Is 2 x 8800 GTX SLI or QUAD SLI?

No

right.

You're not mistaken, but there's a good chance the OP assumes quad SLI is superior to SLI'd 8800s.

Offering a little extra info never hurt anyone, did it?

No, 8800 GTX/GTS are single GPU cards. However, there will be an "8950" model with dual G80 chips released in late April or June. Benchmarks have yet to be released, but I suspect this card will be a interesting deal since it will retail for around $600. It will have two OC'ed 8900 GTS chips with 512mb memory and should perform very well at medium - medium-high resolutions.

If you're asking whether performance is better on 2X 8800 GTX or Quad Core 79xx, the dual 8800 destroys. Quad core was never really supported in games, drivers are bad, and the design is inefficient.

I the the 8950GX2 was just an INQ Rumor.. is it actually confirmed?

Haha, you'd need to invent cold fusion alongside it

:? That's all?
[Raises eyebrows at little 6800GT]

anyone read about the intel chip technology to combind two or more video chips to effectively and more efficiently create what sounds like sli?

all this talk about SLI 8800GTX's and 8950's...

now i feel like and A$$ for buying an 8800GTS ...

lol... its still a good card tho...

Ditto here with a 6800GT, even if it was an awesome Gainward golden sample

Nigga please

I wasnt putting him down, I was implying that its stupid to be upset when he owns an 8800GTS.

Good to see you to taco 8)

That is a problem I see a lot, people who can't even think of affording the hardware start putting down other hardware that is far surpassed their own withing thinking really about it. I know it's kinda hypocritical coming from a 6600gt user, but you don't see me telling everyone at every chance I get to throw all their money down the drain, and replace their hardware for something more recent. Personally, the 320mb gts is something I am finding very appealing right now, not just for my own use, but also for recommendations, unless the person realy has a lot of money, or simply plays the most intense games on high resolutions at max settings, I see no reason to spend the difference for the 640mb or gtx, but that might just be me. But other people that have the money, I don't see any reason why they should restrict themselves either, so I think people really need to look at more what is the best choice for their budget rather than what simply has the best performance, like someone I know will not go for an amd though they have a small budget because they have heard all the hype about conroe. But seriously, if the amd fits the budget better and allows for a more expensive upgrade down the road, why not? I think that is how people really should look at things

yea.. the 320mb GTS is working great for me...
i didnt see the need for a GTX either...
but i may SLI the GTS later....

Hey Taco's i agree with you , the best card for the money is definitly the 320mb 8800 gts .

If you have a large monitor then the 640, or if you are like me and dont game higher than 1600x1200 well then you know what i am saying .

The Gtx is for people with money coming out of their butt hole , or growing on their tree's.

The only exception is that you own a large humongous monitor 30' . If not then its a waste in my book atleast .

Personally i am very happy with my Evga superclocked gts 320 . I game with everything on uber .

The funny part is i just have a AMD 3000+ venice processor .

So much for bottlenecking - its over stated. If you want to game on a processor like mine put everything on like 16aa 16 af on 1600x 1200 if you still it is bottle necked then put on multisampling .

If still then KILL THE CARD WITH SUPERSAMPLING - that kills it hehehe

But otherwise oblivion, fear, Casear4 , Coh, Tiger woods 06, Rise of Legends, Half-life 2 and many other games run without a hitch .

Let me just say one thing i have a 50a PSU which i feel makes a large difference as with my last psu was struggling and i was getting bad performance in FPS on my games .

8) Get a Good Psu

It'll be great to see what ATi has to bring to the table, in terms of performance and shaking up the pricing

no..its not

no..its not

You're a little bit late

ROFL

I'd expect that as games become more and more detailed, which is inevitable with the advent of DX10, the extra memory of the 640MB GTS will become more pronounced even with the aggressive overclocking of some 320MB GTS'.

You don't know what you are talking about as you obviously do not play stressful enough games or use high enough levels of AA and AF to stress your 320mb GTS because I can think of more than just a few games that would make your card stumble pretty badly at 1600X1200 resolution.

The GTX is hardly anything but a waste even at 1680X1050 as there are a few games out right now that will push it really good at that res with 8X-16XAA enabled.

While you might run older games such as FEAR and Half-Life 2 without a hitch you cannot say the same for Oblivion as I know better. Back When I only had a single 8800GTX which btw was overclocked to 650core 2030mem and a E6400@3.5ghz which kills your CPU even at 1680X1050 with max settings and 4XAA and 16XAF there were places out doors in Oblivion that would drop to around 35fps, your 320mb GTS paired up with that weak CPU would not fair nearly as good at these same settings so unless you are running with some graphical settings turned down and little to zero aa and af I call BS.

Even PAULDH a long time member here who purchased a 320mb 8800GTS pm'd me and told me how it was performing in Oblivion at 1680X1050 so I am sure he will feel free to chime in if he sees this post.

I don't know if it's really worth spending over a $100 for the difference of the memory though, for people with tight budgets, teh 320mb gts is fine, it's just once you start adding more detail and higher resolutions, then you may want some more memory, but most games don't need more than 256mb for the most part until you hit extreme settings with the exception of mainly oblivion, which actually can make use of sli 8800gtxs once you set the bar high enough as you have shown, 30fps is playable, but the second made it go above 60 consistantly, and anything above 60 is undetectable by the eye anways, so people can really see how much of a waste of money it is to buy the highest gfx card on the market unless they really can make use of it with very high resolutions (no 1024*768 lcd crap, not even worth spending on a 7600gt) and high visual enhancements

The 320MB GTS is kinda similiar to nVidia's ill fated FX-series. Although I hate to use this blasphemy on a great card, the 320MB GTS is the ideal DX9 card but I think it'll struggle with upcoming DX10 games - in the same way that the FX-series cards supported SM3 but were pretty awful at it

not 12*10, definitely not there, you would be a complete idiot to buy the gts over an 8600 ultra for that resolution, but for 16*12 and above, then the memory difference will start to show with at the most 10fps, but still, in your mind, what's better;10fps, or the 320mb combined with a new 20.1" moinitor (after saving up another $!00 in a month or so)?

I never said you should buy an 8600 ultra for oblivion at 16*12, but for most games, especially at 12*10, I seriously think the gts would be overkill, comeon, you get something like 300fps with sli gtxs at 1650*1080, I think the gts could put up with any game out right now without a sweat at just 12*10, oblivion with high settings and at 16*12 is a different story though

Naw taco plant 8O Supplies three thousand kilowatts of continous power by placing a taco in front of me on a treadmill