Intel leaving high-end gaming chipset market to ATI and Nvidia

Saw this on digitimes.

http://www.digitimes.com/mobos/a20060626PR204.html

Intel leaving high-end gaming chipset market to ATI and Nvidia


Although Intel plans to roll out the Bearlake chipset family in the second quarter of 2007 to upgrade its 965 series chipsets, which were only introduced this month, the company will not deliver a follow-up version of the 975X chipset before the end of the first half of next year, sources that have reviewed Intel's latest product roadmap indicated.

The sources indicated that Intel was leaving the high-end chipset market open in order to attract companies that own dual-graphics technology, such as Nvidia's SLI and ATI Technologies' CrossFire, to develop their own high-end chipset solutions for the Intel platform and reduce those companies' focus on the AMD platform, the sources noted.

In addition, although Intel has reached a licensing agreement with ATI to allow its 955X and 975X chipsets to support ATI's dual-graphics technology, the agreement has been discontinued from Intel's 965 chipsets onward, sources at Taiwan motherboard makers indicated. Nvidia's SLI technology is not officially supported on any of those chipsets, the sources added.

In line with Intel's Conroe launch, ATI will introduce a CrossFire-compliant PCI Express X16 chipset, the RD600, according to the sources.

Nvidia's nForce 590 SLI Intel Edition platform, which consists of the C51XE northbridge partnered with the MCP55 southbridge, will initially be released to the market to support Intel's upcoming Conroe processors, indicated the sources. In the fourth quarter of 2006, Nvidia will launch an upgraded version of the C51XE, the C55 northbridge chip, which supporta a 1333MHz FSB and DDR2-800 of memory, the sources added.

Hmm....very interesting.
A lot to me will ride on the OTHER feature set of a motherboard, not just multi-GPU usage. I may be weird, but, I still haven't gone SLI/CF. I'd rather get a top of the line mobo, near top CPU, overclock, and get a good GFX card.

The 965 chipsets look quite nice to me, but, the SLI 590 preview also looks spiffy. A lot to think on for me really, which certainly beats a lack of choices.

Just my $0.02
-Ghent

That is rather interesting, I actually think that would work to draw manufacturers away from AMD.

I hope nvidia doesn't make us wait til C55 til we can overclock well :poke:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vapb400

I hope nvidia doesn't make us wait til C55 til we can overclock well :poke:

---

it would be nice, seeing how the current C51 OC's. a 590 chip performing on Conroe like it does on AM2 would be nice an interresting. although i wouldn't put my money on it if i where you.

I guess the BadAxe's lifespan will be quite long, eh.

It's not a problem if Nvidia Intel mobo's wouldn't suck at oc'ing and I think that Nvidia will continue on making better Amd mobos than Intel ones. Ati hasn't convinced me yet but the RD600 seems good.

time to look for hacked drivers for the i965 chipset (SLI//CF), lol

Seems that my 975 will last a long time... ;)

RD600 is looking like the better choice here. Doesnt require all of that cooling neither.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alucasa

I guess the BadAxe's lifespan will be quite long, eh.

---

Not according to all of the dead bad axe posts...

I don't even care about SLI/CF anymore...it seems that almost every refresh of a card is able to match the older card SLIed or CFed. Getting one high end card gives adequate performance while keeping price lower. I only game at 1280x1024 to 1600x1200 4xAA 8xAF. So the 965 is still fine for me, but ofcourse, all options are open :).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cupholder2.0

I don't even care about SLI/CF anymore...it seems that almost every refresh of a card is able to match the older card SLIed or CFed. Getting one high end card gives adequate performance while keeping price lower. I only game at 1280x1024 to 1600x1200 4xAA 8xAF. So the 965 is still fine for me, but ofcourse, all options are open :).

---

ditto..never want to ditch out that much money on SLI/CF anwayz to just play games, just a single highend card does all that i need :)

i||uSi0n^

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cupholder2.0

it seems that almost every refresh of a card is able to match the older card SLIed or CFed.

---

Wrong! You don't know what you are talking about here...

