# 3-Way NVIDIA SLI Takes Extreme Gaming To A Whole New Level



## malware (Dec 13, 2007)

Extreme gaming just got a whole lot better. NVIDIA Corporation has extended its SLI technology, which enables the use of multiple graphics processing units (GPUs) on a single computer, allowing up to three GeForce graphics cards to be used in a single machine. Now hot, new, graphics-intensive titles, such as Call of Duty 4, Company of Heroes Opposing Fronts, Enemy Territory: Quake Wars, and Unreal Tournament 3, can be played at the highest resolution possible, with all the graphics settings cranked to the max, and antialiasing applied for the first time.






NVIDIA's new 3-way SLI delivers up to a 2.8x performance increase over a single GPU system, giving high-end gamers 60 frames per second at resolutions as high as 2560x1600 and with 8x antialiasing. 3-way SLI technology means you no longer have to dial back the image quality settings on the newest PC games. For example, gamers with 3-way SLI can play Crysis at high resolutions such as 1920x1200 with all the advanced DirectX 10 effects such as motion blur, ambient occlusion, and soft shadows turned on.

"The new crop of PC games offers stunning visuals. And for truly immersive game play with all the eye candy you need to play on a PC with a lot of graphics horse power," said Ujesh Desai, general manager of GeForce desktop GPUs at NVIDIA. "3-way SLI produces stunning visuals, pristine image quality, and a truly awesome gaming experience."

"Alienware delivers the most advanced technology with the highest performing metrics on our award-winning systems," says Marc Diana, product marketing manager for Alienware. "We are very excited to offer 3-way NVIDIA SLI as a way for our customers to fully experience the rich, life-like environments of today's next-generation games at their top settings."

The heart of a 3-way SLI system is an NVIDIA nForce 680 SLI MCP motherboard and three GeForce 8800 GTX or GeForce 8800 Ultra graphics cards. With 3-way SLI, gamers can harness the power of 384 stream processors, a 110+ gigatexel per second texture fill rate, and over two gigabytes of graphics memory for no-compromise gaming performance. 

3-way SLI gives gamers the flexibility to scale their graphics processing power with one, two, or three GeForce GPUs, depending on their desired price and system configuration. 3-way SLI systems are available from leading gaming PC system builders and the components needed to build your own 3-way SLI system are available from leading retailers. For a list of system builders or to see a complete list of NVIDIA 3-way SLI certified components, please visit http://www.slizone.com. For further information on NVIDIA SLI technology, nForce MCPs or the GeForce 8 Series GPUs, please visit http://www.nvidia.com.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## mascaras (Dec 13, 2007)

only 8800GTX or Ultra work  in tri-SLi (8800GT dont work) 

 3x 8800GTX = 1500€  

 and a minimum of 1200W PSU its required ( ~270€)  

total = ~1800€ (only for PSU and VGAs)  


in my opinion the ideia of Tri-Sli its not for High end-cards  


regards


----------



## craigwhiteside (Dec 13, 2007)

they said sli was going to give twice the performance and we all know how that turned out lol


----------



## jocksteeluk (Dec 13, 2007)

the funny thing is you can play a console based on old gpu technology looking just as good for a third of the price and a third of the energy, on plus point though a 2.8 of 3 cards efficiency is very impressive.


----------



## bcracer220 (Dec 13, 2007)

i guess if ur running at some insane resolution like 2560 by 1600 it may be worth it, dont see it  being of use anywhere else =P


----------



## DaMulta (Dec 13, 2007)

It won't look just as good....


----------



## cdawall (Dec 13, 2007)

yea how long before someone mods the drivers for the 8800GT to work in tri?


