Do I really need twin 8800 GTS'?

I mean really

I do plan on getting Crysis...among other games...but im on a budget...so should i just cool me heels and hope that thesingle 320mb 8800 GTS, combined with my dual core Intel cpu and 2 gigs ram, (and 850 watt psu on the way) etc...will handle thatpower hungry, graphically gorgeousbrute?

or should i just blow the next 400+ bucks i get on another gpu?

beginning to wonder lately...what with some slow down ive been having with certain games...so yeah

for instance..i getrather disapointing results with the world in conflict demo (with medium settings)...but exemplary performance with Bioshock (everything maxed)

very confusing

although that problemmay be fixed, what with the new sli-ready850 watt power supply on the way..-shrugs-...we shall see)

anyways...show of hands of those whom are currently SLI-ing their way through some recent games...and whether there's much of a difference

The performance difference is like at best, 35% different. Meaning, is it justifiable to gain that 35% while spending another 260 or so bucks more? Of course not.

SLI is a gimmick, one card will be sufficient to run Crysis at decent res/details. Not like you need anything more. Or you can wait for the HD 2900PRO to release, should be just as cheap, if not, cheaper and great performance.

It is all up to you though.

The performance difference is like at best, 35% different. Meaning, is it justifiable to gain that 35% while spending another 260 or so bucks more? Of course not.

SLI is a gimmick, one card will be sufficient to run Crysis at decent res/details. Not like you need anything more. Or you can wait for the HD 2900PRO to release, should be just as cheap, if not, cheaper and great performance.

It is all up to you though.

sepheronX

SLi gives more than 35 % performance increase. I would say around 80-90%. But nonetheless it isn't necessary.

http://news.filefront.com/four-year-old-pcs-can-run-crysis/

Four Year Old PCs Can Run Crysis?
Posted by Steve on Wednesday, August 29th, 2007 at 10:10 pm under Electronic Arts, Crytek, Computer, Games, Game Companies, Game Platforms, Uncategorized
Tagged: cevat yerli, console, cryengine, cryengine 2, crysis, crytek, dx10, dx9, ea, electronic arts, Eurogamer, gameplay, graphics and interview

It seems the crew over at Eurogamer.net have recently scored an interview with Crytek's CEO, Cevat Yerli. The interview covers many topics ranging from Crysis gameplay, crashing DX10 drivers, to even *gasp* console discussion. The part of the interview that stuck out the most was Cevat's comment:

"As a PC game developer you have to make sure your game runs on two to three year old PCs. In fact, the current specification we're planning for is even four year old PCs."

Of course, Cevat admits that it won't look as pretty as it will on a DX10 capable machine. Still, it offers even more hope to those who just can't fork over the cash for that upgrade come November 16th. Cevat begins the interview by defending Crysis as not being just another Far Cry with better graphics. He touts Crytek's "smarter than the enemy" gameplay trademark and how the world in Crysis is much more dynamic. Cevat also attributes a lot of this dynamic element to the player's nanosuit. The game seems to revolve entirely around using the nanosuit, which is where the Crysis slogan "Adapt Engage Survive" seems to stem from.

Cevat then talks shop about Crysis DX9 & DX10 capabilities. Basically, he says Nvidia's drivers (not Vista) are the cause of a lot of DX10 bugs they've ran into (no surprise there); however, they're confident remaining DX10 bugs will be resolved in the next couple of weeks. The game is very multithreaded and seems to be pushing the poor drivers to the limits. Cevat then takes liberty of bragging about how great Crysis will look on DX9 hardware:

"I would even say some DirectX 10 games out there won't look as good as ours running DirectX 9."

If he's right, then I guess there's no need to run out an buy that $300 DX10 card just yet. The interview finally spirals into a "we're worrying about PC first" coy approach to Crytek's stance on consoles. Crytek apparently has in-house development for consoles (obviously for Cryengine 2 licensing), but Cevat would not admit that Crysis is currently being developed on console.

The performance difference is like at best, 35% different. Meaning, is it justifiable to gain that 35% while spending another 260 or so bucks more? Of course not.

SLI is a gimmick, one card will be sufficient to run Crysis at decent res/details. Not like you need anything more. Or you can wait for the HD 2900PRO to release, should be just as cheap, if not, cheaper and great performance.

It is all up to you though.

sepheronX

Pretty obvious that you've never used SLi or Crossfire, otherwise you wouldn't be saying you only get a 35% performance increase with either.

Usually you'll get a 60-100% performance increase, usually more significant on higher resolutions /w AA.

Even if you DON'T get a performance increase, one can simply use the second card to crank up AA (AF isn't too demanding) to 16x or so. :)

Oh, one more thing. Performance increases are almost always higher when you SLi two mid-range cards, however it is often a better choice to buy a single powerful card.. if it is about the same price as the two mid-range cards. If not, then it's your choice.

[QUOTE="sepheronX"]

The performance difference is like at best, 35% different. Meaning, is it justifiable to gain that 35% while spending another 260 or so bucks more? Of course not.

SLI is a gimmick, one card will be sufficient to run Crysis at decent res/details. Not like you need anything more. Or you can wait for the HD 2900PRO to release, should be just as cheap, if not, cheaper and great performance.

It is all up to you though.

JSDempsey

SLi gives more than 35 % performance increase. I would say around 80-90%. But nonetheless it isn't necessary.

give me proof of this.

[QUOTE="sepheronX"]

The performance difference is like at best, 35% different. Meaning, is it justifiable to gain that 35% while spending another 260 or so bucks more? Of course not.

SLI is a gimmick, one card will be sufficient to run Crysis at decent res/details. Not like you need anything more. Or you can wait for the HD 2900PRO to release, should be just as cheap, if not, cheaper and great performance.

It is all up to you though.

Hiryuu_

Pretty obvious that you've never used SLi or Crossfire, otherwise you wouldn't be saying you only get a 35% performance increase with either.

Usually you'll get a 60-100% performance increase, usually more significant on higher resolutions /w AA.

Even if you DON'T get a performance increase, one can simply use the second card to crank up AA (AF isn't too demanding) to 16x or so. :)

Oh, one more thing. Performance increases are almost always higher when you SLi two mid-range cards, however it is often a better choice to buy a single powerful card.. if it is about the same price as the two mid-range cards. If not, then it's your choice.

I have tested HD 2900xt 512's on Crossfire and 8800gts' 320mb on SLI, nothing more then about 37%, the rough estimate was 35.

alright...so, sli = possibly-worth-the-money-if-you-have-it-but-not-really-if-you're-just-a-regular-nine-to-fiver-like-most-of-the-world gimmick...gotcha

any suggestions as to why world in conflict would play horrible...and bioshock does quite the opposite?

my only guess is the power supply...hence the replacement on its way...

if im wrong, point me in the right directions here

First off sli is a waste because you can only can get around 40% increase in fps you might as well buy a 8800gtx because two gts's = a 8800gtx, plus WIC is not opminized, and Crysis dont worry just read below

http://news.filefront.com/four-year-old-pcs-can-run-crysis/

04dcarraher

Uh, what are you talking about? Lets get a couple facts straight. First of all, the 8800 GTS 320 MB in SLI is SIGNIFICANTLY more powerful than a single 8800 GTX. In EVERY test on tomshardware.com VGA charts the 8800 GTS in SLI beats the 8800 ULTRA, not to mention the GTX.

The performance increase is usually around 70-90%, and it is better at higher resolutions. Oblivion at one setting was 24 FPS with a single GTS, 31 with a GTX, and 43 with 2 GTS.

Now, 2 GTS cost around 560 dollars right now. Thats slightly more expensive than a single GTX, but not by much (30 dollars?).

You clearly don't know what you are talking about.

That's because you're using dual high-end cards.. games either hit a framerate wall or the cards are bottlenecked by the processor. Did you test them with 16xAA? Should've made quite a difference running 16xAA with one card and then 16xAA with two cards..

Try looking at these 7600GT SLi reviews.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/326/20

Performance increases are pretty large, particularly with AA on.

Tomshardware is also full of BS. I seen were on their VGA charts show that a 7900gs xt would get about 13 fps average in Oblivion.

I take the site with a grain of salt. Until Anandtech and Techpowerup, or even SKYMTL or plenty others on xtremesystems tells me otherwise, i do not believe anything TH tells me.

Now that does change perspectives doesn't it? Well, then maybe SLI is bennificial for those with lower end to midrange cards, against the top of the line.

Also, keep in mind, SLI'ing 2 high end cards, requires quite the hefty CPU, or there will be bottlenecks. Overclock your cpu, and you should be fine.

actually i just have the one card...which was the point of this thread: should i get another card or what?

and thanks to shanelevy, im awefully confused

lol...ill probably just end up buying another one...screw it

not entirely a good idea though. The difference is still not worth the extra amount (especialy if you buy it from some obscured place).

Just wait, Nvidia will have better stuff released in no time flat.

Pretty obvious that you've never used SLi or Crossfire, otherwise you wouldn't be saying you only get a 35% performance increase with either.

Usually you'll get a 60-100% performance increase, usually more significant on higher resolutions /w AA.

Even if you DON'T get a performance increase, one can simply use the second card to crank up AA (AF isn't too demanding) to 16x or so. :)

Oh, one more thing. Performance increases are almost always higher when you SLi two mid-range cards, however it is often a better choice to buy a single powerful card.. if it is about the same price as the two mid-range cards. If not, then it's your choice.

Hiryuu_

QFT, Hiryuu is right on the money. Sli is usually more beneficial with 2 midrange cards when you play at higher resolutions. I cant stand when people bash SLI without doing research. In my case, i went from the performance of a 7600gt to the performance of a 7950gt for a mere 100 dollars more at a time when the 7950gt was selling for 250-275 dollars. So in some cases SLI can be very cost effective. Just thought I'd add that.