7800gtx SLI > 7900gtx
7800gt SLI > 7900gt
x1800xt X-fire > x1900xtx

http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q1...0/index.x?pg=8

Ati isalso doing things right without needing any master cards out and with x1800 being in low 200usd how can u not go with that than paying more for a x1900xtx and also its funny..reading this..http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=32667

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J-Mag

Wrong! You don't know what you are talking about here...

7800gtx SLI > 7900gtx
7800gt SLI > 7900gt
x1800xt X-fire > x1900xtx

http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q1...0/index.x?pg=8

---

I think he meant like 6800 Ultra SLI vs 7800GTX and X850XT PE CF vs X1800XT PE.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nazu

I think he meant like 6800 Ultra SLI vs 7800GTX and X850XT PE CF vs X1800XT PE.

---

Now this statement is up for debate, because there are many instances where a 6800 Ultra SLI rig will outperform a 7800gtx rig.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2...x/index.x?pg=6

This shows that the Ultras win every time except for HL2 which they are pretty close to even and the BF2 demo which should be thrown out anyway...

i doubt the older cards will keep up in future games though, whatdy'all think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m0da

i doubt the older cards will keep up in future games though, whatdy'all think?

---

I agree the depreciation of video cards performance relative to new games is a non linear curve and accelerates the older the card is, if the game settings remain constant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J-Mag

Wrong! You don't know what you are talking about here...

7800gtx SLI > 7900gtx
7800gt SLI > 7900gt
x1800xt X-fire > x1900xtx

http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q1...0/index.x?pg=8

---

Well ofcourse, its not always like that. Not every refresh, sometimes it takes 2+ refreshs. It might even take a brand you generation. But the point is that graphic cards come out very quickly.Like someone said, SLI 6800 Ultra vs 7800 GTX, 7900 SLI GTX vs 7950 gx2. I realize that the single card does not always win, but it comes close or is a better bang for the buck. One high end card seems to be able to do the trick on games, and for me thats good enough. Maybe if you were a person who ran at very high res, you might need SLI.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J-Mag

Now this statement is up for debate, because there are many instances where a 6800 Ultra SLI rig will outperform a 7800gtx rig.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2...x/index.x?pg=6

This shows that the Ultras win every time except for HL2 which they are pretty close to even and the BF2 demo which should be thrown out anyway...

---

It doesnt matter if the 6800 Ultra SLI still beats the 7800GTX is those benchmarks. The 7800gtx is pretty close for only being a single card. It uses less power than the 2 cards and it costs less then 2 6800 Ultras. Dont get me wrong, SLI/CF can be useful, but it depends on your needs...

Intel's leaving the high end market to ATI and Nvidia to attract them to its platform does not make sense because the only way it would drive them from its platform would be if Intel's graphics solutions were not compatible with AMD's processors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cupholder2.0

Well ofcourse, its not always like that. Not every refresh, sometimes it takes 2+ refreshs.

---

7800gtx SLI > 7900gtx

The above example is two refreshes :stick:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cupholder2.0

It might even take a brand you generation. But the point is that graphic cards come out very quickly.Like someone said, SLI 6800 Ultra vs 7800 GTX, 7900 SLI GTX vs 7950 gx2.

---

:confused: what's your point here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cupholder2.0

I realize that the single card does not always win,

---

WTF are you smoking. You should have said I realize that the single card RARELY WINS (almost never actually). In every example I found the SLI of a previous refresh beats out its younger sibling by a decent margin EXCEPT for the 6800ultra halflife scenario.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cupholder2.0

but it comes close or is a better bang for the buck. One high end card seems to be able to do the trick on games, and for me thats good enough. Maybe if you were a person who ran at very high res, you might need SLI.

---

I think we all know that SLI is not the best bang for your buck because it will never double your GPU rendering power but will always double your cost. I agree need is relative to the individual... Personally I have a hard time playing games lower than 1600x1200 4xAA...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cupholder2.0

It doesnt matter if the 6800 Ultra SLI still beats the 7800GTX is those benchmarks. The 7800gtx is pretty close for only being a single card. It uses less power than the 2 cards and it costs less then 2 6800 Ultras. Dont get me wrong, SLI/CF can be useful, but it depends on your needs...

