The madness never ends! 8600GTS SLI benchmark

[NamelessMC]

http://www.ocworkbench.com/2007/nvidia/8600GTS/b6c.htm

Two 8600GTS in SLI match the performance of an 8800GTS single card?

This could mean SLI is finally becoming a worthwhile scalable performance venue. The problem? They're stepping on their own toes!

I mean, the fact that the 8600GTS is highly over-clockable leads me to believe two 8600GTS over-clocked will match the performance of a stock 8800GTX.

The pro - People can actually buy one mid range card and another later in SLI and actually have good performance scalin.

The con - If you know better, why would you spend $500 on a GTX when you could get two GTS 8600 and match the performance.

Also, why doesn't the 8800GTS or 8800GTX scale like this?

 

[bfellow]

what if you don't have a SLI board? Then I would stick to the GTX then or even the EVGA OCed version.


This is only showing a 3DMark06 result and not any applications at all.

 

[meljor]

in real games you won`t see that much profit in sli....

why buy 2 cards with the same price/performance as one? with one you can add a second card when it becomes cheaper......

not every game profits from 2 cards so one fast card is always better in my opinion.......

btw: the card sucks for that price if you ask me....... it has dx10 but it can`t even pass a x1900xt or a 7900gt. so you can turn on dx10 features and scaledown your resolution and AA because it will not handle high settings very soon. they should have given it 64 shaders ......

just my opinion, we`ll wait for the benchies (dx10) to make a final judgment. in the mean time i`m pretty happy i bought my x1900xt instead of waiting for this.

 

[Collector619]

we must see the game benchmarks ..

 

[stemnin]

There are also games (that are released even today!) that don't support SLI, i'm not sure if supcom has added it yet, since i've been playing c&c3. There's another game.. is it Stalker? That doesn't support SLI, not sure.

IMO the single card solution is best, get a 8800GTX, get another one later, instead of having to throw out 2 8600's for faster cards.

 

[pauldh]

As Hardwarezone showed, the 8600GTS does well in 3dmark06 but lousy in actual games. For $250 a pop, I can't imagine two of these will ever offer the best bang for that buck.

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

As Hardwarezone showed, the 8600GTS does well in 3dmark06 but lousy in actual games. For $250 a pop, I can't imagine two of these will ever offer the best bang for that buck.

Exactly, I don't see there being any point in paying $500 for SLied GF8600s when you could spend $540 for SLied GTS-320s, which would also be memory limited.

Just a benchmark player, not much of a gamer sofar.

wonder how much time nvidia has spent tweaking their drivers to get it work well in 3dmark

Well I don't think they needed much tweaking, from what I remember 3Dmk06 is very vertex and texture heavy, so this plays very well to the GF8600 architecture that can dedicate large amounts of procs to vertex to clear any internal bottlenecks, and then have a good number of TMUs to grind out textures. This imbalance rarely shows itself in games, usually pixel heavy now, and I suspect even the next 3Dmk will be more pixel shader heavy to reflect gaming trends. And even 'future future' games will be gemetry shader heavy, so this means little for that aspect too.

As usual just having the 3Dmk final numbers without greater in depth info means little. The FXs were great at making 3Dmark numbers.