Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

7600 GT CO SLI vs 7900 GT CO

Tags:
  • Nvidia
  • SLI
  • Geforce
  • Graphics
  • Product
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
May 22, 2006 12:00:00 PM

I've not really seen this adressed so I thought I would put it to the folks here. There are 2 questions about SLI vs Single card and 1 about brand/pricing. The 2 questions are 2 totally different situations (One is mine, one is my stepson.. see if you can figure out which is which ;) )

Question #1: (Which is better for the $ and performance)
    [*:5c8abaf6aa]Should I buy QTY 2 EVGA e-GeForce 7600 GT CO and run them in SLI mode (Approx $360USD) or
    [*:5c8abaf6aa]Should I buy QTY 1 EVGA e-GeForce 7900 GT CO and run it by itself (Approx $290US)?
    Question #2: (Which is better for the $ and performance)
      [*:5c8abaf6aa]Should I buy QTY 2 EVGA e-GeForce 7900 GT CO and run them in SLI mode (Approx $580USD) or
      [*:5c8abaf6aa]Should I buy QTY 1 EVGA e-GeForce 7900 GTX EGS and run it by itself (Approx $480USD)?
      Question #3: If the answer to #2 is the single card, Which brand of Nvidia 7900 GTX card would you buy for the best bang for the buck? It appears that I can get a MSI GeForce 7900 GTX for $459.00 after mail in rebate. Any reason I should eschew this brand/card and go for something else keeping in mind the price/performance. (I kept the EVGA brand in the above comparisons so that an apples-apples comparison could be done)



      Hardware:
      [*:5c8abaf6aa]Asus A8N32-SLI Motherboard
      [*:5c8abaf6aa]AMD 4400+ X2 Processor (2x1mb Cache)
      [*:5c8abaf6aa]4gb PC3200 DDR Ram (2-3-2-5)
      [*:5c8abaf6aa]Antec CoolBlue 550w Power Supply

      Thanks for your time and I look forward to hearing what people think. I think I know the answer already (Single card, fast as you can affford), but I'd like to hear what people might come up with.

      Frashii

More about : 7600 sli 7900

May 22, 2006 1:57:19 PM

Thanks :) 

That was the answer I was pretty much expecting. The stepson and I have had a debate on this (all his friends are SLI'ing it with low end video cards (6600's on sale at CompUSA or some such goofiness) and he is wanting to be 'in the SLI crowd' becuase he thinks this will give him what he wants.

The only way you can argue with a 13 year old is with the Internet... people NEVER lie or give bad advice on the Intarweb!

Appreciate the heads up on the Vista/DX stuff. The wife has authorized this purchase now, so we are trying to maximize our purchases.
May 22, 2006 2:10:17 PM

Low-end SLI vs. high end single card... christ, how many times does this have to be asked?

As a general rule, always go with a single high-end card... if you've got $3k+ to blow on a system... then start thinking about SLI... and even then, don't expect miracles.
Related resources
May 23, 2006 12:00:35 AM

Right. If you're wanting blazing fast 1024 X 768 gaming, SLI ain't gonna provide ANY bang for your buck... and yes, at 1600 X 1200 you're gonna have to drop $400+ for a 20 inch LCD because 19's don't support that resolution.

The whole point of my reply is this... every day or week someone asks a question like this poster and every time the answer is the same... the only... and I do stress only... valid variation of this question was the guy who was given a free 7600 card... and various posters wisely told him to return it for credit if possible and put that money towards a 7900.

Budget SLI is for chumps... real-deal SLI is for chumps with LOTS of money to burn.
May 23, 2006 12:38:25 AM

Quote:
Answer #2: Again, SLI doesn't guarantee performance increases. The safe choice is the 7900GTX. If you play at 1600x1200 resolution, with all settings maxed out, dual 7900GTs should perform better, but you can never tell. I would get a single 7900GTX.
It would be pretty hard to find a game where two 7900GTs don't perform better than a 7900GTX.
May 23, 2006 1:34:50 AM

i agree. while the dual 7600 sli is a waste since the cards will choke with their 128 bit memory, just like the 6600s did, the 7900gts are actually a very viable solution. there is already a game that no single card can run at max even on 1280*1024, and that is oblivion. games will only get more demanding, so the 7900gt sli isnt such a bad idea. low end sli does blow though.
May 23, 2006 3:03:35 AM

Time for a little sanity.

