|
|
 |
|
|
Pages: 1
Questions regarding SLI and other video card issues.
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: Mathias
Ok, I've been saving my money for a while now and I'm almost at the point where I believe I could afford some top-of-the-line gaming equipment, or at least the video cards. Currently, I own a regular GeForce 6800, which came with my Dell system at Christmas. While it is better than any card I've used before, it's not as great as I once thought it was and I think it's on its way out because some funny things have been happening with my visuals from time to time (polygons in 3D games turning into black squares, the monitor having those jumpy lines that appear on bad TVs, The Core Media Player takes forever to fully load a video, etc.) This may be because of my overclocking attempts a while back or just normal wear and tear, but nevermind that.
Now then, from what I've heard and researched, there are two options for me. 1 - Get two of the best Nvidia cards I can find and join them together with SLI or 2 - Get an ATI Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition with 512 MB DDR3 (I believe this is very new and may not be in stores just yet). Now, for the questions.
What exactly is SLI and how is it done?
Is SLI only an Nvidia aspect or can it be done with ATI cards as well?
Which of the two options gives the best frame rate?
Which of the two options gives the best visual quality?
Which slot in the motherboard is better for video cards - AGP or PCI-Express?
Would an AMD processor (over an Intel processor) make a significant difference in performance when gaming with either of these video card setups?
Would the RAM I have (assuming there is a minimum of 1 GB installed) make a significant difference in performance when gaming with either of these video cards?
Is there any other aspects of my computer I should know about and/or change in order to enchance its gaming performance?
I am sorry if this is a bother or if I've been repeating my questions for some time now.
Posted by: goranpaa
Hi! check this out, for what SLI is:
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=Njk2
Is your Dell, PCI - Express? Othervice you must get a new mobo + 2 Geforce 6600gt PCI-Expr. video cards for ex, to be able to run SLI setup.
AMD 64. 3000+ runs cirkles around an P4 Prescott, (any speed)
Posted by: Mathias
Yes, this system has PCI-Express
Posted by: goranpaa
O.K. Sorry, I should have added that you will have to get a SLI mobo. To be able to use the twin video card setup. MSI and ASUS, have a couple of nice SLI mobos.
AMD 64. 3000+ or higher, runs circles around an P4 Prescott, (any speed)
Your RAM? Depends on what speed they are? If it's PC 3200, they will do.
2 X 6600GT or 6800GT in SLI will outperform the Radeon card yes.
Posted by: goranpaa
But if you get that new Radeon. You will have a video card thats better, than the 6800 you had before. And that will be a much cheaper upgrade than SLI I guess?
Posted by: goranpaa
I have read some about the ATI Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition. 512mb. Promise to be a nice card. It will have a price around 450 to 500 USD.
Here you have a picture to drool at while you wait for it.l
It's Sapphires version.
Posted by: Ocean
the 6800 is a really good card
at the very least, get a replacement from dell
make sure it is multiple game that are doing this, the issue you are describing doesnt really sound like a video card hardware issue. try alternate input methods for video
Posted by: VmanBeBop
The 6800 is a fantastic card, especially when run dual with SLI. However, it's best to get the 6800 Ultra. Unless the Dell supports SLI, it is impossible for you to run dual video cards with that computer. I recommend putting together a computer with an Intel gaming board if you're looking for a Pentium 4 board, or one from ASUS for AMD Athlon series. If you do not want to do this for lack of custom computer skills or fear of breaking something, ask a local private computer store to put a custom one together with the specs you specify. Make sure you have very good ventilation in your computer, especially near the video cards because they'll be recreating hell with those temperatures.
Posted by: Ocean
dell only deals with intel. and the first sli mobo for pentium4 came out last month, and it has major deficiencies when compared to AMD SLI mobos and methodology
so his dell probably does not support sli, let alone support it well.
i would hold out until the next wave of killer games come in. then upgrade your system. or just get a stop gap card like a 6600gt until you need the extra performance. or live with the damage done to your card by overclocking. until its unbearable.
now is a great time to invest in a dell fp2001 as they dropped under $500. it will make your graphics feel great all over again.
Posted by: VmanBeBop
 Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ocean
dell only deals with intel. and the first sli mobo for pentium4 came out last month, and it has major deficiencies when compared to AMD SLI mobos and methodology
so his dell probably does not support sli, let alone support it well.
|
Good call  .
