to sli or not to sli
hi i have a 22 inch monitor i want to run max resolution of 1680x1050 and im building a comp soon with an 8800gts but im not sure whether i want to go for the 780i motherboard and add another gts or sli something later on or just go for a single card motherboard, if so what one would be a good choice, thanks
I currently have an 8800GT powering a 24" @ 1920x1200 and for me it seems to do the trick(EVE online(not to hard on it, floats around 80-100FPS max, Used to play Hellgate London(Graphics heavy, average outside 30's, inside was 80+ with everything maxed in DX9, would hiccup when super heavy effects/mobs crowded the screen but handled well). Unfortunately I don't have any of your specific game benchies to give you an Idea, but I believe a single 8800GTS will do just fine. Of course If you have the money, then thats another story. As with most things money is the deciding factor, I believe however the only thing a Single 8800GTS cant handle at 1680 would be crysis, everything else however would do well, if you plan on keeping high end graphics for the next 2~3 years you should go SLI. I just slowly start to decrease the game settings as the years pass until it gets to the threshold of getting a whole new rig.
arsenalfc1014 said:hi i have a 22 inch monitor i want to run max resolution of 1680x1050 and im building a comp soon with an 8800gts but im not sure whether i want to go for the 780i motherboard and add another gts or sli something later on or just go for a single card motherboard, if so what one would be a good choice, thanks
On that res two GTS's would most likely be a little wasted. a pair of GT's however are superb at 1680x1050.
dragonsprayer said:i have to bite my touge admitt for the first time - that sli is good
I say do what fits your budget. I have a 22" LCD and a single 8800GTS OCed runs everything I could ever want it to run. I run COD4 maxed out and get 60FPS. World In Conflicted with everything maxed exept AAx4 and AFx4. IF you want an awesome SLI build 2 9600GT's will whoop an ULTRA. I think any solution you pick will be a good one if you keep within your budget. Just don't get a quad core CPU and then not have enough for a good Graphics solution.
Whats your current list of parts and budget?
Great choices. The 8800GTS is an awesome card. it will be great cause you can always toss another one in there if you need it with that mobo and PSU they will both handle it like a champ. The only thing I can comment on is the CPU. Do you really need a Quad? the Q6600 is old tech on a 266MHz bus. The e8400 would do so much better in games and such, and it uses the newer 333MHZ bus on a 45nm chip instead of 65nm. You have all that new tech so don't end up with an old CPU.
For most people Xfire or SLI is just for bragging so "why" is it a good idea for him and his set up "this time"?
Just for bragging? Not any more it's not. Why two cards? In this GPU demanding level of crysis, would you rather be at 16 fps or 29 fps? Although at 29 fps it's hardly something to brag about, I tend to enjoy playable framerates and keep SLI enabled.
I would still say he should start with one GTS and add a second if desired. But at least buy an SLI mobo in case.
arsenalfc1014 said:hmm about the proccessor, i kind of want a quad core because of futureproofing, i thought the new q6600 g0 edition is a really good choice
Good point. But right now the 8400 is a better gaming processor....unless you overclock the crap out the quad.
By the time there are enough games that can really make use of the quad core, and truely justify having it sitting on your motherboard, it will be old news and you can buy something that will smoke it for probably about the same money.
I am talking about gaming here, if you use Photoshop, Indesign, read email, surf the web, rip mp3's and run through Oblivian all at the same time, maybe you do need the quad.
Quote:Good point. But right now the 8400 is a better gaming processor....unless you overclock the crap out the quad.
The thing is, in real gaming, not 3dmarks or 800x600 low scaling tests, where is the e8400 going to outgame the Q6600? Even 3.6GHz e8400 vs 3.0GHz Q6600, what games will there be a noticeable difference? Priced similar as is common now, I'd take the Q6600 myself for other tasks and future proofing. Price $70 apart, I'd want the e8400.
For most people Xfire or SLI is just for bragging so "why" is it a good idea for him and his set up "this time"?
dual 8800GTS out run the new 9800GX2 - new driver may or may not change this
dual 9600GT's give the 8800GTS and a run
if you can get a similar performance then you can buy one card and add one later - this is great advantage - you can wait and see what comes out or if the 9800GX2 is worth it
lets say you want a 9800GTX - you can get the 8800GTS and know you can get similar or better performance. later you can sell your gts and get the gx2 or add a gts or not add anything
not waiting for 9800GX2 but get the same performance
same with the 9600GT
your going to get an 8800GTS next month or 2
heck get the 9600GT now then you can add 2 or trade up or ebay - 4 options
intel mobos are getting better and better and ati cards are 2 - part of why nvidia stock went from 40 to 18 while intel went from 28 to 21.
ati and intel now a good alternate - i have posted this system a few times.
below system specs
gpu costs: $900
3dmark06 score: 22,000+ with all back ground programs on, windows side bar up, 3 anti spyware programs - no tweeks.
score with crossfirex off - 18,000+
3dmark 06 cards not overclocked 20,500
3 gpu's are the sweets spot - the 3 card system will not be done until i am back in a few weeks
i post photos for people to see that i have done what i say, and to show people how i lay out stuff. so if you have any questions i be glad to help you. If you see them in multiple posts remember not everyone reads each post.
some zip ties are for shipping around cpu hsf and hold cables back - to be removed by owner
NO games really take advantage of Quad cores. If you are futureproofing? when will 4 cores really be used? 2,3,4 years from now. By that time you will be looking for a new system anyways. Granted 4 cores are great in servers and workstations used for encoding and such, but not games. Not to mention is sucks more power.
e8400 is a better "gaming" chip
Supreme Commander takes advantage of 4 cores. [H] showed massive real world advantage in that game. XBit shows a stock 2.4 Ghz Q6600 outpacing an overclocked 3.85GHz e6850.
edit: Xbit got big gains in Lost Planet too. If a couple games already, why not expect more? I remember back when my FX-55 was still smacking the Dual cores, and that sure changed quickly enough. An X2 4800+ can now still game pretty well, while the FX-55 has a rough time in some titles. ANyway, I am a big e8400 fan for under $200. But if priced the same I'd take the Q6600 for sure. Most games will be more GPU limited anyway and most Q6600 should do 3.0GHz. I don't see a 3.6GHz e8400 having much of a real world gaming advantage over that apart from trisli setup maybe. And a year from now, both should still be fine, but there may be more cases where the Q6600 would pull away from it. Like the X2 4800 vs FX-55, a couple years down the road which may meet it's match first in a Supreme Coomader type game? I'd say quite possibly the e8400 would struggle more if the games become Quad threaded. Nothing against calling the e8400 the gamers choice, I agree if priced right. But why not consider what the Quads can do in games and out of games, as well as the possibility things will change in the next year or two. Dual core showed virtually no gains at release either, but sure were more furture proof.
Hey pauldh... come on man, I cannot stand it when people pick out pieces and parts of a post and quote them out of context without consideration of the entire post and what was actually said. I've read many of your posts and you can do better than that.
If you can't justify your q6600 without at least quoting my entire post, then don't bother.
You would not own that q6600 if it did not clock past 2.4ghz.
I am not trying to get pissy, just the fact.
The 8400 is a better gaming processor, as I said "unless you overclock the crap out of the quad" If you can get the quad up to e8400 speeds, then it is a fine processor indeed for cranking out big gaming numbers.
The same is not true at stock speeds, the e8400 is a better processor for gaming. If you do other things besides game though, as I stated also, but you did not bother to quote that part....the q6600 is probably a better choice.
And I still say by the time there are enough games around that running quad is a natural choice because they all support it, the q6600 will be an old man, running on Viagra (overclocked to hell) trying to keep up with new cheap quads.
(@ jitpublisher ) Sorry you took offense, it was not my intention. I quoted the part of your post I was commenting about....Basically the first line. I was not trying to take away from your post in anyway, nor even sticking to exactly what your point may have been in making it, I was simply adding my own comment to that part of it. Think of it as an additional opinion /comment not a correction. I in no way fault the recommendation of the e8400 for gaming. I only fault paying what most sites are asking for it, which is another topic.
