-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Another 3DMark06 score check...
- Thread starter Legless
- Start date
So we are not talking about earth shattering improvements then?
Well only if you ever run 3dmark06 and don't play any games
8800GT in SLI is actually pretty good and if you already have an SLI board and a 8800GT then it's a good boost for the money.
Still mad to go and buy mobo and two GT's cards from the start though......IMHO
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 May 2005
- Posts
- 12,631
I am glad you said imho.
Unless you have tons of money, or a massive screen there isn't a point. It is the general view of just about anyone in to computers.
It truly shines if:
Large screen, and you are putting a new PC together. For example 8800 GTX x2 (back in the day when they were first released) and you can afford it easily. Other wise, the performance boost isn't worth it.
For example, buying 2 8800 GT now is pointless, there are better solutions for the same money, or waiting and buying a better card in a few months.
1 faster card is always the better solution than 2 slower cards together.
FOr example, if you was to have brought 2x 8800 GTS 640 MB cards, you would have been better getting a 8800 GTX or an Ultra instead.
If you happen to own a SLI motherboard, a SLI capable GPU and can pick a second card up for cheap then its a reasonable idea.
SLI scales badly, this is well known. 2x SLI scales just about ok, tri SLI scales terrible. If I was ever considering something like SLI, I would prefer Crossfire.
Even dual monitors don't work in SLI, so those of us who do more than game have even more hassle.
and you can afford it easily. Other wise, the performance boost isn't worth it.
....a bit like spending a lot of dosh on water cooling some of the cheaper processors, when it costs less to go up 2 levels of processors and get more performance.
A bit of an itch in both cases...if it does then you scratch it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 May 2005
- Posts
- 12,631
that makes no sense ?
Buying 2 high end GPU's is not the same as buying 2 low / mid range cards ?
Buying 2 high end GPU's is not the same as buying 2 low / mid range cards ?
Well only if you ever run 3dmark06 and don't play any games
8800GT in SLI is actually pretty good and if you already have an SLI board and a 8800GT then it's a good boost for the money.
Still mad to go and buy mobo and two GT's cards from the start though......IMHO
Absolutely agree...IL2 forgotten battles (combat flight sim) in OpenGL2 works well with my system. There is quite a substantial gain in fps at 1900 x 1200 with all the eye candy turned up.
....a bit like spending a lot of dosh on water cooling some of the cheaper processors, when it costs less to go up 2 levels of processors and get more performance.
Not really the same at all.
I have tried SLI and it was pants.
A waste of time money effort and electricty.
Better to buy a single card every time imo.
Last edited:
Not really the same at all.
I was absolutely certain you would respond..that is one of the reasons for posting. Still imho it is.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 May 2005
- Posts
- 12,631
I was absolutely certain you would respond..that is one of the reasons for posting. Still imho it is.
But in your opinion, Photoshop and other professional programs don't gain anything from Quad core
We aren't saying that SLI doesn't do anything, we are saying that SLI is only good in a few situations, and the only time I would personally SLI is if I was buying 2x of the best cards out there. For mid range, it is almost pointless in that you can basically get the better card for the same money as you spend on the two.
SLI is ok though if you have say 1 GTS 640MB, and see another going really cheap and put them together, but since some games show no increase, and others quite little, it doesn't work with dual displays, uses more power, creates more heat, it is a lot of effort.
As mentioned, if someone gave me 2x GTX 280 I would be happy, but if I had a choice out of 1 GTX 280 or 2 GTX 260, unless NV have vastly improved SLI this time around, I would rather go with the GTX 280.
Thanks for the replies guys, was worried as i have seen some HIGH scores on here, but like i stated before, i am unsure on how to overclock my Q9450 atm... The BIOS has so many options that it baffles me (my old amd64 motherboard was much easier)... I need to read up on it or get some help...
dont let the massive scores put you off, overclocking can ease a couple of thousand easy
I was absolutely certain you would respond..that is one of the reasons for posting. Still imho it is.
Eh?
Its a forum discussing topics of performance hardware.
Why wouldn't I respond to a post that doesn't make sense?
But in your opinion, Photoshop and other professional programs don't gain anything from Quad core
Now come on sunshine..
