SLI With GeForce GTX 260 OC
In SLI mode, we encountered two issues with the GeForce GTX 260. First, the fan on the card proved insufficient for the load test, and second, the CPU processing power of the test system was not enough to always properly drive the configuration.
With regard to CPU performance, one argument in favor of a more powerful processor is that anyone who invests in two GTX cards will have the cash available to buy the fastest quad-core chip. While you are not going to get much more graphics performance with a quad-core CPU running below 3 GHz, there are still games that react better to CPU clock speeds versus the number of processing cores. With a pair of GTX cards, you have three options: the game is optimized for quad-core chips and the four cores do their work on a quartet of threads, you buy a dual-core chip that emphasizes frequency for its performance gains, or you wait for a more powerful generation of processors.
MSI’s overclock yields a total benefit of just 2.2% with the GTX 260 running in SLI, while the single-card setup boosts performance by 4.5%. In the individual evaluation at various resolutions, SLI is only perceptibly faster at 1680x1050 pixels with anti-aliasing enabled and at 1920x1200 pixels. SLI becomes more interesting in Assassin’s Creed and World in Conflict at higher resolutions with anti-aliasing. In Call of Duty 4 and Mass Effect the values are considerably better as well. Crysis shows the best increase running at Very High Quality settings with AA. In Quake Wars, Half Life 2: Episode 2, and FSX, performance is lower.
If you select your games carefully and give the SLI combo a little more CPU power, then you will surely net a few extra frames. Here a couple of highlights: World in Conflict at 1920x1200 pixels with 4xAA on a single card yields 27.6 fps—with the GTX 260 in SLI it provides 43.3 fps (MSI’s overclock yields 44.5 fps). Mass Effect at 1920x1200 pixels and 8xAA with a single card delivers 49.3 fps, but the GTX 260 in SLI hits 72.8 fps (MSI’s overclock hits 77.8 fps).
When testing maximum power consumption, the fan of the GTX 260 reached its limit in SLI mode—the graphics processor throttles performance when temperatures exceed 105 degrees Celsius due to overheating. With a manually-configured 100 percent fan duty cycle and a noise level of 56 dB(A), the card reached its 105 degree ceiling without problems. The test system had a maximum power consumption of 610 watts, which then dropped to 490 to 505 watts as a result of thermal throttling.
With automatic fan control, a noise level of 55 dB(A) is reached and the computer can crash, but this does not always occur. As soon as the 105 degree limit is exceeded, the thermal GPU throttle starts up and a yellow warning LED starts to flash. Power consumption then fluctuates between 550 and 610 watts. Of course, in both of these situations, the system no longer runs at full 3D performance since the thermal throttle is only an unintended "energy saving" mode.
This overheating phenomenon also occurs with cards plugged in next to each other with no gap between them. For example, in a 3-way SLI setup employing a trio of Geforce 8800 Ultras, the gap between boards is too small and the graphics card fans are unable to draw in enough air. However, this is not just an Nvidia problem—the ATI X1950 XTX in CrossFire mode also cannot really survive without additional cooling. What does help is fresh air from the side provided by an 80 mm fan, which drops the GPU temperature of the GeForce GTX 260 SLI to 101 degrees.
The test for maximum power consumption is an extreme case that does not necessarily occur in real-world use. During normal game play, utilization fluctuates, only very rarely reaching the maximum value—as a result, the graphics chips have more time to cool down. If you wish to use the GTX cards for constant processing, you will soon feel the effects of the thermal limits and the restrictions of the cooling system.
The power consumption in 2D mode is 211 watts, while in 3D mode the top value with the entire system is 610 watts (power at the wall). If you wish to operate the GTX 260 OC in an SLI configuration, you will need a branded power supply with between 510 and 550 watts and 42 to 46 A on the 12 volt rail.
Related Stories :
- Report: Next Gen GeForce and Radeon GPUs Delayed to Q4
- Radeon HD 7990 And GeForce GTX 690: Bring Out The Big Guns
- AMD Updates Radeon HD 7950 to Counter GeForce GTX 660 Ti
- AMD Radeon HD 7950 Review: Up Against GeForce GTX 580
- Radeon HD 6990M And GeForce GTX 580M: A Beautiful Lie
- AMD's Radeon 7000M and Nvidia's GeForce 600M Mobile GPUs
- GeForce GTX 580M SLI Vs. Radeon HD 6990M CrossFire
- GeForce And Radeon On Intel's P67: PCIe Scaling Explored
- Video Quality Tested: GeForce Vs. Radeon In HQV 2.0
- Mobility Radeon Vs. GeForce M: The CrossFire Advantage
Looks like the results for SLI and Crossfire were switched with the single card results. . .
