Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

7950GX2 or X1900XTX CF - Which would you suggest?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
August 9, 2006 1:30:21 AM

I'm racking my brain out now looking at the pros and cons between our two choices here. BTW, this will be going with an e6600 and a Dell 2407 LCD:

1x evga 7950gx2 (what a price!)
$530
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E1681...

pros: price (subjective), room for future expansion quad sli, great price for a 7950gx2, evga lifetime warranty, evga step up plan (never know, the dx10 cards really COULD be around the corner)
cons: retardedly expensive (and impossible to find) intel nforce 4 motherboards, 590 sli motherboards will come out next century, quad sli is currently useless, hear these intel motherboards won't be too great when it comes to OCing, no HDA+AA

OR

X1900XTX and X1900CF (what a price!)
Together= $748
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E1681...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E1681...

pros: price (subjective), motherboards readily available, CF works with intel chipsets, shaders make it a tad more future proof, HDA+AA, can go 16xAA with great performance, again- don't have to wait for an unannounced release like i do nvidia
cons: hear it runs very hot, still more expensive than nvidia solution, crossfire drivers probably aren't as mature as sli, no step up plan :( 

Now i don't have experience with either of these solutions.. but i have read alot. Is it really true that the ATI has better picture quality? remember, i'm going to be running max details on whatever i play with AA and AF on a 24inch LCD, so i need some power, and i need it to look goooooood!

Indeed i know either way this is very expensive :) , well aware of that.

Suggest away...no flames please :) 
August 9, 2006 1:31:05 AM

XF solution would be my choice...
August 9, 2006 1:56:45 AM

i say none, wait for DX10, late this year or early next year, u can get an x1800xt for $200 on newegg.com and then have it as long as possible to then upgrade to DX10... i mean $500 - 800 is a lot on something that will become not all that fascinating in a couple of months.. i will have to Crossfire the x1900xt, its better but more, depends how much money and brains u have
Related resources
August 9, 2006 1:59:52 AM

Quote:
i say none, wait for DX10, late this year or early next year, u can get an x1800xt for $200 on newegg.com and then have it as long as possible to then upgrade to DX10... i mean $500 - 800 is a lot on something that will become not all that fascinating in a couple of months.. i will have to Crossfire the x1900xt, its better but more, depends how much money and brains u have


thx for the suggestion man.. but i waited forever for core 2 to come out.. i'm not too hot on the idea of waiting god knows how long for dx10 cards.. and i don't think 1x 1800xt is really going to cut it for a 24inch lcd methinks :p 
August 9, 2006 2:34:57 AM

Well, the X1900s should have a slight performance advantage, but when looking for other things such as HDCP support, the Geforce 7950GX2 beats the X1900s.
August 9, 2006 2:53:38 AM

Don't go with either.. especially crossfire (will be loud, hot and not that great of a performance increase)

I would wait 2 weeks for the X1950XTX.. and if you must.. go crossfire with that!
a b U Graphics card
August 9, 2006 1:49:04 PM

Quote:
Well, the X1900s should have a slight performance advantage, but when looking for other things such as HDCP support, the Geforce 7950GX2 beats the X1900s.


LOL! Yes for all that HD content out there that 'REQUIRES' it. :|

Anyone who buy an SLi/Xfire rig based on that alone needs to rethink their priorities.

HDCP is an interesting consideration, but no more so than the list of other differences, and really for gaming those other differences will be more important.
August 9, 2006 2:56:13 PM

I would just get the 7950GX2.
August 9, 2006 3:03:54 PM

Quote:
I would just get the 7950GX2.


Gary, come on, man. The original poster obviously is not a starving student since he is considering $500-700 expense.

I suggest he wait for NextGen cards. It will not be that long.
August 9, 2006 3:05:52 PM

Quote:
I would just get the 7950GX2.


Gary, come on, man. The original poster obviously is not a starving student since he is considering $500-700 expense.

