Sli GTS 320's VS. The mighty GTX

lavaheadache

Diamond Member
Jan 28, 2005
6,893
14
81
I just stumbled across this review. The only thing that I concluded from this is that the writers over there need to focus on what is the purpose of each setup. The highest resolution tested was 1600x1200. Clearly not where a GTX can flexs it's muscles. Sure the 320's are great cards, but meant for lower resolution gaming. Somebody needs to open a can of whoop a$$ on some of these review sites!!! Come on everyone, lets get together to create the perfect harware review site that actually knows how to test hardware. We can collect money to buy me the latest and greatest stuff and I'll test it like it should be tested, then I'll share the info so you guys can buy your own ;)
 

teatime0315

Senior member
Nov 18, 2005
646
0
0
hehe ... I agree with the op... whats the point of these expensive GPU's if you use them on low res monitors ...
i remember reading somewhere .. "A GPU should never cost more than the monitor you are using" ... i think thats it
 

MadBoris

Member
Jul 20, 2006
129
0
0
Funny I just came from that review to this forum and found this thread. Scarry (tune outer limits music)

Yeah, GTX just begins stretching it's legs at 16x12. But here's another stupification...What consumer in their right mind that owns a 8800 GTS/GTX or SLI 8800 will ever run 1024x768??? What reason on earth can their be to run the CPU limited benchmarks at that resolution, especially considering no one will be running 1024, making it utterly useless. Atleast 1600x1200 gets played at but people that play at that resolution should be buying a GTS not GTX nor SLI, GTX is for higher resolutions beyond 16x12.

I rate that article completely worthless, if not just plain showing ignorance(it takes more than pumping out benchmarks and dropping them in a graph. .
 

Laminator

Senior member
Jan 31, 2007
852
2
91
Those guys are using C3 (3-4-3-8...or something like that) DDR2-800 RAM in their test system...I hope they didn't pay for that.