So I'm thinking of building this new pc..

[I.S.T.]

No, it's not. The type of computations needed for 3D graphics are highly parallel. You can almost always just tack on an extra processor and get some improvement, provided the 3D app can take advantage of it properly, or if its' tasks need that kind of parallelism.

That's why you see massive gains in offline renderers when adding on a shitload of CPUs.

[Gil_Hamilton]

No, it's not. The type of computations needed for 3D graphics are highly parallel. You can almost always just tack on an extra processor and get some improvement, provided the 3D app can take advantage of it properly, or if its' tasks need that kind of parallelism.

That's why you see massive gains in offline renderers when adding on a shitload of CPUs.

You don't understand. I don't hate it from a technical standpoint. I hate it from a "PC gaming is completely out of control and totally FUBAR" standpoint.

See, it made SENSE in the days of Voodoo, when two top-end cards was around 200.

Now...
You get more bang for your buck by buying one higher-end card than two lower-end ones. So SLI only makes sense once you're at the top-end. At which point you're moving from 500 to a grand.

[Rydian]

Right, Gil. Now, what if they ALREADY have one card?

I consider SLI in general to be retarded bullshit.

There's simply NO excuse for having a grand tied up in your video card(s).

Two 7600GT's don't cost a grand, and lots of people that have a 7600GT would rather buy a second <$100 card and add it to the first for half-life 2/3, rather then splurge on an 8800GTS or something. That's one of the main points of SLI and crossfire, isn't it?

Games like Crysis, which can't run at full detail on the most powerful hardware available on either side of their launch, are embarrassments to the industry.

No, it's the industry thinking ahead. Have you SEEN the real-life and game-life side-by-side screenshots? Fucking insane. It's designed to look better when you come back to it a few years later.
What's embarrassing is anybody thinking they can get max settings on the game anytime before 2009. It makes me sad when people tell me they're building a computer and list to me they have a 900W power supply, and I look at the parts and it's actually needed. o_<;

Also note that Crysis doesn't benefit from triple SLI, even though it's the only title that would benefit hugely from it at present.

Haha, that sucks.

About the only PC game that's impressed me in recent years is Doom 3. And that's BECAUSE they optimized it to run at a reasonable quality level on a wide variety of hardware. The max settings ran playably on the highest-end hardware available at it's launch, and by most accounts there was very little difference between the next several steps down. So if you were playing on an old GeForce 3, you still got MOST of what you'd see on a maxed GeForce 5.

What do you think about blizzard? WoW runs on a GeForce 2. XD

It's a throwback to the older days, when you made games to run on PCs, not PCs to run games on.

When if you could play word, you could play quake.

[I.S.T.]

Uh, the only way somebody need a 900 watt PSU is a triple SLI system. Seriously. That, or 15 HD, three or four CPUs, etc.

[funkyass]

crysis is a very badly coded game.

typical of an EA game...

[Deathlike2]

Right, Gil. Now, what if they ALREADY have one card?

In theory, buying an extra card sounds great, since you can increase the performance at a lower cost.

In reality, the method itself is stupid, since the performance is simply not 2x and frankly if you are doing it with a crappy CPU, you are wasting your money.

I consider SLI in general to be retarded bullshit.

There's simply NO excuse for having a grand tied up in your video card(s).

Two 7600GT's don't cost a grand, and lots of people that have a 7600GT would rather buy a second <$100 card and add it to the first for half-life 2/3, rather then splurge on an 8800GTS or something. That's one of the main points of SLI and crossfire, isn't it?

The retarded thing you haven't paid attention to is that SLI mid-end cards is WORSE than buying last gen's high end. You're simply wasting your money here. Paying for last gen's high end gives you far more bang for your buck. Heck, paying for the lowest of the high end gives you decent bang for your buck as well and get the latest features if you really want them.

Games like Crysis, which can't run at full detail on the most powerful hardware available on either side of their launch, are embarrassments to the industry.

No, it's the industry thinking ahead. Have you SEEN the real-life and game-life side-by-side screenshots? Fucking insane. It's designed to look better when you come back to it a few years later.
What's embarrassing is anybody thinking they can get max settings on the game anytime before 2009. It makes me sad when people tell me they're building a computer and list to me they have a 900W power supply, and I look at the parts and it's actually needed. o_<;

When medium quality can't be run with decent specs for today's prepackaged top of the line crap, it is SAD. You would be blind to think otherwise.

You are missing the key thing here...

High end video cards cost much more than the CPU, mobo, AND RAM put altogether. That's when there are problems when you budget this stuff. If you have no issues throwing the money around, that's fine. For the gamer that wants to spend smart, SLI is a terrible solution in terms of a price/performance standpoint. You would be foolish to keep arguing for SLI/Crossfire. A high end video card costs $400-500 nowadays, which could buy you a cheap, crappy comp just to play around with... It used to be that a high end video card costs as much as $300, and still sound reasonable... but if people want to crap away their money, they can feel free to do so.