I suggest he wait for NextGen cards. It will not be that long.
He said he didn't want to wait, and I can't shake the 'spend as little money as possible' mentality that being a starving student has impressed upon me.
August 9, 2006 4:07:32 PM

1x evga 7950gx2, as you asked.

but if i were you, i'd get a single 1900XTX.
August 9, 2006 4:23:53 PM

thanks for all the great responses guys..

right now i'm actually kinda leaning towards getting the 7950gx2.

why? well i'm not really a starving student, but i'm not wealthy by any means. $700+ is ALOT more than $500.

I'm just trying to outweigh the pros and cons for both solutions. the way everyone always talks down 7900s compared to x1900s, i just thought that there were alot more things going for ati than nvidia towards the final lap of this gen.

as i said before (as stupid as you might think i am) i'm not going to wait several months for a dx10 solution. also if one DOES come out within 90 days of this purchase and i buy an evga 7950gx2, i get to step up to a dx10 card with just a little extra money. no one seems to talk about this, has anyone had a bad experience trying to participate in this program?
August 9, 2006 4:43:25 PM

Quote:
LOL! Yes for all that HD content out there that 'REQUIRES' it. :|

Anyone who buy an SLi/Xfire rig based on that alone needs to rethink their priorities.

HDCP is an interesting consideration, but no more so than the list of other differences, and really for gaming those other differences will be more important.
But if someone criticized the usefulness of ATI's ability to use FP16 with antialiasing, what would you say, even if only a few games took advantage of it? My guess is you’d be all over them explaining why it’s so useful and how they need to “rethink their priorities”. :?
August 9, 2006 4:53:52 PM

wow though!

that 7950gx2 just dropped to $499!
August 9, 2006 5:11:31 PM

Forget about the 7950 GX2, I have had issues with mine. First, the 91.31 drivers wouldn't work with it, causing run stop errors and rebooting, and now I am getting major artifacting. The requirements to power the 7950 GX2 are minimum 500 watt ps that puts out 22 amps on the 12v rail. Try finding a ps that puts out 22 amps on a 12v rail (probably why I am experiencing artifacting.) I'm using a SLI approved PS too, and using one of the PCI-E power dongles (there are two for SLI obviously).

Secondly, have you read the article on quad SLI? Probably not, because normal SLI beats it and even a single 7950 GX2 beats it. Quad SLI needs fixing before it should be considered, unless you just want to brag about how much money you spent for nothing.

Speaking of which, the 7950 GX2 is overkill right now for anybody running 1280 x 1024 or less resolutions. I'm in that category since my LCD monitor can only run 1280 x 1024 max.

The ATI X1900 XTX seems like the choice to me.

hball
August 9, 2006 5:27:07 PM

If you went w/ xfire 1900xt's (which the crossfire version is at that speed anyway) then you could get it down to the bargin price of $700 flat. (depending on make) They would still outperform the 7950 w/ better quality.

Granted, that is still 200 bones more... and it is up to you if that better quality and future game support is worth that 200.

The 7950 is no slouch at all though. So you would still enjoy it for sure... but I just like the visuals of HDR+AA, their better AA, their better AF... if 200 frogskins is not worth that, then the 7950 is a nice setup.
August 9, 2006 5:29:00 PM

well i'm going to be getting a dell 2407fpw.. the resolution on that sucker is 1920x1200.

i'm already planning on also getting an overkill psu (cuz i'm paranoid about that kinda stuff): ocz 700w gamerxtream or whatever.

and while i agree on the crappy benches, it's still early in it's development phase.. those WERE just beta drivers and by the time i'm actually in the market to get a second one... that'll be like a year from now or more. you don't think price would have gone down or drivers mature greatly to make quadsli an actual viable solution?

so the majority of you think getting an xtx for a little over a hundred less is actually more practical than a $499 7950gx2?

thx again for the suggestions guys.
August 9, 2006 5:29:03 PM

Quote:
meow, nice response although buying a ati card now means any future games that support it of which im sure there will be a few, will be compatible rather than buying a nvidia card and seeing a game he wants to play and realising he cant use HDR without jaggies.
Don't get me wrong, if the X1900 had HDCP support right now, there would be even more of a reason to go for it but between a $700 GPU setup and a $500 the difference is too small in performance to really consider the extra $200.
August 9, 2006 5:39:26 PM

Quote:
well i'm going to be getting a dell 2407fpw.. the resolution on that sucker is 1920x1200...

