Power And Efficiency
While the 2560x1600 scores are the only ones that really matter in ultra-high-end graphics solutions, an average of all test settings will help us more accurately judge the overall efficiency of each graphics solution. Efficiency is, after all, a ratio of work done to energy consumed.
The single GTX 280 took last place in performance and first place in power conservation. We used it as the basis for comparing the energy-to-work ratio of each graphics solution.
Surprisingly, the single-unit, dual-GPU GTX 295 provides the most performance per watt. The once-green AMD looks a peculiar shade of pink as its Radeon HD 4870 X2's efficiency is particularly embarrassing in CrossFireX mode.
I would have liked to have seen some temperatures in there somewhere as well. With top end cards becoming hotter and hotter (at least with ATI) I wonder if cheaper cases are able to cope with the temperatures these components generate.
BTW any chance of doing some sextuple SLI GTX295 on the old Intel Skulltrail?
Not a chance: The GTX 295 only has one SLI bridge connector. NVIDIA designs its products intentionally to only support a maximum of four graphics cores, and in doing so eliminates the need to make its drivers support more.
ie. a big 3x3x9" box resting on the expansion slots, dumping warm air outside.
thrown." --> "throne"? or am I just misunderstanding the sentence?
Congrats on quad-sli, though, for anything that doesnt already get 100+ fps with a single GX2, you're welcome to throw in a second and get at most a 10-20% increase, unless of course you want to get an increase to a game that doesnt already have 100 FPS (crysis), in which case you're screwed - dont even bother with it.
And I'm a little disappointed with the scaling of all solutions. They still don't scale well.