally posted by: elpres05
First of all, the move from AGP to PCI-E, which was meaningless as it still hasn't faced the bandwidth challenge. PCI-E would than offer Multiple graphics capability, another way to increase profits.

The move to PCI-E is not meaningless. Its not just about more bandwidth. AGP cannot do what PCI-E can, I suggest you read up on if before making such comments again.

Originally posted by: elpres05
There ain't a single game which demands an SLI, all games can be played maxed out on a single high end graphics card.

Perhaps if you only play 3Dmark, or are stuck in a yesteryear res of 1024x768. The simple fact is, not everyone runs games at a lower resolution. And some people like high quality options on, such as AA/AF, etc. I run at 1920x1200, and my single GTX just couldnt play the games fast enough for me, at that res. Sure I could have turned down the res, but I did not want to. Whats the point of having a huge screen, and not using it to its fullest.

Originally posted by: elpres05
The life of SLI is no greater than a single card and as what we have learned for years, a card bought today is beaten comprehensively within 12 months.

False. SLI or Crossfire both give you better performance than a single card. While I have reservations about SLI, and the "buy a card now, and another a year later" thought process, SLI is still faster than one card. And thus has a better "life".

Originally posted by: elpres05
SLI is worth as long as you play games based on older engines. For instance, you can play UT games for years to come, but something like FEAR has to come to spoil the party, not to mention 3dmark which was the only reason for which i bought a new card.

You have this backwards. SLI is great for newer games, such as F.E.A.R. In fact, many (including me) would argue that its the poster child for multi GPU solutions. 3Dmark being the only reason for you to buy a new card, tells me all I need to know about you...

In short, dont complain about newer tech coming out. You do not have to upgrade. Dont try to rain on people who have the money, and want to spend it on upgrades, to enjoy gaming more.

You had every reason to support multi GPU theory, so do i. Tell me ask you this way.

When less than 5 % or less of the worlds population can't even imagine resolutions of 1920 x something, why make SLI mainstream?

FSAA was born due to limited resolutions and to help reduce artifacts, don't tell me your graphics improved hell a lot going from 1600 x xxxx level to anything higher?

Your not a gamer because a gamer wants the absolute best, so if ATI has the better solution, a gamer would always try to sell his current rig to buy a new one.

Most games today don't offer breath taking graphics like FEAR or COD-2 and they never will because the extreme gamers percentage among all gamers in the world is less than 15 %. No point of releasing ultra high end games unless everyone can afford these expenses.

All these new technologies also brought "RMA" a common place. I've used DFI, ASUS and none of them were ever rock solid. So if one board fails some boots just in the reviewing, how can you expect it to give you a crash-free running.

The lamest excuse which i can get from you now is the BIOS update, which again shows the companies are eager to get thier products first inline sacrificing overall reliability and don't say anymore because i have already seen "******* RMA services" thread quite a large number of times

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
There are many holes in your arguement. Ill just take a few.

Originally posted by: elpres05
First of all, the move from AGP to PCI-E, which was meaningless as it still hasn't faced the bandwidth challenge. PCI-E would than offer Multiple graphics capability, another way to increase profits.

The move to PCI-E is not meaningless. Its not just about more bandwidth. AGP cannot do what PCI-E can, I suggest you read up on if before making such comments again.

Originally posted by: elpres05
There ain't a single game which demands an SLI, all games can be played maxed out on a single high end graphics card.

Perhaps if you only play 3Dmark, or are stuck in a yesteryear res of 1024x768. The simple fact is, not everyone runs games at a lower resolution. And some people like high quality options on, such as AA/AF, etc. I run at 1920x1200, and my single GTX just couldnt play the games fast enough for me, at that res. Sure I could have turned down the res, but I did not want to. Whats the point of having a huge screen, and not using it to its fullest.

Originally posted by: elpres05
The life of SLI is no greater than a single card and as what we have learned for years, a card bought today is beaten comprehensively within 12 months.

False. SLI or Crossfire both give you better performance than a single card. While I have reservations about SLI, and the "buy a card now, and another a year later" thought process, SLI is still faster than one card. And thus has a better "life".