...so the majority of you think getting an xtx for a little over a hundred less is actually more practical than a $499 7950gx2?

thx again for the suggestions guys.


@ that resolution, the 7950 will do better then a single 1900xtx... w/ all candy on that is.

I still prefer the look of the current ati cards over the current Nv, but that is rather subjective. Performance-wise the 7950 beats the single 1900.
August 9, 2006 5:44:17 PM

Quote:
well i'm going to be getting a dell 2407fpw.. the resolution on that sucker is 1920x1200...

...so the majority of you think getting an xtx for a little over a hundred less is actually more practical than a $499 7950gx2?

thx again for the suggestions guys.


@ that resolution, the 7950 will do better then a single 1900xtx... w/ all candy on that is.

I still prefer the look of the current ati cards over the current Nv, but that is rather subjective. Performance-wise the 7950 beats the single 1900.

i wish i could see comparisons of the two, side by side. to see the difference. the fact that there is no motherboard that supports both is an awful shame cuz then i'd actually be able to get both solutions and make my judgement based on that.

can anyone post a link that shows same screenshots from both that clearly shows an image quality difference? that would be helpful too :) 
August 9, 2006 5:49:24 PM

I can't find the link because I'm at work and GameSpot is blocked, but if I remember correctly, they had interactive comparisons of high-end Nvidia and ATI cards in Oblivion. You could scroll over the picture and it would change from an Nvidia screenshot to an ATI so you could see the difference. Again, I can't find the link and I don't know what cards they used, but search for it on GameSpot.com's technology or hardware section.
August 9, 2006 6:12:41 PM

1 go nvidia any time i had an ati once and it gave very bad driver problem!!! with a monitor like take nvidia will be much better at providing true high defination resolution. plus lets face both of the graphics card willbe outof date in a whileso don't waste more more money a hardware that does the samejob for cheaper.

2 also i don't think you need a sli motherboard to be able to the 7950gx2 so you can save there or if you can afford it, if you buy the nvidia optoin if you come into some money get another and run it quad sli.

3 the x1900 chip is getting a little old and the 7950gx2 is new so shouldbe slightly better.

4 They will both play game in the same quality but one is cheaper and more reiable.
August 9, 2006 6:12:43 PM

Quote:
I can't find the link because I'm at work and GameSpot is blocked, but if I remember correctly, they had interactive comparisons of high-end Nvidia and ATI cards in Oblivion. You could scroll over the picture and it would change from an Nvidia screenshot to an ATI so you could see the difference. Again, I can't find the link and I don't know what cards they used, but search for it on GameSpot.com's technology or hardware section.


very helpful! thanks Gary!

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6145814/index.html

picture quality difference from what it seems is almost IMPOSSIBLE to see, really not as big as i had always thought from what everyone says. It's really negligible. but the HDR+AA really does look nice in 3dmark.

anyone know if nvidia could actually make a driver that would support this function or is it a hardware limitation that can never be broken with this generation of nvidias? not too sure if it's software or hardware.
August 9, 2006 6:15:47 PM

Quote:
anyone know if nvidia could actually make a driver that would support this function or is it a hardware limitation that can never be broken with this generation of nvidias? not too sure if it's software or hardware.
It's a hardware limitation.
August 9, 2006 6:16:09 PM