Show me where I said that and I will buy you a beer. If you are old enough to drink of course....(joke..just in case you get upset). You have read something into a statement that is not there.
So it is several of you in chorus eh? Tell me how many and I will buy a round of drinks...... I wont get into trouble with the law will I ? 
Note. Still pulling your legIN YOUR OPINION....
As I have said before repeatedly, I run a game called IL2 Forgotten Battles (online) and the difference is quite marked at 1920 x 1200 with all the eye_candy turned up and one is flying over large airfields with lots of targets and lots of explosions and over water that is realistic. If you havent been there, then you are not in a position to give a very precise response. You can respond with what you have read some "Experts" say, but unless you have the practical experience (online with the server full of players which I along with several others manage in the Data Centre in Manhatten) backed up by many other users on teamspeak giving you component breakdown, that always in this situation shows SLI in good light. By the way Crossfire has only appeared in the conversation once and that person is not happy with the frame rates.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 May 2005
- Posts
- 12,631
Now come on sunshine..
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/sh...5&highlight=creative+work+username_Dark_Angel
In that thread, you was clearly telling the guy to go with the E8400, when he said that he would use a lot of creative work. As you can see from the graphs, Photoshop and almost any creative ap loves quad core
THat makes no sense, no matter what way you look at it. If it is the gneral view of the majority of computer users, then it is usually right (unless the individual has an unusual setup/ something else)
The crossfire was brought in to show that ATI do it "better" than NV. This isn't a random comment, it is simply meant in the "NV need to implment their tech better".
And once again, you are completely chosing to hear what you *want* to hear. We aren't saying that you don't get an FPS boost, we are saying though that buying something like 2 8800 GTS 640MB cards (to use an older example) would be a worse choice in most cases than 1 8800 GTX or 1 8800 Ultra.
As mentioned, (for the 100 th time now it seems).
If you own a *large* monitor (at least 1920x1200) and buy 2 of the best cards (for example, 2x 280 GX's when they are released) and understand you will lose a chunk of performance, but do not care, and just want the best possible performance no matter the cost fair enough.
If you happen to own an 8800 GTS 640 MB (once again to use it as an example) you happen to see another card in say Members Market for 60 pounds, and you snap it up for a quick boost, also fair enough.
What myself and I would assume Easy are saying though, going for the mid range SLI solution isn't worth it, and it is not good for cost or performance ratio.
It also limits your motherboard choices too, creates more heat, uses more power, disables your ability to use dual monitors, and a few driver niggles. *BUT* if as mentioned above, you buy the best 2 cards possible, and don't care of cost, fine, or as a cheap "will last me a few more months" upgrade, fine.
But I would not buy a 8800 GT x2 now for example.
*EDIT*
Excuse any random spelling mistakes or whatever, just finished working out so not 100 percent focused
Last edited:
SLi does not scale well, but as stated, there are situations where it does improve gameplay.
First off, i am an nvidia fanboy, so whatever i say is going to sound biased, and secondly, i have gts512 sli, so whatever i say is now going to sound doubly biased...
My excuse for sli? well, i got sent 2 cards instead of 1, so i thought i'd try it... (although i was planing on buying a 2nd card anyway...)
I game at 1920x1200... Now, i defaintely do not get much of a performance increase at resolutions up to the 1680x1050 mark, but when the res is maxed out, i do get some benefit over a single card, to the point where i don't actually loose many FPS over lower resolutions. So i want the game to look even nicer, easily done, i ramp up the aa and af... and still... very minimal performance hit, whereas with only 1 card, performance starts to drop dramatically.
I think what Gunrunner is saying is spot on...
Buy 1 gfx card... buy another to geta performance increase that you could have got by buying a single more powerful card...
OR
Buy a cpu... then buy a ridiculous costing water-cooled setup to clock it that little bit further, when just spending the money from the cpu and watercooling put together, would have got you a much better cpu which would have been able to achieve those 'only-on-water' clocks anyway...
Why do we do it? BECAUSE WE CAN
First off, i am an nvidia fanboy, so whatever i say is going to sound biased, and secondly, i have gts512 sli, so whatever i say is now going to sound doubly biased...
My excuse for sli? well, i got sent 2 cards instead of 1, so i thought i'd try it... (although i was planing on buying a 2nd card anyway...)
