More SLI numbers...2x 6600GT ~> 1x 6800GT

Vapor

Distinguished
Jun 11, 2001
2,206
0
19,780
<A HREF="http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTA5NzYwMzIxNWNGVnNoMkFBMEZfMV8xX2wuZ2lm" target="_new">[H]ard data</A>

Well, actually, it's from nV...but it's all the same.

Anyway, Halo at max (16x12), Doom3 at max (16x12, Ultra Quality, 4xAA), and 3DMark05 (10x7...default settings) were compared in six arrangements: 1 each of 6600GT, 6800GT, 6800U and 2 each of the same cards. No surprise that SLI'd 6800Us won (and put those crazy XTpe's to shame at the same time). As it turns out, in Halo and 3DMark05, the array of two 6600GTs is better than a single 6800U (and would cost less).

Test system was an S939 A64 4000+ (FX-53) on an NF4 SLI board with 1GB DDR400.

On a similar note, nV said yesterday that SLI was in the works for 2.5 years, <A HREF="http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19025" target="_new">here</A>. If this is true...it might mean that we won't see ATi's answer for awhile (if they even wanted to make one). Guess ATi will just need to invent a portable cooling system capable of achieving 1 degree K :tongue: .

BTW, Grape--two 6800UEs look like they could DEF break 10k in '05 (*maybe* even two BFG 6800U OCs). Heck, the next gen driver could get the bump needed. Looks like your prediction will be right :wink: .

Maxtor disgraces the six letters that make Matrox.
 

cleeve

Illustrious
If two 6600GTs beat a single 6800U, and two 6600GTs are cheaper than a 6800U... then nobody in their right mind with an SLI-compatible mobo would buy a 6800U unless they bought (or planned to) buy two 6800Us.

Just a strange state of affairs is all. I'm not sure how the Nvidia marketing team will tackle this situation...

Since there is more profit in selling a single 6800U over two 6600GTs (I assume), then Nvidia might want to throttle driver performance back a bit on two 6600GTs in tandem... just below a single 6800U.

________________
<b>Radeon <font color=red>9700 PRO</b></font color=red> <i>(o/c 332/345)</i>
<b>AthlonXP <font color=red>3200+</b></font color=red> <i>(Barton 2500+ o/c 400 FSB)</i>
<b>3dMark03: <font color=red>5,354</b>
 

Vapor

Distinguished
Jun 11, 2001
2,206
0
19,780
If two 6600GTs beat a single 6800U, and two 6600GTs are cheaper than a 6800U... then nobody in their right mind with an SLI-compatible mobo would buy a 6800U unless they bought (or planned to) buy two 6800Us.
Maybe the board would equalize the price? IDK how a marketer would handle this, either.

There a few things to remember, here, too:
1) 6800XX is kinda short term...6900XX should be out Q1 '05 (and granted the availability of the boards and the 6800Us, a single 6900U might well kill the dual 6600GTs, and relatively soon [we won't see A64 SLI boards available till around the launch of NV48e).
2) 6800XX is an elitest system, those wanting the best will get it...but I'm sure marketting will put a huge stress on the upgradability of getting only one card (to make a 6800XX look better than two, slightly cheaper 6600GTs)! (Something like: double your performance in a year for a reduced price!)
3) SLI boards may be <b>DAMN</b> expensive!!!

Anyway, still intriguing, nonetheless, that they got an SLI NF4 board and two 6800Us getting great rates with such high settings...just give them time to refine the drivers and we might just see the single 6800GTs pull ahead of the S6600GTs.

Maxtor disgraces the six letters that make Matrox.
 
Yeah I'm not suprised that they can clobber 3Dmk05 if they can OC SLI. That was just the variable I (and no one else before this) couldn't seem to answer. If They can easily OC GF6800Us in SLI configuration, then ATI will have to respond, and the idea that they can do it with one card/vpu really seems like nV's answer to the R9700Pro's 256bit memory, just clock it faster at all costs. And that seems impractical and then some.

If this is true...it might mean that we won't see ATi's answer for awhile (if they even wanted to make one)
Well, it's not like ATI doesn't do parallel GPU/VPU work (remember they have the retarded 4 VPUs on a single card (assembly) solution for Flight Simulators, and they also have experience with large render machines with many card.

So I don't think a solution from ATI would require as long to develop, but if they aren't starting now, then it would definitely take alot longer than would matter to the GFNV4X/R4xx serieseseseses(s).



- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! - <font color=green>RED </font color=green> <font color=red> GREEN</font color=red> GA to SK :evil:
 

coylter

Distinguished
Sep 12, 2003
1,322
0
19,280
Sli look good. Since i just got a nifty $$$ $$$ ammount, i'll take two 6800utlra please :D

Click <font color=blue><A HREF="http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/you.html" target="_new">HERE</A></font color=blue> if you real<b>l</b>y are an <font color=red>idiot</font color=red>.
 

rx7000

Distinguished
Nov 28, 2003
674
0
18,980
Let the twin card fps wars begin...

Asus p4c800 Deluxe,1 Gig Mushkin PC3200 Dual Channel 400 Mhz(222),Pentium 4 3.0 512k 800fsb HT, Thermaltake Xaser III, Thermaltake Spark 7+, Sound Blaster Audigy2 ZS Platinum Pro, eVGA GeForce 6800 GT
 

priyajeet

Distinguished
May 21, 2004
2,342
0
19,780
I think these results are from id with help from [H] as Nvidia claims <A HREF="http://www.nvidia.com/object/IO_14696.html" target="_new">here</A>
And Athlon64 4000+ isnt FX53. Its a new processor in the XXXX+ line as shown <A HREF="http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19024" target="_new">here</A>.