[Johan_H]

Have you SEEN the real-life and game-life side-by-side screenshots? Fucking insane

Who cares?
Realism in graphics is sickeningly overrated, and at the same time it seems to be the only thing most gamers today care about.

[Deathlike2]

Have you SEEN the real-life and game-life side-by-side screenshots? Fucking insane

Who cares?
Realism in graphics is sickeningly overrated, and at the same time it seems to be the only thing most gamers today care about.

People have yet to figure out the actual meaning of "realism". Sure it looks better nowadays, but if the eye candy is all you care about and not gameplay, well then go buy some porn because that's the closest you'll ever get to realism.

[Gil_Hamilton]

Right, Gil. Now, what if they ALREADY have one card?

Then it's aged a bit, and it's cheaper to buy a new card that offers the same performance as the proposed SLI rig than to hunt down another identical card.

Two 7600GT's don't cost a grand, and lots of people that have a 7600GT would rather buy a second <$100 card and add it to the first for half-life 2/3, rather then splurge on an 8800GTS or something. That's one of the main points of SLI and crossfire, isn't it?

Not really.
Unless you own a current top-end card, there's ALWAYS a better deal than an SLI rig. For any given performance class.
Dual top-end is the only time where SLI makes sense.

About the only PC game that's impressed me in recent years is Doom 3. And that's BECAUSE they optimized it to run at a reasonable quality level on a wide variety of hardware. The max settings ran playably on the highest-end hardware available at it's launch, and by most accounts there was very little difference between the next several steps down. So if you were playing on an old GeForce 3, you still got MOST of what you'd see on a maxed GeForce 5.

What do you think about blizzard? WoW runs on a GeForce 2. XD

Runs on, sure. A LOT of games can claim that.
Very few can claim what Doom 3 does.

Dig the reviews up. If you weren't on the bottom-end or top-end, Doom3 delivered a consistent experience.
It stands as a shining example of why the PC graphics arms race is COMPLETE BULLSHIT FUELED BY SLOPPY CODING.

[Rydian]

Death: Really? I never looked into SLI much, just the theory appealed to me. I'll go look up some dual-vga charts.


Johan: Then don't play the game and don't complain.


Gil: Still, there are plenty of people that would rather spend $90 on a second 7600GT.

[Johan_H]

Then don't play the game and don't complain.

If only it was just one game. Sadly, this is something that is infecting the entire industry more and more, it makes the games bad and needlessly expensive to produce just because the idiots want to stare at omg l337 grafx and hi-res textures and shading and shit instead of playing.

[Deathlike2]

Death: Really? I never looked into SLI much, just the theory appealed to me. I'll go look up some dual-vga charts.

That's why you can't buy into the marketing aspect. SLI/Crossfire adds additional "compatibility" issues with today's games.. NVidia's drivers are more mature in this area, but even then, it isn't 100% foolproof that it will work in all games perfectly... buying one video card assures you no additional headache of compatibility that SLI/Crossfire unfortunately cannot guarentee you.

[Gil_Hamilton]

Gil: Still, there are plenty of people that would rather spend $90 on a second 7600GT.

That makes them stupid. They would be better served both short- and long-term by buying a single 180$ vidcard.

I see no reason to design hardware specifically to cater to idiots.

[Deathlike2]

Gil: Still, there are plenty of people that would rather spend $90 on a second 7600GT.

That makes them stupid. They would be better served both short- and long-term by buying a single 180$ vidcard.

I see no reason to design hardware specifically to cater to idiots.

Nononono. That's why they do it in the first place. They want idiots to throw away their money.

[I.S.T.]

Right, Gil. Now, what if they ALREADY have one card?

Then it's aged a bit, and it's cheaper to buy a new card that offers the same performance as the proposed SLI rig than to hunt down another identical card.

Two 7600GT's don't cost a grand, and lots of people that have a 7600GT would rather buy a second <$100 card and add it to the first for half-life 2/3, rather then splurge on an 8800GTS or something. That's one of the main points of SLI and crossfire, isn't it?

Not really.
Unless you own a current top-end card, there's ALWAYS a better deal than an SLI rig. For any given performance class.
Dual top-end is the only time where SLI makes sense.

About the only PC game that's impressed me in recent years is Doom 3. And that's BECAUSE they optimized it to run at a reasonable quality level on a wide variety of hardware. The max settings ran playably on the highest-end hardware available at it's launch, and by most accounts there was very little difference between the next several steps down. So if you were playing on an old GeForce 3, you still got MOST of what you'd see on a maxed GeForce 5.