It's a hardware limitation for that type of HDR. You can get HDR+AA in Half-Life 2 I believe, but that's a different type of HDR.
August 9, 2006 6:19:03 PM

If you want bad drivers then go with ATI, if you want a card of equal hardware capability and has good working drivers then there is no choice it's Nvidia. ATI's drivers have been reworked by someone and put out with some Omega name with supposedly much better results than what ATI's own coders can put out. What does that tell you?
August 9, 2006 6:22:43 PM

Dobby i think your oversimplifying..."its new so its better"..."they both do the same job, just this does it cheaper"

not quite... go with an x1900xt and cf.... if your spending that kinda money you may as well get the best quality, especially if you want HDR and stuff that works well. 8)

also i think the driver issues for quad sli are more of a problem then the supposed problems with ATI which i don't believe are cronic, more isolated cases.
a b U Graphics card
August 9, 2006 6:25:33 PM

Quote:
But if someone criticized the usefulness of ATI's ability to use FP16 with antialiasing, what would you say, even if only a few games took advantage of it? My guess is you’d be all over them explaining why it’s so useful and how they need to “rethink their priorities”. :?


How wrong you are, like so many times before I have said it's a nice feature, maybe a tie breaker, but just like SM3.0 and FP16 on the GF6 series nothing worth basing an entire purchase on, and it was FP16HDR+AA, AVIVO, HQAF, OGL performance, Linux, etc. that were the 'other differences' in.. "than the list of other differences, and really for gaming those other differences will be more important."

Just because I don't think HDCP is as much of a concern, doesn't mean I was picking sides, re-read what I said, I specifically avoided chosing one, and strictly write to that specific feature, which is really still just a checkbox (By the time the 'NEED' is there, you'll be able to buy a cheaper add-in card, and I doubt he'll still have this rig by the time the content arrives, and even if so, after spending $1,000 on Cards and nearly $100o on a drive, do you NOT think he's going to want better video playback features than are currently on offer?

C'mon, re-think your argument and tell me if my statement doesn't make sense for someone BUILING a new DESKTOP PC. A Notebook is more of a concern, but really any HD-DVD / BR Laptop will come with HDCP support lready so the concerns are different even in their implementation and options there.
August 9, 2006 6:29:33 PM

Quote:
If you want bad drivers then go with ATI, if you want a card of equal hardware capability and has good working drivers then there is no choice it's Nvidia. ATI's drivers have been reworked by someone and put out with some Omega name with supposedly much better results than what ATI's own coders can put out. What does that tell you?

They make Omega drivers for Nvidia cards too. You're making broad, uneducated, unfounded statements and it's making you look like an idiot.
August 9, 2006 6:34:36 PM

Quote:
How wrong you are, like so many times before I have said it's a nice feature, maybe a tie breaker, but just like SM3.0 and FP16 on the GF6 series nothing worth basing an entire purchase on, and it was FP16HDR+AA, AVIVO, HQAF, OGL performance, Linux, etc. that were the 'other differences' in.. "than the list of other differences, and really for gaming those other differences will be more important."

Just because I don't think HDCP is as much of a concern, doesn't mean I was picking sides, re-read what I said, I specifically avoided chosing one, and strictly write to that specific feature, which is really still just a checkbox (By the time the 'NEED' is there, you'll be able to buy a cheaper add-in card, and I doubt he'll still have this rig by the time the content arrives, and even if so, after spending $1,000 on Cards and nearly $100o on a drive, do you NOT think he's going to want better video playback features than are currently on offer?

C'mon, re-think your argument and tell me if my statement doesn't make sense for someone BUILING a new DESKTOP PC. A Notebook is more of a concern, but really any HD-DVD / BR Laptop will come with HDCP support lready so the concerns are different even in their implementation and options there.
Not everyone builds a new PC every 6-12 months and in that time HD DVD and Bluray will be here.
a b U Graphics card
August 9, 2006 7:03:04 PM

Quote:
Not everyone builds a new PC every 6-12 months and in that time HD DVD and Bluray will be here.