First on the question of which brand to choose, as they are all pretty much the same, one could go with any of the brands but there is one company that, right now atleast offers the most complete package, let me quote my self from elsewhere on these forums:

Quote:

One big thing, get an EVGA video card if you are buying a nVidia card. There is no contest here. Not that there is anything really wrong with BFG, but EVGA provides the complete package like no other company. When buying a GeForce video card EVGA is the only way to go. EVGA has a lifetime warranty that allows overclocking and changing the stock cooling system. All the other companies forbid both of those. BFG even is low enough to only cover the fan, the only moving part, for one year. EVGA overclocks better, they always have the best cooling systems, they have the newest drivers before everyone else (right now we have 84.56 while every other manufacturer has 84.21) and EVGA has 24/7 phone support (you always get right through). They also have a Step-Up program, where they give you your FULL purchase price you paid for a card tword the purchase of a better card within the first 90 days (you have to send back the old card, they won't let you have two). I just stepped up my 7800GT CO SE to a 7900GT KO for $55. EVGA is the only way to go.


Second as to your two situations:

For your stepson, prozac26 is right, SLI is pointless unless you are using two 7900 series cards. A single 7900GT has is the way to go. All of this has to do with the pixle pipelines, the memory and clock speeds don't matter as much. Each 7600GT has 12 pipelines so two of them together only have 24, where a 7900 Series cards (both the GT and the GTX) have 24 pipelines. Two 7600GTs will only preform slightly better then a single 7900GT. The best way to go is to get one 7900GT and he can add a second in SLI later if he wants it that bad.

For yourself, get two 7900GTs in SLI. The 7900GTs and 7900GTXs both have 24 pipelines, so getting 48 really helps. I will quote myself again:

Quote:
If you look at the benchmarks the 7900GT SLI is actully really a good bang for the buck. For $580 you can have two of these:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1681...

For about $80 more then a 7900GTX (say a middle of the road one costs about $500) you can have a preformance gain that is in line with the additional ammount you are spending. For about 15% more you get about a 15% preformance increase, so it's right in line price wise. SLI helps most when gaming in higher resolutions and also when you turn on AA and AF. Here is the review:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/03/09/ati_and_nvidias_...

I have two of the 7900GT KO's and they overclock to 570MHz/1720MHz, so they will put up even better numbers then those 7900GT's in the tests. They don't consume much more power then a single 7900GTX so my 500W powersupply works just fine. I went from about 4400 to 6450 in 3DMark06 when I added the second card, and that's with 8xAA and 16xAF on. So what I'm saying here is two 7900GT's in SLI is worth the $80 cost increase over one 7900GTX because you get a proportional preformance increase to go with it. It's not bad to think about SLI, you can get one card now and add another later if you want to which is good because don't have to buy both at once.


People that don't have SLI trash it is not being worth it. There are situations where SLI is not the best way to go. I presented a situation where the preformance gains match the ammount you spend. So what I am saying is SLI can be a valid solution in some cases. Basically if you want about a 15% preformance for about %15 more money then go with the SLI setup, otherwise go with a single card.
May 23, 2006 11:00:30 AM

Quote:
Your stepson can tell his friends that their cards suck so much that they got PWNED 2 to 1.


That's what I'm talking about!
May 23, 2006 11:19:57 AM

Quote:
Right. If you're wanting blazing fast 1024 X 768 gaming, SLI ain't gonna provide ANY bang for your buck... and yes, at 1600 X 1200 you're gonna have to drop $400+ for a 20 inch LCD because 19's don't support that resolution.

The whole point of my reply is this... every day or week someone asks a question like this poster and every time the answer is the same... the only... and I do stress only... valid variation of this question was the guy who was given a free 7600 card... and various posters wisely told him to return it for credit if possible and put that money towards a 7900.

Budget SLI is for chumps... real-deal SLI is for chumps with LOTS of money to burn.


My 19'inch LCD runs at 1280 X 1024. I run FEAR with maxed out settings (it really looks good). If I turn off SLI, I notice the difference. It's not as smooth. With SLI turned on, it is VERY smooth.

So, there is a real world example of where SLI helps. And it's not on a 20'inch monitor.

I'm so tired of people saying SLI is for chumps. That just tells me you probably can not afford it. Face it, if YOU could afford it, you would probably do it.

Well, I for one can afford it. If I choose to spend the extra money in order to run my rig at higher settings, who are you to bad mouth it?