Originally posted by: elpres05
SLI is worth as long as you play games based on older engines. For instance, you can play UT games for years to come, but something like FEAR has to come to spoil the party, not to mention 3dmark which was the only reason for which i bought a new card.

You have this backwards. SLI is great for newer games, such as F.E.A.R. In fact, many (including me) would argue that its the poster child for multi GPU solutions. 3Dmark being the only reason for you to buy a new card, tells me all I need to know about you...

In short, dont complain about newer tech coming out. You do not have to upgrade. Dont try to rain on people who have the money, and want to spend it on upgrades, to enjoy gaming more.

Holy Crap. :shocked:

QFT

 

[elpres05]

My point was simple, these new technologies are rushed, only for one guy to beat the other.

Only NV and ATI are playing this game, its more like a private war, where we stand foolish seperated by a couple of FPS.

No Doubt SLI and Crossfire adds joy to your gaming life, but its a good wastage of money.

For how long did you own a 6800GT or Ultra SLI? 6 months, 8 months at max? And now a Single 7800GTX kicks its a**.

How many ground breaking games did you get in the last 6 months? 1, 2, 3?

So you spent around $ 1000 to play 3 games?

 

[Woofmeister]

Originally posted by: elpres05
There ain't a single game which demands an SLI, all games can be played maxed out on a single high end graphics card.

What resolution are you playing at? I don't know about you, but 800x600 kind of leaves me cold.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: elpres05

You had every reason to support multi GPU theory, so do i. Tell me ask you this way.

When less than 5 % or less of the worlds population can't even imagine resolutions of 1920 x something, why make SLI mainstream?

FSAA was born due to limited resolutions and to help reduce artifacts, don't tell me your graphics improved hell a lot going from 1600 x xxxx level to anything higher?

Your not a gamer because a gamer wants the absolute best, so if ATI has the better solution, a gamer would always try to sell his current rig to buy a new one.

Most games today don't offer breath taking graphics like FEAR or COD-2 and they never will because the extreme gamers percentage among all gamers in the world is less than 15 %. No point of releasing ultra high end games unless everyone can afford these expenses.

All these new technologies also brought "RMA" a common place. I've used DFI, ASUS and none of them were ever rock solid. So if one board fails some boots just in the reviewing, how can you expect it to give you a crash-free running.

The lamest excuse which i can get from you now is the BIOS update, which again shows the companies are eager to get thier products first inline sacrificing overall reliability and don't say anymore because i have already seen "******* RMA services" thread quite a large number of times

1. You have know idea what percentage of people gaem at 19X12>. (I do)

2. Many people use AA at 16X12>, because although resolution greatly reduces the need for it, it does not eliminate aliasing.

3. Defining a "gamer" as someone who sells his rig at the release of something better is totally assinine. Very few can afford this strategy, your "logic" boils down to "Only rich people with lots of time to swap components are real gamers". Uh huh.

4. Benefits of SLI extend to all games in the form of SLI AA, higher possible settings, and higher minimum framerates.

5.

All these new technologies also brought "RMA" a common place.

This "point" makes no sense, SLI didn't bring about a RMA culture.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: elpres05
My point was simple, these new technologies are rushed, only for one guy to beat the other.

Only NV and ATI are playing this game, its more like a private war, where we stand foolish seperated by a couple of FPS.

No Doubt SLI and Crossfire adds joy to your gaming life, but its a good wastage of money.

For how long did you own a 6800GT or Ultra SLI? 6 months, 8 months at max? And now a Single 7800GTX kicks its a**.

How many ground breaking games did you get in the last 6 months? 1, 2, 3?

So you spent around $ 1000 to play 3 games?

You really need to read up on this stuff. I have a 6800GT SLI rig and a 7800GTX SLI rig, and can tell you the 6800GT SLI beats a single 7800GTX, sometimes by a lot, in new games. Beyond that, at up to 16X12 4X8X, at worst the 6800GT SLI is equal. It would be a fine gamign rig for anyone for all of this year, likely for next. Anyone who thinks a gaming rig can stay high end for more than a year is on teh crack.