---

pretty close? Are you blind?

examples here:

Doom3 @ 1280x1024 4xAA 8xAF trdelta1
Ultras = 160fps
gtx = 120fps

Thats a 25% difference.

Doom3 @ 1280x1024 4xAA 8xAF trdemo2
Ultras = 130fps
gtx = 91fps

Thats a 30% difference.

Far Cry 4xAA 8xAF tr1-volcano
Ultras = 134fps
gtx = 103fps

Thats a 24% difference.

I guess your definition of "close" is different than mine...

It is interesting to note that the gtx smoked the SLI ultras when running HDR on far Cry. THis again supports my theory that as GPUs age and newer games are released with additional features (in this case not a newer game, but new feature) they loose performance to a greater degree than more recent cards. However, it is almost always the case that two of the second most recent cards will outperform one of the most recent.

I still think a single card is just fine for people running 19" LCDs (1280x1024) . I guess if you really need some super frame rate it might be worth it, but for mid range LCDs (which are i think now more common than high end CRTs), a single top end card is just fine, as long as you have the system to back it up. I understand SLI/CF if you running 20"wide or better .. but otherwise personally its just a waste of money. As for intel backing out of the highend .. seems kinda of a cope out to me.. there should be just 1 dual video card standard and be done with it ... same stuff and HD-DVD vs Blueray ... come on people .. just work together .. (I do realize why they don't but it be nice .. won't it)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J-Mag

7800gtx SLI > 7900gtx

The above example is two refreshes :stick:



:confused: what's your point here?



WTF are you smoking. You should have said I realize that the single card RARELY WINS (almost never actually). In every example I found the SLI of a previous refresh beats out its younger sibling by a decent margin EXCEPT for the 6800ultra halflife scenario.



I think we all know that SLI is not the best bang for your buck because it will never double your GPU rendering power but will always double your cost. I agree need is relative to the individual... Personally I have a hard time playing games lower than 1600x1200 4xAA...



pretty close? Are you blind?

examples here:

Doom3 @ 1280x1024 4xAA 8xAF trdelta1
Ultras = 160fps
gtx = 120fps

Thats a 25% difference.

Doom3 @ 1280x1024 4xAA 8xAF trdemo2
Ultras = 130fps
gtx = 91fps

Thats a 30% difference.

Far Cry 4xAA 8xAF tr1-volcano
Ultras = 134fps
gtx = 103fps

Thats a 24% difference.

I guess your definition of "close" is different than mine...

It is interesting to note that the gtx smoked the SLI ultras when running HDR on far Cry. THis again supports my theory that as GPUs age and newer games are released with additional features (in this case not a newer game, but new feature) they loose performance to a greater degree than more recent cards. However, it is almost always the case that two of the second most recent cards will outperform one of the most recent.

---

The point was that buying graphic cards in SLI/CF will generally produce good performance but will be outperformed by a single card from a few refreshes or a generation(s) later which will be much cheaper, therefore purchasing a high end single card is a better option for most users who don’t have endless flows of money. Yes I said the single card (7800GTX) "does not always win", and what falsifications have I made with that statement? ABSOLUTLY NONE.
Before you go on flaming like an ignorant idiot about my post regarding the performance of the 7800 GTX in comparison with the SLI 6800 Ultras, you need to read what I originally posted. I said the performance was fairly close CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE 7800 GTX WAS A SINGLE CARD. It would have costed twice as much to buy SLI 6800 Ultra but you get no where near twice the performance of a single 7800 GTX. The single 6800 Ultra would have been able to play most games at good resolutions and AA/AF for the games which existed during its time, adding a second card which will be outperformed or be matched by a single card later seems rather purposeless. Buying two is pointless (for most people) because it is outdated far too quickly for the amount of monkey it costs(I think we agree on this part).


About the benchmarks:
The 7800 GTX does in fact win sometimes at higher resolutions.

Battlefield 2 1600x1200
Dual 6800 Ultras = 93
7800 GTX = 93

DOOM3 1600x1200
Dual 6800 Ultras = 97
7800 GTX = 90

Everquest 2 1600x1200
Dual 6800 Ultras = 37
7800 GTX = 43

Half Life 2 1600x1200
Dual 6800 Ultras = 128
7800 GTX = 136

Splinter Cell Chaos Theory 1600 x 1200
Dual 6800 Ultras = 75
7800 GTX = 83


Lets take a look at a few more benchmarks from different cards

Splinter Cell 1280x1024
DUAL 6600 GT's = 57fps.
6800 GT = 74 fps

Far Cry 1280x1024
DUAL 6600 GT's = 55 fps
6800 GT = 63 fps

Half Life 2 1280x1024
DUAL 6600 GT's = 90 fps
6800 GT = 88 fps

UT2004 1280x1024
DUAL 6600 GT's = 47 fps
6800 GT = 61 fps

DOOM3 1280x1024 (HIGH) 4xAA/8xAF
DUAL 6600 GT's = 53 fps
6800 GT = 59

Got those benchmarks from
http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=33835306



http://www.nvnews.net/previews/gefor...nchmarks_2.png

http://www.nvnews.net/previews/gefor...benchmarks.png

http://www.nvnews.net/previews/gefor...x/page_3.shtml
Yes, I know those cards are 6800 GT’s,. but the performance to the 6800 Ultras should be similar. In some of those benchmarks the 7800 GTX smokes SLI 6800 GTs, so it will atleast beat or match the ultras.

Aside from this, SLI/CF uses much more power, takes more space, makes more heat and is a horrible "bang for the buck". And that is why I stated that I did not desire SLI or CF. Its simply not worth it for the vast majority of people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silver Bullet

I still think a single card is just fine for people running 19" LCDs (1280x1024) . I guess if you really need some super frame rate it might be worth it, but for mid range LCDs (which are i think now more common than high end CRTs), a single top end card is just fine, as long as you have the system to back it up. I understand SLI/CF if you running 20"wide or better .. but otherwise personally its just a waste of money. As for intel backing out of the highend .. seems kinda of a cope out to me.. there should be just 1 dual video card standard and be done with it ... same stuff and HD-DVD vs Blueray ... come on people .. just work together .. (I do realize why they don't but it be nice .. won't it)

---

QFT :)

You don't have to run a dual gpu setup on a Crossfire board. I think if this is true intel is doing the right thing allowing ATi/Nvidia to take over the high end chipsets freeing them up to make great processors.

Not like this is a big deal.... AMD doesn't even have their own chipsets...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by derektm

Not like this is a big deal.... AMD doesn't even have their own chipsets...

---

Don't they have AMD chipset for server mothreboards?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cupholder2.0

About the benchmarks:
The 7800 GTX does in fact win sometimes at higher resolutions.

Battlefield 2 1600x1200
Dual 6800 Ultras = 93
7800 GTX = 93

DOOM3 1600x1200
Dual 6800 Ultras = 97
7800 GTX = 90

Everquest 2 1600x1200
Dual 6800 Ultras = 37
7800 GTX = 43

Half Life 2 1600x1200
Dual 6800 Ultras = 128
7800 GTX = 136

Splinter Cell Chaos Theory 1600 x 1200
Dual 6800 Ultras = 75
7800 GTX = 83

---

OK first off where did you pull these numbers from? Tech report shows a radically different story, where the Ultras Significantly edge out the 7800gtx at 1600x1200 in all benches except HL2 and the bf2 demo (which probably didn't have a profile).

I like how you use evidence that doesn't support your point at all, as shown below.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cupholder2.0

The point was that buying graphic cards in SLI/CF will generally produce good performance but will be outperformed by a single card from a few refreshes or a generation(s) later which will be much cheaper,

Lets take a look at a few more benchmarks from different cards

Splinter Cell 1280x1024
DUAL 6600 GT's = 57fps.
6800 GT = 74 fps

Far Cry 1280x1024
DUAL 6600 GT's = 55 fps
6800 GT = 63 fps

Half Life 2 1280x1024
DUAL 6600 GT's = 90 fps
6800 GT = 88 fps

UT2004 1280x1024
DUAL 6600 GT's = 47 fps
6800 GT = 61 fps

DOOM3 1280x1024 (HIGH) 4xAA/8xAF
DUAL 6600 GT's = 53 fps
6800 GT = 59

---

Irrelevant...
Last I checked the 6800GT was not a refresh of the 6600gt... You are comparing different price point cards. Apples to Oranges.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cupholder2.0

Before you go on flaming like an ignorant idiot about my post regarding the performance of the 7800 GTX in comparison with the SLI 6800 Ultras, you need to read what I originally posted.

---

Try not to get your panties in a bunch, when people argue with you. (I know it's hard when you are wrong, so feel free to flame on because it's working out for you quite nicely)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cupholder2.0

I said the performance was fairly close CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE 7800 GTX WAS A SINGLE CARD. It would have costed twice as much to buy SLI 6800 Ultra but you get no where near twice the performance of a single 7800 GTX.

---

Would have costed, eh?

I have never claimed you get twice the performance. Anyone who knows anything about SLI or parallel architectures knows that this will not be the case. Obviously you are getting less value for your money for the second card.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cupholder2.0

Buying two is pointless (for most people) because it is outdated far too quickly for the amount of monkey it costs(I think we agree on this part).

---

All hardware is outdated quickly. Anyway, this is a personal preference argument and therefore pointless. I agree there is a lot of monkey involved, though... :rotf:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cupholder2.0

Yes, I know those cards are 6800 GT’s,. but the performance to the 6800 Ultras should be similar. In some of those benchmarks the 7800 GTX smokes SLI 6800 GTs, so it will atleast beat or match the ultras.

---

More irrelevant data to the original argument... You are digging here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cupholder2.0

Aside from this, SLI/CF uses much more power, takes more space, makes more heat and is a horrible "bang for the buck".

---

Why are you trying to inject points into this argument that I am not even refering to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cupholder2.0

And that is why I stated that I did not desire SLI or CF. Its simply not worth it for the vast majority of people.

---

Again, I could care less about you or others personal preferences and this is not what the argument is about...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by derektm

Not like this is a big deal.... AMD doesn't even have their own chipsets...

---

Thats exactly why its worth mentioning. AMD doesn't have their own mainstream chipsets so they have to rely on nVidia and ATI to put out high-end chipsets. If Intel takes some of the focus away from AMD in a sense it might have somewhat of an effect. Maybe not much of one though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J-Mag

OK first off where did you pull these numbers from? Tech report shows a radically different story, where the Ultras Significantly edge out the 7800gtx at 1600x1200 in all benches except HL2 and the bf2 demo (which probably didn't have a profile).

I like how you use evidence that doesn't support your point at all, as shown below.

---

http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=33835306

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J-Mag

Irrelevant...
Last I checked the 6800GT was not a refresh of the 6600gt... You are comparing different price point cards. Apples to Oranges.

---

The 6600gt vs. single 6800 GT was posted to show the fact that SLI is quite a useless technology for the vast majority of the users, where the dual 6600 GTs cost more than the single 6800 GT but still get smoked. And where did I state that a 6800 GT was a refresh of a 6600 GT? Don’t quote me incorrectly by moving what I said at different times. Those benchmarks support my assertion that purchasing a high end single card is a better option for most users. If you buy 2 mid range cards it will likely be met or outperformed by a single high end card, therefore making the 2 mid range cards a pointless deal. Like I said, this is evidence that SLI/CF is really not a useful technology for the majority of us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J-Mag

Would have costed, eh?

I have never claimed you get twice the performance. Anyone who knows anything about SLI or parallel architectures knows that this will not be the case. Obviously you are getting less value for your money for the second card.

---

And your point being? Did I state that you claimed that you are support to get twice the performance? The fact SLI/CF is such a poor value makes it quite unattractive for the average gamer. Another reason why it isn't worth it unless you are a power user SLIng two high end cards because the single card is not enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J-Mag

All hardware is outdated quickly

---

And thats why it isnt that clever to buy two expensive graphic cards which will be outdated by a single card very quickly..... :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J-Mag

More irrelevant data to the original argument... You are digging here.