Several times I've made the car analogy. Why do people by a Porsche instead of a mustang or a corvette. Is the Porsche faster? Yes. Does it cost more? O yes. Is the "faster speed" in comparison to the "more cost". Hell no. So why do thy buy the Porsche? Cause they can!
May 23, 2006 12:24:04 PM

SLI has its benefits on occasion (sp?). So does Crossfire (and it sounds cooler too). Now 2 7900GTs will generally provide more performance than a single 7900GTX from benchmarks. Spending an extra 200 dollars over a single 7900GT to get a 10, 15 at most percent performance increase isn't worth it. There are times when 2 7900GT's in SLI do boost performance, and that's quite often the case.

Rule of thumb: single card over SLI, unless benchmarks say otherwise.
May 23, 2006 1:43:31 PM

Quote:
Right. If you're wanting blazing fast 1024 X 768 gaming, SLI ain't gonna provide ANY bang for your buck... and yes, at 1600 X 1200 you're gonna have to drop $400+ for a 20 inch LCD because 19's don't support that resolution.

The whole point of my reply is this... every day or week someone asks a question like this poster and every time the answer is the same... the only... and I do stress only... valid variation of this question was the guy who was given a free 7600 card... and various posters wisely told him to return it for credit if possible and put that money towards a 7900.

Budget SLI is for chumps... real-deal SLI is for chumps with LOTS of money to burn.


My 19'inch LCD runs at 1280 X 1024. I run FEAR with maxed out settings (it really looks good). If I turn off SLI, I notice the difference. It's not as smooth. With SLI turned on, it is VERY smooth.

So, there is a real world example of where SLI helps. And it's not on a 20'inch monitor.

I'm so tired of people saying SLI is for chumps. That just tells me you probably can not afford it. Face it, if YOU could afford it, you would probably do it.

Well, I for one can afford it. If I choose to spend the extra money in order to run my rig at higher settings, who are you to bad mouth it?

Several times I've made the car analogy. Why do people by a Porsche instead of a mustang or a corvette. Is the Porsche faster? Yes. Does it cost more? O yes. Is the "faster speed" in comparison to the "more cost". Hell no. So why do thy buy the Porsche? Cause they can!

Within reason I have money for whatever I want... and I don't even have to ask for it from Mommy! When SLI is 100% efficient (i.e. an extra card yields a 100% performance increase) and when it is more reliable and better supported... then, it'll make sense. Even though SLI is the more mature multi-card setup, there are still compatibility issues with it... and don't even get me started on the SLI rigs with 4 cards. This is just a case of diminishing returns.
May 23, 2006 1:51:36 PM

Quote:
Right. If you're wanting blazing fast 1024 X 768 gaming, SLI ain't gonna provide ANY bang for your buck... and yes, at 1600 X 1200 you're gonna have to drop $400+ for a 20 inch LCD because 19's don't support that resolution.

The whole point of my reply is this... every day or week someone asks a question like this poster and every time the answer is the same... the only... and I do stress only... valid variation of this question was the guy who was given a free 7600 card... and various posters wisely told him to return it for credit if possible and put that money towards a 7900.

Budget SLI is for chumps... real-deal SLI is for chumps with LOTS of money to burn.


My 19'inch LCD runs at 1280 X 1024. I run FEAR with maxed out settings (it really looks good). If I turn off SLI, I notice the difference. It's not as smooth. With SLI turned on, it is VERY smooth.

So, there is a real world example of where SLI helps. And it's not on a 20'inch monitor.

I'm so tired of people saying SLI is for chumps. That just tells me you probably can not afford it. Face it, if YOU could afford it, you would probably do it.

Well, I for one can afford it. If I choose to spend the extra money in order to run my rig at higher settings, who are you to bad mouth it?

Several times I've made the car analogy. Why do people by a Porsche instead of a mustang or a corvette. Is the Porsche faster? Yes. Does it cost more? O yes. Is the "faster speed" in comparison to the "more cost". Hell no. So why do thy buy the Porsche? Cause they can!

I just re-read your post and I think you're the one that doesn't get it... yes, SLI does improve performance... yes, we get the car analogy and it's a very accurate one... BUT... for 99% of the people that are asking about SLI, it will not serve them well.

Sticking with your car analogy... drivers who are fortunate enough to own Porsches don't go around trying to sell them to their buddies who can only afford Kias... they know they've got a better car... they know it's not worth the money... and they know it's not practical for their buddies. Just because it works well for you doesn't mean you should be an advocate for a world wide SLI program.

SLI is good for maybe 1% of the people out there... the rest of us are better off with single cards. Just think about how many people out there might read one of your pro-SLI posts and go "You know what? I'm getting me a 6600 SLI system... that's gonna be awesome! Oblivion @ 1600 X 1200 16XAA here I come!!!" Sadly, it doesn't work that way.
May 23, 2006 1:53:07 PM

Well...even I will admit quad sli is a bit much.