 

[elpres05]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: elpres05

You had every reason to support multi GPU theory, so do i. Tell me ask you this way.

When less than 5 % or less of the worlds population can't even imagine resolutions of 1920 x something, why make SLI mainstream?

FSAA was born due to limited resolutions and to help reduce artifacts, don't tell me your graphics improved hell a lot going from 1600 x xxxx level to anything higher?

Your not a gamer because a gamer wants the absolute best, so if ATI has the better solution, a gamer would always try to sell his current rig to buy a new one.

Most games today don't offer breath taking graphics like FEAR or COD-2 and they never will because the extreme gamers percentage among all gamers in the world is less than 15 %. No point of releasing ultra high end games unless everyone can afford these expenses.

All these new technologies also brought "RMA" a common place. I've used DFI, ASUS and none of them were ever rock solid. So if one board fails some boots just in the reviewing, how can you expect it to give you a crash-free running.

The lamest excuse which i can get from you now is the BIOS update, which again shows the companies are eager to get thier products first inline sacrificing overall reliability and don't say anymore because i have already seen "******* RMA services" thread quite a large number of times

1. You have know idea what percentage of people gaem at 19X12>. (I do)

2. Many people use AA at 16X12>, because although resolution greatly reduces the need for it, it does not eliminate aliasing.

3. Defining a "gamer" as someone who sells his rig at the release of something better is totally assinine. Very few can afford this strategy, your "logic" boils down to "Only rich people with lots of time to swap components are real gamers". Uh huh.

4. Benefits of SLI extend to all games in the form of SLI AA, higher possible settings, and higher minimum framerates.

5.

All these new technologies also brought "RMA" a common place.

This "point" makes no sense, SLI didn't bring about a RMA culture.

Which games do you play, how many people turn on all quality settings and actually notice a difference between 4X or higher modes of AA. In fact, only when you encounter something like a hanging rope, cage grills or something do you actually realize the effects.

and Rollo, don;t think you can judge people by reading their posts and not meeting them face to face. Could you have said this when you had less than 100 posts? Suddenly your pressing me to surrender showing my your gigantic post counts.

Guess AT was wrong recommending a 7800GTX over any 6xxx SLI configs.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: elpres05
My point was simple, these new technologies are rushed, only for one guy to beat the other.

Only NV and ATI are playing this game, its more like a private war, where we stand foolish seperated by a couple of FPS.

No Doubt SLI and Crossfire adds joy to your gaming life, but its a good wastage of money.

For how long did you own a 6800GT or Ultra SLI? 6 months, 8 months at max? And now a Single 7800GTX kicks its a**.

How many ground breaking games did you get in the last 6 months? 1, 2, 3?

So you spent around $ 1000 to play 3 games?

Now that Dell sell SLI systems, they are 100% mainstream.

If I can use my 6800nu for 2 years I'm sure any SLI/Crossfire solution will last just as long if not longer.

I played at least 5 "ground breaking" games this year and I hope to get 1 or 2 more by Christmas.

Why not go cry in the storage forums about the death of the 5 1/4 floppy or how DVD's have too much storage space :roll:

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: elpres05
You had every reason to support multi GPU theory, so do i. Tell me ask you this way.

When less than 5 % or less of the worlds population can't even imagine resolutions of 1920 x something, why make SLI mainstream?

Why not let the people who can afford it, and want it, buy it? I dont see any sense in your argument. If you dont want it, or dont like it, dont buy it.

Originally posted by: elpres05
FSAA was born due to limited resolutions and to help reduce artifacts, don't tell me your graphics improved hell a lot going from 1600 x xxxx level to anything higher?

Where is the facts for this claim? And they do improve. More game = better. And you dont need to be at 1920x1200 to see the benefit in SLI or Crossfire. 1600x1200 sees a very large increase. Not only can you increase the res, but generally also the amount of AA/AF, and other graphical options with SLI or Crossfire.