Posted by: Mathias
The 6800 is good indeed, but the thing is that it seems like Nvidia deals more with quality than performance. In other words, their cards seem to be more focused on making every little bit of your game look very good looking rather than the frame rate (hence the 330 MHz core speed and 680 MHz memory speed of the 6800, or at least I think that's it) while ATI focuses more on speed (the x850 XT PE has 540 MHz core speed and 1180 MHz memory speed I think). And while the Nvidia visuals are nice, I'm the kinda guy who prefers to have his games running smoothly (in other words, more FPS = happier me).
Ok, I stand somewhat corrected. Turns out that 'ultra' makes a big difference. Ok, so the best Nvidia card seems to be the 6800 Ultra, which I've seen have max speeds of 400 MHz for hte core and 1100 MHz for memory. The x850 XT PE tops out at 540 MHz core and 1180 MHz memory.
Posted by: Superfly3176
ATI is releasing crossfire soon. Thats their "SLI". All cards in x800 series and up can use it. Unlike nvidia's were each card renders half the screen, ati's will render 1st card=1st frame, 2nd card=next frame. And back and forth. Actually is supposed to be more logical than Nvidias.
Quote:
|
The 6800 is good indeed, but the thing is that it seems like Nvidia deals more with quality than performance. In other words, their cards seem to be more focused on making every little bit of your game look very good looking rather than the frame rate (hence the 330 MHz core speed and 680 MHz memory speed of the 6800, or at least I think that's it) while ATI focuses more on speed (the x850 XT PE has 540 MHz core speed and 1180 MHz memory speed I think). And while the Nvidia visuals are nice, I'm the kinda guy who prefers to have his games running smoothly (in other words, more FPS = happier me).
|
Not true, for the longest time ATI has been the IQ=Image Quality leader. Nvidia just caught up with the 6800 series. Nvidia has been more of the "Speed Freaks." rather than ATI. This gen of cards are pretty much balanced out. Ati's are a little bit faster but they sacrifice SM3.0 support.
Also look out for Nvidia's 7800(g70) due out in like June and Ati's r520 is supposed to be out in the fall. That's when cards are going to drop.
Posted by: goranpaa
That would be a nice thing, if 6600GT and 6800GT dropped in price in the fall!
Im concidering to get a SLI rig with at least 6600GT and MSI:s Nforce 4 SLI mobo + Hitachi SATA II HDD:s
But I wonder, if I should get the new AMD 64 X2 or the "Standard" AMD 64 3000+?
This is mostly a gaming rig.
Posted by: Superfly3176
For mostly gaming, don't even waste your time with 6600gt 1 6800gt or 6800ultra is better than 2 6600gts. All I know is X2 if you have the money if you dont, the regular 64 series should do.
I'm not saying go as low as the 3000+ maybe 3500+ or 3800+?
Posted by: goranpaa
Yeah, I had my mind on 2 x 6600GT. Or 2 x 6800GT ( If I hopefully can afford it? ) And the reason I whas concidering AMD 64 X2, is that it is a multitask, twin processor. Just like the Hypertreading P4 I got. I just thought it maybe would be able to handle the twin video card setup even better?
Posted by: Superfly3176
P4 with hyperthreading isn't near the same as dual cored x2 or pentium-D's. Hyperthreading takes whats left over on the cpu and makes the OS act like it has a second processor. Dual core has two physical cores although each core won't run at 3ghz due to heat issues.
I wasn't really questioning the Dual core choice but rather the 2 6600gt's. Get 1 6800gt or ultra and than later you can get another. Its really the better option IMO.
Posted by: goranpaa
O.K.! Thanks for the tip. I think you are right. I think I'll follow your advice, and start off with 1 x 6800GT then.
But then that AMD 64 X 2 would be ideal for SLI? If I understand you correctly?
Posted by: Superfly3176
I honestly dont know about x2 its probably better all-around not just for sli. I haven't seen any reviews and I don't know if its even out yet.
Posted by: goranpaa
I just found this review from Tom's Hardware:
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050509/
Posted by: CaptTuna
I read this thread and wonder, does anyone know what they are talking about?
Posted by: Superfly3176
Quote:
|
I read this thread and wonder, does anyone know what they are talking about?
|
Why would you say that?
Posted by: goranpaa
Yeah, I wonder too. What is so hard to understand? But back to AMD X2. The price, at least at the beginning, is said to be about $537, for the 2.2-GHz 4200+ Athlon X2. that is the slowest of the Athlon X 2:s.
But there will probably be a price war, between AMD and Intel, when Intel release the Pentium D. So the price will probably get lower as time goes by.
