• 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?

magick said:
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?
Click to expand...

nope, I wouldn't say so at all. Bandwidth, for gaming clearly doesn't make a difference, for some rendering it sure will but, meh tbh.

The simple thing is that its overkill, and they know it too. CPu usage hasn't even increased dramatically in the past 4 years, its probably 3/4 years since the dual core chips came out, and we still easily run almost every new game released on similar speed dual cores. I mean The X2's were released at 2.4Ghz, and frankly for most games thats still enough, thats 3/4 years old. We're hardly moving forward at an exponential rate tbh.

Triple channel i7 top end setups will see the same market share that Extreme editions always did, IE 4-5% of sales max, lynnfield, the dual channel ddr3 setup due next year will be the 70% of sales product, and it won't be that much faster than current Core2quads in most things.
Triple channel boards won't be cheap for a couple of years, they are just expensive to make, so nothing will be aimed at only working on that platform for years to come, by which time we'll have 8 core chips, maybe 16 cores, triple, hell even quad channel ddr5, so no I think a triple channel i7 setup is a joke in price because by the time you'd need it something 3 times as fast will be available cheaper.
 
MeatLoaf said:
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 :)
Click to expand...

Yep, I'd agree with that too from my experience going from E2160 to E7200.

I wouldn't run a top end sli/x-fire set up unless I had at least a Q9xxx series cpu...........overclocked! :)
 
drunkenmaster said:
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.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I can't see any reason whatsoever for running tri-sli or quadfire at 1920, it'd be like buying a single GTX280 for playing at 1024.

If you've got the money to go tri-sli, then I'd advise you also spend the money on a higher res monitor to take advantage of the extra power.
 
If your going tri-sli then I7 + X58 are a must as they give big improvements over Core2.

Your looking at around £2.5-3K + 30" TFT. 1920x1200 is absolutely pointless for tri-sli as you need a 30" TFT @ 2560x1600 to reap the full benefits.
 
CaptainRAVE said:
Or just try ONE card and see how well it performs. Never had any frame rate drops at 1920 with everything maximum.
Click to expand...

Exactly, get one card, see how it goes. If you are actually noticing frame rate drops then throw in a second. I'd be very very surprised if you noticed a problem with 2x280s at 1920. Hell I'll be surprised if you see a lack of performance with just one.

Personally though I'd get a single 4870x2 if I had the money for one.

And as said by a few people i7 just isn't needed at this time. No game is coming out in the forseeable future that will use more then an overclocked Q6600.

When it comes down to it I have a E6300 @ 3.15 and a 2900XT @ 800/900 and I can max out almost any game in XP without a problem. Games really aren't that demanding. I maxed out warhead with 2xAA and 8xAF and I never noticed a slowdown. That's at 1680x1050

An OC'ed Q6600 and a 4870x2 would max out games at 1920 no problem.
 
grudas said:
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 :cool:
Click to expand...

badly coded lol
 
Darg said:
When it comes down to it I have a E6300 @ 3.15 and a 2900XT @ 800/900 and I can max out almost any game in XP without a problem. I maxed out warhead with 2xAA and 8xAF and I never noticed a slowdown. That's at 1680x1050
Click to expand...

exsqueeze me? That's a DVD Bunny claim right there. 1680 2AA8AF Max settings on a 2900XT?
 
uvmain said:
exsqueeze me? That's a DVD Bunny claim right there. 1680 2AA8AF Max settings on a 2900XT?
Click to expand...

Well, max DX9 settings of course. Warhead is a bit easier on the resources then Crysis. Even crysis maxed out in DX9 (with the DX10 hack) I was getting 20+ average with 2xAA and 8xAF.

2900XT is basically a 3870. So about 20-25% slower then a 4870.
 
20-25 percent is way off the mark the 4870 is faster than a 3870x2. Its nearly twice as fast as a 3870. I would get a 4870x2 atm it is still currently the fastest single card you can buy and it will slaughter almost all games at your res. The new gtx295 looks pretty impressive but when compared with the x2 in 5 nv hand picked games it does not look to be to much faster and i would bet it is going to come in at a very high price. Other than waiting my first choice would be the x2 followed by the gtx280.
 
Last edited:
Id say get one GTX280 and try that then throw in another if needed or just wait for the GTX295 as im pretty sure it will beat the 4870 X2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom