SLI 320mb 8800GTS or 768mb 8800GTX?

[Defyant1911]

Which one is better ,sli 320mb 8800GTS or 8800GTX
the money are the same

 

[40sTheme]

I'd go for the lower temperature, just as fast single card solution.
8800GTX FTW over that SLi setup.

 

[Defyant1911]

fine

 

[ScrewFace]

I agree. With only 320MB of RAM you're gonna be limited in games that require a 512MB frame-buffer. Also, you won't be able to up the AA or AF because AA and AF scale with memory speed, bus-width and amount of memory.

 

[SexyK]

Definitely the GTX. SLI will never give you 2x performance, won't work at all with some games, and doesn't support DX10 at all right now.

 

[PingSpike]

Regarding the framebuffer...shouldn't SLI offer him 640mb in this case? I'm not sure how SLI works but I thought you got all the memory of both cards.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Regarding the framebuffer...shouldn't SLI offer him 640mb in this case? I'm not sure how SLI works but I thought you got all the memory of both cards.

Nope, 320MB. The memory is not added in SLi.

 

[TBSN]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

Regarding the framebuffer...shouldn't SLI offer him 640mb in this case? I'm not sure how SLI works but I thought you got all the memory of both cards.

Nope, 320MB. The memory is not added in SLi.

If the memory is not added, then why don't they come out with graphics cards for SLI that don't include onboard memory, so that the "main" card could use the memory and the other would just be the SLI linked card, without memory? That would bring the cost of the second card down A LOT...

 

[SexyK]

Originally posted by: TBSN

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

Regarding the framebuffer...shouldn't SLI offer him 640mb in this case? I'm not sure how SLI works but I thought you got all the memory of both cards.

Nope, 320MB. The memory is not added in SLi.

If the memory is not added, then why don't they come out with graphics cards for SLI that don't include onboard memory, so that the "main" card could use the memory and the other would just be the SLI linked card, without memory? That would bring the cost of the second card down A LOT...

Both cards need the memory, but they are not added together because the contents of the memory on the primary card are mirrored into the memory on the second card. Both cards need high-speed access to the information in the memory in order to render their portion of the same scene.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: SexyK

Originally posted by: TBSN

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

Regarding the framebuffer...shouldn't SLI offer him 640mb in this case? I'm not sure how SLI works but I thought you got all the memory of both cards.

Nope, 320MB. The memory is not added in SLi.

If the memory is not added, then why don't they come out with graphics cards for SLI that don't include onboard memory, so that the "main" card could use the memory and the other would just be the SLI linked card, without memory? That would bring the cost of the second card down A LOT...

Both cards need the memory, but they are not added together because the contents of the memory on the primary card are mirrored into the memory on the second card. Both cards need high-speed access to the information in the memory in order to render their portion of the same scene.

I guess that makes sense. I had always assumed all of the memory was available but since SLI is just each unit doing its own thing for half the screen that does make sense. Although, wouldn't there be an extra memory benefit when doing effects like AA/AF?

Regardless, it doesn't change my mind on the idea that SLI is kind of a crappy upgrade path and not even a viable option for anyone but people who need the fastest performance money can buy.

 

[SpeedZealot369]

since a GTS can be oc'd to almost GTX performance, I would go with the SLI if you plan on oc'ing. an oc'd GTX should get crushed by two oc'd gts's. Are there any driver issues at the moment with sli g80?

 

[TBSN]

Thanks for clearing that up for me, sexyK.

SpeedZealot369: he is talking about the 320Mb version of the GTS, not the 640Mb version.

It would be interesting to compare the performance between a 640M GTS and an SLI with 2x 320M GTS... Since the cards are exactly the same, except for the memory, it would be a good test to see how much performance is really gained from SLI...

 

[Hidden Hippo]

I would still expect the single card to be faster than the SLI solution, purely because you won't have the delay as the cards talk to each other in the single card setup. However, I think that as the resolution was cranked up, the SLI would probably start to catch up to the single card version of the GTS.

 

[secretanchitman]

8800GTX 768MB by far.

 

[Extelleron]

I'd rather have the single 8800GTX just not to have to deal with SLI. There's simply too many driver problems, especially in Windows Vista, to make an SLI setup a pleasant experience. Performance is going to be pretty similar as well. The GTS's in SLI might be slightly faster in some games but there are some games that don't see any benefit from SLI.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: Defyant1911
Which one is better ,sli 320mb 8800GTS or 8800GTX
the money are the same

GTX

with 320mb SLI, you'll still have the memory restriction (320mb) which essentially makes it unable to take advantage of the gfx power. it's really the only weakness of the 320mb version, and there's no way to overcome it.

 

[TBSN]

SLi is definately an impractical idea, especially at the rate that faster video cards come out. If it took 5 years for a new, faster card to come out, I could see people getting 2 cards and it would be worth it. My question is this:

would 2x 320M GTS = 1x 640M GTS?

Personally I would go for the 640 version for obvious reasons, but do you think that the SLI setup would be better in certain situations?

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: SexyK
Definitely the GTX. SLI will never give you 2x performance, won't work at all with some games, and doesn't support DX10 at all right now.

I agree with the single card, but by the time we have DX10 games, SLI will certainly be supported.

 

[SexyK]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: SexyK
Definitely the GTX. SLI will never give you 2x performance, won't work at all with some games, and doesn't support DX10 at all right now.

I agree with the single card, but by the time we have DX10 games, SLI will certainly be supported.

Understood (although WHQL SLi DX10 drivers in time for DX10 apps are anything but "certain" in my book at this point). I was just trying to make the point that you'll always have more "issues" with an SLi setup compared to a single card and 100% or even 50% performance gains going from one card to two are anything but guaranteed.

 

[BFG10K]

In general it's better to go with a single faster card than two slower cards in SLI.

 

[lopri]

One GTX. No comparison.

 

[Zebo]

I havnt seen a site do benchmarks but my guess is 8800GTS in SLI would crush a single GTX.

 

[JPB]

http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/416/16/

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: Zebo
I havnt seen a site do benchmarks but my guess is 8800GTS in SLI would crush a single GTX.

not after about 16x12 resolution (or even lower in some games like CoD2 which uses large textures).

"The 320MB version of the 8800 GTS is like a feisty bull with one nut chopped off, it offers tremendous performance yet in the highest resolutions it can't deliver as it normally can do."

2 320mb 8800GTS in SLI would be like 2 bulls, each with one nut chopped off, and certainly you wouldn't want 2 'one-nutted' bulls, would you?

 

[JPB]

Compare the benches in the link I posted. The SLI 320's are clearly faster at any resolution in certain games.