Posted by: Ocean
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CaptTuna
I read this thread and wonder, does anyone know what they are talking about?
|
yeah, im in agreeance with some info being really odd.
whoever was talking about crossfire had their info correct, pretty much everything else after i left the thread was quite fanboyish in its generalizations.
Posted by: Mathias
What's SM3.0 support? Is it critically important?
Posted by: goranpaa
Read this: http://www.hardavenue.com/reviews/gf68001.shtml
It may give you the ansvers.
Posted by: Superfly3176
Quote:
whoever was talking about crossfire had their info correct, pretty much everything else after i left the thread was quite fanboyish in its generalizations.
|
Like Hyperthreading and image quality? Hyperthreading isn't dual core technology, or AMD would have adopted something really similar. And for image quality all you have to do is google "Radeon 9800 Pro vs. Geforce 5900 Ultra in image quality" Most websites will return with Ati has superior IQ.
SM 3.0 isn't critically important to this day and by the time alot of games start using it the 6xxx series will be low-midrange cards.
Posted by: Ocean
thats only one comparison from last generation.
ati sucked balls pre radeon 9700 and nvidia had better signal output in that gen, and completely lost everything cept opengl in 9800 pro gen, but they improved on their cores that had the 32-bit fp specification when ati went for the bare minimum 24-bit spec. and everyone agrees thats why ati was faster. and everyone agrees the 9800 pro is faster than than 5800, and has better image quality.
when you compare 5900 ultra to 9800 pro the 5900 ultra wins, and its not a fair comparison since the 5900 came out so much later imo.
ti4600 had great image quality. remember that gen? that was before AA and aniso were enveloped into what the term meant. nvidia had the greatest signal output quality.
eh i own a 9800 pro and i love it. and i hate anything above 2x antialiasing. i cant see any ingame improvements over 4x anisotropic filtering.
my next card will likely be a 6800 something
games are boring as hell nowadays, they slowed them all down and made them point and shoot. though ut keeps its game fresh.
Posted by: Superfly3176
Quote:
ati sucked balls pre radeon 9700 and nvidia had better signal output in that gen, and completely lost everything cept opengl in 9800 pro gen, but they improved on their cores that had the 32-bit fp specification when ati went for the bare minimum 24-bit spec. and everyone agrees thats why ati was faster. and everyone agrees the 9800 pro is faster than than 5800, and has better image quality.
when you compare 5900 ultra to 9800 pro the 5900 ultra wins, and its not a fair comparison since the 5900 came out so much later imo.
|
Wow Ati lost everything except opengl pre 9700. Need I remind you Nvidia had some even worse cards out fx5200 and the 5600? The 5200 choked it lagged behind a radeon 9000 in games like ut2003 which were highly endorsed by nvidia. "The way its meant to be played"
If the 5900 came out so much later than its an extremely fair comparison. Nvidia should have been able to beat ati.
Quote:
ti4600 had great image quality. remember that gen? that was before AA and aniso were enveloped into what the term meant. nvidia had the greatest signal output quality.
|
And what about the generation before that? When the 8500 had better image quality than the ti500.
I'm not saying don't buy nvidia, what Im saying is don't buy two 6600's when you could get a 6800 now, and maybe a 6800 after the prices drop.
By the way what I heard last night that the stocking of the 7800 would be in 2-3 weeks. http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/sh...371&postcount=5
Gibbo is the stock manager or something for their website. also noted is the r520 cored radeon might have trouble getting it out.
Posted by: Ocean
about 2 6600 vs a single 6800, i said that too
http://www.opentechsupport.net/foru...471&postcount=3
the 5200 did not come out before the 9700 pro. it came out about 5-6 months after, along with the 5600 and the 5800
the 5900 ultra (which came out later) beat the 9800 pro. comparing a flagship card a year old to another brand new flagship card at a completely different price range is not a fair comparison
and the 9800 pro beat the 5800 ultra
and the 8500 was beaten barely by the 6 month old geforce 3. but when image quality came into play, the flagship card released near each other (abut 2 months apart) (gf3 ti500 - released later, and 8500), the gf3 had over twice the fps at 4x AA. but most people agree that was the ati driver sucked ass. but it did overclock well.
but all im doing is comaring cards that are in the same price range and generation.
Posted by: Superfly3176
Except the way the card manufacturers do it is card for card, and when a brand new card like the fx5200 couldn't stand up to the card it was supposed to compete against (radeon 9000 or 9200) its pretty much a failure.
Nvidia just screwed up the fx series, most people will admit that.
|
|
|
|
|