What do you think about blizzard? WoW runs on a GeForce 2. XD

Runs on, sure. A LOT of games can claim that.
Very few can claim what Doom 3 does.

Dig the reviews up. If you weren't on the bottom-end or top-end, Doom3 delivered a consistent experience.
It stands as a shining example of why the PC graphics arms race is COMPLETE BULLSHIT FUELED BY SLOPPY CODING.

You forget one important fact: Sometimes you don't have the money to buy a 150 dollar or higher video card.

This is where SLI/Crossfire make the most sense: adding in an extra 100 dollar card to complement your other 100 dollar card. It's the best way to upgrade if you don't have a lot of cash on hand, and already have one card.

I'm not saying it's perfect. The compatibility issues are a kicker, but most games(More on SLI) work fine with SLI. If they didn't, you'd have a far bigger point...

Also, Crysis runs quite decently in DX9 mode at medium settings: http://www.amdzone.com/index.php/news/g ... nt=1&page=
Scroll down to the middle of the page to see the medium DX9 results.

Lower the res to 1024X768 and you got yourself a nice framerate.

Edit: something I should mention. Two 7600GTs will be faster than a single 2600XT or an 8600 GTS.

[Gil_Hamilton]

You forget one important fact: Sometimes you don't have the money to buy a 150 dollar or higher video card.

This is where SLI/Crossfire make the most sense: adding in an extra 100 dollar card to complement your other 100 dollar card. It's the best way to upgrade if you don't have a lot of cash on hand, and already have one card.

That was an early promise that has not borne out.
Buying a newer-gen card at 100 will get you more at that price point than spending a hundred on a new card to complement your old one.

Besides which, if you're buying a hundred-dollar card, you either spent a bit mroe than that on your first card or should've spent 200 up-front.
...
Unless you've been bit by the availability issue.


More likely you DID spend 200 up-front, and now have the option of adding another card for a hundred, or buying a new hundred-dollar card that will outperform your potential SLI rig.

Edit: something I should mention. Two 7600GTs will be faster than a single 2600XT or an 8600 GTS.

And cost more. At least, going by Newegg prices.
Hell, you can get the 2600XT at Newegg for the price of a 7600GT.

Also, two 7600GTs will NEVER run DX10 code, making your card(s) obsolete that much faster.

[Deathlike2]

Right, Gil. Now, what if they ALREADY have one card?

Then it's aged a bit, and it's cheaper to buy a new card that offers the same performance as the proposed SLI rig than to hunt down another identical card.

Two 7600GT's don't cost a grand, and lots of people that have a 7600GT would rather buy a second <$100 card and add it to the first for half-life 2/3, rather then splurge on an 8800GTS or something. That's one of the main points of SLI and crossfire, isn't it?

Not really.
Unless you own a current top-end card, there's ALWAYS a better deal than an SLI rig. For any given performance class.
Dual top-end is the only time where SLI makes sense.

About the only PC game that's impressed me in recent years is Doom 3. And that's BECAUSE they optimized it to run at a reasonable quality level on a wide variety of hardware. The max settings ran playably on the highest-end hardware available at it's launch, and by most accounts there was very little difference between the next several steps down. So if you were playing on an old GeForce 3, you still got MOST of what you'd see on a maxed GeForce 5.

What do you think about blizzard? WoW runs on a GeForce 2. XD

Runs on, sure. A LOT of games can claim that.
Very few can claim what Doom 3 does.

Dig the reviews up. If you weren't on the bottom-end or top-end, Doom3 delivered a consistent experience.
It stands as a shining example of why the PC graphics arms race is COMPLETE BULLSHIT FUELED BY SLOPPY CODING.

You forget one important fact: Sometimes you don't have the money to buy a 150 dollar or higher video card.

This is where SLI/Crossfire make the most sense: adding in an extra 100 dollar card to complement your other 100 dollar card. It's the best way to upgrade if you don't have a lot of cash on hand, and already have one card.

I'm not saying it's perfect. The compatibility issues are a kicker, but most games(More on SLI) work fine with SLI. If they didn't, you'd have a far bigger point...

Also, Crysis runs quite decently in DX9 mode at medium settings: http://www.amdzone.com/index.php/news/g ... nt=1&page=
Scroll down to the middle of the page to see the medium DX9 results.

Lower the res to 1024X768 and you got yourself a nice framerate.

Edit: something I should mention. Two 7600GTs will be faster than a single 2600XT or an 8600 GTS.

Faster by how much? I doubt that gap is wide and consistant.