---

This sounds more like a desperate comment to cover up the falsifications you have made in this thread. Those benchmarks of the SLI 6800 GT vs 7800 GTX agree with my point. The 6800GT and the 6800 ultra are close in terms of performance, even if you put SLI 6800 ultra it should not do much better.
And thus the 7800 GTX (like I said before) should come very close to the ultras. SLIng the 6800 GT would have been a bad choice too, assume you purchased 2 GTs for 300 each. It costs you 600 total and the next gen card, the 7800 GTX costed about 500 when it came out. I don't understand why you claim the 6800GT vs 7800 GTX is "irrelevant" when the GT and ultra are so similar. (Ultra is clocked 50 more on the core and 100 on memory)
The fact that you entirely ignored these benchmarks shows your true understanding of this subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J-Mag

Again, I could care less about you or others personal preferences and this is not what the argument is about...

---

LOL? Didn’t you just say that you agreed with the fact that SLI/CF was poor value? And now you’re quoting me and saying that my claims on how SLI/CF is not worth for most of the people are just "personal preferences". This is FACT.

You are aware that both Nvidia and ATI have seperate engineering teams who develop chipsets both independently ( AMD/INTEL ) from one another, right?

Intel leaving the high end chipset to either company wont hurt AMD one bit in the sense of chipsets. Right now, Intel has the next 18 months wrapped up, even with the 965/975x chipsets. Aside from DFI, i doubt we will see huge ATI and Nvidia penetration in the Intel motherboards anytime soon. Once DFI rolls out its LP with the RD600, they will hold maybe 5% of the market, if that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cupholder2.0

http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=33835306

---

I would take most posts on the rage3d forum about nvidia products with a grain of salt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cupholder2.0

The 6600gt vs. single 6800 GT was posted to show the fact that SLI is quite a useless technology for the vast majority of the users, where the dual 6600 GTs cost more than the single 6800 GT but still get smoked. And where did I state that a 6800 GT was a refresh of a 6600 GT? Don’t quote me incorrectly by moving what I said at different times.

---

OK so you admit that you are making up another argument which I wasn't talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cupholder2.0

The fact SLI/CF is such a poor value makes it quite unattractive for the average gamer. Another reason why it isn't worth it unless you are a power user SLIng two high end cards because the single card is not enough.

---

Again, I don't care about the average gamer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cupholder2.0

And thats why it isnt that clever to buy two expensive graphic cards which will be outdated by a single card very quickly..... :eek:

---

It looks you are bitter, as you keep ranting on it's value... Why don't you hit up www.valuesystems.com

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cupholder2.0

This sounds more like a desperate comment to cover up the falsifications you have made in this thread.

---

Falsifications?
How about you don't generalize and actually tell me what I have said that is false. Anyway, you are the one making a lot of inferences and other random arguments...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cupholder2.0

Those benchmarks of the SLI 6800 GT vs 7800 GTX agree with my point. The 6800GT and the 6800 ultra are close in terms of performance, even if you put SLI 6800 ultra it should not do much better.

---

6800 Ultras are usually about 8-15% faster than 6800GTs. Obviously this depends on settings and the application tested.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cupholder2.0

And thus the 7800 GTX (like I said before) should come very close to the ultras.

---

http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q1...i/index.x?pg=4
http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2...x/index.x?pg=6

With the above two links you will see that in:
Doom3 High Quality tr3delta1 4x AA 1600x1200

The ultras beat out the gtx by about 10%. As you scale down the resolution the GTX edges out yes, but you don't buy high end cards for low resolutions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cupholder2.0

SLIng the 6800 GT would have been a bad choice too, assume you purchased 2 GTs for 300 each. It costs you 600 total and the next gen card, the 7800 GTX costed about 500 when it came out.

---

My original argument was not talking about cost or value for Christ's sake. Also, pulling historical pricing data is relatively arbitrary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cupholder2.0

I don't understand why you claim the 6800GT vs 7800 GTX is "irrelevant" when the GT and ultra are so similar. (Ultra is clocked 50 more on the core and 100 on memory)
The fact that you entirely ignored these benchmarks shows your true understanding of this subject.

---

The fact that you can only use the 6800gt SLI vs 7800gtx as your primary data just goes to show that you are ignoring the more obvious 7800gtx SLI vs 7900gtx.

