2 slower gpus or one faster one?

[blandstreetbloom]

I'm getting a new pc in the near future for the release of battlefield 3 ( btw i'm not bothered if i can't play it on some ridiculuos resolution). Most likely my cpu will be a phenomII x4 965, oc'd to ~4ghz. However, im not sure whether to get 2 less powerful gpu's (was thinking 2 gt440s, pretty much arbitrarily, better suggestions would be apreciated) or gettting one more powerful one (probably the hd 5870) and ocing it? the prices are pretty similar i think, and in total im lookin for something under £200 (thats like $350 dollars i think). In any case, could i oc the dual-gpu set-up?please suggest other gpus if you think im making a bad choice. Anyway, what would be best for such a beast game?

 

[wolfram23]

Well it will depend on your local prices but in this case I would suggest a single card. The 5870 is very good, I'm not 100% sure but I think it's a little slower than a 6950 but faster than 6870.

Also a 6950 1gb card would be very nice, or a 560 Ti. I would probably go for one of these two. They should be about as fast if not faster than CF 5770/ SLI 450. A 6950 2gb card can usually be unlocked to a full 6970 as well, so it's worth considering if it's close to your budget. As for the difference between the 1gb and 2gb 6950s at stock, they're basically identical speed wise and even at 2560x1600 the difference is very minimal.

As for OCing, yes you can OC dual GPU setups.

 

[marco324]

i read the 5000 series isn't that good with dx11 games 6000's would be a better choice
a single card would be better in all games less power and heat always add another latter

 

[wolfram23]

5000 series is still great... Mostly the 6000 series has better tesselation and CF scaling.

You can see in Metro the 5000 series falls down, not really sure why though. My CF 5850s perform as fast as the 5970 in that graph (~45fps average in the bench)

 

[AgentLozen]

I've seen the commercials for Battlefield 3. The ones where they have to tell you, "THIS IS REAL GAME FOOTAGE. PREPARE TO BE BLOWN AWAY BY THE BEST LOOKING AND MOST DEMANDING GAME EVER!!" While I agree that the game looks nice, you have to take the advertising with a grain of salt. After all, it was probably built around XBOX 360 hardware then ported to the PS3 and PC.

I'm saying that because you can probably build a $800 PC (low - middle end) and run the game pretty well at 1920x1200. Console hardware is obsolete compared to modern computers. Even if the game developers try to add a trick or two to the game's PC counterpart.

To answer your original question: One video card or two? Two video cards are usually more price effective then just getting a single, more powerful card. The only problems you would run into with two cards are
(1.) The space they would consume inside your case
(2.) The extra power consumption and heat production
(3.) Minor compatibility / lack of scaling with some games.

If you really want to go with SLI or Crossfire, then at least buy modern cards. The more modern your video card, the more you benefit from recent advances (such as various hardware based video format decoding, added features, and efficiency improvements). For nVidia, go with GeForce 5xx cards. Otherwise, AMD's Radeon 6000 series is what you'll be shooting for. Twin $100 video cards will take you a long way.

Please don't buy a 5870. That card has been thoroughly replaced by the 6950 1GB. The only exception would be if you can find it for some ridiculously low price. But while we're on the topic of single cards, keep in mind what I said earlier about this game probably not being that demanding. You could honestly get away with a 6850, if not, a 6870. On nVidia's side, you could snag up a 560Ti to do the same job.

If you want my opinion on one or two cards, I would go for a single card that has a little more muscle. That way, you can keep your case simplified with only one card (which also means less cables) and you won't experience the scaling/compatibility problems of SLI or Crossfire. The choice is up to you though. Neither one is wrong.

Good luck =)

 

[megamanx00]

Two GT440s, like two Radeon 5670s generally aren't worth it. Now two 5770s can often be a little faster than a single 5870, but it's generally generally a better idea to get one faster card so you can add another one latter. I'd say that there is no point in buying two of anything below a 5770 or GTS 450. Also consider that since you have an AMD CPU there are currently very few AM3 motherboards that support SLI. This will change when Am3+ boards with SLI certification become available latter this year.

 

[wolfram23]

AgentLozen, you must not be aware of DICE's stance on the subject matter.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/109304-DICE-Battlefield-3-Looks-Better-on-Consoles-Because-Were-Making-it-for-PC

"Most games are actually still based on the same core idea that the consoles are your focus, the superior platform or something," Bach told Nvidia. "I don't know why. That was the truth five years ago, but the world has moved on. PCs are way more powerful than the consoles today and there are actually almost zero games out there that actually use the benefits of this."

DICE was developing Battlefield for the "most powerful platform in order to "try and prove what we see gaming being in the future rather than using the lowest common denominator," he explained, "instead of developing it for the consoles and then just adding higher resolution textures and anti-aliasing for the PC version. We're doing it the other way around, we start with the highest-end technology that we can come up with and then scale it back to the consoles."

So... no. This game will eat cards at 1080p and max settings if they are to be believed at all. But they are also focusing on great scaling so that lower end cards can still run it well and look good.