All I was commenting on, is apart from 3dmarks or low res scaling benchmarks, will an e8400 really provide a better gaming experience right now? Or tweaked to play not bench, will things be GPU limited and perform the same? It's not like comparing an 8800GTS 640MB to an 8800 GTX in what the gamer will get from it. That makes a playable difference. But to me an e8400 won't make a playable difference, so while it leads the charts maybe, it doesn't really equate to a better gaming experience. I personally think the Q6600 is plenty/excellent for games, and yes I do consider OC'in as a possibility when I say that.
Believe me, I don't feel the need to justify my own rig to anyone, that has nothing to do with it. I more want to justify the Q6600 for this guy if that is where his heart leads him. There was no e8400 when I bought, if there had been I may have decided on one, but it would depend on prices. My options were e6750, e6850 or Q6600, whith the latter two costing the same. I'll probably own an e8400 when prices drop. Anyway, I just can't fault someone for choosing a Q6600 for gaming, especially given high e8400 markups. It's excellent now for games and may just prove to be far better than the e8400 someday. Neither will be great then I agree, but, Like I said above, the FX-55 beat the X2 4800+ at release too in most games, but who would rather have the X2 4800+ or even 4200+ now verses a killer single core? They weren't priced the same when I bought, the FX-55 was alot cheaper. But the X2 would have lasted longer for sure. I would not bet on it, but also don't doubt that the Q6600 will last longer too compared to the e8400, in at least a few games. I don't see either as a bad option, just like the Q6600 if priced the same even for the gamer. And I don't see the Q6600 hurting someones gaming experience compared to an e8400.
I'm all for the e8400, and think it's probably the best reasonably priced gaming CPU. I am just not happy my $200 on e remained out of stock and now they want alot for them.
I just don't see an out of stock e8400 being more valuable to the gamer now for games (not benchies) than the instock Q6600 priced the same. If it saved the gamer money, payed for a game, payed for a better video card....then for sure go for it. But do think it's possible the Q6600 could prove to be more valuable someday.
Points well taken pauldh. I may have bought a quad myself, but I haven't really felt the need to do anything just yet with my old 4600 X2 and 1950pro. I am not really interested in Crysis, and so far the old rig keeps plugging away well enough to suit me. Heck, I still play NFS Carbon and Oblivian.
I have built for people with both the q6600 and the e8400, but I am holding out a little longer before I put the old girl out to pasture.
pauldh said:(@ jitpublisher )
All I was commenting on, is apart from 3dmarks or low res scaling benchmarks, will an e8400 really provide a better gaming experience right now?
Like I said above, the FX-55 beat the X2 4800+ at release too in most games, but who would rather have the X2 4800+ or even 4200+ now verses a killer single core? They weren't priced the same when I bought, the FX-55 was alot cheaper. But the X2 would have lasted longer for sure. I would not bet on it, but also don't doubt that the Q6600 will last longer too compared to the e8400, in at least a few games. I don't see either as a bad option, just like the Q6600 if priced the same even for the gamer. And I don't see the Q6600 hurting someones gaming experience compared to an e8400.
You + Logic = flawless
jitpublisher - Your X2 4600+ is still very good IMO. My FX-55 and A64 4000+ are not though. Check out Firingsquads $500 review and in all three games, as res and fsaa go up, things quickly become GPU limited by a single 8800GT to where the bargain CPU's keep up with the big boys.
COD4 - http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/$500_gaming_pc_upgrade/page5.asp
UT3 - http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/$500_gaming_pc_upgrade/page6.asp
crysis - http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/$500_gaming_pc_upgrade/page7.asp
crysis 2xaa - http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/$500_gaming_pc_upgrade/page7.asp
That's kinda why IMO any dual core X2 or CD2 is pretty much fine for a single GPU system. Sure some games or parts of games the lows may drop more with the slower CPU (Oblivion near town gates lots of NPC's), but for the most part the X2's 4x00's still have game in them. I would not pair SLI 8800GT with an X2 4000+ though.
dos1986 - thank you.
Oh, I forgot.... what email address was I supposed to paypal for that comment?