[H] seems to say the only thing Nvidia did right was 480gtx in sli, but thats because the 5970 is a downclocked 5870, and realistically if RRP's were followed in the UK at £300 and £430, the 5970 gives you massive massive value for that performance even with lower clocks, while 2x480gtx's is the price of 2x480gtx's. The problem is a single GTX is basically as expensive as a 5970, you could afford a 2nd 5970 before you could add on a third 480gtx. If you just bought 2x 5870's though, or even worse 2x5850's and clocked them to their max, 480gtx sli would be beaten, with cards costing less than a single 480gtx, oppps.
Fully agree, having just read that review at HardOCP. I really don't understand their "logic" sometimes. Here is a quote from the review:
Referring to performance in Battlefield Bad Company 2, they say:
"Therefore, the gameplay experience was identical between GTX 480
SLI (yes, that's SLI!!!!!!) and Radeon HD 5970."
Is this supposed to be impressive??
Yet, in the conclusion, they go on to say:
"We saw real-world benefits, we think are related to the framebuffer, in Aliens vs. Predator. The Radeon HD 5970 was not able to play with 4X AA at 2560x1600, whereas GeForce GTX 480 SLI was. We also experienced awesome performance in Bad Company 2 with 16X CSAA and 2X TR SSAA that was much more than "playable."
GeForce GTX 480 SLI clearly provides a better gameplay experience than the dual-GPU Radeon HD 5970. In the dual-GPU competition."
Come on......they're comparing one dual GPU card with two single GPU cards, the former solution costs £500, while the latter costs around £900.
They should have compared sli'd 480s to crossfired 5970s, since going by current prices, the difference is is only £100 instead of £400 (excluding the suspiciously low Gainward).