Anyway, pulling 6 series data usually means you are working with older drivers when SLI wasn't as mature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cupholder2.0

LOL? Didn’t you just say that you agreed with the fact that SLI/CF was poor value? And now you’re quoting me and saying that my claims on how SLI/CF is not worth for most of the people are just "personal preferences". This is FACT.

---

I guess i should have used a different term... I agree that there are diminishing returns for SLI therefore it is a poorer "value" per dollar spent (but I am now getting sucked into your value argument again... ARGHH!!!)

However, perceived value is an relative to the individual and therefore a "personal preference".

Anyway, How many different SLI or X-Fire setups have you owned? Probably none judging by your posts. I am glad that I have an "expert" here speaking on the subject.

lol @ the attitude ....pi$$ing contests online are like the special olympics ....you know how it goes.

there's no right answer - different needs for different ppl and setups

u can find strong arguments for both single or mutli gpu setups ....there's no absolute truths here ppl :fact:

i will say in my experience sli/xfire is for benchers and bragging rights, a single top end card is plenty for most sane ppl.

SLI is overhyped. I got a second 7800GT for SLI and was far from impressed. I turned on "SLI AA 8x" and fired up q4 at 1280*1024 max detail 8af and couldn't even keep a steady 50 fps. Don't even ask what the "SLI AA 16x" option got at 1680x1050.

Mr. Cup,
you should check out www.cost-effectivesystems.com and www.bang-for-your-bucksystems.com. they sound more up your alley.
thanks and goodnight.

ATI chipsets are getting better and better. I'm hoping the RD600 will be perfect! :)

Well I also read elsewhere that Intel is leaving its budget chipsets to other makers also, like ATI Xpress 200 chipset. So they are going to stay mainstream, workstation, and server? Budget and enthusiast to ATI/Nvidia. Makes sense, budget and enthusiast are headaches and workstation and server are cash cows. What do you think.

SLI is there for those that need very high res sooner than there are chips to do that res, for example with the Dell 3007. You won't really be driving the 3007 with a 7900GT very well.

Typically a generation change (not a generation evolution) equals or exceeds the previous generation SLI of equivalent level. 2x6800 is matched or exceeded by 7800's generally. Have a look at Oblivion scores and that will clear some things up. These things vary. And cpu's vary as well. So the comparables mix is very hard to get.

Now let's take cost. If you buy a 2nd $500 card vs leaving that $500 to sit in a fund for a bit (worse if you are borrowing this $500 now on credit card rates), you can usually manage to make $40 or so without too much trouble in a year's time. Extrapolate and it's clear it costs more money for that performance.

Now what do you GET with SLI? Why you get the chance to use it NOW not later. You can't use it with everything and in some cases (like multi monitors) you carry a penalty to use it at all. But if you need it to drive a high res lcd (and avoid nasty scaling issues) at say 1920x1200 with HDR or AA, you really don't have other choices unless you wait. But remember this goes for cpu's too. Why buy that 2.67 Conroe? Get some cheap $100 P4 and call it a day for a year or two and you'll have something far faster than the 2.67 Conroe. Well you buy it because in one sense or another you "need" it now. You don't want what is coming in a year or two, you want this power now for one need or another.

So really SLI is about having the "ability" to get more graphics horsepower now vs waiting till it's available in a normal chip. Frankly its nice to have the option because there are folks who need all the gpu oomph they can get and then some. But yes it's costly. And in the case of this thread and the technology of Conroe it involves cash and tradeoffs in technology. This is not every exciting to some. Intel goes on an Intel chipset. Its an addage that hasn't yet been overcome by competitors. That may change but it hasn't yet, or if it has we aren't fully confident in that being true.

So both sides take a sit. SLI works. It is good. It fills a need. It's logic depends on the values of need, vs cash, vs tech tradeoffs. Arguing about how much it costs or about how long till it is outdated is an old argument in the tech industry, just on a new area gpu's. If the statement is made that it is worth it or it is not worth it, probably it is wise to chime in only if you see things that way. Because if you agree with the premise you are probably in a similar set of shoes with the person making the premise. And thus you have areas to discuss...