That alone is not my point, my point is to BUY the BEST GAMING SOLUTION if that's what you're concerned with, for 2D HD Video playback there are better solutions still than either the one listed here.

I realize you built in some motive to my statement, but it simply saying, of ALL the things to be considering this would be a minor issue to fix once content arrives and there is a killer app reason.

And without the ~$1,000 player, you're telling me that the $75 better suited card is going to be a build/price issue?

It would be like me recommending an X1300 over a GF7600 to a gamer because AVIVO was better.

This ends up being like the Linux support junk from another thread. Sure it's a consideration if you MUST have it, but since it's not a priority in the first post, I doubt it's a focus, and if it were the primary concern there's far better options out there.

EDIT: And I say this as someone who puts 2D>3D but still likes to game on the same solution. But for someone looking at a rig like this I don't think 2D quality is anywhere near top of the list compared to 5-10% performance difference in games, so I'd say they are 3D>2D people, and for that HDCP is a minor concern, for ME it's a bigger concern, because the options are far FAR less.
a b U Graphics card
August 9, 2006 7:09:19 PM

Quote:

They make Omega drivers for Nvidia cards too. You're making broad, uneducated, unfounded statements and it's making you look like an idiot.


Exactly. Why would the fact that there are ZeropointDrives or NGO drivers for ATi AND nVhave anything to do with the originals?

Both have a ton of moded drivers;
http://downloads.guru3d.com/download.php?id=2
http://downloads.guru3d.com/download.php?id=24

The popular DNA drivers for ATi were supah fast, but were far more unstable, and often compromised IQ for speed, doesn't reflect on the original CATs at all.

BTW, for the IQ comparo, the recent [H] review of the GF7600GT shows the biggest benefit of HQAF, but there's not too much else examined, like Transparent vs Adaptive, and of course Temporal AA is old news by now and rarely investigated.

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTEwMCwx...
August 9, 2006 7:20:04 PM

Quote:
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6145814/index.html

picture quality difference from what it seems is almost IMPOSSIBLE to see, really not as big as i had always thought from what everyone says. It's really negligible. but the HDR+AA really does look nice in 3dmark.

anyone know if nvidia could actually make a driver that would support this function or is it a hardware limitation that can never be broken with this generation of nvidias? not too sure if it's software or hardware.


It is only hard to see in static shots. That article from [H] is easier to see, but even w/ that it looks so much better in motion. AA diffs and such are much harder to see w/o movement. HDR is easy to notice (as you mentioned) and just like color depth shows up great on static shots.

The rest really does look better in action, that is why so many talk it up... and why those that talk it down do not own one of the x1k cards. It is not always fanboism, just that they base it on static pics and not real life experience. (the ones that rip on "bad" ati drivers may also fall into that category)
a b U Graphics card
August 9, 2006 7:59:43 PM

The funny thing is the part of HDR I like most is the dynamic part, how it'll change well based on your position and movement vis-a-vis the source and reflections.

HDR on the torches in Oblivion, and the iris effect are what get me more than just the over and under-bright which are easy to illustrate. I think the overbright is used too often to show the difference, and that's really an extreme IMO, and something that if HDR were static could be recreated by changes to bloom, saturation and other rather more static settings.

Whether or not it's important versus impressive to you is what matters. I llike seeing it and loved playing with it in Oblivion, but it wasn't enough alone to make me want to revamp my Laptop yet or build a new desktop.
August 9, 2006 8:03:14 PM

Personally, the HDR in Oblivion was a little too much for me. It looked really good, but I'm more of a person that likes things to look like they could actually look like in real life, if that makes any sense. If I was looking at a horse in real life, it wouldn't be all shiny and have that "glowing" HDR effect. It really doesn't matter anyways though, as I can't use HDR on my system anyways.
August 9, 2006 8:04:22 PM

Quote:
The funny thing is the part of HDR I like most is the dynamic part, how it'll change well based on your position and movement vis-a-vis the source and reflections.

