![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
8800gtx SLI?
- Thread starter madmax30d
- Start date
michaLcoughliN
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2007
- Messages
- 1,163
hmmm... look at benches. 60% i believe
pcgaminggeek3
BAD TRADER
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2007
- Messages
- 110
Depends on your setup as well. If your using true 16x SLI and enough power to power them CPU and PSU. You will have about 45-55% increase.
The power will have little to no effect on the speed. The power supply will only be responsible for making it work or not work. It could also be responsible for instability. I don't think "true" x16 PCIe graphics slots will offer any real performance improvement above what the 8x8 configuration offers.
As for how much performance you see, it really depends on the game. Some will give you 40% and others 70%. It just depends on so many factors.
Depends on your set up and what you're looking for.
For most people it's not worth it.
But if you're being bottlenecked by the GPU it could be worth it. If you're benching you'll want SLI. Or if you're using a 30" monitor, then absolutely yes it's worth it.
Keep in mind that the odds are that you can overclock a single card higher than two cards in SLI.
As for me, I'd rather just sell my remaining GTX and get the G92 when it comes out...
For most people it's not worth it.
But if you're being bottlenecked by the GPU it could be worth it. If you're benching you'll want SLI. Or if you're using a 30" monitor, then absolutely yes it's worth it.
Keep in mind that the odds are that you can overclock a single card higher than two cards in SLI.
As for me, I'd rather just sell my remaining GTX and get the G92 when it comes out...
silent-circuit
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2005
- Messages
- 16,132
High end dual core or a quad. Ideally a quad.
sabregen
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 19,501
I save the $ on the CPU to dump into the GPU, simply because I play more FPS than I do racing/flight sim type games. If you prefer those, go with a higher stock speed on the CPU, and cut a corner or two (if possible) to save on the GPU. Of course, both deficiencies can be overcome with a good OC...but how much you'll get is the gamble you take. That's part of the fun!
The GPUs will have more effect on gaming performance than the CPU does. The Q6600 overclocked to 3.4GHz is faster than the Q6600 or E6600 at stock speeds in games but the difference isn't astronomical. I'd never be able to make up the difference in performance if I were to pull one of the GTX's out on CPU power alone. It just won't happen. Also I've noticed that generally speaking overclocking my graphics cards has provided more performance than CPU overclocking generally does. Now this advice isn't 100% true accross the board, some games will be more heavily affected by CPU speed than others.
But I absolutely agree with post#9 in this thread about dumping the extra money into the GPU rather than the processor. That's just sound advice most of the time.
But I absolutely agree with post#9 in this thread about dumping the extra money into the GPU rather than the processor. That's just sound advice most of the time.
sabregen
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 19,501
thanks Dan_D, the response is appreciated, and it's nice to know that I'm not completely off my rocker. To be quite frank, with current generation gaming, and where we're at today... I don't know if my previous knowledge of sim games still holds true. A few years ago, the racing/flight sim genre used to be very CPU intensive games, and used to (traditionally) hold the GPU less accountable for framerates, and my belief is that this was primarily due to the computations that were required to power the games of 2000-2005 (in the sim genre). Back then, if you were a sim player, having a beefier CPU would mean more FPS simply due to the fact that the games were crunching so many numbers for collision detections (and many other things, I'm sure) that were part of the games. It was less about the GPU at the time (I'm talking Geforce 2-3 days here). With where we're at now, It's likely that the CPU has the horsepower to push the numbers in the background (as long it's a relatively modern CPU), and what we're seeing, especially with the move to DX10, and later version of DX9.0c games, the graphics rendering is becoming the burden for most games, on most systems.
Same here. The second GTX made all the difference at the higher resolutions. I still notice it though to some extent at even 1680x1050, but only when the AA and AF is maxed out.
Why would it matter?
For the record, I run Windows Vista x64 Edition. However, that doesn't matter that much as the performance differences between XP and Vista are now fairly minimal. BTW I have also run this setup with Windows XP Professional in the past.
I'm using Rivatuner. I am not sure what driver version I'm using anymore. Generally the newest drivers always work best for me. There have been very few exceptions to that rule over the years.
silent-circuit
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2005
- Messages
- 16,132
You will be fine with Vista. Don't worry about XP anymore. Vista drivers are getting better all the time, and the performance gap is closing up quickly. All that aside, with real DX10 games coming to market in the next 2-3 months running XP makes even less sense, particularly with DX10 capable hardware.
silent-circuit
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2005
- Messages
- 16,132
Dan, for one. Not sure of many others. I plan to soon, but don't have the extra cash to throw down on a second GTX at the moment.
I do.
Since we're on this subject, I have a single EVGA 8800GTX also. I'm planning on getting a second GTX before Crysis comes out instead of waiting until the end of the year for a card that may potentially be not so different, performance wise. I just got done putting my new system together two days ago, and i'm loving it. I have a E6700 @ 2.66, and 2 gigs of G-Skill DDR2-800, 2 320gb Seagate barracuda hard drives with Xp Pro on one, and Vista Ultimate on the other. And a 750 Watt Silverstone Power supply. Will 2 GTXs in Sli compliment my system well, as far as power goes, and components?
silent-circuit
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2005
- Messages
- 16,132
They will assuming you have a reasonably high resolution display. Otherwise you may not notice much difference for a while.
