SLI Hype Or Help

[Jeff7181]

Why do people keep saying you don't need SLI unless you run a resolution higher than 1280x1024. It's not true. Hell I run my games at 1024x768 and I'm tempted to get another 7800GT just because I now have a motherboard that's SLI capable. Then I could play almost any game with 8x transparency AA.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
Why do people keep saying you don't need SLI unless you run a resolution higher than 1280x1024. It's not true. Hell I run my games at 1024x768 and I'm tempted to get another 7800GT just because I now have a motherboard that's SLI capable. Then I could play almost any game with 8x transparency AA.

Because when you have games running native LCD resolution with high AA/AF already at 70fps. There is not a big need to get more than that. You can argue it all you want, but if getting 10-15 more fps(not actual numbers) is worth an extra $300 then go for it.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Look, the thing is...I can build 2 whole SLI systems for the price of some of these monitors. I don't see the point except to show off which is incredibly silly.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
Why do people keep saying you don't need SLI unless you run a resolution higher than 1280x1024. It's not true. Hell I run my games at 1024x768 and I'm tempted to get another 7800GT just because I now have a motherboard that's SLI capable. Then I could play almost any game with 8x transparency AA.

Because when you have games running native LCD resolution with high AA/AF already at 70fps. There is not a big need to get more than that. You can argue it all you want, but if getting 10-15 more fps(not actual numbers) is worth an extra $300 then go for it.

So you're telling me you can play FEAR at 1280x1024 with max details at 8x transparency AA and 16xAF and get a minimum frame rate of 70? I'll have to call bullshit.

 

[Bobthelost]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Look, the thing is...I can build 2 whole SLI systems for the price of some of these monitors. I don't see the point except to show off which is incredibly silly.

Why? The monitor is just as important if not more so than the graphics cards.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: Bobthelost

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Look, the thing is...I can build 2 whole SLI systems for the price of some of these monitors. I don't see the point except to show off which is incredibly silly.

Why? The monitor is just as important if not more so than the graphics cards.

The only reason I hesitate to buy a 2405FPW or something around that size is that I'll pretty much be forced into buying high end video cards in the future if I want to play new games.

 

[deadseasquirrel]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
Why do people keep saying you don't need SLI unless you run a resolution higher than 1280x1024. It's not true. Hell I run my games at 1024x768 and I'm tempted to get another 7800GT just because I now have a motherboard that's SLI capable. Then I could play almost any game with 8x transparency AA.

Because when you have games running native LCD resolution with high AA/AF already at 70fps. There is not a big need to get more than that. You can argue it all you want, but if getting 10-15 more fps(not actual numbers) is worth an extra $300 then go for it.

So you're telling me you can play FEAR at 1280x1024 with max details at 8x transparency AA and 16xAF and get a minimum frame rate of 70? I'll have to call bullshit.

Jeff is correct. Games like FEAR and COD2 benefit greatly from SLI (and Xfire) at even "low" resolutions like 1280x960. Now, I don't know if this is representative of what games-to-come will do, but it does appear to be a much different situation than games have shown in the past.

For example, check this out. It shows FEAR at 1024x768 with a 7800GT. That's a resolution that, typically, would be used to show CPU scaling. But look at the chart. An FX57 gives NO improvement over a Sempron.

Now, look here at FEAR once again. A little higher resolution-- 1280x960... but here you can see a single GT pulling 32fps and SLI GTs pulling 63fps. That's right at 100% improvement.

So where would you rather drop $275? On a faster CPU that does nothing in these games, or another GT that gives you 100% improvement?

Again, I'm not addressing UT2k4 or HL2 here. Those games show severe bottlenecking at 1280x1024, even with AA/AF added to the mix. SLI for those games at low resolutions is somewhat wasted... though, I imagine anyone buying video cards today probably plans on playing at least a few games that aren't 1-2 years old.

 

[Jeff7181]

I imagine anyone buying video cards today probably plans on playing at least a few games that aren't 1-2 years old.

And they can enjoy 8x transparency AA and 16xAF on the old ones.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
Why do people keep saying you don't need SLI unless you run a resolution higher than 1280x1024. It's not true. Hell I run my games at 1024x768 and I'm tempted to get another 7800GT just because I now have a motherboard that's SLI capable. Then I could play almost any game with 8x transparency AA.

Because when you have games running native LCD resolution with high AA/AF already at 70fps. There is not a big need to get more than that. You can argue it all you want, but if getting 10-15 more fps(not actual numbers) is worth an extra $300 then go for it.

So you're telling me you can play FEAR at 1280x1024 with max details at 8x transparency AA and 16xAF and get a minimum frame rate of 70? I'll have to call bullshit.

No because for one thing FEAR doesn't support 1280x1024 so it doesn't matter.

Plus when you timedemo it shows an average. FEAR does show minimums but the times it goes minimum for me is like 43fps at 4xaa 8xaf and that's 100% playable no matter what argument you throw out.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
Why do people keep saying you don't need SLI unless you run a resolution higher than 1280x1024. It's not true. Hell I run my games at 1024x768 and I'm tempted to get another 7800GT just because I now have a motherboard that's SLI capable. Then I could play almost any game with 8x transparency AA.

Because when you have games running native LCD resolution with high AA/AF already at 70fps. There is not a big need to get more than that. You can argue it all you want, but if getting 10-15 more fps(not actual numbers) is worth an extra $300 then go for it.

So you're telling me you can play FEAR at 1280x1024 with max details at 8x transparency AA and 16xAF and get a minimum frame rate of 70? I'll have to call bullshit.

No because for one thing FEAR doesn't support 1280x1024 so it doesn't matter.

Plus when you timedemo it shows an average. FEAR does show minimums but the times it goes minimum for me is like 43fps at 4xaa 8xaf and that's 100% playable no matter what argument you throw out.

That's odd, unless you play at 800x600. I have a 7800GT (overclocked to 473/1120) and at 1024x768 with 4xAA and 8xAF with all details set to max except with soft shadows turned off I get an average of 49 FPS, with a minimum of 27. I find it extremely difficult to believe you're getting 60% better performance than I am with the same video card and a slower processor.

 

[DasFox]

FEAR doesn't support 1280x1024? So what's the max rez. you can play it at? Sheesh I want to get a 1920X1200 LCD, I guess I'll be paying widescreengamingforum.com a visit then later to learn how to hack it to play, LOL

THANKS

 

[dev0lution]

SLI has a purpose - for those who want high framerates at higher resolutions with all the settings maxed out. There are games and setups that a newer single card can push, but it all depends on what your goals are as many have already stated. I personally was disappointed initially running SLI'd GTX's on a 19" 1280x1024 monitor, but then some newer games like F.E.A.R came out and I upgraded my monitor to 1600x1200 and suffered some fps performance with the settings I like to run. I could go for a X1900 now and get decent results, but a few months back SLI was the only realistic way to go.

It's not hype, you just need to realistically research whether it's something you'd benefit from vs. the cost.

And you're lucky this wasn't posted in Video like it probably shoulda been or this would be a 10 page flamewar.

 

[DasFox]

dev0lution I can't say I really had any specifics in mind with SLI, I just wanted a high-end gaming rig was all I thought about. Now that I have built it, I see its performance benefits seem to be suited towards higher resolution gaming, at least that's what I seem to be getting from around here.

When I think about it, who doesn't at some point in, gaming want to not have a BIG monitor. I mean that's like saying my 30" TV at home is just fine for me to watch the movies on compared to going to see them on the big screen. I mean the dynamics, action and impact of BIG is an amazing thing on a entertainment level.

If Fear could support 1920X1200 right now, personally I feel 2 7800GTs should be able to play it maxed out and in all it's glory and if it couldn't and we would really suffer, then the trend of hardware and software right now has a very uneven balance that is really digging into consumers pockets.

I mean come on let's get real here, no one should have to go out and pay $3000 to play computers games, because it almost seems like we need to come to that level.

Think about it, if the cost keeps going as it is and the newer generation games keep pushing the level, just try to imagine in 3-5 years what costs you'll need to play these games as they where meant to be.

Where then is the average person left in this sport? The cost of this technology needs to start improving to the point it isn't going to cost us as much for the performance.

$600 for one Video card to then have two of these in SLI is starting to get really stupid.

Do you know why we the consumers pay a high premium for performance? Because of the profit margin for companies to give it to us at a better cost, or their profits go down and of course the cost to make and what profit is left for them, in the end, meaning we have not learned better technology in producing at cheaper costs, but one day we will procduce higher technology at a lower cost, which will give lower costs to the consumers.

And because of this profit greed, technology is hindered, because of money and greed. Technology in the world could be better if we where not so concerned with the profit of it.

Oh well

THANKS

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: DasFox
FEAR doesn't support 1280x1024? So what's the max rez. you can play it at? Sheesh I want to get a 1920X1200 LCD, I guess I'll be paying widescreengamingforum.com a visit then later to learn how to hack it to play, LOL

THANKS

Not by default... but config files can be tweaked to support it. If you notice AnandTech's review of FEAR had resolutions up to 1600x1200.

 

[hardcandy2]

Be happy with your SLI, just think of the poor folks who have invested in "ATI Crossfire". The reviews I have read say it really doesn't work too well.
SLI would come in handy with a good 30", 8ms or less, 8 bit LCD, and the new games coming out should really take advantage of SLI capabilities.
Timeshift is one due out in March.
Of course Staples had the 21" Gateway on sale for $549 with some discounts, but now it is back to $599. I think that would be a nice monitori to look at.

Extremetech review

maybe wait for a sale or find some Staples coupons.
And a good big monitor with versatile connections would be good for a Xbox360 or PS3. I am waitng on Gears Of War for the 360, it seems like it will be pushing the limits on displays.

 

[DasFox]

I'm pretty sure I'm going with a 24" something at 1920X1200

Those Timeshift screenshots look pretty good.