----------



## intel igent (Dec 13, 2007)

mascaras said:


> only 8800GTX or Ultra work  in tri-SLi (8800GT dont work)
> 
> 3x 8800GTX = 1500€
> 
> ...



a waste of money if you ask me


----------



## craigwhiteside (Dec 13, 2007)

ya, wouldnt suprise me since 8800gt are just one of the 9000 series cards in disguise , and they are supposed to support tri-sli


----------



## snuif09 (Dec 13, 2007)

why just spend time in creating a gpu that can do that stuff alone
now you dont have any room a soundblaster or a physx card.

i must say pc's are big and mostly ugly look at an xbox 360 it has nice graphics(not as nice as a pc tough)but its still looking good and its small.(that most pc's dont look good is'nt actully my problem and i have a thermaltake armor soon)


----------



## Easy Rhino (Dec 13, 2007)

wow...all that money. or you could spend 500 bucks on a ps3 and never have to upgrade until 2011


----------



## 0elemental0 (Dec 13, 2007)

better yet....im sure there would be no cpu bottleneck at all


----------



## Batou1986 (Dec 13, 2007)

0elemental0 said:


> better yet....im sure there would be no cpu bottleneck at all



hence the 2.8x performance cause we all know 1+1=3


----------



## Scrizz (Dec 13, 2007)

the price for being on top, eh?


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Dec 13, 2007)

Ya reckon its 3x the performance then?

Waste of money.


----------



## crow1001 (Dec 13, 2007)

Just plain stupid of Nvidia this, i could understand them pushing it with the cheaper cards but this is just a dumb gimmick which will die on its ass.


----------



## panchoman (Dec 13, 2007)

better off with quad x-firing 3870's, i bet this setup will have overheating problems, 3 dual slot cards which run preety hot sucking in hot air from the next to cool itself, and the bottom one be sucking very limited air from the floor of the case. whereas the hd3x series runs very cool and single slot coolers allow the coolers to breathe.


----------



## Grimskull (Dec 13, 2007)

how are you supposed to connect anything to the motherboard...those cards are huge and hang over it..... covering all of the conenction ports.

Anyone remember my thread about the nuclear power plants been shipped with AMD/ATI Spyder platforms???????. you gonna need one for that!!!! if not two powerplants to power it up!


----------



## DarkMatter (Dec 13, 2007)

Easy Rhino said:


> wow...all that money. or you could spend 500 bucks on a ps3 and never have to upgrade until 2011



Or you could buy something like HD3850 or 8800GT 256 for 180, have way better graphics than PS3/XB360 and never NEED to upgrade until 2011... That is, if you want to stay on a fixed graphical level, you can do it just on PC too. Of course you won't be able to play the newest games at highest settings, but you know what? They will still be better than on consoles. Remember that new game engines are multiplatform, new PC games could contain the console version (in terms of graphical features, texture quality, detail...), so even if PC is way better and needs a lot of horsepower, there could always be the posibility to play at PS3/XB360 if developers want to. So start asking them in this regards. Personally I like the idea of evolution so I don't care about upgrades. On the other hand IMHO Tri SLI  and Quad XFire is a stupid idea. Even SLI/Crossfire is stupid from a performance/price standpoint, by the time SLI is really needed, the new generation of cards is out. Until then you can always overclock. Nowadays take Crysis out of the ecuation and even HD3850 and 8800GT are overkill, specially if what you want to do is playing at 720p with low AA and AF settings.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Dec 13, 2007)

Supposedly the 8800GT's will have software interconnects. Like some of the HD2600/2400's in crossfire.


----------



## panchoman (Dec 13, 2007)

Grimskull said:


> how are you supposed to connect anything to the motherboard...those cards are huge and hang over it..... covering all of the conenction ports.
> 
> Anyone remember my thread about the nuclear power plants been shipped with AMD/ATI Spyder platforms???????. you gonna need one for that!!!! if not two powerplants to power it up!



spider is actually preety damn energy efficent. hd3x are easily run passive and require very little cooling, infact, the card runs passive on stock cooling when its idling, and then fan kicks  in at like 30% at full load. 790fx is also a very energy efficent chip, correct me if im wrong, but its got a nice small die (55nm?) and requires little voltage. phenoms are also built for energy efficency (instead of performance it seems), and cool n quiet 2 and stuff really makes phenoms very very energy efficent, much more then penryn i believe. so spider is a very efficent platform, and you shouldn't have a problem with quad fire on it, but you might have trouble tri-sliing

edit: http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/10/11/amd-790fx-eats-8w


----------



## steelkane (Dec 13, 2007)

I agree to many cards in one system, I'm sure sometime in the future, One card will do the work of 3. I guess from that you could either love it or hate it,, & just wait & see. If we live that long.