When you say I won't notice much difference in a while what do you mean? I have a 17" Liquid Video 1280x1024 native resolution LCD right now, so even on some of the DX10 games i've run so far, like Lost Planet, and World in Conflict, you're saying I won't see a FPS increase for a while?
I'm on vista x64 running on 88 gtx's sli'ed on a q6600 at 1920*1200. Haven't experienced any problems regarding fps. I mostly play css, bf2, graw2 without any notice in dropped frames. Anything over 70 fps is subjective anyways. The human eye can see to only what? 70-80 fps? Anyone wanna back me up on that?
silent-circuit
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2005
- Messages
- 16,132
Right now at that resolution nothing out is really stressing an 8800 GTX. And I do mean nothing. You'll see a FPS boost, sure, but it won't be one that matters. I'd suggest spending the money on a 22" widescreen or larger, rather than a second card. Once you're running a resolution where it'd be more beneficial spend the money on a second card.
I thought it was 60.
pcgaminggeek3
BAD TRADER
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2007
- Messages
- 110
We need better DX10 drivers for SLI.. 
silent-circuit
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2005
- Messages
- 16,132
They should already be here, yes, but I think there will be massive improvements in that area once there are actually popular DX10 games (Bioshock, UT3, Crysis) to push the driver dev team and test with. Still, considering how long Vista and G80 have been around at this point, the state of the drivers -- especially SLI drivers -- is outright pathetic.
It's not really a magic number and one thing people seem to be unaware of is that the difference you perceive between 60FPS and 100+FPS isn't so much what your eye sees but the difference between what your hands are doing and what your eyes are seeing. In essence, you feel the difference more so than you see it. What you will feel most often is going to be sudden drops or jumps in FPS. That's why consistent FPS is the most important factor. Minimum FPS at least above 30 or so should minimize the impact of performance fluctuations in terms of what you perceive.
I agree. I think newer DX10 games will be far better indicators of how DX10 should perform than Lost Planet. I also agree that the state of the drivers for Vista and G80 are pathetic for the same reasons you do.
Well I don't notice too much if anything in the way of performance differences between most games on Vista and XP. Half-Life 2 Lost Coast and Episode One were two titles I did notice a big difference. I don't generally complain because I get good performance in those games it's just not as good as what I got in Windows XP.
I have no idea really. With the exception of the two titles I mentioned above I can't really say. I am not one of these FRAPS or 3D Mark Whores. I use my system to play games, not to run benchmarks. If my system isn't performing right I'll know it immediately and take corrective action.
I would definitely agree with this. Current cards aren't hammering even full 8x worth of PCI-E bandwidth.
Personally I was going to get SLI with 8800GTX's however I think I'll wait to see what the winter lineup brings and maybe SLI a pair of the new cards. Especially since nVidia is claiming they're 2-3 times the power of current cards.
I'll save you the trouble. XP will be faster overall, but the difference between Vista and XP is getting smaller almost every day it seems. As I've stated the differences between my setup under XP and under Vista are negligible at best. The only exception is with some Source Engine based games. Even so the performance under Vista, while slower is still pretty good.
What's 'said' to be and what actually is often vary. Which is why I personally will not go with SLI at this point but with a single card and wait for a while.
That's a shit load of conjecture on your part. First off the product is currently code-named G92 and NVIDIA has NOT in anyway shape or form announced or even HINTED at G92's possible retail name. Calling it a 9800GTX is baseless because that is not the products' name at present. It's never had an official name other than G92.
Secondly, though NVIDIA clearly stated that the card will be a 1-tflop part, that doesn't mean an actual card based off of G92 will be 3x faster or even 2x faster. Memory design, and various other possible limitations (electrical, heat, or others) will likely limit the G92 core potential to something between 1.5x and 2x the performance of the 8800GTX if we are very very lucky. If we are even luckier, we'll get reduced power consumption and cooler running cores.
I have two 8800 GTXs running in Vista x64. While I never had trouble enabling SLI in Vista as others have, I was never really pleased with the performance of the SLI setup until I upgraded to Forceware 158.43. Those drivers made all the difference, and since then SLI has been running on my PC in full gear (with nary a difference between XP and Vista.)
As I often recommend to those looking for build advice, SLI is only worth it these days if you're gaming at a resolution of 1920x1200 or greater and can afford to spend the cash on two GTX cards. In all other cases, a high-end a single card solution should prove to be the more attractive option, given the lower complexity, heat output, and future upgrade expense.
Btw, has anyone w/ a similar setup upgraded to the new 163 beta drivers yet? What's the verdict on them?
Thanks,
Mark.
As I often recommend to those looking for build advice, SLI is only worth it these days if you're gaming at a resolution of 1920x1200 or greater and can afford to spend the cash on two GTX cards. In all other cases, a high-end a single card solution should prove to be the more attractive option, given the lower complexity, heat output, and future upgrade expense.
Btw, has anyone w/ a similar setup upgraded to the new 163 beta drivers yet? What's the verdict on them?
Thanks,
Mark.