THG 4x SLI vs 3x SLI review

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
yeahbut I paid 500 cash. thats how much 2 x's GTS 512 were, and I have the option for quad.

Remember dual GPU cards usually scale better than sli, alteast from benchies I've seen.

Plus this thing drains less than a 8800 GTX and it saves me some room from buying 2 8800 GTX or 2 8800 GTS G92😀
 

Only 21k for qx9650 and tri sli is actually pretty bad. Maybe you should try to tweak it some more... 😛
 
i am scorring just shy of the utlra's in the test (though the article is down now) by less than 1000marks @ default settings when their cpu running the 3 utlra's was @ 4.17 when mine is at 4.00. between the sligtht clock differance and the the fact the 8800gtx is not clocked as fast as the ultra...forgive me if i don't share your sentiment though i won't argue the fact i will always want it to be faster.
 

Well, a lowly q6600, costing under $200 plus a single $160 8800gts got 15k.

Your $1000+ qx9650 plus 3 8800gtx at $300+ each got 21k. While certainly high, it still seems more than a little lacking for that kind of a system. 😛
 
i mentioned it early but i thought i was responeding to another thread. yesterday tomshardware put out some benchies of 9800gx2 in sli verses 3 ultra's. the systems varied a bit the 9800gx2 with a 790i was running on a qx9770 @4ghz and another machine with 3 ultra's on a 780iwith a qx9650 @ 4.17. thg claimed, though they since pulled the article, the clock differance made both systems comparible considering the chipset differance.

4.17 tri ultra set up only scored 22k. as i said in my prior post i am dang close to that with less cpu clock. i think your grasping. on orb it shows not many systems out their beat mine with similar hardware and if they do, its by a nominal amount. Not to say their aren't uber good enthusist's who can squeeze more, but keep in mind the 790i is still "broken" and i am not the only one having some trouble. while the PO-5 bios has helped many with the hdd corruption and the 1600 glitch somewhat...the boards linked and snyc'd at 1600 freeze so u have to drop the fsb/ram to 1599 to avoid a pummle of crashes every five minutes. i an clock my ram lower to keep the FSB stable at 1600 but i get more benefit link'd and snyc'd 1599. so when i say i am at 4 ghz in truth i am at 3.995. Nvidia has stumbled. end of story. not to say they can't find new footing but they need to do so quickly.

Last thing i say on my score for 3dmark...its a synthetic and real world games i do see a great deal of bene's. crysis on very high no filters i get 40fps @1080P...or damn close with fraps depending on the map. when i first had the machine set up i got more like 32fps but between patches and bios updates i squeezed more out. i think the numbers your expecting just don't exsist unless you start water cooling your video cards and over clocking them to hell. as for my gigabyte cards, if i oc the GPU i can pull another 200 marks...but the second i overclock the ram even a little the score is actually less than stock. Had i bought a OC version of the gtx like i have in times past, yes my score should be higher, but i didn't and you get what u pay for. sad as it is yes i paid alot for my grphix cards...but did so over time i started with one in an old fx60 setup and upgraded over the last year. now i get double my score since when compared to my old rig in sli with 2 gtx's. in the end though there is no question you pay out the nose for running tri sli. disporationately so...but i also spent an ass load on my last rig and while it ended with an fx60 it started with an fx52, i had the same ram/mobo for 3 years.

i get that kinda of milage out of this thing by adding grphx (when jusitifible which for nvida cards its not right now or even the near future) and faster CPU's. plus don't get me wrong for my high end system..i have few systems, none quad gpu cause the support just isn't their yet...tri-gpu is great for 1080p though. all scores at default setting 3dmark setting.

q9300 @3ghz with 3870x2 ans 3870 (scores in the 17k range) on a 50" 1080p hdtv

phenom 2.5ghz be again 3870x2 + 3870 (scores in the high 15k range) on a 24" 1200P monitor

5000+ (am2 so 2.6ghz) with two 8800gts (g92) (scoring high 11k 3dmarks) 1280x1024 monitor

...point being it shows my speeds are somewhat in line and proves your point that less money can get you a better price performance ratio...i just happened to be able to afford uber high end to run my "personal" PC and using low/mid to high end machines for laning and servers for folding@home.
 
dude space out your posts, Paragraphs...this is an eye soar to read...

The basic logic of tri sli and Quad sli is practical.

3 x's 9800 GTX

While Quad Sli Would be:

4 x's 9800 GTX (Ofc down clocked by 75 mhz on each card.)

But the drivers are just not stable or working in most games. With new generation games utilizing CrossF and SLi more and more we should see comparable benchmarks.

For now, tri-sli remains worth it compared to quad.

Although I hate how some sites vary their results lol you can never get a straight answer. My friend uses the same system as me almost, and he has Quad sli running, his benches are higher than with the single card and scale very well. He gets around 80+ frames at 1280x1024 and 1600 he gets around 60 Very high no AA.

So really Untill I see a worth article, which use the same tests and bench the exact same components with updated drivers, I'll always be skeptical.

Either way Whether you have a 8800 GTX or Ultra or 8800 GTS / Gt or 9800 GTX or GX2 your set for current gen games, and what should be out later this year.

I don't think its even worth it for any1 to switch over to the new cards, unless they are into energy saving. From what I've seen benchies I see nothing great.
 
sorry busted it up a bit...i was on a rant when writing i apologize for the "clutter". hope that helped some.

as for your opinion on current graphix market. If you have a 8800gtx/ulta, 8800gts/gt g92, 9800gtx/gx2...there is no reason to get a 200 series. can't say i see a flaw in that argue ment as i share the same sentiment
 

Hmm... I wonder what score a single 200 series would get. The benchmarks out so far looks... kind of fake. :na:
 
while i agree the benchies look bad and are likely fake, people i spoke to who have seen the card but can't comment on benchies had one nice thing to say about the 200 series.

"it works with folding@home now at least" with a long stare of disappointment.
 
Agreed^.

Weather the benchmarks are real or not, Unless they are almost double the GX2 lol, I don't see myself breaking a swear😀.

They should spend more time on perfecting Quad and tri sli instead of thinking about the money in our wallet. I think they would win more people over by proving reliability than new products...what are they Ford?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom