Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Nvidia Goes For Four: Quad SLI Gaming Dissected

Last response: in Memory
Share
May 2, 2006 2:25:31 PM

An SLI setup can employ four graphics processors, which results in the most powerful 3D gaming solution available. But at the same time, Quad SLI requires an equally powerful system and a high-grade display to make sense. THG takes a look at this "best of the best" solution and uncovers its strengths and weaknesses.
May 2, 2006 3:47:11 PM

I don't see the point in this. It's a blatant waste of money, with crappy drivers, low clock speeds, huge amounts of energy lost and heat. A normal sli/xc system will do just fine.
May 2, 2006 5:26:43 PM

Why oh why when SLi isn't exactly setting the world on fire do we need Quad SLi?

Pointless, way too much money, way too much power, probably heat problems too. Why don't they concentrate more on progressive technology rather than just making the same thing, but 4 times.
Related resources
May 2, 2006 5:31:21 PM

I just had to register and point this out because its so horribly wrong.
Quote:
AFR is one way to maximize the total number of frames the graphics subsystem can push out. 3Dfx's Scan Line Interleave was a first step into this direction; the first frame is rendered by the first core and the second is rendered by the second. Quad SLI takes this to the next level.
Um, no. Scan Line Interleave 3dfx's SLI did not divy up the cards to render sperate frames. Rather, one card would render the even scan lines, while the other did the odd scan lines.

Reference (not the greatest but at least its correct):
http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/nvidia/sli/
May 2, 2006 5:57:02 PM

This is so stupid.

Price/performance ratio is retarted.

Like another user already posted why dosnt Nvidia invest in new technology instead of multiplying existing technology and upping the freaking price to unbelievable levels.

Whomever buys a quad sli machine is obviously retarted and has way more $ than sense.
May 2, 2006 9:18:37 PM

This seems to be a paradox...

As mentioned in the article, Quad SLI is only for the insanely bleeding edge person that plays games at the highest resolution possible (because he has the biggest monitor possible)

But QuadSLI is only going to be available to computer makers??? How stupid is that....I have always thought that the people that have the most money and are into gaming THAT much build their own systems because of the large amount of custom hardware they want...

I dont think nVidia is putting that much stock into quad sli right now or even in the future...I doubt this technology will find its way into most gamers PCs, since they will not likely be playing any games at such insane resolutions! Like the Steam survey says... 95% of its gamers play at resolutions lower than 1200x whatever...
May 2, 2006 9:44:21 PM

It may not seem like much right now, but it may be the way of the future. How they are doing quad sli right now looks kind of silly, but if they took a setup like the gigabyte dual gpu card, they could have the gpus share resources. Then we might see them really shine.

Right now there isn't a huge market at all for it, but people with the $$$ will be able to get the hardware to use it. In a few years, the normal monitor resoultion might be 1080p, and were going to need the extra processing power to run our games. I'm sure some can remember when playing your games at 640 x 480 was amazing! (Playing C&C RA in dos mode was 320 x 240) Now my 17" can go up to 1600 x 1200, and I can easily play games at 1280 x 1024.

The innovation that they are doing right now, may help shape what we get down the road when it gets to the mainstream. Another example is plasma and lcd tvs. After a few years of getting the bugs fixed and making them cheaper, they are becoming the trend for homes. Most people couldn't afford them a few years ago, now most people proably can.
May 2, 2006 9:49:06 PM

Quote:
I don't see the point in this. It's a blatant waste of money, with crappy drivers, low clock speeds, huge amounts of energy lost and heat. A normal sli/xc system will do just fine.

Single graphics card=2.75 inch e-penis, 0.5 balls
SLI/X-Fire=7.25 inch e-penis, 2 balls
Quad SLI=e-penis that hangs out of your pants, four balls
My X600 Ducky Edition=green head, big beak, rubbery webbed feet :tongue:

Does anybody know what graphics drivers to use for a Diamond Viper TNT video card?
May 2, 2006 9:53:40 PM

Quote:
It may not seem like much right now, but it may be the way of the future.


It does seem like a lot right now - the point is that it's good but in completely the wrong way.

Wasting resources/money on developing a non-feasible and practically useless technology such as Quad SLi is a luxury for a large company like nVidia, but to be perfectly honest persuing stupid, extravagant SLi (and Crossfire) setups reeks of an Itanium-esque money-gobbling dead end.

Now, on the other hand, persuing new technologies and successfully inplementing the raft of new stuff on the horizon is a worthwhile use of time, money and people.
May 2, 2006 10:10:08 PM

Quote:
It may not seem like much right now, but it may be the way of the future.


It does seem like a lot right now - the point is that it's good but in completely the wrong way.

Wasting resources/money on developing a non-feasible and practically useless technology such as Quad SLi is a luxury for a large company like nVidia, but to be perfectly honest persuing stupid, extravagant SLi (and Crossfire) setups reeks of an Itanium-esque money-gobbling dead end.

Now, on the other hand, persuing new technologies and successfully inplementing the raft of new stuff on the horizon is a worthwhile use of time, money and people.
If quad-sli is the future, then quad core Prescotts is a fantastic idea.
The thing isn't even that fast. The cores run 500 mhz and the memory runs 1200mhz...WTF? 2 heavily overclocked 7900gtx's/X1900's will kick the crap out of it or come damn near close to it.
I love how it's so insanely complicated, difficult to implement and impractical that Nvidia knows there is no way any average joe can do it, so it must be sold to system builders.
May 2, 2006 11:06:49 PM

Quote:
It may not seem like much right now, but it may be the way of the future.


It does seem like a lot right now - the point is that it's good but in completely the wrong way.

Wasting resources/money on developing a non-feasible and practically useless technology such as Quad SLi is a luxury for a large company like nVidia, but to be perfectly honest persuing stupid, extravagant SLi (and Crossfire) setups reeks of an Itanium-esque money-gobbling dead end.

Now, on the other hand, persuing new technologies and successfully inplementing the raft of new stuff on the horizon is a worthwhile use of time, money and people.
If quad-sli is the future, then quad core Prescotts is a fantastic idea.
The thing isn't even that fast. The cores run 500 mhz and the memory runs 1200mhz...WTF? 2 heavily overclocked 7900gtx's/X1900's will kick the crap out of it or come damn near close to it.
I love how it's so insanely complicated, difficult to implement and impractical that Nvidia knows there is no way any average joe can do it, so it must be sold to system builders.

A quad core Prescott can double as an electric heater in the winter. It will also be a good electric stove; tea anyone?
May 2, 2006 11:07:13 PM

Is this a waste of money?

Probably, but like every other extreme thing you can do (Auto racing, boat racing, pumpkin throwing, etc), there will be those who want to take it to 11. And what's more, some of those will even have the money to pay for it.

So is Quad-SLI for everyone? I don't think so. Well, at least not yet. We've all seen how multiple CPU's can be integrated into one package, and though it's unlikely graphics will go that route, it does show that multi-scaling to a massive degree will happen.

What I would like to see if ATi and nVidia to look at the direction Intel appears to be heading with it's Conroe and follow suit. That is go from their massive, power hungry processors and make something that is sleeker, less power hungry and far more efficient. Having said that, and from what I understand of GPU's, they're pretty much as efficient as they're going to get, but that doesn't mean they can't try.

But for me, Quad-SLI will forever remain a dream. I'll applaud nVidia for doing the seemingly impossible (and completely unaffordable) and just dream of what upgrades I'm going to do to my system when Vista hardware is finally available. Until then, I just hope my creaky old 9800Pro just keeps pushing the pixels out that it needs to.
May 2, 2006 11:23:50 PM

Imagine that. The Intel stock cooler would be a Vapochill, and it would idle at 56C.
May 2, 2006 11:56:33 PM

Quote:
Imagine that. The Intel stock cooler would be a Vapochill, and it would idle at 56C.


And if you took off the heatsink, you'd have a blast bigger than Hiroshima.
May 3, 2006 12:08:08 AM

Quote:
Imagine that. The Intel stock cooler would be a Vapochill, and it would idle at 56C.


And if you took off the heatsink, you'd have a blast bigger than Hiroshima.
You wouldn't get that close.
May 3, 2006 12:08:34 AM

This is for companies who do rendering obviously. If it saves them time they don't care that its 7k or 10k. 10k is chicken scratch, I've got a 4k desktop at work and I don't render anything. I'm sure they'll sell enough of them to make it profitable, considering it is probably the most powerful stand alone desktop rendering system there is.
May 3, 2006 12:11:18 AM

Quote:
This is for companies who do rendering obviously. If it saves them time they don't care that its 7k or 10k. 10k is chicken scratch, I've got a 4k desktop at work and I don't render anything. I'm sure they'll sell enough of them to make it profitable, considering it is probably the most powerful stand alone desktop rendering system there is.

lol no this is definately for gaming
May 3, 2006 5:21:14 AM

was i mistaken or did the quad sli test at around the same speed as 2 x1900xtx's ? Shouldnt 4 cards be faster than 2 since they are pretty close 1on1 ?
May 3, 2006 6:29:12 AM

why don't Nvidia and ATI Just start taking their GPU's and start doing what the cpu has done already? creating a Dual Core GPU?
May 3, 2006 7:08:17 AM

Are nVidia working with 3DLabs to get the Realizm 800 multicore tech?

I have seem somewhere that nVidia its going to support Realizm cards in Gelato.
May 3, 2006 7:11:45 AM

The figures for 2560x1600 are quite amazing, especially if you are one of those who have been looking into that jaw-dropping 30 inch Dell monitor...

The quad sli system price is pretty crazy though. For the same amount of money, you can get a watercooled crossfire/sli system WITH vapochill on your cpu, overclock them both nicely and still get comparable results.

It is a shame that it isn't compatible with the 975X chipset. It would be cool to see how quad sli runs with an overclocked 965 extreme edition.

I would have liked to see how other setups work at 2560x1600 as well. The benchmarks don't show how the current crop of cards run at that resolution.

Perhaps for a comparison to the quad sli systems, THG should assemble a system such as the one below and see how the frame rates compare:

CPU: Intel 965 EE or AMD FX-60; overclocked with phase-change cooling.
MOBO: 975X crossfire or AMD sli x16 chipset compatible.
VIDEO: X1900XTX crossfire or 7900GTX sli; both overclocked and watercooled.

As an extreme project in overclocking as this may sound, it is something that the true enthusiast can still do himself, implement easier, and possibly cost less than the quad sli system.

It seems like multiple gpu hardware is the future, and it is possible that 4 gpu and 4 core cpu machines are just around the corner, but I would prefer graphics manufacturers drastically increase their manufacturing processes - 45nm technology would be a huge benefit here. The need to use monstrous full-length cards that immediately steal four-out-of-seven slot spaces, use so much power and require extravagant cooling solutions seems like a backward step - instead they should put their R/D into making graphics cards faster, smaller, and run them cooler/quieter.
May 3, 2006 10:26:43 AM

I read the first few posts in this thread and was overwhelmed with stupidity.

NVidia make GPU's to make money. NVidia know that the current Quad SLI cards will not make them money.

They made them TO SHOW OFF... TO CONVINCE PEOPLE THAT THEY ARE 13373R then ATI.

Sure, they will sell a few of these, and people will go zomfg 1337, but that wasnt the point.

Personally I think the results are incredible. Any1 want to find me something that will do any better in oblivion?

Just because they arent your 'Bang for Buck card" doesnt mean that NVidia cant make them does it?

Clearly NVidia arent going to take their 7800GT's, and the rest of their cards off the shelves and say, Ha you are all rooted now, you have to buy our Quad-SLI cards...

GAH...

Didnt even come out how it was meant to, oh well, 2 much rage @ stupidity.
May 3, 2006 12:47:28 PM

Quote:

OK, now this made me laugh, really good......
Now i am all about extreme, especially with my hard drives in my system. (If in doubt, my BF2 levels load in under 15 sec. I usually have a base already taken over before 20% of my team load in)..
But man, $2000+ for video, and i have to spend over $900 for any monitor to take advantage of it, not to mention, in less than 4months, there will be an even bigger e-penis device out there, to make this e-penis look like.... well you get picture.. I will pass on this... just wait till next gen, video, to play the current video games, at -- to quote nvidia.. "To play the games the way they were ment to be played"
May 3, 2006 1:43:37 PM

Quote:
This is so stupid.

Price/performance ratio is retarted.


Retarded?
May 3, 2006 1:46:15 PM

Quote:

I dont think nVidia is putting that much stock into quad sli right now or even in the future...I doubt this technology will find its way into most gamers PCs, since they will not likely be playing any games at such insane resolutions! Like the Steam survey says... 95% of its gamers play at resolutions lower than 1200x whatever...


So what? Quad SLI clearly is being made only for a fraction of that remaining 5%. It's not intended to be mainstream. What percentage of the population flies in the Space Shuttle? Should space travel be abandoned because it's not for the average person?
May 3, 2006 1:48:00 PM

Quote:
The innovation that they are doing right now, may help shape what we get down the road when it gets to the mainstream. Another example is plasma and lcd tvs. After a few years of getting the bugs fixed and making them cheaper, they are becoming the trend for homes. Most people couldn't afford them a few years ago, now most people proably can.