However, it's all relative.
May 23, 2006 2:23:08 PM

Actually, I don't recommend sli for everybody. Even on these forums I've told people that perhaps sli is not best for them.

Do I recommend sli? Sure. However, like you said, it's not right for everybody.

However, lots of people bash sli, saying those who have it are "chumps".

I'll stand up and say that sli does make a difference in SOME games. More accurately, in new games.

I have two BFG 7900GTX's. When I'm running an older game, like unreal 2004 (my game of choice), sli makes no difference. None. Zero zilch nada. A single 7900GTX is more than enough to power ut04 at max settings.

Now, newer games, like FEAR, that makes a difference. I've read all about how FEAR brings even brand new rigs to their knees. As I stated above, if I run at max setting and max resolution, if I turn off sli, FEAR gets sluggish. You notice it. Even the 7900GTX can't handle it alone. When I run sli (which I do unless I'm doing comparison testing), FEAR run very smooth, even at max settings. It's such a beautiful drawn game.

It's just going to get worse with the newer games.

Come on, admit it. Who here does NOT want to be able to run their games at maxed out eye candy and not suffer a hit on fps?

If I choose to spend a bit more to be able to do that, why am I a chump?
May 23, 2006 2:33:54 PM

Based on your response, you don't come across as the intended target for the "chump" comment from a previous post... try to visualize some 12 year old brat going for his mom's credit card... or picture a know-it-all swearing by SLI although his monitor is limiting his maximum resolution.

I believe SLI is the answer for you and people like yourself... you're just in the minority... an ultra-slim minority. If there ever comes a time where a game requires an SLI rig, why would companies even bother making a single card in the first place? SLI is simply a means of acquiring future technology speeds (maybe 6 months) before it's available in a single card. Just like the people that paid $10k over sticker on a new car model... it works for them and they don't mind the expense.

I think at this point we're going around in circles... so to repeat what virtually everyone here already seems to agree... SLI works... low-end and mid-end SLI is pointless... high-end SLI is expensive, but necessary for maximum settings at high resolutions.

I'm done with this post :) 
May 23, 2006 3:20:25 PM

I agree with everyone else get the 7900gt.
May 23, 2006 3:26:53 PM

i gotta disagree with just about everybody on this topic. if you browse around and check benchmarks all over the internet u'll start to get an idea of what's good and what's not good as far as $ for performance is concerned. in my opinion, from reading and from owning, SLI is a more effective graphics option for the dollar than a single high end graphics card, and it makes sense that it would be.

as far as the questions are concerned.

1. A. two 7600's
2. A. two 7900's

I have a:
pentium D 950 3.4g
2 eVga 7600 gt ko's
asus p5n32-delux-sli
4gb ram

in F.E.A.R. on max grphics settings and max resolution (max AA and all that) i get 62fps ave. 148max, 42min
3dmark05 i get something like 8500.

from what i've read online with Tom's and a bunch of other stuff, 7900's don't do as well in the F.E.A.R. test, but i haven't seen any 3dmark05's due to everyone switching to 06..

hope that helps
May 27, 2006 9:03:28 PM

Quote:
i gotta disagree with just about everybody on this topic. if you browse around and check benchmarks all over the internet u'll start to get an idea of what's good and what's not good as far as $ for performance is concerned. in my opinion, from reading and from owning, SLI is a more effective graphics option for the dollar than a single high end graphics card, and it makes sense that it would be.

as far as the questions are concerned.

1. A. two 7600's
2. A. two 7900's

I have a:
pentium D 950 3.4g
2 eVga 7600 gt ko's
asus p5n32-delux-sli
4gb ram

in F.E.A.R. on max grphics settings and max resolution (max AA and all that) i get 62fps ave. 148max, 42min
3dmark05 i get something like 8500.

from what i've read online with Tom's and a bunch of other stuff, 7900's don't do as well in the F.E.A.R. test, but i haven't seen any 3dmark05's due to everyone switching to 06..

hope that helps


Yes i agree. The sli solutions is faster but I would still go for the single slot solution because if you buy sli now you will not be able to upgrade later.
May 27, 2006 10:21:15 PM

Quote:
When SLI is 100% efficient (i.e. an extra card yields a 100% performance increase) and when it is more reliable and better supported... then, it'll make sense.
With every new driver release, SLI performance increases.

On 1280x1024 4XMSAA 16XAF with Nvidia's 81.98 drivers I use to get an average of 66FPS on F.E.A.R. (From in game benchmark) Now on 90.28 I get an average of 79FPS with the same quality settings enabled.
May 27, 2006 11:17:39 PM

I totally agree that SLI performance is increasing as is stability... I still don't believe it's at a point where it doubles performance (it more than doubles price!)

In addition to the 2nd card (effectively doubling the price), a user will require an SLI capable board... that adds another cost into the equation... perhaps the two cards will restrict airflow or consume too much power... larger cases or higher capacity power supplies may be in order. What if you want to water cool? Man, that's going to get messy... water cooling a single card is a snap.

Yes, SLI is improving but it still doesn't seem like the optimal solution.
May 27, 2006 11:40:10 PM

SLI in no way doubles the price; many people such as yourself don't take your other hardware into account. When I built this box, I spent about $2,200; had I only gotten 1 7800GT, it would have been $1,870. Your CPU and RAM does effect your game performance, adding the second GPU can only help remove the GPU bottleneck.
May 28, 2006 12:10:38 AM

Perhaps a bit of an overstatement. I was a bit groggy when I typed that.
May 28, 2006 12:24:14 AM

You're not the only one who says it; adding a second GPU does not double the price of your system. Yes, your graphics subsystem becomes twice as expensive, but you can't play a game with only graphics cards.
May 28, 2006 4:40:01 PM

the thing about the cost of sli is a little bit wrong.

yes you need two graphics cards
- so the cost can increase tremendously with the level of graphics card u buy,
-however two mid-ranged cards (7600 gt's) will preform with and out preform a single card of the same price range.

and as far as the mobo's cost they're completly relative and competative with other high performing motherboards. And let's be honest, you're not gonna put one 7800 gt in ur computer if u've not already made the concession to spend a little money, so it's not a big deal if the mobo is 5-10 bucks more than soemthing else..

-power supplies also don't have to be an increase in price considering the 7600gt's don't even require an extra cable to them (thus no "sli capable" power supply is required)

so in my oppinion the price per performance is better for SLI than with a single graphics card
May 31, 2006 3:45:50 AM

comparing my benchmarks to those i'm found other places... thus sli DID bring a performance increase for me, and assuming someone has a decent board and cards, sli ha definately been shown to bring an increase in performance i don't know where you get your "might" from
June 3, 2006 8:35:57 PM

Also, a thing about SLi is that many motherboards drop the PCI-E x16 slots down to two PCI-E x8 slots, unless you have a True dual x16 SLi mobo, and there are not many around. They are however not that much more expensive and do increase greatly how well SLi will run. So when comparing how well SLi runs we should also be taking into account this aspect as this is a huge factor. I have never used the regular SLi (without true dual) but with True dual x16 it makes a huge difference I think, but then again I am a massive gamer and programmer.
June 4, 2006 10:43:18 AM

I may be a bit late in posting this, but I just bought a Gainward BLISS 7900GT 512MB OC (550Core/1400Mem) for 270 British Pounds (Like Sheckles, only shinier ;-) ) And it is a fantastic card.

I run my games at 1024x768 (on a 32" TV) as this card went in my HTPC. I was amazed at how relatively quiet (by no means silent) this card is with the Stock HSF. It runs really cool, 44 Degrees idle compared to my 6800 Ultra at 66 degrees (With a Zalman 700Al-Cu with Arctic Silver 5) (The Thermaltake Mozart HTPC Case is a bitch to keep cool AND Quiet). The 7900GT runs full pelt at under 70 degrees.

I would advise anyone with this budget to seriously consider this card, with 512MB it should be prepared for the comming (Hopefully soon) Hi-Res textured games. Add this to the fact that the only real differance between it and a 7900GTX is the Core and Memory clock differance. And the GTX's Extra 100 pound price tag of course.

I was not this impressed when I got my 6800 Ultra, The 7900GT runs everything I can throw at it with ease, although this could be because of the relatively low Resolution I run games at.

The added bonus is that if SLI Physics turns out to be worth it, I'll just buy another one and be even happier ;-)

JKay6969
June 4, 2006 11:10:07 AM

I must agree with Prozac on this one.

When I heard about SLI, and all things related, I was quite surprised that the PCI-e Bus kicked down to 2x8 slots, but when I started digesting the benchmarks I quickly realised it didn't seem to make any significant differance. With the Advent of Dual x16 I thought it would give a huge boost to SLI performance, but sadly it hardly gave a bump.

Perhaps the next generation of cards will be more bandwidth hungry and dual x16 will become neccesary. Till then it will not be neccesary to upgrade your dual x8 mobo's.