I'm not even talking about spending $300. I'm talking about price/performance. You lose that much more on SLI thinking that way. A new mid-end video card will cost a tad more, and perform a tad less, but there's more to gain on a newer card... such as driver updates for performance (really, the newer stuff gets all the attention) and features the old card cannot possibly compete with (it depends, but that's obviously debatable depending on what you're comparing). SLI does not provide any semblence of a stable platform, even if it looks cheap. I'm sure people will weigh their options, but in the end, SLI mid-range is just not a good thing IMO from all of this. SLI high-end makes a lot more sense if you really want to use SLI. The performance benefits are far greater in that situation because the attention such hardware gets and would have gotten over time.

[I.S.T.]

Again, you forget that people just don't always have that extra 50-75 bucks. Sometimes you just gotta go for a 3/4s fix like SLI.

As for the 7600 GT SLI VS 2600 XT and 8600 GTS... I seem to be wrong there. Both cards were about 75% faster, from my quick googling. SLI generally does not scale to exactly twice the performance, so it would be about the same speed in games which support it.

That is a lot of games, though.

[Deathlike2]

I'd save that money for a better product instead. Plus you can't assume people have SLI mobos either... you effectively have to invest in a special/worthy PSU more often than not as well, which can be a factor in all of this.

[Rydian]

Death: Really? I never looked into SLI much, just the theory appealed to me. I'll go look up some dual-vga charts.

That's why you can't buy into the marketing aspect. SLI/Crossfire adds additional "compatibility" issues with today's games.. NVidia's drivers are more mature in this area, but even then, it isn't 100% foolproof that it will work in all games perfectly... buying one video card assures you no additional headache of compatibility that SLI/Crossfire unfortunately cannot guarentee you.

Of course I'd look up charts and reviews before I bought anything.

And IST raises a good point. MONEY. Not everybody wants to spend $150 or more on a better video card. And nothing you say will change that. Your view is not everybody else's view. There are still plenty of people that would rather spend $100 on 3/4 performance than $150 on full. ... if their power supply handles it.

[funkyass]

I have to shout this:

IF YOU DON'T HAVE MONEY FOR A 150 DOLLAR VIDEO CARD, YOU ALSO DON'T HAVE THE MONEY FOR THE POWER SUPPLY TO RUN TWO CARDS.

[Gil_Hamilton]

And IST raises a good point. MONEY. Not everybody wants to spend $150 or more on a better video card. And nothing you say will change that. Your view is not everybody else's view. There are still plenty of people that would rather spend $100 on 3/4 performance than $150 on full. ... if their power supply handles it.

But the SLI upgrade promise has never borne out, for a number of reasons.

1 is availability. If you wait TOO long, it becomes impossible to get a matching card at a reasonable price. But if you aren't waiting very long, it makes more sense to buy the better card up-front.

2 is simple chipset upgrades. A hundred-dollar new-gen part WILL outperform the upgraded SLI rig a pair of older parts, as well as support new features that the pair of older cards won't.

3 is simple not-retardedness. If you KNOW your hundred-dollar upgrade will be vastly inferior to a 150-dollar card, the logical thing to do is wait a little while longer on your upgrade.
If it takes a long time to save 50 bucks, you PROBABLY don't have enough income that you should have paid extra for an SLI motherboard in the first place.






SLI is NOT a viable upgrade path, and any respectable hardware site will tell you the same thing.

[Clements]

Sell the old video card or put it into your 2nd rig (if you have one). SLi as an upgrade path with old cards is a WASTE.

[Deathlike2]

I have to shout this:

IF YOU DON'T HAVE MONEY FOR A 150 DOLLAR VIDEO CARD, YOU ALSO DON'T HAVE THE MONEY FOR THE POWER SUPPLY TO RUN TWO CARDS.

I salute you.

Sell the old video card or put it into your 2nd rig (if you have one). SLi as an upgrade path with old cards is a WASTE.

Just SLI mid-end is a waste. High end is a bit more viable here, but that's for a different discussion.

[I.S.T.]

Uh... you can get a PSU that supports two cards for like 60-70 bucks, people.

And I NEVER claimed buying two 7600 GTs would be better than one GTS. I'm saying if you already had a 7600 GT, another might be a good solution.

Also, there are low end SLi-capable motherboards, and both the 2600 XT and the 8600 GTS SUCK HUGE HORRIBLE AMOUNTS OF ASS AT DX10 CODE.

Running DX10 code on them is useless. They're not fast enough.

In the end, an 8600 GTS(Or a GT that has been massively OCed. If you've got a GT with GDDR3 memory, you can easily make it as fast as a GTS.) is the better card, but sometimes you don't have the cash for the better card, and you want to upgrade now. Hell, sometimes you can't even save up, and it is literally your only choice. I've been in that situation many times in my life...