7900 GX2 errr. . stuff

I agree 100%! I don't think this is needed and myself i just upgrade from my 7800 GTX to a x1900 XT since i wanna stick to a single card system. I play at 1280x960 only and it will do the job for me.

BUT: There is a market for these quad SLI. There is enthusiasts with Dell 30 inch panels and loads of money to burn so why don't deliver what they are asking for?
This is a hobby as many others and they tend to be expensive and not logical.
I am sure people that can afford quad SLI will be very happy when they buy thme and play around with settings and stuff.

PC building as a hobby is not all about reason. If it would be that way we all should use a 7600 GT or a x1800 GTO. They deliver all you need to play games.

 

Kinda stepped on my point there, mustrum. Hehe.

 

And guess who is going to be hot on their heels, their paranoid competitor! Happened with SLI, now again maybe with Quad SLI if they can produce a more energy efficient gpu.

Apparently the market is very good for your "retarded consumers", just look at how well the high-end graphics market is doing, or the high end computer market (Alienware). It all boils down to whether you have money or not!

 

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30343

Quad SLI cards can cost $1,853 -> Thats just over £1000. Thats fine by me! £250 per card is nice, I just spent £340 on an impulse buy of a X1900XT. I guess the missus will have to have this X1900 instead of the 7800GT I was gonna buy her. The missus machine is costing £1200 just upgrade some of the parts, so of course mine has to cost loads more.

 

thanks for crawling out of your hole, and registering to say that. *before i start i like your scale, 9800---->quad SLI, no other alternative*. I did not once call anyone who purchased this retarded, it was the very idea that Nvidia thought this is a good idea. What i find very stupid is this method of GPU stacking that Nvidia is doing. Rather then research and develop a more realistic way, they are now stacking cards like someone might stack books. To most of us here that seems a bit lazy, so much so that most of us thought that it wouldnt be reality. How much time do you think it took for one of their guys to say "gee we can just stack the cards, and look theres 4!". Slap a price tag, put it in a box and get it out there! Zero. I personally think this is a sad place for an industry to be heading. Fear also boasts the biggest gains in SLI then any other game period, so why dont you wait for a wider range of benchmarks comparing this to CrossFire and SLI solutions before you get all protective. CPU bottlenecking is going to be a huge problem, even at that res. And once again, 32AA is nothing but a marketing point, you wont be able to tell a difference from current Crossfire or SLI AA without zooming the image to a point that you would never be able to notice while playing. Once again, this is just not someplace i want to see the industry heading, the fact that Nvidia perhaps does, is what i find ludicrous.

http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html

If you'll take note of the above link, you will notice that cards in the range of the X1800XT, X1900XT, XTX, 7800GTX 512, and 7900GTX, and Quadro line, make up less then 1% of the total user base (using the cards with 512mb memory statistic). High end cards/SLI/CrossFire dont make any tangible amount of money for Nvidia/ATI. There is such a miniscule worthwhile market its not even funny. What doing high end products does is bolster sales for low and mid end products because people recognize what company may have the fastest, and want a product of that company while not necessarily being able to purchase a high end product. Happens all the time in many markets.

 

This may be off-topic, but there is a review on gaming on 2560x1600 at FiringSquad.
2560x1600 Gaming Performance with Dell's 3007WFP Part 1
The preview is mainly on dual GPU (Cross-fire & SLi), so at least this should give some picture on how to gaming on a 30" monitor then. The test were ran on 0AAx8AF, which I think not really bad. Hopefully, the quad thing's review will come out soon.

 

SugarCoat, the proof is in the pudding. No product or idea is "retarded" if there is a market for it, and it provides some benefit to the manufacturer. For the most part, all of your negativity just boils down to personal taste and limited budget. I'm sure if you saw an opportunity to generate hype and mindshare for your products you would do the same. Nvidia seems to be having fun with the technology they create, no need to hate on them for that.

 

i sit 2 and a half feet away from my 19" monitor, i question why Nvidia is being lazy in what they produce and i'm all of a sudden poor. I wouldnt purchase this because i wouldnt benefit one bit not because i cant afford it so drop that attack. I dont care who buys it, its not my concern, my argument is what is the industry going towards. Do you want to see GPU stacking become common place? Less spent on R&D but a higher cost product in the end for consumers cause companies are too lazy to do any real modification or improvment anymore? This was my gripe when SLI and CrossFire were introduced, and this quad solution is only more fuel to the fire. For the sake of computer gaming industry as a whole, i do not want to see any form of multi-gpu solution widly embraced because i think it will diminish overall technological advancment in the GPU market on a whole.

 

And exactly why don't Crossfire, SLi and Quad-SLI qualify as technological advancements? Where were the technical advancements from R300->R480? I really fail to see your point on that one.

Besides, the industry isn't going toward anything. These high-end solutions only provide a single advantage - performance. There will still be innovation in features, IQ, power consumption, functionality, programmability and all the other qualities of modern 3D graphics architectures. Stop being so paranoid

 

Been here for years and had many posts on my previous account. Unfortunately I no longer have access to my previous email, therefore no access to previous account. I have my own business which supplies many IT sectors, and I was top salesperson at a large computer retailer for many years before this. When it comes to technology, I am neither in a hole, nor crawling out of one.