Originally posted by: elpres05
Your not a gamer because a gamer wants the absolute best, so if ATI has the better solution, a gamer would always try to sell his current rig to buy a new one.

First off, you're, not your. Secondly, you do not know a thing about me. And you sure dont understand what a "gamer" is. You can be 8 years old, and be a "gamer". You sure dont have to have the fastest rig out, to be a gamer. That being said, I upgrade far more than most, just to keep great frames. And I have considered selling my GTX's for Crossfire, but I am going to wait till Q1 06 to see if these alleged new cards will be out soon or not.

Originally posted by: elpres05
Most games today don't offer breath taking graphics like FEAR or COD-2 and they never will because the extreme gamers percentage among all gamers in the world is less than 15 %. No point of releasing ultra high end games unless everyone can afford these expenses.

Who said the games have to have "breath taking" graphics to see the advantage of SLI? All games I have played, have had lower settings to choose, for people with lesser systems.

Originally posted by: elpres05
All these new technologies also brought "RMA" a common place. I've used DFI, ASUS and none of them were ever rock solid. So if one board fails some boots just in the reviewing, how can you expect it to give you a crash-free running.

RMA was around long before NV's SLI, and even before the first SLI. This argument has nothing do with SLI or Crossfire. Got any facts to show me that SLI or Crossfire boards, are more likely to go out before other motherboards?

Originally posted by: elpres05
The lamest excuse which i can get from you now is the BIOS update, which again shows the companies are eager to get thier products first inline sacrificing overall reliability and don't say anymore because i have already seen "******* RMA services" thread quite a large number of times

I never said anything about a BIOS update, dont put words in my mouth. That being said, just as your last paragraph I quoted, has nothing to do with SLI. BIOS updates were out long before SLI, and are still a very big part of non-SLI boards as well.

Just because you do not like SLI, or Crossfire, does not mean it is not worth it to others, and they think it is worth it. And it sure as heck didnt make life worse. Thats just pure ignorance there.

 

[ArchAngel777]

A "gamer" in my opinion is someone who plays games and doesn't argue about hardware over which card is better and so on. He is content with what he has and when the time comes for an upgrade, he simply purchases the best deal at the time. It is rather fruitless to get into these debates which is why I really don't hang out in Video anymore, save for a few comments a week.

Enjoy your games fellas... It reminds me a lot of big talk from drag cars... Everything is always talking how fast they are in the quarter... Good for you... But while you are argueing, I am going to be at the drag strip actually having fun with my car.

/Thread

 

[Gamer X]

Instead of focusing on making better single card solutions ,ATI and Nvidia are pushing this multi gpu crap to make us pay more.

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: elpres05
My point was simple, these new technologies are rushed, only for one guy to beat the other.

No, that would be you, and your usage of 3dmark. I dont go posting my frames on a forum, and I dont even have a sig showing what kind of PC I have. I am registered on several forums, and I only have a sig with my PC in it on one. And thats because its the rule.. a rule which was made because of me. I refused to put a sig in, and got banned for it. A week later, it because a rule when registering for the forum (DFI street).

Originally posted by: elpres05
Only NV and ATI are playing this game, its more like a private war, where we stand foolish seperated by a couple of FPS.

It is far more than a "couple of fps". Its more like 40% on average, sometimes more, sometimes less.

Originally posted by: elpres05
No Doubt SLI and Crossfire adds joy to your gaming life, but its a good wastage of money.

Who are you to call it a waste? I enjoy games more when they are smoother, and look better. I also enjoy watching TV more on a huge WS HDTV. Could I get by with a 27" 4x3? Yeah, but it wouldnt be near as enjoyable to me. It is all relative. To me spending $100 on a pair of jeans is silly, yet to some they feel its ok. I dont go posting, and complaining about how they are wasting their money.

Originally posted by: elpres05
For how long did you own a 6800GT or Ultra SLI? 6 months, 8 months at max? And now a Single 7800GTX kicks its a**.

