yes im crazy....

[Squeetard]

And still single...:rofl:

Lucky guess.

 

[go flames go]

actually i have a 24" 1920x1200 dell ultra sharp. It also isnt a 5% increase it is alot more. Also Ill link some vids of some benchmarks by trubritar.

YouTube - (HD) Clash of the Titans - HD4870X2 Vs GTX 295

and

YouTube - (HD) GTX 295 Quad SLi Benchmarks and Card Failure

and

YouTube - (HD) GPU Armageddon - 3-Way SLI Vs the best Quad Configs

and

YouTube - (HD) GTX 295 QUAD Overclock Benchmark Test by Trubritar

 

[cadaveca]

The point is that although 4 videocards provides alot of grunt, it doesn't really offer anything more than two does, when it comes down to games, and playability.

You've got to decide what you want...the resolution, the desired FPS, and what apps. Chances are that there is a better, or different, solution out there that will meet your needs more effectively.

Tri-SLi GTX285 and Quad Sli w/GTX295 are roughly the same cost. At the abolute high-end, the 1GB framebuffer would help more than the 4th GPU with just as many shaders. Although that seems a bit strange, it's due to programming paradigms.

Another thing to note is that at the extreme, even nVidia seems to be pushing Tri-SLi, with a much lesser 4th card for "Phys-X effects" add-ons. Given thier deep involvement in the development of games, I'd be paying attention to that particular config.


Benchmarks don't tell you squat, really, even "in-game" ones. My previous system with QX9650 @ 4Ghz and 2x3870x2, overclocked, provided better "scores" all around, but when it came time to actually using it to play a game, the experience was horrible in comparison to my current system, with E8400 and 2x4870 1GB; the current system all at stock. Most games I was forced to 1680x1050 or lower resolutions with 4 gpus, and now even Crysis Warhead is more than playable maxed out @ 2560x1600, and just 2.

You'd get a far better "experience" upgrade by spending that extra $600 for the second GTX295 on a couple of SSD drives instead, IMHO. Far more effective. It's not about you spending the money, noone really cares...it's just that sometimes it makes more sense to leave room to upgrade differently...

FarCry2Long on current system @ stock:

 

[go flames go]

well in far cry 2 wit2 295s i be getting over 100 fps average with everything maxed an 8x aa ect.

 

[cadaveca]

I'm averaging 61.98FPS @ 1920x1080, 4xAA, though. More than acceptable, IMHO. For that single app.

 

[go flames go]

are u running maxed settings?

 

[cadaveca]

Yep. And the system is stock, 3ghz E8400, 1333mhz DDR3 6-6-6-16, vgas also at stock(haven't even unlocked CCC yet.). Unfortunately the entire graph veiwed in IE doesn't all fit on my 30":haha:, but if really nessecary, I can shoot video.h34r:

Now, I'm not saying you should forget buying nVidia, and you should buy ATI, or that you should forgo Core i7 even...

So, really, if we look at that graph, that "60FPS AVG" number is just that, a number. If you look over time, 50FPS would be more accurate. If we drop that standard down to 40FPS, you got like 98% of that almost 5 minutes @ 40FPS or higher...


So, for me, it's not enough, and I'm working on building a faster system. I want 60FPS ~ not 40.

Now, 2 GTX285 should be faster than the 2x 4870 1GB I have. It's actually gonna be pretty close to that 60FPS...3rd card...should not be a problem.

With three cards, you should be able to get 3x 16xpci-e ELECTRICAL slots, while with 2c GTX295, you have the same gpus as 285s, but a bit slower, sharing the bandwidth of what just 2xGTX285 has...

So, to me, it makes more sense to go with 2xGTX285, and if that's not enough, buy the third, and get the best situation possible. The faster raw clockspeed, bandwidth per gpu, plus added framebuffer make it a far better solution than GTX295 quadSli, IMHO, especially if you want to bump up to 2560x1600.

But I saw that they are talking about single-slot GTX275's? Maybe 1796MB?:shok: Dunno if that's true, but that makes me wonder about running 6xGPUs...:rofl:

 

[Realityshift]

+1 to cadaveca great explanation and benchmark backups.

I dont think there is any need to spend a huge amount of money just go get 100+ fps when you could spend half that and get a very very playable 60FPS on a game that is horible to begin with. 1 - 2 games... crysis and farcry are the only games that demand this kind of overkill system just to run without choppiness, I dislike both games I dont think they where well made or directed. FEAR 2 easily beats out both of these games for game play and atmosphere, looks amazing and on my system maxed out at 16:10 resolution I get 120fps on avg, normally more like 140fps. If your into trying to force high frames in games you might play for a couple weeks then by all means go ahead and spend the money. IMHO its a huge waste of money and even if I had the money I could easily find much more productive things to do with it.

 

[crispex]

+1 to cadaveca great explanation and benchmark backups.

You can't argue, now! He has a graph.

I think I said it before, but if I didn't...

3 GTX285 > 2 GTX295

Though, really, the easiest way to figure that kind of stuff out is to just look at the standard pricing. If it costs more, it probably has more raw power than card B over there, which is selling for $x less. That said, 3 285's cost more than 2 295's (considering price points of ~$360, and ~$500 USD, respectively); apply my previous statement while considering each set of cards as a single card, and you'll find it to be true.

I personally believe that the 295 is doomed to a brutal, quick death in the near future, anyway. All hail the 3xx series! :haha:

 

[Realityshift]

the 3xx series better bring something very new to the table, another rebadge will quickly send me back to ATI.