EXACTLY!!!
May 3, 2006 1:48:11 PM

It just makes me pissed that they keep adding more cards and not building better cards. It really alienates those of us who can't afford more then one. Because they are indeed games out there that suck with just one video card. And not to mention i can't afford the fastest at the moment. I got X800 XT AIW which is fast, but to play FEAR with max settings i would need something alot better. In some cases i See that Even the best video card offers poor performance in the newest of games. Only SLI can handle them sometimes. I feel I should be able to have max settings if i can afford the fastest video card on the market(not like i can). So now they are moving to Qaud SLI. Are they Nuts. That 2000 bucks just in video cards. Are they trying to force people to move to the XBOX 360. Because that's what they are doing. It makes me finally think i've had it wrong all this time and that PC gaming might just be to costly to continue. The price of having a killer rig is going thru the roof and it's insane. And it's reached the point that Game companys try to make the most bleeding edge game on the market. Thus few people can really play this game cause they dont have the killer rig to do it. I had to recently upgrade my video card and memory just to play NFSMW and other games. And I still can't play Call of duty 2 without getting shitty frame rates. I could have same some cash and got a XBOX 360 and got better image qaulity. Video card companys and game companys are ruining the world of PC gaming. they need to realize this B4 the already shrinking PC gameing market is gone.
May 3, 2006 1:55:50 PM

Quote:
was i mistaken or did the quad sli test at around the same speed as 2 x1900xtx's ? Shouldnt 4 cards be faster than 2 since they are pretty close 1on1 ?


Obviously, there are plenty of issues to address before QSLI is optimized. and isn't this totally logical? I think you can expect to see significant design changes in mobos and graphics cards over the next few years, followed by higher performance - to get to the point where the QSLI cards are running at higher clock speeds, etc.

So did y'all notice the PS in the system Tom's tested? Expect to see a slew of PS's emerge to hangle the current loads required for high end gpus. I've been talking alot lately with mobo, gfa and PS tech folks and they all say that the new cards are flat out killing most PS's.
May 3, 2006 2:14:39 PM

I am with you. This is probably a plan for world domination by nVidia.

BUHAHAHAHAHA

...ok...time to turn of the dramatics...
May 3, 2006 2:19:12 PM

Is Quad-SLi cool? - Yes.
Will I ever buy it? - No!

What next? Oct-SLi (meaning 8 cards)? I think having four video cards in one system is rediculous. Sure, I'd love to have one of those systems, but I don't see why nVidia and ATI are taking this direction.
May 3, 2006 2:38:57 PM

Quote:
Is Quad-SLi cool? - Yes.
Will I ever buy it? - No!

What next? Oct-SLi (meaning 8 cards)? I think having four video cards in one system is rediculous. Sure, I'd love to have one of those systems, but I don't see why nVidia and ATI are taking this direction.


There must be a significantly more efficient way to couple the video processing than to use four boards. All of the physical connections required - two PCI-e slots, four PCI-e power cables, the bridges, etc. - that all smells of reliability problems to me. Integrated graphics on the mobo is low performance stuff these days but I wouldn't be surprised to see reasonably high performance onboard graphics come into its own one of these days. Why not have a GPU socket and graphics memory sockets?
May 3, 2006 2:39:15 PM

Are ATi persuing this as well?

The more time they spend on stuff like this the more opportunity AMD and Intel (or IBM!) have to devote a core of a multi-core CPU to graphics and pwn them both.
May 3, 2006 2:47:40 PM

Quote:
It just makes me pissed that they keep adding more cards and not building better cards. It really alienates those of us who can't afford more then one. Because they are indeed games out there that suck with just one video card.


I'm not sure which planet you've been living on. All you have to do is to look at recent mid-prices cards and the benchmarks they achieve compared to a year or two ago! Normalize performance per dollar and it's clear to me that the consumer is the winner regarding PC evolution in general. As a specific example, look at the 7900GT CO. I've seen this card for under $300 (I think MSRP is ~$330). Compare its performance with the top end cards of 2 years ago, adjust pricing for inflation, etc.

And when you bring games that are difficult for one GPU to handle alone into the discussion, that's apples and oranges! Today's game programmers are trying to stretch the performance envelope, naturally. Games that did not play so well a few years ago are cake for many modern systems. Wouldn't you expect the industry to raise ALL of the bars as quickly as possible as the systems co-evolve???
May 3, 2006 3:00:52 PM

I do agree with Clueless. I bought a GeForce 7800gt and it was a great value (the 7900gt's are even better!). I agree that Quad-SLi is nice for people who can afford it, I just don't think it's practical to use four cards.

SLi and CrossFire are going to be fads, in my opinion. They're going to come and go. I feel that when both companies come out with their next generation cards that they will do away with SLi and CrossFire support.
May 3, 2006 3:05:24 PM

Quote:
Why oh why when SLi isn't exactly setting the world on fire do we need Quad SLi?

Pointless, way too much money, way too much power, probably heat problems too. Why don't they concentrate more on progressive technology rather than just making the same thing, but 4 times.

i agree...
someone in another thread said this, though i can't find the link to it.

pure american engineering "this one ain't fast enough, let's bolt a few of 'em together and see what happens"

it has some truth to it, especially in this case :D 
May 3, 2006 3:50:47 PM

This is all marketing BS. What happened to traditional SLI?! UMMM! Each of those video cards have 2 graphics processors, sound familiar...there is your SLI. One could easily figure out how they are making money for nothing.
Why the hell did we need two boards for a SLI anyway? Because it is more money for NVIDIA. Now the same thing even worse! You cannot do it yourself! Come on guys, I know better than that guy who works for DELL and used to pick up veggis! Don't tell me they hire top of the line copmputer geeks to setup a SLI.

By the way, I get 100% above 40 fps in FEAR with a 1900xt overclocked, That fps on the last page is a shame.





,,
May 3, 2006 4:29:07 PM

I'd rather spend that kind of money on cheap booze and hookers
May 3, 2006 4:57:58 PM

Quote:
I'd rather spend that kind of money on cheap booze and hookers


Get enough good booze and cheap hookers will be good enough.
May 3, 2006 5:07:50 PM

Quote:
SLi and CrossFire are going to be fads, in my opinion. They're going to come and go. I feel that when both companies come out with their next generation cards that they will do away with SLi and CrossFire support.


It's fun to do the crystal ball routine. What will CPUs and GPUs look like on gaming computers in 10 years? 20 years? What kind of storage device will signal the end for today's HDs? Will mobos always be so planar? I've been involved in projects that unsuccessfully tried to dramatically improve the cooling of processors. I expect there to be successful developments in this area in the future - that is a radically improved 3-D architecture - maybe CPUs and GPUs will eventually have a heat-sink kind of structure built in and around processing structures? Maybe liquid flow within the chip itself?

But I suspect you are right about SLI, XF and QSLI - they are probably just a temporary solution until a better, more compact, more efficient design kicks their butt out of the marketplace. Graphics cards look like a Rube Goldberg add-on these days. Computers don't need to be pretty, but efficiency often looks much more tidy than modern PCs.
May 3, 2006 5:12:43 PM

Interesting, I agree that quad video cards is wasted in an SLI config.

However, it is perfect for multi-monitor gaming. This seems an obvious evolutionary path. Any chance to see a test of oblivion on three 24" panels?
May 3, 2006 5:40:07 PM

Quote:
why don't Nvidia and ATI Just start taking their GPU's and start doing what the cpu has done already? creating a Dual Core GPU?


GPU's are already in essence a "multi-core" setup (one could say).

As for my stance on Quad SLI, let me go mortage my house and then you'll recieve my answer.

EDIT: Good news: The loan officer at the bank tells me I can re-finance @ 14%.....I can even dip into my checking, savings, investment accounts,
then I can tackle my college funding to purchase a Quad setup.....O joy
May 3, 2006 5:44:57 PM

Quote:
I just had to register and point this out because its so horribly wrong.AFR is one way to maximize the total number of frames the graphics subsystem can push out. 3Dfx's Scan Line Interleave was a first step into this direction; the first frame is rendered by the first core and the second is rendered by the second. Quad SLI takes this to the next level.
Um, no. Scan Line Interleave 3dfx's SLI did not divy up the cards to render sperate frames. Rather, one card would render the even scan lines, while the other did the odd scan lines.

Reference (not the greatest but at least its correct):
http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/nvidia/sli/

I was about to make this same post.....please get the facts straight!! :oops: 
May 3, 2006 5:50:05 PM

http://www.plastk.net/

What about playing games in cluster 666 computers to get 1-fps.

If games are not optimized they eat the most powerfull graphic card. Stop this stupidity make good software and donĀ“t try to waste our money.
May 3, 2006 5:58:04 PM

Ok, I don't know about anyone else here, but I've read 2 other reviews about QSLI- and I'm finding this one terribly flawed. In other reviews that I read, they found this product flawed, prone to crashes, and in many cases, could not outperform ATi' CF (and sometimes vanilla SLI) in high quality settings.

Now, I realize they worked to fix all the problems- but are these fixes publicly available? It seems to me like many of these fixes were just to quiet a reviewers discontent.

This review does not seem consistent with the other reviews I've read, and given the fact that SLI is a system sold as a packaged product, I should hope it would reflect actual end user experiences like the other reviews I've read did. I'm happy they did so much to work out the bugs and all, but I highly doubt ASUS would have given me an essentially unmarked bios revision, and then a second one. I can understand the manufacturers want to get the best review possible- but it seems as if this was a review tailored by the manufacturer.
May 3, 2006 7:29:02 PM

actually they probably would because as the review said this isnt for end users. this is for OEMs they have the resources and engineers to come up with special drivers and what not. dell has been doing this for years with the precision line where they optimize code for various high end programs. if you were to build your own computer good luck getting a special driver for autocad to make it run. to a degree it works the same for gaming just not nearly as specific.
May 3, 2006 10:38:54 PM

this kinda feels stupid.... there was an earlier smarter implementation by ASUS, much better cooling and single pcb.

http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/video/g70-8.html
http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?art=2358

the ASUS EXTREME DUAL.

yeah, a huge arse cooler and what not, its a 7800 x2, but the idea is there.

and yes, there was a review site where they put two of these together to get quad SLI-esque setup/performance and it was pretty buggy back then as well, where the idea was even newer. but the cooling is IMO 4x better, simply because its not as restricted.

and yes, it does come with its own power supply that you plug into the wall. atleast it wont blow up the freaking PSU.
May 3, 2006 10:45:47 PM

Why is nVidia using 3DFXs ideas as a script for its current operations?
May 3, 2006 11:12:10 PM

I am curious about the posablity of running one of these cards on the non sli mother board. Is it possible? Would it need a bios update? This would ba a great single card solution for SLI on a non SLI board. Also how would the speed compair with a dual card SLI system. ie Abit Fatal1ty AN8 against Fatal1ty AN8 SLi just to compair apples to apples. If you have the time It would be a cool project. yes? no? :?:
May 4, 2006 12:27:54 AM

Quote:
Why is nVidia using 3DFXs ideas as a script for its current operations?


i believe nvidia acquired 3dfx a long while ago (correct me if im wrong)

Quote:
I am curious about the posablity of running one of these cards on the non sli mother board. Is it possible? Would it need a bios update? This would ba a great single card solution for SLI on a non SLI board. Also how would the speed compair with a dual card SLI system. ie Abit Fatal1ty AN8 against Fatal1ty AN8 SLi just to compair apples to apples. If you have the time It would be a cool project. yes? no? Question


given the lower clock speeds, i believe this solution would be towered by an actual adequately cooled and correctly clocked SLI system. not to mention the fact taht youre passing all the information of two cards through one pci-e slot. ( i guess it would be 8x + 8x, but the fact remains that the bus is still shared)

and of course, all this if its even possible - the one question i canot answer. i would believe it COULD be possible as IIRC there is a software based SLI capability, but looking at the cards, the first one is paired up to card 3 and the second is paired with card four, so two pairs of cards in sli. im not too sure about self-sli on one of those, although i suppose if there is a possibility it could be via software.
May 4, 2006 3:08:40 AM

Quote:
given the lower clock speeds, i believe this solution would be towered by an actual adequately cooled and correctly clocked SLI system. not to mention the fact taht youre passing all the information of two cards through one pci-e slot. ( i guess it would be 8x + 8x, but the fact remains that the bus is still shared)


the PCIe slots on the older MB ar 16x so the in the end they are 8x + 8x.


Quote:
and of course, all this if its even possible - the one question i canot answer. i would believe it COULD be possible as IIRC there is a software based SLI capability, but looking at the cards, the first one is paired up to card 3 and the second is paired with card four, so two pairs of cards in sli. im not too sure about self-sli on one of those, although i suppose if there is a possibility it could be via software.


Thats the question. Is the 10 pin connector for the SLI bus or sharing one of the other cards resorces.
!