I game at 1920x1200... Now, i defaintely do not get much of a performance increase at resolutions up to the 1680x1050 mark, but when the res is maxed out, i do get some benefit over a single card, to the point where i don't actually loose many FPS over lower resolutions. So i want the game to look even nicer, easily done, i ramp up the aa and af... and still... very minimal performance hit, whereas with only 1 card, performance starts to drop dramatically.
I think what Gunrunner is saying is spot on...
Buy 1 gfx card... buy another to geta performance increase that you could have got by buying a single more powerful card...
OR
Buy a cpu... then buy a ridiculous costing water-cooled setup to clock it that little bit further, when just spending the money from the cpu and watercooling put together, would have got you a much better cpu which would have been able to achieve those 'only-on-water' clocks anyway...
Why do we do it? BECAUSE WE CAN
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 May 2005
- Posts
- 12,631
But you got sent 2 by mistake (I await the moral police about not sending it back any moment now)
But what we are saying is that going the mid card route straight away (in other words ordering right now 2 8800 gt's) is pointless, and it is better to get the high end card.
If you have a large display, and get 2 of the best cards, or you can get a second card real cheap, then I think thats viable. As long as you know you won't get twice the performance. (which clearly you do).
As for the water cooling, I still think thats a bit of a bad argument.
Firstly, you can reuse the water cooling setup on a rig in a year from now (maybe just change the cooler for the CPU, but everything else will be ok).
Secondly, I think there aren't many people who would buy an E2180 or similar to put it under water (unless they had the water cooling from a previous build) or they are one of those guys that buys a chip just to see what they can squeeze out of it, such as some of the people on xtremesystems forums. (which is fair play to them, as long as they like it).
Dark_Angel
Just to point out in the thread that you are quoting, I originally responded and said he should purchase an E8400 because of his opening statement and I quote from the thread..
What I need it for:
1. Most importantly - Gaming (1680*1050)
It was clear and precise "Most importantly". = above and beyond all other consideration. So with the greatest respect please dont throw that one at me.
Now down to the SLI configuration and the right cards at the right price. Yep horses for courses and the timing is very important when I purchased mine after yet another ATI card failure just out of warranty, the GT card that I purchased at trade was the way for me to go given my monitor and its resolution (1900 x 1200) and what I use it for. The second one was purchased a lot later to give me the really incredible boost in the game that I am passionate about. Remember...repeat remember...It is an opinion.
Just to point out in the thread that you are quoting, I originally responded and said he should purchase an E8400 because of his opening statement and I quote from the thread..
What I need it for:
1. Most importantly - Gaming (1680*1050)
It was clear and precise "Most importantly". = above and beyond all other consideration. So with the greatest respect please dont throw that one at me.
Now down to the SLI configuration and the right cards at the right price. Yep horses for courses and the timing is very important when I purchased mine after yet another ATI card failure just out of warranty, the GT card that I purchased at trade was the way for me to go given my monitor and its resolution (1900 x 1200) and what I use it for. The second one was purchased a lot later to give me the really incredible boost in the game that I am passionate about. Remember...repeat remember...It is an opinion.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 May 2005
- Posts
- 12,631
But then why is it that after wards, in the post where I replied an option for the Q6600, you replied and said:
It still has to be the E8400 as he has only one set of eyes and all of the above tasks demand both of them used for single tasking. Except if he is listening to music whilst doing items 2 and 4.
I read that as "unless you are doing tons of tasks at the same time as rendering a video, you may as well get dual core".
I found this really odd, because most games are GPU limited, and not CPU limited, so with someone wanting to do creative work, it is far better he gains 40 percent (at least) performance in apps rather than 1 or 2 FPS in a game, because at 1680 GPU limits start to come in to play. Especially in something like COD4 or Crysis.
Anyways, no need to get so defensive about it
Of course every purchase in the history of the universe is opinion, but myself and a lot of other people are in the train of thought it is better to have 1 really fast card than 2 mid range ones.
We aren't saying there isn't times when SLI is good, useful or needed (for example Crysis on a 30" monitor SLI 8800 GTX is going to be a min requirement). But as a general thing, most people would be better off going for a single faster card.
Last edited: