quad sli

I wouldn't recommend it. Hell, 1 7950GX2 doesnt even work in Vista yet, but quad SLI never really worked right in any OS.
 
but quad SLI never really worked right in any OS.
Click to expand...

there were some games that took advantage of quad-sli but the problem is in the game developers. so...
 
lol, there is only about 2 FPS increase with 2x7950GX2 as compared to one.

The 'ultimate money waster' - right along with the X6800 :D
 
leSLIe said:
there were some games that took advantage of quad-sli but the problem is in the game developers. so...
Click to expand...

Your saying that its the game developers fault for the non excisting support for Quad SLI in games? :rolleyes:

It did not take a blood hound to smell that the whole Quad SLI was a PR stunt by Nvidia.
 
Koko56 said:
lol, there is only about 2 FPS increase with 2x7950GX2 as compared to one.

The 'ultimate money waster' - right along with the X6800 :D
Click to expand...


X6800 in the same category as quad SLI? yeah ok... Im sure some will agree, but unlocked multiplier, highest stock clock and die that qualified as extreme isnt a waste, sorry. Just because something is too expensive for many to afford doesnt make it a waste. It performs better than any other Conroe on any test stock and has been pushed higher with better stability as well when overclocking with only few exceptions.

Quad SLI, on the other hand, is a novelty that had only narrow penetration, occurred only on an older platform, and never justified its own existance before a significantly faster single card solution became available from the same vendor.

The two shouldnt be mentioned in the same sentence.
 
mlambert890 said:
X6800 in the same category as quad SLI? yeah ok... Im sure some will agree, but unlocked multiplier, highest stock clock and die that qualified as extreme isnt a waste, sorry. Just because something is too expensive for many to afford doesnt make it a waste. It performs better than any other Conroe on any test stock and has been pushed higher with better stability as well when overclocking with only few exceptions.

Quad SLI, on the other hand, is a novelty that had only narrow penetration, occurred only on an older platform, and never justified its own existance before a significantly faster single card solution became available from the same vendor.

The two shouldnt be mentioned in the same sentence.
Click to expand...

Well, if you overclock the the E6600 withg air cooling and then overclock the X6800 with air, you will probably get better perofrmance from the X6800 - BUT the price : performacne ratio is pathetic when compared to an overclocked E6600 and the difference between the two is nominal.
 
IMO,

at the moment, the only people who will/can/should take advantage of SLI are those with...

1. Windows XP
2. Own last gen video card (at least 7800 series)
3. No plans to upgrade in the near future (Vista included)
4. Not in the least interested in DX10 and all its glory
5. those with money to burn :)

...for everyone else, it's just not worth it. It always works out that the new gen cards compete or beat last gen cards in SLI.

So, can quad SLI work? Yeah sure it can...and FEAR looks great and 400fps. Thats about it. Even if you have a big 2407 or 30" model and want to play at uber high res', its still hard to justify putting your hard earned dollars into it--at least for now.
 
Symon14 said:
Even a single 7950GX2 is somewhat of a joke. Hot, bulky, and mediocre.
Click to expand...
I'll have to disagree with that. For its time, the 7950GX2 was pretty amazing at high to ultra-high resolutions. It's still faster than the X1950XTX, too. It was relatively slower at lower resolutions but the frame rate would be high enough that one wouldn't notice anyway (and it would be a waste to use a 7950GX2 at, say, 1024x768).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top