Whoa there sister! Actually think about that statement. I love that theres a new toy for me to play with every six months. If NV or ATI had to spend MILLIONS everytime they issued a new piece of hardware, do you really think they would have quite so many refreshes? Go buy a console, let me know how that works out for you. Spending less per dev cycle means incrementally faster products for me and you and everyone. Using tech thats already out means faster cycles. Again, you dont have to buy if you dont want to every 6 months, year, 2 years - but some do and can. If I can buy a product today that BLOWS AWAY anything else on the market, I'll probably buy it. If that means them slapping 4 cards together then fine.

More points cos im on a roll :

A 7900GTX costs $499 - Quad cards cost $1800ish. To me, using simple maths, it seems that PER CARD its actually costing $50 LESS. Not more!. AND this is with all the extra technology needed to SLI-SLI them. AND all the extra physical material needed to make the PCB. Just because it costs more doesnt mean it "costs more", capeesh?

6800U was great card. 7800GTX is roughly 2x faster; ie 6800U SLI'd. Ill put money on the (admittedly unproveable) fact that if SLI hadnt been around the 7800GTX would only be 50% faster instead of 100%. With SLI and XF the companies are forcing themselves to give more performance, because no-one will buy a product thats much slower than something that they can get for £50-$100 more.

Also, your point about tech advancement - do you realise that the dual 7900 boards - while not as powerful as the full on GTX's - are running just fine in a enclosed space of only a mm or so? not overheating, melting, exploding etc. It seems to me that that is a decent step forward in the advancement of product manufacturing, which im sure will be used on the next gen cards too. Using a process already established will cost less.

To sum these points up for you. SLI/XF/quad-goodness will make the next round of gen cards cheaper (at least no more expensive) and faster, and allow me to play Solitare at 2560x1600.

 

Just a point to note: I doubt these boards are running at GTX specifications. I think its likely that the chip and memory speed configurations for each PCB will end up somewhere between a GT and GTX.

 

Dave already cought it so i'll add that the reference cards were no where near the GTX speeds @ 500 core and 600 memory, which is more like a GT without crippled pipes. You can re-do the math if you like though i fail to see the point.

Once again you're being a bit strange in your statements. Some of the biggest boosts in terms of video graphics acceleration by ATI and Nvidia were before Nvidia SLI and Crossfire were introduced. Case in point Geforce DDR, the 9800 series, the Geforce 2 and 4 series, the X800 series and the 6800 series. All these cards came into the market performing 2/3 to twice as fast as what they were replacing in multiple areas. The G70 chip itself was taped out for production around the time SLI went live (give or take a month or two). The idea that the G70 wouldnt be what it was without SLI is totally false in all accounts.

OEMs were warned of thermal limitations and to add multiple fans to the computers as well as citing at least an 800-1000W PSU in the computer. The whole reason why Nvidia is releasing to OEMs exclusively is because of heat and power issues and this way they can make sure the cards are properly supported. Anyway, i dont see what that matters i was being sarcastic in my statement about heat/power previously.

Incase ya didnt notice, CrossFire and SLI capability were released, and the next top of the line cards released got more expensive starting with nvidia and the 7800GTX launch @ $599-$649 MSRP ATI followed suite. Then Nvidia broke their record again with the 7800GTX 512mb launch at $649-$699. I cant wait till cards get cheaper at launch though as a result of these ultra expensive products and the likes of SLI and Crossfire, you make sure to let me know when that happens okay?

I have lost interest in this thread, not really a topic that interests me as the only thing that we can do is beat around the bush over and over again, so good day.

 

And now I know youre not thinking properly, because you see, I infact *caught it*. But even if I do have to drop the scale a little, its still remarkable that a chip that can out-do a 7800GTX/7900GT is running in such confined space. The 7800GTX scored roughly 7800 in 3dmark05 @ 1024x768, this quad set-up scores about that at 2560x1600. So its getting similar scores at FIVE times the resolution on FOUR boards. Thats pretty good going no matter which way you look at it.

Yes the 7800GTX was $549 and the GTX512 was $649, but as theres a third point on this graph that you so convieniently missed out - the 7900GTX @ $499 - youre trend is not valid. New tech will have helped bring down the price of this refresh, and it will keep the price of the next gen down too.

 

Somebody removed my post pointing out you had amused me that you were arguing with your own quote, maybe this tonded down version will stay up longer ? I think you meant to link to something else. ...

 

Me too, probably running them full speed would probably produce enough heat to melt the coolers in there.

 

Sorry to disappoint you dizietsma, but I wasnt arguing with my own point.... I was simply reiterating something I had already said that both Dave and Sugarcoat decided to pick me up on without seemingly reading my posts. They both jumped on the fact that the quad cards arent as powerful as the GTXs, which I had already said. I was simply quoting myself in the hope that they would read that I had already "covered" myself.

Still laughing?

 

Minor correction: Dave was replying to your price comparison, not your specs comparison.

 

The 7900GT is 24 pipes, i.e no crippled pipes, unlike 7800GT.
________
Ford motor company history