Not a bad article, really comprehensive.
My one complaint? Why use that CPU when you know that the test cards are going to max it out? Why not a quad core OC'ed to 4GHz? It'd give far more meaning to the SLI results. We don't want results that we can duplicate at home, we want results that show what these cards can do. Its a GPU card comparason, not a complain about not having a powerful enough CPU story.
Oh? And please get a native english speaker to give it the once over for spelling and grammar errors, although this one had far less then many articles posted lately.
No 4870x2 in CF so its the worlds top end Nvidia vs ATI mid to low end.
It'd be a good article if you'd used a powerful enough CPU and up to date Radeon drivers (considering we're now up to 8.8 now), I mean are those even the 'hotfix' 8.6's or just the vanilla drivers?
Version AMD Catalyst 8.6? Why not just say i'm using ATI drivers with little to no optimizations for the 4800's. This is why the CF benchmarks tanked.
at 1280, all of the highend cards were CPU limited. at that resolution, you need a 3.2-3.4 c2d to feed a 3870... this article had so much potential, and yet... so much work, so much testing, fast for nothing, because most of the results are very cpu limited (except 1920@AA).
WTF, hd4850 SHOULD be a lot faster than 9600 GT and 8800 GT even tough they have 1Gig of ram
No 4870X2 and 1920 X 1200 max resolution tested. How about finishing the good start of an article with the rest of it...
I agree, the 4870 X2 should have been in there and should have used the updated drivers. Good article but I think you fell short on finishing it.
@pulasky - Rage much? It's called driver issues you dumbass. Some games are more optimised for multicard setups than others, and even then some favour SLi to Crossfire. And if you actually READ the article rather than let your shrinken libido get the better of you, you'll find that Crossfire does indeed work in CoD4.
Remember, the more you know.
isnt forceware 177.41 out for gt200 series? so they are using a recent driver for the nvidia cards yet not for the ATI cards...plus yes would have to agree with wahdangun the 4850 is alot faster then the 9600gt and the 8800gt i have 2 friends with both cards with q6600s one at 3.2 (9600gt) and the other at 3.0 (4850) and the 4850 machine destroys the other one even with a lower clocked cpu
but yes the article was off to a great start, maybe throw some vantage in there as well?
agree with the others. u guys should use a more recent driver for ati/amd cards, use a more game-effective cpu and REALLY should have put the 4870x2 on the fight
Version AMD Catalyst 8.6? Why not just say i'm using ATI drivers with little to no optimizations for the 4800's. This is why the CF benchmarks tanked.
Precisely; several other websites tested with 8.7 and 8.8 long before this article was published. Why couldn't you? Look at the 8.6 release notes; it doesn't even mention the HD4000 series cards as supported devices.
Brilliant guys.
and why use vista when noone that considers itself a gamer(even casual) touches with a ten-foot pole.
This is another reason why the results are tanked, in XP you get 15% more performance compared to these values
NVISION comes around and IRONicallY, a 36 page article is produced that is magically in favor of, whats that, NVIDIA!!!
After having the Mythbusters appear, you would think this would be the most comprehensive, "scientific," factual, and update article meeting Tom's usual standards.... I didn't finish reading this.
Using old drivers with no optimalisation at all fo newest card whitch was released months ago seems too strange to me. Also temperature results for 48xx are quite oposite reality, at least when compare to 8.8 catalyst.
(82 temperature in 2D 69 in 3D with no fanfix)
Pretty good, finally. Wish you would have have used an overclocked Quad so the newer GPU's could show their full potentianl, and you really should have used the latest drivers, but I give this article 2 thumbs up. Lot of good information in here.
Well the main reason why they don't have the 4870x2 and the latest drivers is simply because they made this article a couple of weeks ago. If you could just imagine how long and tedious it is to produce all these data and results. It's just sad that after finally finishing the article, a lot of new stuff has already happened(new drivers and the x2).
First I want to say that the article itself is not bad at all.
Also, I can understand why TH didn't have time to use 8.8 since it was released publicly on August 20, 2008 (Although ATI would have gladly released a beta version to TH for testing purposes).
However, AMD publicly released stable Catalyst 8.7(internal version 8.512) on July 21, 2008. That's more than a month ago. It has numerous improvements (for example, CF performance increase, improved stability and performance under Vista). To be honest, most of the improvements range from 4% to 15%. (In CF case, up to 1.7 X scaling)
TH has rarely been unfair and/or inaccurate and they always owned up to their mistakes before, and I trust them to re-test ATI products with at least 8.7 if not 8.8 to continue to uphold their values and integrity.