Just because something should make a huge differance doesn't automatically mean it does.

JKay6969
June 7, 2006 10:06:13 AM

Hear we go again.... sigh....
June 7, 2006 2:05:28 PM

1. dual 16x is being used now and is easy to find tho in some instances may cost more... i have an Asus p5n32 which is dual 16x and runs great

2. AGP is no longer equal to PCI express and will continue to be furthur eclipsed over the next few years. My 7600gt ko's use 12 pipelines if i remember correctly, and soem cards are up to 16 already which is more than agp's 8x max. However ur statement is technically correct, because u said "same video cards" which means they'd both be limited to 8 pipelines, so that makes ur statement completely useless...
"hey look the sky is blue"
June 7, 2006 5:50:38 PM

@spdunn...

I don't mean to be rude but could I ask what you are blabbering on about?

Part one of your last post is true, and I accept that these boards are gaining in popularity as well as availability, the cost is slowly comming down, although there is still a premium to be paid while the benefit of having dual 16x PCIe slots for SLI will only really be seen in the next generations of GPU's. Currently there is no real differance in performance to be had from having dual 16x PCIe over dual 8x PCIe for SLI.

Part two of your statement is where I do not follow...Other than the first sentance where you state that AGP is no longer equal to PCIe (It never was) and will continue to be eclipsed over the next few years...This much is true...After this sentance it just turns into gibberish!!!!

Quote From spdunn...
My 7600gt ko's use 12 pipelines if i remember correctly, and soem cards are up to 16 already which is more than agp's 8x max. However ur statement is technically correct, because u said "same video cards" which means they'd both be limited to 8 pipelines, so that makes ur statement completely useless...
"hey look the sky is blue"


Quote From THG 7800GS AGP Review...
The 7800GS is the AGP variant of the PCIE 7800 Series. It offers a G70 core equipped with the same 302-million transistors that all of the other parts in the series have. The core has six vertex shaders, 16 pixel shaders, and eight raster operation pipelines (with their double Z pipelines for 16 operations per clock).

The 7800GS AGP has 6 Vertex Shaders, 16 Pixel Shaders and 8 Raster Operation Pipelines. So when you say your PCIe 7600GT has 12 Pipelines and some cards are already up to 16 which is above AGP's max of 8x I assume you are meaning the 8x in AGP is the maximum number of Pipelines, as you put it? When in fact the 8x in AGP is actually reffering to the Throughput/bandwidth as detailed below;

You will see AGP cards advertised with different specifications, including throughput (bandwidth), here is a summary of the throughput they refer to:

1X - 266MBps
2X - 533MBps
4X - 1.07GBps
8X - 2.1GBps

Obviously the higher the throughput the better, although nowadays most AGP video cards run at 8X.

If I were you I'd read AND understand what you mean to post before you post it. You attempted to challenge someones point by writting absolute tosh, a fine way to get flamed from what I've seen in these forums.

So I'd say to you...So that makes your statement completely useless... ;-)

JKay6969
June 7, 2006 8:44:01 PM

the second part of my statement was identifying a fault in your logic within your statement, you set the boundries of your statement to two identical cards in identical systems with the only change being agp or PCIe. The faulty logic the fact that the cards are drastically moving furthur apart. However your statemnt holds them to be identical, thus holds the PCIe to an AGP card's limitations. Which would infact make them have equal benchamrks. But that statement is liek saying "If all things are equal in a test, then the results will be equivilent".. so now furthur...

At this point i'm copying and pasting from other sources, because why type out something that's been already documented thoroughly...

"Before taking a look at the ultimate benefit of PCI Express, the performance, let’s have a refresher on the capabilities of PCI and AGP. The standard PCI bus has a width of 32-bit, operates at 33 MHz, and provides a maximum bandwidth of 132 MB/s (which has to be shared by all devices connected). AGP 8x has a 32-bit bus width, operates at 533 MHz, and provides a maximum (dedicated) bandwidth of 2.1 GB/s.

Each PCI Express lane is capable of 250 MB/s in each direction, and as advances in the necessary silicon technologies are realized, that number can be expected to quadruple. Presently, a 164-pin x16 slot can be expected to provide around 4GB/s of usable bandwidth in either direction, which is almost double the 2.1GB/s bandwidth that AGP 8x could offer! Definitely an impressive increase, and as the technology is refined, it will be very interesting to see the performance scale up"

i am talking about bandwith because it makes a significant difference... or atleast will maek a significant difference. I haven't seen any current comparrisons between top of the line agp and PCIe graphics cards, but i know the old comparrisons had them equal, that just won't last however. I think of it like when AGP 8x ecplised AGP 4x but none of the cards could immediately use the increased bandwith. They did eventuallyt hough.

