Is 4 card SLI possible at some point?

[BenSkywalker]

I do agree with your logic. Hardcore is hardcore But even for a hardcore gamer to have a SLI 6800U system in most of the cases it means that he has to buy:
1. the best cpu out there. Don't you agree?

Not a chance. If a $1K FX/EE offered a 70% performance boost over their $500 or even $200 counterparts you could make an argument- but if you are really hardcore there will be about no difference. Part of the reason why we aren't seeing this is that review sites are focusing their reviews on the casual/non gamer with their max res limits set to 16x12- medium levels at best for most of the people who would seriously consider SLIing 6800Us. Push it up to 1920x1440 and in particular 2048x1536 with AA and AF and you will not be CPU limited in anything remotely current(likely anything released in the last few years at least).

2. Swap mobo
3. 2 Ultras

Yes, for a cost in the $1300 range(can push up closer to $1500 at times).

If I was opting for the great perf right now I would get X850XTPE which is more than enough for anything out there and cost me so much less.

If you are using low to medium res or disabling AA/AF then you are right.

 

[TantrumusMaximus]

How come I don't ever see someone getting tagged stupid for buying an FX55 at $1000 etc etc... But if you buy SLI your stupid. LOL, I'd take a 3000+ and SLI rig over an FX55 single card solution right now anyday. The premium of the FX55 is over $750 more than a 3000+ and do you get $750 more performance for it? NO. Do you get a significant performance with SLI? I would say yes.

FX55 and 6800GT = $1300-1400
3000+ and SLI 6800GT = $800 when you buy the second 6800GT later, I'll take this route I can always add an FX chip later when they aren't at such a premium.

I'll tell ya right now, Everybody I know, Everybody, wants an SLI board. Every magazine that covered it says it's a must have if you want a screamer system or the upgradeability. It would almost be stupid not to buy one to have the second video card slot at least. Why wouldn't you want the upgradability? Especially when the mobo's aren't that much more than the single card mobo. The options are getting better and better too MSI, Asus, Gigabyte, and DFI all have them. I highly doubt nVidia will be tossing this aside. Even with multiple GPU cards coming out, why not allow them to be SLI as well? I doubt nVidia would not plan for this.

 

[jim1976]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

Not a chance. If a $1K FX/EE offered a 70% performance boost over their $500 or even $200 counterparts you could make an argument- but if you are really hardcore there will be about no difference. Part of the reason why we aren't seeing this is that review sites are focusing their reviews on the casual/non gamer with their max res limits set to 16x12- medium levels at best for most of the people who would seriously consider SLIing 6800Us. Push it up to 1920x1440 and in particular 2048x1536 with AA and AF and you will not be CPU limited in anything remotely current(likely anything released in the last few years at least).

Ben, Atlhlon FX-55 especially can offer significant improvements in framerates and especially in such cpu bound games like DoomIII and FC are for example. We are not yet in the time where WGF and unified shaders are the stereotype and gpu will take over the burden for the most part regardless the resolution, so extra cpu power is really needed even in the most gpu limited resolutions. I mean we are talkin about a hardcore gamer here where money is not an issue or aren't we?

If you are using low to medium res or disabling AA/AF then you are right.

What? X850XTPE has the best fillrate by far (for a single card) so why shouldn't I go for it? It performs magnificently in every game out there with AA/AF enabled up to 1600x1200. And even X850XTPE doesn't justify the price increase in comparison to the perf increase from the X800XTPE so I'm not going to even mention SLI... SLI ready games aren't even close to adequate yet and by the time they will be R520/NV5x will be here and we will see what's the most appropriate thing to do.
Btw what games are you running in 2048x1536 and why? :Q
Just a tip : On a 21'' CRT monitor 1600*1200= 101 pixels/inch. Even a great CRT monitor cannot produce great results to a greater resolution than 1600x1200 because it will have to stretch the data(a kind of oversampling) to produce the higher resolution. Anything between 72 and 100 pixels/inch is the normal thing for a screen(it depends on the size of the monitor) and anything less or higher is wrong because monitor will have to produceless/ more pixels than the normal level.So why do you use 2048x1536 and not 16x12 and AA/AF which is the most appropriate thing to do?

(I suspect you have a 21'' CRT to use that res right?)

 

[BenSkywalker]

Ben, Atlhlon FX-55 especially can offer significant improvements in framerates and especially in such cpu bound games like DoomIII and FC are for example.