HDR on the torches in Oblivion, and the iris effect are what get me more than just the over and under-bright which are easy to illustrate. I think the overbright is used too often to show the difference, and that's really an extreme IMO, and something that if HDR were static could be recreated by changes to bloom, saturation and other rather more static settings.

Whether or not it's important versus impressive to you is what matters. I llike seeing it and loved playing with it in Oblivion, but it wasn't enough alone to make me want to revamp my Laptop yet or build a new desktop.


ya, I did not mention that and you are right... motion really defines everything that differentiates the cards was my point though. Hope that still came accross. ;) 
August 10, 2006 6:53:43 AM

Quote:
The funny thing is the part of HDR I like most is the dynamic part, how it'll change well based on your position and movement vis-a-vis the source and reflections.

HDR on the torches in Oblivion, and the iris effect are what get me more than just the over and under-bright which are easy to illustrate. I think the overbright is used too often to show the difference, and that's really an extreme IMO, and something that if HDR were static could be recreated by changes to bloom, saturation and other rather more static settings.

Whether or not it's important versus impressive to you is what matters. I llike seeing it and loved playing with it in Oblivion, but it wasn't enough alone to make me want to revamp my Laptop yet or build a new desktop.


ya, I did not mention that and you are right... motion really defines everything that differentiates the cards was my point though. Hope that still came accross. ;) 

i hear ya bro. however, take a look at the video in the gamespot comparison on the first page. seems to me like the motion of the two look identical. but it could be one of those things i'd have to see for my own eyes to experience.
August 10, 2006 2:13:09 PM

Quote:
i hear ya bro. however, take a look at the video in the gamespot comparison on the first page. seems to me like the motion of the two look identical. but it could be one of those things i'd have to see for my own eyes to experience.


I have not looked at those videos, but I am pretty sure they would do no justice as it is a compressed vid I'm sure, and it is the subtle things in the full-motion that the card renders that make is so amazing. Like GrapeApe said, as you change position and you get the "iris effect" and such... that is when HDR looks really good. The subtlety of AA and AF (the better quality ones on ati) as you are moving and the angle changes alot... all those can get lost in compression just as easily as a static image.
September 1, 2006 7:24:11 AM

I went with a single X1900XTX.

There really aren't that many games that are fully compatible nor actually can use SLI and/or crossfire. DX10 may change this, but still, you have to wait for DX10 code specific games and then find mature DX10 fully feature video card (that will be a good 6-8 months away).

Keep in mind, that those games that don't actually work with SLI will leave you'll with and average video solution as your 7950GX2 would perform on par with a single 7800GTX in no SLI capable games.

For me, I enjoy MS FS2004 and the sim will not work at all well with multi-GPU rendering, there are modes such as AA rendering, but that is barely noticeable. Even FSX will not support SLI til DX10 in Vista.

Rob.
a b U Graphics card
September 1, 2006 10:56:48 AM

Quote:
If you want bad drivers then go with ATI, if you want a card of equal hardware capability and has good working drivers then there is no choice it's Nvidia. ATI's drivers have been reworked by someone and put out with some Omega name with supposedly much better results than what ATI's own coders can put out. What does that tell you?

LOL, that's a joke. But hey, if you want texture shimmering and subpar image quality at driver default settings, go with NVidia. NV's driver team is the best because we all know those who spend $550 on a video card want IQ hampering optimizations for a few more fps in benchmark charts, and not superior Image Quality. :tongue: :twisted:
September 1, 2006 4:27:45 PM

Holy crap, how did I miss this trash-the-Fanboy-fest, Paul?

Why wasn't I informed? :p 
September 1, 2006 5:55:04 PM

MSI X1900XTX - $284 MSI RX1900 Xfire - $315

Total Price: $599 - Grant it, it's after a mail-in-rebate but what the hay.