I never owned a 6800GT/U SLI setup. But that is one of the reservations I alluded to in my first post. I do not believe SLI is always a good idea, with the thought of buying one a year later. Because chances are a card will be out that is faster, and with more features. But the fact is, if people want to spend money on two cards, its their right.

Originally posted by: elpres05
How many ground breaking games did you get in the last 6 months? 1, 2, 3?

So you spent around $ 1000 to play 3 games?

Your logic is so flawed. SLI benefits virtually all games, at all settings. Even in older games, that ran ok for me with one card, I can now crank up the settings even further. SLI AA is a nice feature, and makes BF2 look even better for me. TRAA is also very nice, wich I can now run in all of my games, instread of just a few. And again, money is all relative. Not to sound arrogant, but $1000 is not a lot of money to me. And if it helps me enjoy games more, then I am going to do it.

Originally posted by: Gamer X
Instead of focusing on making better single card solutions ,ATI and Nvidia are pushing this multi gpu crap to make us pay more.

Sigh.. how can someone be so ignorant. They do not make you pay more. You have the exact same options than you would of had, if SLI or Crossfire did not exist. Instead now, people have more options, to get better frames. How anyone can see this as a bad thing, is beyond me.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

sli is good, i just dont see the point in SLI'ing mid range/ value cards.

 

[elpres05]

Originally posted by: Gamer X
Instead of focusing on making better single card solutions ,ATI and Nvidia are pushing this multi gpu crap to make us pay more.

Finally someone can think broad minded and the his nik adds more support .

You see, we weren't divided as much all these years and switching for NV to ATI and the oposite was normal. Now with both of them forcefully seperating us with thier technologies, what do we do?

Gigabyte even worked on a quad SLI, do you really need it? huh. Why don't people support a multi-processor theory which to be honest will be more welcome.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: Gamer X
Instead of focusing on making better single card solutions ,ATI and Nvidia are pushing this multi gpu crap to make us pay more.

This is about the only legit argument I can see against not having multi-GPU solutions at all.

But so far it has not been true; the X1800XT and 7800GTX are both big steps up from the previous generation's high-end parts. They *are* more expensive than the previous generation of cards (although the 6800UE 512MB was probably the worst 'value' ever in a video card), but they're also faster.

OP... you're not making a lot of sense. As everyone has pointed out.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: elpres05
You see, we weren't divided as much all these years and switching for NV to ATI and the oposite was normal. Now with both of them forcefully seperating us with thier technologies, what do we do?

Go buy a matrox card and play free cell. There are plenty of options.

Gigabyte even worked on a quad SLI, do you really need it? huh.

Do we even need computers, they are not food or shelter.

Why don't people support a multi-processor theory which to be honest will be more welcome.

It's called "dual core" look it up.

 

[5150Joker]

Oh my this thread is unprecedented, Rollo and Ackmed agree on something! Quick someone look outside to see if hell has frozen over. Oh wait (looks at avatar), it is cold here in hell today!

 

[elpres05]

I don't want to start a dog fight but i c quite a lot of addicted gamers who would respect almost everything a company releases. Most of us rely on reviews, and i have seen divided opinions. AT says NV, TH says the opposite.

as we all know anything except 60 FPS is unnoticed by our eye. Heck, i can't see the difference after 40 FPS.

I can wait 1 year for a single card release than dash out $ 700+ now.

The most ridiculous example is a 6600 SLI, i mean, a 6600GT was never a high end card and would naturally suck at some games of its time. WHO would want to get another one of those a few months later? I see no point at all, SLI on a mainstream, false idea.

 

[Capt Caveman]

If you can't notice the difference between 40fps and 60fps then obviously you live in a different world than everyone else. The majority of folks posting here aren't "addicted gamers" just smart enough to do our own research and make decisions that suit us best.

You're complaining that they're more choices now. And that's supposed to be a bad thing? No one is making you upgrade or buy this or that. And if people want to upgrade or buy the latest and greatest, all the power to them.

If you have actually been reading these forums, you'll know that the majority agree that the 7800GT is your best bang for the buck video card. And it's not the highest or most expensive video card.