Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

3 Way SLI A Needed Step For The Future?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
October 15, 2007 12:59:24 AM

Once news broke out of the future 7xxi Nvidia boards capable of running 3 cards in SLI I got to thinking: Are games getting so resource hungry that we need 3 cards running in such a capacity or is it just for the power hungry consumer? It's been my experience that if you buy the top quality video card (at that time since new cards come out every year) one card should be good enough (ex: one 8800GTX or Ultra). Two cards, your seeking more power and want to go beyond what one can do. But three? I was just doing the math and in the picture shown with three 8800 Ultra's running in 3x SLI that's a $1500 dollar investment on video cards alone. Do we, better yet, games, really need that much power to push them to their limits? A better question, is there a limit? Games like UT 3 have FPS caps, I believe it's capped at 60 FPS (that may be just for the demo, not sure for retail), and games like Crysis are very hungry hogs. But if you look at it, one GTX can run Crysis smooth with no issues with settings at full blast. 2 GTX's will make the game beg for its momma. But three? Time to call the coroner. I'm all for the advancement in technology and 3 way SLI was just tne next slep in SLI technology (ATI not far behind with thier 4x Crossfire). I guess my question is this: Is 3x SLI needed, and if so, what will it bring to the table?


More about : sli needed step future

October 15, 2007 1:14:49 AM

It just seems redundant. It doesnt even seem like they've tapped out all the potential of SLI to begin with. Nvidia claims in there SLI ads that it doubles the perfomance of one card but I've never seen a benchmark that claimed double the performance. But if there was a game that DID REQUIRE 3way SLI they would be targeting such a small audience that they would just be shooting themselves in the foot. Most gamers cant even afford an 8800 let alone 3 8800 Ultras... I know I sure as hell cant.
Related resources
October 15, 2007 1:32:49 AM

I don't know that I could justify myself buying two more 8800GTXs.
October 15, 2007 1:38:17 AM

Imagine the heat produced in the case by those. They will operate at 100 degrees C at least!

WHat a waste.
$1,500 for the video cards,

and another $500-$750 for a PSU that can handle it, and of course the CPU will bottleneck so you will need the new quads due out in January:

$500

and of course the ram will have to be the best DDR3
$500.

Total for 3way SLI: $3,000 plus the cost of everyting else!

WHat a waste, why not just put 3 GPU cores on one PCB and make a built-in SLI or three way SLI like the 7950GT?

And don't flame me saying 'they would if they could'.
THey can. They just won't because until they do, they can get rid of their older GPU stock with stupid solutions like these!
October 15, 2007 1:57:57 AM

One word: enthusiast. That sums it up.
October 15, 2007 2:38:36 AM

indeed Justin.

I said it before in another thread and I'll say it again..I really don't like where this is headed. Especially with the possibility there won't be a new high end this year....

Graphics technology does need to improve further...But this is just not the way. Dual card solutions do offer beneficial results as higher res gaming becomes more mainstream. Also, single card solutions have improved. But going into the 3 or 4 card range is just absurd. We should be getting better solutions for the amount we pay. There are other routes that can be taken as Bornking stated as well. The R&D funds need to be shifted to pushing the envelope further. Afterall..enthusiasts who go this crazy are what?...5-10% of the market? They need to focus on pushing the boundaries further for the mainstream. Afterall, that's where the money is. IMO...3 or 4 cards just portrays "mine is bigger then yours"...

This is not the way to go...Don't get me wrong though. Single card solutions aren't bad at all by todays standards...But this just reeks of greed...
October 15, 2007 3:05:40 AM

I agree, it is redundant and too much money for graphics. A $500 graphics card will net someone very good gameplay. I bought my 8800gtx because i knew it would offer me great gameplay and effects for years to come. So what I'm getting at is i expect a certain level from the money i spend like everyone. So, if i spend $1500 I'd expect to see performance increase trifold and never see a dip in frames. And with the issues of a setup like that, I doubt that i would see a difference worth that money. But then again i know there are the enthusiasts and hardcore bada$$es that would gladly buy something like that. I know i would if i could but I'm just a college student so i have to think about my investment and possible returns. So all in all i guess it just comes down to money lol.
October 29, 2007 4:13:22 AM

i disagree, i think of it like this. the 8800gtx is almost 1 year old (next week i believe) so by having the option of adding cards in later means you get more by buying the product initially. i myself bought the 2nd 8800 6months later and it works fine. and also we are all moving into bigger screens. i play my games in 1920x1080. Dx10 games with that setup dont run as fast as you think. screens with that res are dropping and as soon as they get a bigger res then that you need a more hardcore system again to play games on it. yes this is for the enthusiast. i just want as big a screen as i can get and to play on that with max settings you need a serious system. the option of adding in a card for more power suits me. the money ive already spent on my 2 cards isnt wasted in any way.
!