Price/performance comparison using highest settings from Anandtech. Benchmarks

I'm not using 1024x768 data from Obilivion. Using $530 for GX2 as mentioned.

1280x1024: Xfire: $5.11 per frame GX2: $6.14 per frame
1600x1200: Xfire: $6.19 per frame GX2: $8.03 per frame
1920x1440: Xfire: $7.98 per frame GX2: $10.69 per frame
2048x1536: Xfire: $8.90 per frame GX2: $11.88 per frame

Average: Xfire: $7.00 per frame GX2: $9.20 per frame

Conclusion: X1900XTX Xfire is the best bang for the buck as well as providing higher frame rates.
September 1, 2006 6:30:17 PM

Update: MSI GX2 card from Newegg for $511. Plus, error in my calculation earlier. Ooops. Though it doesn't change the end result, the comparison between the two cards is much closer.

1280x1024: Xfire: $5.11 per frame GX2: $5.24 per frame
1600x1200: Xfire: $6.19 per frame GX2: $6.85 per frame
1920x1440: Xfire: $7.98 per frame GX2: $9.12 per frame
2048x1536: Xfire: $8.90 per frame GX2: $10.13 per frame

Average: Xfire: $7.00 per frame GX2: $7.80 per frame

Conclusion: X1900XTX Xfire is still the best bang for the buck as well as providing higher frame rates.
September 1, 2006 6:39:35 PM

If you can afford it go for the crossfire solution. More powerful than the single 7950 and it looks as if it might take some good time for quad-sli to actually be worthy anyway. If you must have it now thats the best choice. You could always go even more crazy on the $-flow and get 1950xtxs when they are available, shrug. G'luck with whatever you choose I'm sure you'll be pleased with the crossfire tho.
a b U Graphics card
September 1, 2006 11:47:03 PM

Quote:
Holy crap, how did I miss this trash-the-Fanboy-fest, Paul?

Why wasn't I informed? :p 


LOL, don't take it personal. We just figured now that you are a pro, we can't have you tarnishing your rep just for a few trash-the-fanboi kicks. :p  AH, it's nice to just let it fly. :D 
September 22, 2006 5:09:44 AM

Quote:
Right now, 7950GX2 would be my choice. Better performance/$.

It also works with 965P and 975X in SLI mode. (through illegal means)
I've got the drivers for them.


Ressurecting a slightly old thread here I know....

But hacked *quad* SLI drivers for the 975X chipset? I knew there were SLI drivers about but I didnt know Quad SLI drivers were! Any chance of pointing me in the right direction please wusy? :) 
September 22, 2006 8:07:36 AM

I'm not a technical pro like most of the responders to this post but I can tell you that I have a 24 inch monitor and use a HIS ICQ X1900XT 512 MB and usually run any game that supports it at 1900 X 1200 resolution and I am completely happy with the performance that my card provides. Hope it helps a little anyway on your decision making.
September 22, 2006 8:09:10 AM

Bah you got me all excited about that :p 

I have the modded 85.96 SLi Drivers sat around ready for if/when I get a second card, I even have an SLi bridge, one of the flexible ones.

Having said that, the 90.31 drivers (the ones that harass you about one of your SLi cards being removed each boot) had the SLi option selectable (not greyed out) on my old ASRock 775Dual-880Pro with my current 7900GT PCI-E and a 5950U AGP, thats a VIA chipset board.

Of course, trying to enable it made the computer crash, but I do wonder if the 90.31 drivers would allow SLi on a non-nVidia chipset with two SLi capeable and matched cards (the 5950U doesnt even support SLi after all, so that could well have been the cause of the crash.)

EDIT: Yes, I can run any game in 1600x1200 with one 7900GT, but 8xSS AA is sooooo pretty.....
September 22, 2006 8:13:12 AM

Oooooh!!!

Clicky

Looks like it *is* possible....
!