I myself have to choose as well. 590 and SLI or 975. For me as much as the jury is weighing very heavily on the 975 I'm letting the few holdouts decide. I'm watching the tests and thinking. Could I afford it? Yes. Should I? Oh probably not but we'll see. If I did it, I'd probably wait for the next gen and go with a dual G80 setup and not dual 7900. But even then I might not. I like being freely able to upgrade every 6 months when something new comes out. I might feel less inclined to do that freely if I had to worry about 2x the cost. I really do not know. The 7950 also brings in a new factor of SLI in a single slot. You can bet that won't be the last of that idea. So why would I take a chance on a less stable, worse clocking system just so I could have 12 months (maybe) of gpu superiority? I might not. And, if my nature stays true, if I'm on the fence about something I almost invariably don't spend money.

Add to the issue that I might very well want a Kentsfield. I multitask a ton. I like and use dual monitors, with which SLI does not function. Again, I'm thinking 12 months of gpu bliss, possibly no compatibility with Kentsfield, and not being able to use dual displays (24"x2 maybe moving to 24 and 30), and the lack of DDR 800 memory support is a worthwhile tradeoff? Expensive and limiting my function are two things that I don't find comfortable. If SLI worked with dual monitors that'd be a plus. If SLI worked with the more preferable chipset, 975 (without hacking a 6 month old driver), that'd be a plus. If I was assured that Kentsfield worked (this might happen as we watch testing go on), that'd be a plus. I think you see the trend. Likely, the 975 is the better choice. If going with just a single GPU, maybe even 965 is good.

Lot of choices right now. But bear one thing in mind. If you are spending a lot of money AND making compromises in how you use, or limits you will have in your system, that is probably a bad choice (imo of course). As an example, who wants a nice 24" monitor, paying a premium price to get it, and then have banding or picture issues? You don't. So bear that in mind before opening the wallet...

While single card might be fine for 1280x1024. I hate 5:4, I barely can stand 4:3, widescreen is the way to go. For monitors with 1680x1050=< resolution that card might not be enough.

What this thread needs is more COWBELL!

I love my SLI, so I want SLI with my Conroe E6700. But gfx card performance is very dependent on so many other factors. I have a 6800 Ultra in an s754 Venice rig; I bought a 7800GS+ (7900GT core) for it, but tbh the improvement is marginal - very confusing. And my 2.7GHz x2 3800 plus 6600GT SLI seemed to smoke either of these AGP cards. And then my 3GHz x2 4600 plus 7800GT SLI seems to smoke any single GPU card, XT1900 or 7900GTX, if the review benches are to be believed.

So single vs dual channel memory makes a big difference, CPU type makes a big difference, CPU clockspeed the same, AGP vs PCI-E also... so many variables. All I know is what I'm happy with and understandably, for Conroe, I want to carry my 7800GT SLI over to the new rig.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by afireinside

SLI is overhyped. I got a second 7800GT for SLI and was far from impressed. I turned on "SLI AA 8x" and fired up q4 at 1280*1024 max detail 8af and couldn't even keep a steady 50 fps. Don't even ask what the "SLI AA 16x" option got at 1680x1050.

---

SLI AA modes should only be used on older games. When running SLI AA your second card is not helping speed anything up because instead of rendering the next frame (AFR) or part of the frame (SFR) it is actually rendering the same frame.

Essentially, when you select SLI AA x8, both cards render the same frame at 4x AA, with slightly offset patterns, then the frames are recombined. So not only is the second card not being used to increase frame rate, there is also increased bandwidth usage across the PCI-E link.

I know this is personal choice, but i find the ATI image to be more realistic than the Nvidia one. For that reason i am happy with xfire.
Whats missing at the moment is true 16x support for xfire. All the motherboards in the pipeline using Intel chipset are 16x or Xfire 2x8

I guess the ATI chipset will be 16x x2, but if my experence of ATI chipsets for AMD is anything to go by, i will be steering well clear :(

You have to be the one ultimately satisfied Simon. I prefer NV for digital vibrance, which I appreciate. But honestly there are things to appreciate, features that are different for both vendors, and enough the same that it's pretty hard to make an entirely bad choice :) Competition is great.

Rather than AA, I'm looking for higher fps on higher res. That seems to be an area where SLI shines.