SLI on any motherboard possible?

[thilanliyan]

http://www.brightsideofnews.co...motherboards-now-.aspx

Originally posted at XS.

If anybody is going to try this watch out for any bad translations that could screw something up lol.

 

[SunnyD]

Err... only until Nvidia updates it's graphics drivers again. And no thanks to using a fake HAL... that's just asking for bad things to happen.

 

[Shmee]

wow, looks awesome, considering it can be done on a UD3P! ultimate 775 sli board right there! Still, I have no need for it at the time.

 

[Idontcare]

What is the generally accepted stance on defeating SLI licensing? Is it pirating? unethical?

Or is it generally viewed more like OC'ing - you bought the hardware, you do what you want with it.

It's kinda in a weird gray-zone, it definitely reduces NV's revenue so that would suggest defeating SLI is unethical, but at the same time the licensing model itself seems artificial and hollow so is it unethical to defeat an already unethical thing?

What is the commonly accepted consensus here?

 

[swanysto]

I don't know what the consensus is here, but my personal opinion is that it is a form of piracy. When you purchase an nvidia SLI chipset, you are purchasing a license to use SLI. Kinda like when you buy Windows you are purchasing a license to use it. There really is no license or legality behind over clocking, so I wouldn't put it in the same catagory. I wouldn't call the licensing of SLI unethical as much as I would call it greedy. Is it unethical for Apple to only allow their operating system to run on Apple software? Again, may be greedy, but I don't think it is unethical.

I think it is a form of piracy that is frowned upon, but will never really be punished. I also don't think it is going to be taken advantage of either. If this had come out last year, it might have been much bigger news, but at this point most of the people who run SLI are moving on to newer sockets which don't have the SLI limitations. I would say a majority of people stick with one card anyway. This will help a select few and really be no bother to nvidia.

 

[thilanliyan]

For me it's a case of I bought the hardware...I want to use it in any way I see fit. Heck if I bought 2 nV cards they've made money off me already. I've heard of too many flaky nV chipsets (and experienced it slightly with a 650 chipset I had) to ever buy an SLI nV motherboard. Them locking it into their own chipsets makes it much less likely that I'll ever try SLI so they lose money from me in that sense. However the situation is changing now I believe with both X58 and P55 able to run SLI.

 

[lavaheadache]

yeah I'll wait until it's less complicated to do. nice read though

 

[Narynan]

I would do it if I had the dedication. However about the licensing fee. If Nvidia made it so I could pay them 5 bucks or whatever the fee is so I knew I could sli my board w/o the BS. If I could I would.

But, it's not even an option for me. So how can I "steal" something that they are not willing to sell me?

 

[Forumpanda]

Originally posted by: Idontcare
What is the generally accepted stance on defeating SLI licensing? Is it pirating? unethical?

Or is it generally viewed more like OC'ing - you bought the hardware, you do what you want with it.

It's kinda in a weird gray-zone, it definitely reduces NV's revenue so that would suggest defeating SLI is unethical, but at the same time the licensing model itself seems artificial and hollow so is it unethical to defeat an already unethical thing?

What is the commonly accepted consensus here?

My stance on these issues have always been:

If doing it does not translate into physical items lost or bandwidth/resources used for the company in question AND the item or service is not sold by the company (such is the case here, even if they sell SLI they don't on all boards).

Then it is fair game to do whatever you want with the the items you *own*, own is the key word here, they sold you a piece of technology, they cannot legally (at least in Denmark) attach any strings to how you are allowed to use it.
(if you want to point out physx on ATI hardware as an example then, while they are not required to release software that makes it possible, neither can be force you to use any specific software that breaks it (in case someone else implements a work around))

Similar logic that made me have no problems downloading music *until* I could buy DRM free digital versions, if a company is not willing to sell it then how am I harming them when I could not have bought it anyway?

You could argue that one is just supposed to stick with whatever service/version/flavor that the company wants to sell, but I think that is a fairly authoritative and silly stance, I am not a crazy anarchistic person, but neither do I let people in suits, making arbitrary decisions, decide how I use technology.

 

[v8envy]

Look, if the company selling you a product (and licensing you the software to use that product) is taking steps to prohibit you from using that hardware the way you want -- don't use the hardware if there's an alternative that does! Simple as that. They don't want you to buy multiple GPU cards from them. ATI wants you to buy as many graphics cards as you can fit into your board. That's the message to take away.

This is a neat technology hack, but is not a workaround for NV's marketing. Don't use it, and perhaps market pressure will make it unnecessary in the future.