Doom3 isn't CPU bound at high settings.

FarCry isn't CPU limited at high settings either.

We are not yet in the time where WGF and unified shaders are the stereotype and gpu will take over the burden for the most part regardless the resolution, so extra cpu power is really needed even in the most gpu limited resolutions.

Simply look at the numbers displayed in the links above. For D3, that is without AA too.

Btw what games are you running in 2048x1536 and why?

Every game that can rut at those levels. The reason- it looks a lot better then 16x12x4.

Just a tip : On a 21'' CRT monitor 1600*1200= 101 pixels/inch. Even a great CRT monitor cannot produce great results to a greater resolution than 1600x1200 because it will have to stretch the data(a kind of oversampling) to produce the higher resolution.

Actually, that would be undersampling, not oversampling.

Anything between 72 and 100 pixels/inch is the normal thing for a screen(it depends on the size of the monitor) and anything less or higher is wrong because monitor will have to produceless/ more pixels than the normal level.

No, anything less or higher isn't wrong, it simply doesn't fall in to the typical range you are talking about.

So why do you use 2048x1536 and not 16x12 and AA/AF which is the most appropriate thing to do?

(I suspect you have a 21'' CRT to use that res right?)

22".

 

[jim1976]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
Doom3 isn't CPU bound at high settings.

FarCry isn't CPU limited at high settings either.

Simply look at the numbers displayed in the links above. For D3, that is without AA too.

Ben I know which are the gpu/cpu limited resolutions and thanks I have seen those benches many times. My point is that these games do require a lot of cpu power and you can't see that through benches. Many ppl don't have A64 yet or P4>3GHz so go ask them if cpu is really needed even at 16x12. Of course it doesn't play the same role as in 8x6 but 10-15fps are really important sometimes. So what I said is that if you go for the SLI you should aim for the best cpu as well. I wouldn't consider for example taking a SLI system and paired it with my 3400+. So you need lots of $$$ for a "stabilized system".And if you see it the other way, why isn't important the 5-10fps from the best cpu in these games and they are when you refer to SLI?
Anyway these are opinions. With such a difficult to forecast future for the gpus (new GUI,unified shaders and new architectures on the background) paired with the fact that SLI can't offer you right now what it should I wouldn't go for it. Maybe when NV5x is here and SLI has matured in the market then I will consider it. But definately not now.

Every game that can rut at those levels. The reason- it looks a lot better then 16x12x4.

Actually, that would be undersampling, not oversampling.

No, anything less or higher isn't wrong, it simply doesn't fall in to the typical range you are talking about.

22".

I know they can ran at those settings(well most of them ,try running Chronicles of Riddick ..)I asked why? And it's wrong since 16x12 is specifically designed for 20-22'' monitors depending on their viewable area. Anything less/more is not exhibiting the right picture as I said. Now if you like it more at 2048x1536 that's your opinion of course but that's not the right thing to do. The right thing would be to use 16x12 with AF max first and as much AA as possible. Just my 2 cents

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Paktu
I know it isn't available now, but is SLI inherently limited to 2 cards? Could a later revision of SLI support 4 (or more) video cards at some point?

NVIDIA claims the quadro line will support it in the future, but it is not enabled in drivers, and would require a special chipset.

Edit: typo

 

[BenSkywalker]

Ben I know which are the gpu/cpu limited resolutions and thanks I have seen those benches many times. My point is that these games do require a lot of cpu power and you can't see that through benches.

Actually, yes you can quite clearly see it in benches. CPU v GPU scaling is very evident- pull up some benches with framerate charts comparing various CPUs at the settings we are talking about. You need a reasonable processor, you certainly don't need to spend anything remotely close to $1K in order to be GPU limited even on a 6800U SLI setup.

And if you see it the other way, why isn't important the 5-10fps from the best cpu in these games and they are when you refer to SLI?

Because those 5-10FPS need to exist first, then you need to factor in a 7% boost for a 500% premium versus a 70% boost for a 120% premium.

And it's wrong since 16x12 is specifically designed for 20-22'' monitors depending on their viewable area. Anything less/more is not exhibiting the right picture as I said. Now if you like it more at 2048x1536 that's your opinion of course but that's not the right thing to do.

Don't have time for this right now, but since you really want to get in to this I'll have to post back when I have time to expand on signal theory, digital versus analog along with digital to analog conversion. It appears based on your comments that how these relate to displayed resolution is something you aren't familiar with.