Question about two graphics cards at SLI?

Robert McClelland · Mar 9, 2008, 09:05 PM

Hi I'm thinking about jumping ship when I get my next prebuilt computer to nvidia side. Question 2x nvidia 8500GT 512mb in SLI vs 8800GT 512mb for one card which is faster both slower or just one faster card? I need to know soon that way I know what to get

IEMC · Mar 9, 2008, 09:09 PM

I have a feeling a 8800 GT will destroy those cards in SLI.

AFAIK SLI doesn't make THAT much of an improvement on low-endish / mid-range cards.

BlueMak · Mar 9, 2008, 09:12 PM

I have no idea, but I doubt they even if they are, they will be much faster than a single 8800GT 512.

kris23 · Mar 9, 2008, 09:24 PM

lol......

8800GT man....

Robert McClelland · Mar 9, 2008, 09:29 PM

So your staying one 8800GT is faster then two slower 8500GT? thanks for clearing that up I know which way to go now

Tipstaff · Mar 9, 2008, 09:36 PM

Don't even bother. Take a look at THIS site for single card comparisons, and THIS site for dual/quad card comparisons. Just plug in what cards you want to compare, and with what tests. You will have to compare numbers from each page. It should be noted that there is no mention anywhere about what the test system was on their site, but I can say that scores seem pretty low across the board. I would have to assume that the scores they quote are probably based on the scores they get from the slowest machine they used to do the tests as there is no other explanation for such low scores.

In any case, when in a basic 3DMark 06 test that the 8500GT SLI setup can only muster 2000 Marks, yet a single 8800GT can easily get close to 5000 (and an 8600GT SLI setup can come close to that) on the same program then that should say plenty.

Edit: I personally get over 11,000 Marks on my 8800GT rig, btw.

Take this from someone who did the same thing prior to getting a fast single card: don't bother.

Robert McClelland · Mar 9, 2008, 10:07 PM

ok thanks

I'm plain spend around 1075 or so on my next system I don't need keyboards mice speakers ect.. that should save me some money hehe. To TipStaff for amount of AMD 9600 quad core like stay from cyberpower to compare to intel dual core 2 2.4 system for same price which is faster like amd qaud core? Like I want to know how fast is AMD for the price which you get more then intel side. It's hard to choice my next system lol

Tipstaff · Mar 9, 2008, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert McClelland

ok thanks

I'm plain spend around 1075 or so on my next system I don't need keyboards mice speakers ect.. that should save me some money hehe. To TipStaff for amount of AMD 9600 quad core like stay from cyberpower to compare to intel dual core 2 2.4 system for same price which is faster like amd qaud core? Like I want to know how fast is AMD for the price which you get more then intel side. It's hard to choice my next system lol

To be honest I can't say for sure as I've yet to put my hands on a Phenom. All I have to go on is the plethora of comparison reviews out there. In fact, if you look at the link I gave you to Tom's Hardware you can change the comparison chart for other components, including CPUs right HERE, and their tests cover everything from 3D apps/games to everything in between. A quick plug in of the Phenom 9600 versus the Q6600 (a relatively old quad core CPU), and in a lot of benches the Phenom comes close, but still gets beat by the Q6600. Actually, pretty much every Intel Quad CPU is faster than the Phenom going by the charts at Tom's Hardware in most of the tests.

kris23 · Mar 9, 2008, 11:41 PM

im not gonna touch AMD till they get a real working chip out.......

Tipstaff · Mar 10, 2008, 12:06 AM

It's not really the chip I have a problem with, cuz AMD has fixed that issue, however you won't see the new revisions come out for another couple to few weeks (mind you, the average person won't have an issue with the current chip, so it's just fine for most people). My problem is with the boards. Out of all the people I've talked to that has a Phenom system, one, and only one out of 20 people has a stable system. The chip runs just fine, but only one guy can keep his system running smoothly all because of boards that shouldn't be on the market. Just because it says it's "compatible" with the Phenom doesn't mean it should've be sold as such.

Personally I'd stick with Intel. The price of the Q6600 has come down, and it is the Phenom 9600s direct competitor. In a lot of tests the Q6600 beats the Phenom 9600, is only about $10 more to buy the Q6600, and there are a ton of stable chipsets and boards out there to choose from. Ya, I know, it sounds like I'm an Intel fanboy, and I may be one, but that's not how I operate when giving advice to people. If the Phenom was the better choice I'd tell you, but it's not right now, and won't be for a couple more months. That's when the new revisions of the Phenom come out, and more stable boards will start surfacing at the same time too. Until then I'll keep telling people to buy Intel.

kris23 · Mar 10, 2008, 12:13 AM

yea, thats what i mean, 9700 is around soon but its gonna take awhile for the lower models to get new rev cores. theyre poor OCers currently too.

i knew boards were not that good, but i didnt think there were that many.... gigabyte i hear has a good one.

Robert McClelland · Mar 10, 2008, 01:10 AM

Sorry if I get off topic on my own lol

So another quick question is which is faster core dual 2 3.0 or quad core 2 at 2.4 it's for same price at cyberpower site which cost nothing to upgrade to qaud core ?

if someone ask me that I be happy no more quick questions hehe.

kris23 · Mar 10, 2008, 01:14 AM

quad man... 4 cores any day

Tipstaff · Mar 10, 2008, 01:50 AM

Quad vs. Dual Core. Which one to get? God I love this one. It really depends on what you are going to do on the system, what operating system you are going to run, and what your plans are for how long you are going to keep what you buy.

Here's the way I look at it:

If you are going to stick with XP for a year more, don't go quad. From my experience Quads actually run "overall" worse on XP unless it's XP x64. So, if you are going to stick with XP for a while longer I'd save your money, buy a Core 2, and buy a Quad when you do switch to Vista later on.

If you are going to be buying Vista, buy a Quad. Vista is better able to utilize the extra cores, and it does so more efficiently than XP does. Plus, now that Vista is a more stable operating system, and more and more games are coming out that use more and more cores (such as UT3 and Supreme Commander), it makes more sense to go Quad. If you can't afford it then at the very least build your system with being able to upgrade to a Quad core processor in mind.

BTW, Robert, you didn't mention what OS you were planning on getting.