Quad-SLI benchmarked

[Cookie Monster]

According to dailytech, under load the total sytem power consumption is 650W!!

 

[BrownTown]

lol, I wonder how many people are gonna be dumb enough to actually buy one. Clearly no game ouy today can even utilizes that much graphical power. EvenIF they could it wouldn't matter becasue the game is gonna be CPU bound anyways. Graphics cards have gotten way outa hand, SLI makes very little sense to begin with, but Quad SLI just makes no sense at all, you don't even get much if any improvement. I ust find it amazing that people are willing to pay 5000$ for a computer just to playh games that can easily be played on a 500$ machine, and which look beautifull on a 1000$ machine. I jsut don't see how anyone could ever justify such a purchase unless they were very well off. I mean how to you say to your kid "sorry, i could send you to private school with this money, but instead i'm gonna use it to get more FPS in BF2. Or ya gonna go to your wife and say "sorry, i know you wanted to go on a vacation, but clearly i care mroe about computer games than you, so I spent all the money on a computer?""

 

[RichUK]

If i was looking to buy one, i would much rather purchase a card that had dual GPU's on one PCB, not dual PCB's on one PCI-e slot.

 

[deadseasquirrel]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
Clearly no game ouy today can even utilizes that much graphical power. EvenIF they could it wouldn't matter becasue the game is gonna be CPU bound anyways.

Clearly, you've never seen COD2 play at 2560x1600 on a 30" Dell. A single GTX would get around 22fps average. Highly unplayable. And that's without any AA. Sure, you can make an argument that AA isn't needed at such a high resolution, but in screenshots, I still notice aliasing. SLI GTXs boost the framerate about 100% to 41fps avg, which, again without AA, some might think unplayable. I haven't seen benchmarks for Quad-SLI with COD2 at that resolution, so I can't say whether it would further improve performance or not. But if it does, then obviously there is something out today that does utilize that much power.

I ust find it amazing that people are willing to pay 5000$ for a computer just to playh games that can easily be played on a 500$ machine, and which look beautifull on a 1000$ machine.

The same could be said for everything. What do you drive? Why didn't you buy a used '88 Taurus instead? It will do 55mph just like every other car out there?

It's intersting that, often times, the people who attack multi-gpu solutions are the ones spending $300 on low-latency ram sticks, and have 512mb 6600s in their sigs.

 

[nitromullet]

Well, 900EUR ~= $1100USD. Considering that and the fact that a single GX2 takes up only 2 slots, it might also be a decent option for those interested in running a single GX2 instead of dual GTXes. It really depends on the motherboard requirements/availability though.

The cost of dual GX2's is bit too rich for my blood at this point though. Impressive to say the least, but I don't think I will be springing for a pair. A single might have been an option, but I've already got one 7900GTX.

It's intersting that, often times, the people who attack multi-gpu solutions are the ones spending $300 on low-latency ram sticks, and have 512mb 6600s in their sigs.

This is a very valid point. These are the same guys who buy expensive water cooling setups so they can clock the sh!t out of cheap hardware. Shoulda just bought better gear to begin with IMO...