2 2600xt ddr4 version in crossfire results

ergonomics · 3 Aug 2007 at 17:07

Nullvoid said:
The way some of you talk it's as if he bought the cards using your money...

i did say several times im NOT having a dig and that i do respect the fact that its all his money

and tbh i always am interested in what cards get in sli/xfire.

several times ive though of ditching my gts for 2x8600gt's

edit: now overclock them

gareth170 · 3 Aug 2007 at 17:15

Nullvoid said:
The way some of you talk it's as if he bought the cards using your money...

thats the feeling i get also..

i don't mean u ergonomics

KangooVanMan · 3 Aug 2007 at 18:40

Any idea what power they are drawing gareth? I would be interested to know, these cards don't have an external power connector or do they? I can't remember if the slot delivers 75w or 150w :confused:

. If they are only drawing 150w total doesn't sound too shabby.

MeatLoaf · 3 Aug 2007 at 18:47

gareth170 said:
but your MB is nvidia. mine isn't and i wasn't prepared to buy another MB..

and i bet yours is overclocked?

Yup both the cards and the cpu were clocked. Hadnt noticed your on an AMD rig

gareth170 · 3 Aug 2007 at 19:05

KangooVanMan said:
Any idea what power they are drawing gareth? I would be interested to know, these cards don't have an external power connector or do they? I can't remember if the slot delivers 75w or 150w . If they are only drawing 150w total doesn't sound too shabby.

a pci-e slot delivers 75w.. the card doesn't have an external power connector .. so it'll be total 150w or less depending on load..

gareth170 · 3 Aug 2007 at 19:11

MeatLoaf said:
Yup both the cards and the cpu were clocked. Hadnt noticed your on an AMD rig

well that why your score is higher..

ACESHIGH · 3 Aug 2007 at 19:12

Well for the OP im sure its done what he has wanted, which is give him a good graphics boost for a limited cash outlay. The results look good & the cards dont draw much power by the looks of it too.

jaykay · 3 Aug 2007 at 19:21

gareth170 said:
well that why your score is higher..

Hows the overlocking on the cards, in most reviews thye could only get the core to 850mhz and memory 2300mhz.???

gareth170 · 3 Aug 2007 at 19:28

jaykay said:
Hows the overlocking on the cards, in most reviews thye could only get the core to 850mhz and memory 2300mhz.???

i havent tryed overlocking it yet.

Margaret · 3 Aug 2007 at 19:46

ACESHIGH said:
The results look good & the cards dont draw much power by the looks of it too.

IIRC they use about 40 more watts than a 8800GTS which would've been faster for a small cost more.

That's if they both use 75w peak from the PCI-E slot, so 150w for two, if that's right, could be wrong and probably is.

Not digging here just saying.

gareth170 · 3 Aug 2007 at 21:08

Jihad said:
That's if they both use 75w peak from the PCI-E slot, so 150w for two, if that's right, could be wrong and probably is.

http://shsc.info/PCIExpress

PCIe 16X slots are also able to supply more power to video cards, up to 75W per slot compared to only 40W for AGP. This is a logical move, considering the skyrocketing power requirements for latest-generation graphics accelerators: the GeForce 6800 Ultra, for instance, draws a massive 72W at full load. Unfortunately, high-end PCIe video card will still require a direct connection to the PSU in order to ensure a clean supply of power. This is done through a new type of connector, which should avoid having to run the video card on the same power cable as hard drives or other power-hungry devices.

gareth170 · 3 Aug 2007 at 21:10

deleted

gareth170 · 3 Aug 2007 at 21:59

CCS benchmark results:

single card mode, 1680 x 1050res, max settings, with 4x AA and 16x AF:

crossfire mode, 1680 x 1050res, max settings, with 4x AA and 16x AF:

single card mode, 1680 x 1050res, max settings, with no AA and 16x AF:

crossfire mode, 1680 x 1050res, max settings, with no AA and 16x AF:

Margaret · 3 Aug 2007 at 23:12

Hmm bit odd, my 7900GTO got well over 130 odd with 4xAA/16xAF with all on High @ 1440x900, AA really takes a hit on them, what bit-interface are they?

gareth170 · 3 Aug 2007 at 23:19

Jihad said:
Hmm bit odd, my 7900GTO got well over 130 odd with 4xAA/16xAF with all on High @ 1440x900, AA really takes a hit on them, what bit-interface are they?

128bit..

maybe its down to the drivers. because i've got the slow menu problem issue back in Lost Planet Extreme Condition

gareth170 · 3 Aug 2007 at 23:35

ummmm. i've just tryed it in vista with the same settings. crossfire mode, 1680 x 1050res, max settings, with 4x AA and 16x AF:

much faster then xp.

RavenUK · 3 Aug 2007 at 23:40

gareth170 said:
ummmm. i've just tryed it in vista with the same settings. crossfire mode, 1680 x 1050res, max settings, with 4x AA and 16x AF:

much faster then xp.

Next time don't forget to click apply when you set the AA and AF..

gareth170 · 3 Aug 2007 at 23:57

RavenUK said:
Next time don't forget to click apply when you set the AA and AF..

i did it again in xp the result was still 70fps.. so vista is faster for the one

jaykay · 4 Aug 2007 at 09:39

gareth170 said:
i did it again in xp the result was still 70fps.. so vista is faster for the one

OMG thats a first vista is actually faster than xp.

gareth170 · 4 Aug 2007 at 10:12

vista:
3DMark Score 7320 3DMarks
SM 2.0 Score 3161 Marks
SM 3.0 Score 3718 Marks
CPU Score 1589 Marks
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=2643185 http://service.futuremark.com/orb/projectdetails.jsp?projectType=14&projectId=2643185
Graphics Tests
1 - Return to Proxycon 25.197 FPS
2 - Firefly Forest 27.479 FPS

CPU Tests
CPU1 - Red Valley 0.5 FPS
CPU2 - Red Valley 0.808 FPS

HDR Tests
1 - Canyon Flight (SM 3.0) 35.761 FPS
2 - Deep Freeze (SM 3.0) 38.6 FPS

xp:
3DMark Score 7325 3DMarks
SM 2.0 Score 3054 Marks
SM 3.0 Score 3711 Marks
CPU Score 1667 Marks
Graphics Tests
1 - Return to Proxycon 23.894 FPS
2 - Firefly Forest 27.007 FPS

CPU Tests
CPU1 - Red Valley 0.525 FPS
CPU2 - Red Valley 0.846 FPS

HDR Tests
1 - Canyon Flight (SM 3.0) 36.063 FPS
2 - Deep Freeze (SM 3.0) 38.147 FPS

vista is higher on the SM 2.0 and SM 3.0