I'd like to see a current comparrison of current top of the line cards AGP vs PCIe cards.. but you can't, and you can't because noone is making truly top of the line cards for AGP, you'd have to compare two of soemthing outdated, or crippled (maybe a x1600 pro). Which is another reason your statement is silly... you'er in a graphics forum referencing an outdated technology that is no longer being supported by Nvidia or ATI.

AND the origonal statement that spurred your statement was "Just because something should make a huge differance doesn't automatically mean it does." .. which is only true in the short run, and isn't really even all that accurate witht he SLI argument.
June 7, 2006 9:33:48 PM

Quote:
spdunn...

the second part of my statement was identifying a fault in your logic within your statement, you set the boundries of your statement to two identical cards in identical systems with the only change being agp or PCIe. The faulty logic the fact that the cards are drastically moving furthur apart. However your statemnt holds them to be identical, thus holds the PCIe to an AGP card's limitations. Which would infact make them have equal benchamrks. But that statement is liek saying "If all things are equal in a test, then the results will be equivilent".. so now furthur...


I would have a check back to the posts and see exactly who set the boundries of what! I said nothing about AGP in my post, it was prozac if you don't mind...

and for the record, the above statement makes sense, unlike the one to which I was referring to in my last post. I have to agree with you that AGP is inferior to PCIe and I must also state that I never at any time said otherwise, again, read AND understand before posting.

I was agreeing with prozac on his statement when he said the differance between PCIe x16 and PCIe x8 is negligable right now, but I also stated this is set to change in the next generation of GPU's...again, read AND understand...

U are talking about bandwidth now, this is true, but my questioning was with your statement regarding the 8x maximum of AGP whereas your PCIe card had 12 pipelines...This was what I was pointing out, and also the reason why I posted for you the true definition of what 8x AGP means, which I see you have now expanded on, why? Admit you made a mistake and let it go...simple...

The reason why nVidia and ATI are STILL supporting AGP (Wrong again, but hey, who's counting ;-) ) is purely to make some extra money from the masses of people facing the relatively expensive descision of upgrading to PCIe. I know many people who have Athlon XP systems and are pissed off (Haha ;-) ) because the only real option available to them is to upgrade their whole system. For them to go PCIe means they must upgrade their Mobo, which leads to a new CPU, which leads them to new Memory (AM2 and DDR2) as they don't want to buy into S939 when AM2 is the new socket for the next few years at least. Realistically they are looking at spending over 700 GBP on their upgrade to a new Video card...expensive indeed...

For them the thought of what restricted benefits SLI can bring to them is negligable, as not all games benefit from having 2 cards present, this again may be set to change through the introduction of SLI Physics, but then again, it may turn out to be a waste of time.

This brings me back to my statement about PCIe x16 v's PCIe x8 and I'll reiterate for you, currently there is no real noticable benefit from running PCIe 16x SLI over PCIe 8x SLI although with the next Generation of GPU's this may also change...and I hold true to my statement...Just because something should make a huge differance doesn't automatically mean it does.

Many times you mention my statement...Tsk, Tsk...

Quote:
AND the origonal statement that spurred your statement was "Just because something should make a huge differance doesn't automatically mean it does." .. which is only true in the short run, and isn't really even all that accurate witht he SLI argument.


I'm losing you again...Gibberish is returning...

THAT WAS MY STATEMENT!!! Whether or not it is only true in the short or the long run is irrelevant, as it's true NOW!! and Now is what I'm talking about, I also mentioned quite a few times that in the future things will change, but you seem to have totally ignored this...Please...Go back, take a chill pill...read my previous posts AND understand them before you reply, PLEASE!!!

Peace out...

JKay6969

*Reaches for a bottle of his finest 'Chill Pills'* ;-) lmao
June 7, 2006 10:04:37 PM

ok ...
1. sorry for confusing u with prozac.. i didn't even look at the name, i just saw the post and assumed u were prozac defending himself..
2. The statement prozac made was still useless as i've pointed out before...
3. my 12 pipelines statement was mistyped, it's what i get for postint at 1am.. i was talking about bandwith usage... and while what I typed didn't neccesarily make sense now that i re-read it... what i was talkign about was memory lanes and thus bandwith, and that current cards are catching up in bandwith even tho they actually aren't supporting 4gb yet.

