-
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.
280GTX Tri-Sli or 4870x2 Crossfire?
- Thread starter magick
- Start date
i would say go for xfire only cos it's more stable.. but you will need 8gb of ram to have good performance.. oh.. i wouldn't spend this much money on 2x or 3x gfx you better of with one 4870x2 2gb
But will a single 4870x2 run crysis @1920x1200 with all the eye candy?
I've seen a high spec PC that comes with 4870x2 crossfire pre-built and thought that would be perfect, but some people here are saying 280gtx sli/tri sli is better.
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Feb 2007
- Posts
- 2,065
- Location
- Bedfordshire
For crysis nVidia is better.
is crysis all you play?
crysis is only good as a benchmark... other games can have better looking gfx and run better at the same time crysis is just badly coded... 4870x2 should run all the games at that res but like sameone said wait for new gtx and see what that one offers first 
Permabanned
- Joined
- 5 Apr 2006
- Posts
- 7,704
You need to be using a core i7 cpu clocked at 4Ghz at least to reap any benefit from more than 2 GPU's. Running a 2nd 4870X2 will only gain you another 4-8 fps in most games that support it. the system just can't feed it enough data.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
there is NOTHING out there that 2 260's , 2x280's or a 4870x2 can't handle at 1920x1200, Crysis is an nvidia loving game in general but you're talking 31-32fps average, 20minimum from a 4870x2 at 1920x1200 absolutely maxed out with 2xaa, about 33-26fps for the 260/280/295 sli setups with similar minimum's. Frankly you won't feel the difference, a single 280gtx gives you 20fps average with a 11fps minimum, a single card doesn't cut that game at 1920x1200 maxed and that is unplayable while any dual gpu setup works well on it, its a game that isn't hugely fast and 30fps feels very smooth on it while other games 30fps can feel crap.
Tri sli, and quadfire are for 2560x1600, no questions, there is no need for it at any stage in 1920x1200, the raw power from two gpu's is all you need in any game.
You also DO NOT need a better cpu for tri/quadfire, the ONLY review to suggest this benched an i7 against a dual core C2d, when every other review shows no difference with a i7 vs a quad core C2Q, it was just a pointless and ridiculous review badly done and completely biased, even other heavily biased Nvidia review sites didn't go that far and still said i7 did nothing for gaming.
Crysis could theoretically want more fps, though its fine at 30fps average and you'd be paying several hundred pounds more for a setup to maybe gain an extra 10fps in that game, while in any other game a sli/4870x2 will be getting you huge fps and the extra card power will simply be giving you from 100fps up to 120fps, something you won't see.
get a 4870x2, a 295gtx if you must(Nvidia might price it well which would make it a decent buy, but most people suspect it will have a £500+ price tag where it will be useless), 2x260 216ps versions is probably the sweet spot Nvidia price/performance wise, the not 1GB mem only runs out at 2560x1200 in general.
Most of the benchmarks show very little difference between th 4870x2 and the 295gtx except in Deadspace which, most reviews show the 4870x2 gaining massive speed with AA enabled compared to losing it with AA disabled, its just an altogether buggy game to benchmark with ATi. Every other game its basically indistinguishable, by all means get a 295gtx if its a similar price, if its not theres simply no need to pay more. Hell if the 295gtx comes out cheaper get that and laugh at the 4870x2's cost, but its not likely to happen.
Tri sli, and quadfire are for 2560x1600, no questions, there is no need for it at any stage in 1920x1200, the raw power from two gpu's is all you need in any game.
You also DO NOT need a better cpu for tri/quadfire, the ONLY review to suggest this benched an i7 against a dual core C2d, when every other review shows no difference with a i7 vs a quad core C2Q, it was just a pointless and ridiculous review badly done and completely biased, even other heavily biased Nvidia review sites didn't go that far and still said i7 did nothing for gaming.
Crysis could theoretically want more fps, though its fine at 30fps average and you'd be paying several hundred pounds more for a setup to maybe gain an extra 10fps in that game, while in any other game a sli/4870x2 will be getting you huge fps and the extra card power will simply be giving you from 100fps up to 120fps, something you won't see.
get a 4870x2, a 295gtx if you must(Nvidia might price it well which would make it a decent buy, but most people suspect it will have a £500+ price tag where it will be useless), 2x260 216ps versions is probably the sweet spot Nvidia price/performance wise, the not 1GB mem only runs out at 2560x1200 in general.
Most of the benchmarks show very little difference between th 4870x2 and the 295gtx except in Deadspace which, most reviews show the 4870x2 gaining massive speed with AA enabled compared to losing it with AA disabled, its just an altogether buggy game to benchmark with ATi. Every other game its basically indistinguishable, by all means get a 295gtx if its a similar price, if its not theres simply no need to pay more. Hell if the 295gtx comes out cheaper get that and laugh at the 4870x2's cost, but its not likely to happen.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 5 Apr 2006
- Posts
- 7,704
I disagree, you do need a fast CPU (C2D E6600 minimum) these days to see any noticable gains from SLI. each to their own though
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 47,335
My 4870X2 runs Warhead all on Enthusiast and smoothly with the 8.12 drivers!