Funny the way [H] mention that tests included 3dmark05 just so that users can evaluate their ePenis. :lol: and then brag about it.

:tongue: <A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/priyajeet/Fing.jpg" target="_new"><i><font color=red>Very funny, Scotty.</font color=red><font color=blue> Now beam down my clothes.</font color=blue></i></A> :tongue:
 

Vapor

Distinguished
Jun 11, 2001
2,206
0
19,780
I guarantee that the 4000+ is an upward locked FX-53. And for all intensive purposes...a stock speed 4000+ *is* the FX-53.

Maxtor disgraces the six letters that make Matrox.
 

coylter

Distinguished
Sep 12, 2003
1,322
0
19,280
Tru7h

Click <font color=blue><A HREF="http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/you.html" target="_new">HERE</A></font color=blue> if you real<b>l</b>y are an <font color=red>idiot</font color=red>.
 

priyajeet

Distinguished
May 21, 2004
2,342
0
19,780
Oh yeah, i just meant that its a new processor they are taking out. Underneath it might be just a a fx53 as you say.

Who know intel P4 4GHz (if that comes) might be an OCed p4 3.2 :tongue:

:tongue: <A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/priyajeet/Fing.jpg" target="_new"><i><font color=red>Very funny, Scotty.</font color=red><font color=blue> Now beam down my clothes.</font color=blue></i></A> :tongue:
 
It's almost as expensive as the FX-53, so it wouldn't surprise me in the least.

<font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>
 

Spitfire_x86

Splendid
Jun 26, 2002
7,248
0
25,780
Athlon64 4000+ is really nothing but a rebadged FX53. So if they call FX53 = 4000+, it's not like calling 3.2 GHz P4 OC'ed@ 4.0 GHz = 4.0 GHz (unless that 3.2 GHZ P4 has unlocked multiplier)

------------
<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new">My Website</A>

<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new">My Rig</A> & <A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/benchmark.html" target="_new">3DMark score</A>
 

Vapor

Distinguished
Jun 11, 2001
2,206
0
19,780
I don't think you get it...the 4000+ *IS* the FX-53 (just locked upward). Since AMD only makes one FX at a time, the way they utilize that binning is they make a PR named version of it (or at least starting with this FX they will...didn't need/decide to do it for the FX-51).

A 4.0GHz P4 is by no means a 3.2GHz one no matter how you look at it (as long as you look at it!). The only reason that this happens to AMD is because they have multiple lines that overlap (i.e., multiple performance grades within a frequency or multiple frequencies between an ammount of cache). One of those lines only has one form of existence, but when there is a leftover of the previous version, you can bet they're not gonna use them as poker chips or bling....they're gonna rebadge them and make $$$$$.

Maxtor disgraces the six letters that make Matrox.
 

eden

Champion
From what I gather, the FX-53's performance advantage over the 3800+ is purely cache, and even then it's not THAT significant. So if a 4000+ is 200MHZ more, it would not surprise me one bit if it IS better than the FX-53. I mean, the 3800+ and the FX-53 run at the same damn speeds anyways.

--
<font color=blue>Ede</font color=blue>
 

eden

Champion
I'm pissed the pricing hasn't changed for the 3800+. I wish it went down like usual, to the last model's price, and in this case about 370$.

--
<font color=blue>Ede</font color=blue>
 

eden

Champion
Nice SLI numbers btw, but not impressive that much. Some are weak, at only ~50% more performance. You're still paying twice more for that.
I like however how the 6600GT SLI in some cases was at ~90% efficiency though. If that was more frequent, you'd bet your arse it would be a great technology, and probably very affordable and efficient for midrange setups or even enthusiasts who want a different way to get high end performance at a lower price.

Interesting the 4000+ was already showcased. But I wish they'd hurry and make price cuts for the previous high-end, darn it... :eek: Canadians have it bad I tells ya! :wink:

--
<font color=blue>Ede</font color=blue>
 
Remember too, which may have been Vapor's point (but I won't try to speak for him), that the 4000+ will have 1mb of cache, and will run at the same clock speed, I thought you already knew this from our previous disscusion/posts.

Here's the blurb from X-bit again;
<A HREF="http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20040909172101.html" target="_new">It appears that the model 4000+ will be clocked at 2.40GHz, contain 1MB of L2 cache and sport dual-channel memory controller, fully copying specs of the currently shipping AMD Athlon 64 FX-53 processor for Socket 939 infrastructure.</A>

That would be my recommendation if you can find one fo' cheap.

Canadians have it bad I tells ya!
Could be worse, look at Euro, SouthAmerican and Aussie/NZ prices!


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! - <font color=green>RED </font color=green> <font color=red> GREEN</font color=red> GA to SK :evil:
 

eden

Champion
Jesus H Christ, once again confusing model numbers. :eek:
I thought the 512KB L2s just launched, and suddenly we go back to 1MB?

Ok well, my bad, disregard my previous posts people.

I see now what you mean too by the resemblance. That would definitely rock though if the FX-53 drops in price, yeah. But unless it's around 500$ CDN, it's gonna be a tough one.


You are correct about foreign pricing though. Poor Brits, they gotta pay nearly twice the price. :eek:

--
<font color=blue>Ede</font color=blue>
 

Spitfire_x86

Splendid
Jun 26, 2002
7,248
0
25,780
Yeah, they never learn. They're lowering performance/model number again wity Socket 939 CPUs

------------
<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new">My Website</A>

<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new">My Rig</A> & <A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/benchmark.html" target="_new">3DMark score</A>