Sli Performance Gain

[sYstEmATiC]

i have heard people say over and over again that SLI doesnt give you but about 25% increase in performance, i say BS.

 

about a 60% increase. (or more)

Edited January 28, 2005 by sYstEmATiC

[xPETEZx]

Thats a bench mark.

 

ATM, most games dont support SLI.

 

So it wont benifit you in the real world.

 

Only bragging rights and high bench scores...

[phatazzmoose]

Only bragging rights and high bench scores...

 

ya in order for SLI to work in games you have to have a driver profile that enables SLI

if you dont, the game will default to using only the video card in the first slot... aka the second video card, for that game, does not exist

 

is SLI worth it? in the future when one 6800GT isnt enough and when drivers are out on ALL games.. yes... right now no just get a 6800GT

[mrsinister]

I dont think that getting SLI is worth the extra money, but i do agree that it kicks the crap out of the regular one card setup. I was reading a review about it and if you have two cards that are the same, like 6800ultras, then you get way better FPS. The reason why is because when you are playing your game one GPU handles half of the screen and the other GPU handles the rest, kind of like half and half. The review said they found almost a 2x increase in performance, but i dont know if id spend that much money on graphics cards.....at least my money =-)

[phatazzmoose]

ya...

running games at 800x600 or 1024x768 dont show that much improvement

when it REALLY looks good is when you get up to 1280x1024 and 1600x1200 with 4xAA and everything THEN SLI shows its bling its worth the money IF you have it to spend... in fact if you do... send me the SLI setup... i'll test it for ya

 

and yes when cranked up... it can show up to 2x increase because they split the rendering load

[bigred]

lets see 60% increase in performance for a 100% jump in cost... even in theory it's a rip.

[invidious]

increasing video power never equally translates to increasing performance. there are many other factors such as cpu and ram. if you are looking at overall performance you have to consider the total cost of the system in which case you arent paying even close to double, only a $2500+ is worth getting SLI for an in that case you are only spending an extra 20% to 25%.

 

in general the more you increase video intensity the more higher end graphics cards tend to show their strength over cheaper cards. theoretically SLI will have its greatest benifit on a system with the best of high end cpu and ram, playing games with very high graphics requirements.

Edited January 29, 2005 by invidious

[shmitty]

all in all, 25% sounds right.

[Coolzero101]

The new Nvidia series totaly kicks ATI's butt, but in my opinion the concept of SLI is crap. Ati has the right idea with dual core cards.

[markiemrboo]

and don't forget that's just one benchmark... that doesn't really say anything at all

[phatazzmoose]

thats right its only one bench

plus...said before...cpu will come into the equation

in order to keep up with TWO video cards.. ur comp would have to be running an FX-51 atleast or the 4000+... FX-55 would probably be the best...

if you have something like the a64 3200+ or 3500+... the fact that you would be so cpu-limited would almost destroy any kind of huge gain you get with SLI

 

lets see 60% increase in performance for a 100% jump in cost... even in theory it's a rip

so true... unless you have the *extra* money to throw out

 

 

EDIT: bigred...how much did ur SLI setup run you?

[bigred]

over $5k at MY cost.