^^that's where i stop semi-agreeing

4. Nvidia and ATI are NOT producing equivilent graphics cards anymore for AGP as they are for PCIe... why is this? umm... bandwith... take a look at the 7950 gx2... they don't make anything close to that for AGP.. and they don't because they can't. BUT adide from that they're not really even producing equivilent cards anymore, the market is quickly converting over... go find me a 7900 gtx in agp. That's not even a dual gpu, they COULD make it... but they don't.
sure they produce some crappy cards for agp, but my statement refered to top of the line cards, and the reason it did is because those are the cards that are utilizing the bandwith nowadays. Are they utilizing more than 2.1?


AND as for your last statement... 2 nvidia 7950 gx2's in sli will see a difference in performance if you limit them to PCIe 8x.
^^which crushes your "it's true now!" statement...

i hope u choke on ur chill pills.. lol
June 7, 2006 11:51:25 PM

Apologies accepted, Don't worry about it.

As I said, I agree with some of the points u made, especially the ones about AGP V's PCIe, however I accept that there was a serious case of mistaken Identity ;-)

All I said was that nVidia and ATI were still supporting AGP, not that they were, or even could release a top performer like the GTX, GX2 or even the XTX. I completely agree that AGP simply does not have the bandwidth or features to support such monsters ;-)

I must admit, I've done it myself, late night or early morning posting doesn't always result in my mind and my fingers agreeing ;-) lol

I am looking forward to seeing the latest amd greatest that ATI and nVidia will be releasing in the comming months to satisfy DX10, although I have read reports that the top end cards are going to require Mighty PSU's, 1000-1200Watts anyone!!! Although the next generations after that are said to calm things down again...I guess the battle between ATI and nVidia will make the power, and finance companies smile at least...Start buying your shares now to beat the crowd ;-)

I would say that these cards should certainly make quite a dent in the bandwidth available in PCIe x16 SLI, and at that time I will consider my statement about the current lack of benefit of x16 PCIe SLI over x8 PCIe SLI well and trully nullified, but till then I stand by it ;-)

I wouldn't say it crushes my statement as the GX2 actually only uses 1 PCIe x16 slot, not 2...and currently nVidia are not releasing drivers that support Quad SLI using these cards...This is of course set to change, however, technically my statement is still valid ;-) Until such a time that having 2 PCIe x16 cards in dual x16 SLI shows a marked improvement over having the same 2 cards in a dual PCIe x8 mobo I stand by my statement, so there :p 

Respect for admiting you made a typo, and further respect for standing up for your point, just in the future, read before you react :-)

JKay6969
June 8, 2006 8:09:03 AM

@prozac26

I believe he is referring to your statement about comparing an AGP card and a PCIe card, the statement is seriously flawed in that it doesn't hold up for the top end PCIe cards, sure if you compare the highest AGP card to the same PCIe card they will benchmark about the same, but spdunn's point is that PCIe cards are now way faster than AGP cards could ever be because of the limited bandwidth and features of AGP compared to PCIe.

And in this point he is correct.

JKay6969
June 8, 2006 12:32:06 PM

you can't do an accurate benchmark because ATI and Nvidia aren't releasing top of the line cards for AGP anymore. you'd have to campare outdated cards, and sure they wouldn't use PCIe's bandwith, but that's because they're outdated.

also PCIe cards are using more bandwith now, i think it'd be funny to see a nvidia 7950 gx2 in an agp slot, i'd love to see a bandwith chart on it. but you can't obviously... sigh
June 9, 2006 12:05:38 AM

I agree, How can you show benchmarks on cards that don't exist? Quite simply you can't, But what you can do it question why they don't exist...

as spdunn points out, there are no top end AGP equvalent cards on the market, for nVidia their top AGP card is the 7800GS which I've seen claims that it uses the 7900GT core, although any benchmarks I've seen compare it mostly to a 7800GT only slightly slower. I certainly don't see any 7900GTX AGP cards out there and I believe this is because the AGP slot simply doesn't have the features and/or bandwidth to support it's high requirements. The fact that there are a lot of users out there stuck with their AGP mobo's as the cost of upgrade is quite simply prohibitively expensive and 6800 Ultra AGP cards going on eBay for 200 GBP because they want to squeze every last drop of performance out of their rig before they buy everything again to get a PCIe slot you really have to wonder why ATI and nVidi have not released a 'Bad Boy' for AGP...

P.S. Could you post some benchmarks of 7900GTX AGP v's 7900GTX PCIe? ;-)

JKay6969
!