Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is 2 x 8800 GTX SLI or QUAD SLI?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
March 26, 2007 1:16:05 PM

As the subject do 2 x 8800 GTX's = QUAD SLI, ie are they dual GPU cards?

More about : 8800 gtx sli quad sli

March 26, 2007 1:55:26 PM

No
March 26, 2007 2:44:10 PM

Two 8800GTX (SLI) are better than two 7950GX2 (Quad-SLI).
Related resources
March 26, 2007 3:08:39 PM

right.
March 26, 2007 3:19:20 PM

Quote:
Two 8800GTX (SLI) are better than two 7950GX2 (Quad-SLI).


Unless I'm grossly mistaken, the OP wasn't asking anything about performance. The question was "is a 8800GTX a dual GPU card".
March 26, 2007 3:27:32 PM

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? :) 
March 26, 2007 3:58:48 PM

NO :lol: 
March 26, 2007 4:35:35 PM

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.
March 26, 2007 6:41:04 PM

They are single GPUs, so you will need four 8800GTX cards to make quad-SLI.

If nVidia comes up with a 8800GTX based on a 7950GX2, and puts two 8800s on a single board, and you were to SLI them, then it would en up as quad-SLI. But there's no such thing yet.
March 26, 2007 11:52:31 PM

Quote:
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?
March 27, 2007 3:18:23 AM

I think SLI'd 8950GX2s would bring down the power grid 8O .
March 27, 2007 8:52:39 AM

Haha, you'd need to invent cold fusion alongside it :lol: 
March 27, 2007 9:30:26 AM

Yeah and don't forget you'd have to pay to run the freezer you need to keep your computer cool! :lol: 
March 27, 2007 10:07:02 AM

Quote:
...and should perform very well at medium - medium-high resolutions.


:? That's all?
[Raises eyebrows at little 6800GT]
March 27, 2007 10:11:00 AM

No it should perform at high or very high resolutions . The 8950 is supposed to be superior to the 8800 and compete with the R600.

So i dont see how it can just do medium or high- medium. Some people i tell you :roll: get a clue :lol:  http://www.vr-zone.com/?i=4834
a b U Graphics card
March 27, 2007 10:13:12 AM

anyone read about the intel chip technology to combind two or more video chips to effectively and more efficiently create what sounds like sli?
March 27, 2007 5:23:44 PM

to the OP, if you're asking because of power requirements. Some "old" PSUs say "QuadSLI" that means they have 4 PCIe connectors and that is what you need when using dual 8800gtx
March 27, 2007 7:15:43 PM

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

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

lol... its still a good card tho...
March 27, 2007 11:22:27 PM

Hey, I wish I had an 8800GTS it'd destroy my 6800GS (AGP), don't worry about it.
March 27, 2007 11:37:54 PM

Ditto here with a 6800GT, even if it was an awesome Gainward golden sample :roll:
March 28, 2007 12:55:44 AM

hey.. i want being serious.... it was a JOKE!...
i love my GTS!

i was just saying it because everyone was talking about far more advanced cards...
March 28, 2007 1:15:14 AM

I agree whole-heartedly.




But I'm still getting my 8800GTX when the prices drop. :lol: 
March 28, 2007 1:17:29 AM

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....
March 28, 2007 5:26:39 AM

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 :lol:  .

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 :lol: 

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
March 28, 2007 5:41:31 AM

Quote:
I think SLI'd 8950GX2s would bring down the power grid 8O .


Nah, the grid survived servers with 4+ NetBurst Xeon cores in them and AMD's Quad FX (not that enough people actually bought those). So make sure to put your SLI'd 8950GX2s in an X2 or C2D system only please :)  , a NetBurst could push it over the edge.

More seriously, I wonder how long it is before high-end computer's can't run on 120V/15A circuits any more. I mean AMD 4x4 with dual quad-cores and quad graphics could conceivably break a kW (of actual draw, not just PSU nameplate rating).
March 28, 2007 8:43:12 AM

It'll be great to see what ATi has to bring to the table, in terms of performance and shaking up the pricing :) 
March 28, 2007 9:18:14 AM

Yes it should be interesting . I somehow feel that we are in time frame of computer hardware that will be a defining moment or NOT :lol: 
March 28, 2007 9:34:07 AM

Quote:
As the subject do 2 x 8800 GTX's = QUAD SLI, ie are they dual GPU cards?



no..its not
March 28, 2007 9:39:10 AM

Quote:
As the subject do 2 x 8800 GTX's = QUAD SLI, ie are they dual GPU cards?


no..its not

You're a little bit late :lol: 
March 28, 2007 9:45:57 AM

Quote:
As the subject do 2 x 8800 GTX's = QUAD SLI, ie are they dual GPU cards?


no..its not

You're a little bit late :lol: 

ROFL :lol: 
March 28, 2007 11:24:23 AM

arent directx 10 compatable games on the verge of being released?? who knows maybe the extra cash for the 640mb gts will be worth it?? maybe in directx 10 games the extra 320mb ram will show greater advantages and 12 x 10 or 16 x 12 resolutions??
March 28, 2007 11:30:55 AM

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'.
March 29, 2007 4:52:35 AM

Quote:
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


i see what your saying, but my money is on when directx10 is released, that will spark the difference between the 320 and 640mb gts at say 12 x 10 resolution.
March 29, 2007 7:46:00 AM

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 :roll:
March 29, 2007 10:09:12 AM

I don't understand the reasoning some of you guys have.
Just cause the 320MB (a price/performance card), won't get 75+ fps in res. over 1600x1200 its a bad card?

Please look at this and say that the 320MB isn't playable at 1600x1200 (was thinking of oblivion), the resolutions above that i agree you should probably get the 640MB, the 320MB still gets 30-60 fps in even larger resolutions in some games though.

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTI4MSw0LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

And even if the new DX10 will strain the 320MB it will just make me reduce my settings slightly (hopefully atleast , i play in 12x10 btw).
Afaik if your in the 30-60 fps slot it's good enough, why pay $100+ for more fps if you don't need it?
If i was so concerned about losing even 1 fps in games i wouldn't have bought a price/performance card, that as i see it are directed to the low-mid high-end gamer.
Hell, i had a x1600xt before, that could play oblivion well enough for me.

Today i would recommend, with price/perfomance in mind, a 320MB for people with 1600x1200 and less, when DX10 comes out maybe just the 1280x1024 players and so on.
That doesn't mean a 320MB won't play those games really well at 1600x1200 either.
Even DX9 cards will be able to play those games to, again its the eye of the beholder that counts, it's still the same game.

Just because some of you want a minimum fps of 75+ to be sure it never ever lags, doesn't mean the average player that has played with reduced settings and crappy load times for years would mind.
Wasn't it like 70% of all the players still play at 12x10 and 10x7?
Think there was a link here a THG somewhere, sorry that i don't link it and can back up that statement, will try add it later.

Sorry for the really long post and if i went to much OT.

EDIT:
Made som changes to my crappy grammar...
March 30, 2007 2:27:08 AM

Quote:
I think SLI'd 8950GX2s would bring down the power grid 8O .


You will need a nuclear plant next to your case
March 30, 2007 2:35:11 AM

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


But stills an Engineering Sample 8)
a b U Graphics card
March 30, 2007 2:50:40 AM

Quote:
not 12*10, definitely not there, you would be a complete idiot to buy the gts over an 8600 ultra for that resolution


Taco Im gonna have to disagree with you there. You should PM Pauldh sometime and ask him about his 320mb 8800GTS and Oblivion at 1600X1200 res.

i thought paul had the gtx?
March 30, 2007 2:52:32 AM

Yeah, with my 8800GTX there are still times where Oblivion dips down into the low 30s.
a b U Graphics card
March 30, 2007 3:01:46 AM

Quote:
i thought paul had the gtx?


:oops:  it was you i was thinking about.

nevermind rob.
March 30, 2007 12:36:51 PM

The mind boggles at what could possibly require quad-8800 SLi :?
March 30, 2007 1:04:14 PM

Oblivion at 2560x1600 with 16xAA.
March 30, 2007 1:39:40 PM

Over 3GB of video-RAM, thats insane 8O
March 30, 2007 1:48:50 PM

Quote:
Yeah, with my 8800GTX there are still times where Oblivion dips down into the low 30s.


See, even heyyou27 can vouch that the 320mb gts is going to get a hurting put on it by games such as Oblivion at 1680X1050.

When I had my single 8800GTX I would also sometimes get dips into the low 30's. Now with my SLI'd 8800GTX 60fps is about as low as I ever see. :twisted:Jerk. :wink:
March 30, 2007 2:20:25 PM

Quote:
As the subject do 2 x 8800 GTX's = QUAD SLI, ie are they dual GPU cards?

That's just plain-jane SLI. No matter... it's still an insane graphics system.
a b U Graphics card
March 30, 2007 2:55:08 PM

my 88gts 640mb gets low 30,s and high 20,s outside in oblivion.
with all sliders maxed except for the shadows.
a b U Graphics card
March 30, 2007 3:31:52 PM

4xaa and 8xaf at 16x10
March 30, 2007 8:58:26 PM

Quote:
They are single GPUs, so you will need four 8800GTX cards to make quad-SLI.

If nVidia comes up with a 8800GTX based on a 7950GX2, and puts two 8800s on a single board, and you were to SLI them, then it would en up as quad-SLI. But there's no such thing yet.


yeah, and if ever they did do a dualGPU package like the GX2 based on the 8800 itd be a crazy power hog from hell. Itd make the system run hot and youd have to get a new PS.
March 30, 2007 10:52:09 PM

Quote:
Seriously? Never thought they would slow down your gtx that much at a pathetic 12*10, guess I need to rethink some of my ideas :oops: 


hey fella we all make mistakes just keep trying :p 
March 30, 2007 11:32:17 PM

Quote:
Seriously? Never thought they would slow down your gtx that much at a pathetic 12*10, guess I need to rethink some of my ideas :oops: 


I was only saying that was the lowest point of the FPS with Oblivion. At 1280X1024 when playing Oblivion it was mostly at 55-60fps in the thick of the forest the whole time with the occasional dip into the mid 40's.

Yeah that makes sense, you must get like 200 fps in the dungeons lol
!