Associate
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 351
With Crysis you are indeed GPU limited almost all the time, but for Tri-SLI 280 or Crossfire X 4870X2 users, you will be held back a bit if you have a weaker CPU.
As far as Crysis being merely a benchmark, I am inclined to disagree, I love the style of gameplay.
BUT it is indeed a good benchmarking tool, that is true. If you aim to make a rig that can play Crysis on max settings, then you can relax safe in the knowledge that you can max out any other game out there at high settings.
Only freaky games like ArmA or FSX maxed out will provide the same kind of challenge.
As far as Crysis being merely a benchmark, I am inclined to disagree, I love the style of gameplay.
BUT it is indeed a good benchmarking tool, that is true. If you aim to make a rig that can play Crysis on max settings, then you can relax safe in the knowledge that you can max out any other game out there at high settings.
Only freaky games like ArmA or FSX maxed out will provide the same kind of challenge.
Thanks for the replies everyone
There does seem to be quite a difference between 295gtx and 4870x2 in these benchmarks especialy at 2560x1600. I think I will hold out for 295gtx as that review hints it will probably be quiter than 4870x2.
There does seem to be quite a difference between 295gtx and 4870x2 in these benchmarks especialy at 2560x1600. I think I will hold out for 295gtx as that review hints it will probably be quiter than 4870x2.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Theres a difference between a E6600, a 2.4Ghz(or is it 2.6ish?) dual core, and a 3Ghz quad core, as in, two extra cores and 20% clock speed or more.
I wouldn't say there would be any point running sli on even a E6600 but then I wouldn't run a 4850 personally, on a stock E6600 either.
Its this simple, if you have a cpu capable of say 80fps in a game at 800x600, its capable of that at 2560x1600 aswell, the only difference will be the gpu getting hammered more. Yes a better cpu could give you 160fps at 800x600, but the gpu will still be holding you back no where near that at a higher resolution.
The point of tri sli/quadfire, or standard sli/xfire is to give the same fps you'd normally get at 1680x1050/1920x1200, but give you that same FPS at 2560x1600. THeres no point getting tri/quadfire to go from 100fps at 1920x1200, to 200fps at 1920x1200, if you won't use a higher resolution don't buy tri/quad setups, its utterly pointless. Yes if you DID do what I just said, you might end up limited at 100fps, and you might want a 5Ghz i7 to run at 200fps, but you'd gain entirely nothing. While bumping up the res you won't need a faster cpu.
These days the only cpu I'd recommend is a Q6600, clocks fast enough for ANY game, bar none, has 4 cores like anything else and has a shed load of spare horsepower as no game will max anywhere near all 4 cores yet. The Q series low end are fairly crap and not as fast and don't clock well due to high fsb and very low multipliers, the higher Q series are ludicrously expensive to get identical gaming performance and i7's are not badly priced chips but insanely expensive motherboards and memory setups so also not worth it as they offer the same performance in gaming.
A Q6600 at 3Ghz, a i7 at 3Ghz, a phenom 1, or phenom 2 at 3Ghz, will all bench within 5% of each other in every game out there. If its a system not for gaming, for other things by all means spend your money. But the fact is that if its only for gaming, all of those cpu's offer identical performance for quite largely varying system costs.
If you play any game not at your gpu limited resolution, you've simply wasted money on your gfx cards, if you do play at gpu limited resolutions, there will be no difference between really any half decent quad core(and in 99% of games still a dual core will give identical performance also). I personally wouldn't recommend buying a dual core new now as there are games that will use a quad core and they will only increase in numbers from here on in and at £150, or £100 second hand the Q6600 is hardly a bank breaker. Likewise even a phenom 1 quad at £100 isn't a bad setup at all, and a P2 in a couple months will offer better value in non gaming apps.
How long do you think that will last for though? Surely if you'r buying a new system from scratch is it worth getting a i7/triple ddr3 as it's more future proof?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Thanks for the replies everyone
There does seem to be quite a difference between 295gtx and 4870x2 in these benchmarks especialy at 2560x1600. I think I will hold out for 295gtx as that review hints it will probably be quiter than 4870x2.
couple things to point out, every other review i've seen suggests the 295 holds no such lead, infact the more well known websites all say those numbers are , well, poo.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/12/18/first-look-nvidia-geforce-gtx-295-1792mb/5#Scene_1
Its back and forth between which is better, but at any resolution you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference. Its also worth noting they reviews on a 790i Nvidia motherboard and used, for no reason I can possibly fathom, beta drivers for the catalysts, rather than the 8.12's.
Considering its widely known also that Nvidia didn't release these cards to anyone who didn't agree to benchmark 5 specific games and they haven't benched all of those, their numbers don't agree with any other website review and they've made it as pro Nvidia as possible, basically take those with a massive pinch of salt I would say.
The 295 will NOT have that large a lead, every other review agree's on that, it has one or two leads, so does ATi, the one really not very good performance Ati puts in is with COD: WAW which is really quite pants and afaik, its faster in COD: 4 which is a far better game.
I agree with you there. I saw a big gain in COD5 and Crysis simply by chaning CPUs. My old 6750 @ 3.2Ghz was bottle necking the cards, with a new E8400 @ 3.8Ghz i see a fair few more frames.
Also in 3Dm06 i saw at leat 3k more