Which SLI configuration to get? GeForce 7800 GTX 256MB or GeForce 6800 Ultra 512MB?
 

In alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia, User Me ordered an army of hamsters
to type:

Money concerns aside which one is better for playing very graphic
intensive games?




do you want a serious answer? For both performance and quality the 7800's
would be better

256 vs 512 - You need to consider what kind of resolution you'll be
running. Generally, you don't normally need 512 video unless you're running
at some really large resolution. It's really overkill at normal resolution.
Anyone correct me if I'm wrong please....


"Kokoro" wrote in message
...
In alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia, User Me ordered an army of hamsters
to type:

Money concerns aside which one is better for playing very graphic
intensive games?




do you want a serious answer? For both performance and quality the 7800's
would be better

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 03:12:54 GMT, Tom Dauphin wrote:

256 vs 512 - You need to consider what kind of resolution you'll be
running. Generally, you don't normally need 512 video unless you're running
at some really large resolution. It's really overkill at normal resolution.
Anyone correct me if I'm wrong please....


"Kokoro" wrote in message
...
In alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia, User Me ordered an army of hamsters
to type:

Money concerns aside which one is better for playing very graphic
intensive games?




do you want a serious answer? For both performance and quality the 7800's
would be better

Like you need 7800gt x 2, what do you want 20000 frames in doom3, nowbody
needs 2 7800gt's because you won't see any diference runing just one or
two, there is a diference in performance i'm not arguing that but in
pratice you won't see any difference, waste of money IMHO !!!

User Me wrote:

But wouldn't I be "future proofing" my computer by getting the
overkill now which would be equal to more commonplace performance a
few years from now?

No matter how much money you throw at it, any top-of-the-line hardware
you buy now will be yesterday's news in a matter of months. If you
really don't care about money, there is no point in the question, just
buy the fastest and best money can get: two 7800GTX's.

If you care just a tiny bit about money, I'd try and get the best bang
for buck. You can pick up two 6800GT's for almost the same price as one
7800GTX. I know I did. To me there's little point in going for 7800's,
as you won't get double the framerate, and it certainly won't look twice
as good. With two 6800GT's (or Ultra's) you still get enough fps to last
you well into the next generation of games, and by then, you'll be en
route to buying two 8800GTX Ultra's.

If your point is in asking if you need 512MB in stead of 256MB per card:
for now, there isn't much performance increase. By the time you'll need
more memory on the graphics card, you'll be wanting a newer and faster
GPU to go with it.

"User Me" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 14:30:06 +0200, Nikonja wrote:

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 03:12:54 GMT, Tom Dauphin wrote:

256 vs 512 - You need to consider what kind of resolution you'll be
running. Generally, you don't normally need 512 video unless you're
running
at some really large resolution. It's really overkill at normal
resolution.
Anyone correct me if I'm wrong please....


"Kokoro" wrote in message
...
In alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia, User Me ordered an army of
hamsters
to type:

Money concerns aside which one is better for playing very graphic
intensive games?




do you want a serious answer? For both performance and quality the
7800's
would be better

Like you need 7800gt x 2, what do you want 20000 frames in doom3, nowbody
needs 2 7800gt's because you won't see any diference runing just one or
two, there is a diference in performance i'm not arguing that but in
pratice you won't see any difference, waste of money IMHO !!!


But wouldn't I be "future proofing" my computer by getting the
overkill now which would be equal to more commonplace performance a
few years from now?




The problem with future proofing, especially to such a long distance ('a few
years'), is that PC hardware changes so much. I think it's better to have
the option for upgradeability over the next 6-12-18 months. By this, I mean
buying a top of the range mobo, and a cpu in the 'next range' but relatively
'slow'. For instance, I'm going to get an ASUS A8N-SLI, Athlong64 3000+
Venice, 1gig Dual DDR400, and a 6800GT 256MB. I'll keep all my old existing
hard-disks and cd drives. This way in 6 months time I can upgrade my vid
card to either a 7800GTX, or dual 7600s or 7200s, even dual 6800GTs or
something. Or I could upgrade my CPU. And later on I can buy another gig of
RAM if I reckon I need it. There are always heaps of options. Also consider
in a few years time the 7800GTX will be considered the same as, what, an
nVid 5xxx or ATI 8xxx series card. So you'll wanna buy the best possible
again. Buy buying the best each time around, you're missing out on the best
possible performance because you can't buy better stuff as it's released.
You're stuck with what you bought several years ago.

Sure OTT futureproofing will results in more 'commonplace' performance, but
you're right in that won't be for a few years! Until then, you'll just have
overkill, and you'll have wasted your money.

IMHO, it's far better to buy middle-to-top range components and upgrade them
every 6 months or so. This way you're always on the 'bleeding-edge' of
technology, but you're not wasting your money on overkill. Unless you
require these parts professionally, it's pointless.

Also consider that buying 2 7800GTXs means you will be RAM and/or CPU bound.
So unless you can also afford the highest, fastest possible CPU (which would
probably top the AUD800-1000 mark - enough for the computer I described
above), and 4 GBs of RAM, once again, it's pointless. And there aren't
enough games out there that require that much gaming power!

Anyway....those are my suggestions.

If you want to futureproof to a great extent, either buy a single 7800GTX,
or wait for the 7800 Ultra. Lots more ram, and a top-end CPU.

I just looked at a review done at www.tomshardware.com on SLI/6800/7800.
Their conclusion was that 2x7800 in SLI mode was the way for any serious
gamer to go.

However, in every benchmark I saw except for the 3Dmarks ones, the 7800 SLI
setup produced fewer fps than a 7800 in single mode. I can't understand
why they push the SLI mode 7800 setup.