----------



## W1zzard (Dec 13, 2007)

dont forget added cost for 680i chipset motherboard to be able to run 3 cards. anyone actually want to use a non-intel chipset for their high-performance system?


----------



## jydie (Dec 13, 2007)

I honestly think that SLI and Crossfire are overkill for a majority of the PC users.  That being said, I feel that this would be something only the extreme PC users will be interested in.  As for people saying how wonderful the PS3 and XBOX 360 look... they are running at much lower resolutions then current video cards are capable of running.  So, you are not really comparing on equal terms.  I do not own a PS3 or XBOX 360, but I doubt they run games at a resolution above 1024 x  768 (1280 x 720 for widescreen).  I am sure that my ATI 2600 XT can do better then that... and I put my system together for less then $400.  PC gaming is never going to pass up the consoles because people think they need to spend $1000+ on a gaming PC that will compare to the PS3 or XBOX 360.  We need to have one of the big PC makers to introduce a decent gaming PC with a $500-$600 price tag.  With the new ATI 3850 and Nvidia 8800GT (256MB model) this is within reach.

One big negative aspect about PC gaming on a new system... Windows Vista.


----------



## panchoman (Dec 13, 2007)

W1zzard said:


> dont forget added cost for 680i chipset motherboard to be able to run 3 cards. anyone actually want to use a non-intel chipset for their high-performance system?



well 790fx for the amd platform... but yeah, on intel platform im with intel chipsets. 780 seems like crap, rumor is the southbridge to the 780 is a 680 and the 780 boards will be using an ati chip on there for cfx and all kinds of crap. i dont even know what the hell the 780 chip is anymore


----------



## Easy Rhino (Dec 13, 2007)

DarkMatter said:


> Or you could buy something like HD3850 or 8800GT 256 for 180, have way better graphics than PS3/XB360 and never NEED to upgrade until 2011... That is, if you want to stay on a fixed graphical level, you can do it just on PC too. Of course you won't be able to play the newest games at highest settings



i dont know who told you that but the 8800gt on a quad core system will not come close to ps3 graphics and performance. id also like to add that you will be replacing the 8800 gt in a year when you realize all the games in late 2008 will cripple it and you will be playing it at barely 30 fps at 1024x768 and maybe 2x AA.  with consoles the game developers actually work on improving game coding rather than just rely on the consumer to shell out 300 bucks for a new gpu every 1.5 years.


----------



## Sent1nel (Dec 13, 2007)

Easy Rhino said:


> with consoles the game developers actually work on improving game coding rather than just rely on the consumer to shell out 300 bucks for a new gpu every 1.5 years.



Yea you got that one right. However even with more optimised code for consoles, the PC with its updated hardware will be a lot less limited as to what can be done in the game giving coders the ability to explore further unique graphical effects and game concepts.

The PC is great for gaming on but due to heavy over bearing operating systems and a needless over protective system kernal (which is designed to protect the hardware from poor codeing or code that is designed to access older hardware) games on the PC will never run as well as they do on a console simply becuase most PC setups are different.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Dec 13, 2007)

Sent1nel said:


> Yea you got that one right. However even with more optimised code for consoles, the PC with its updated hardware will be a lot less limited as to what can be done in the game giving coders the ability to explore further unique graphical effects and game concepts.
> 
> The PC is great for gaming on but due to heavy over bearing operating systems and a needless over protective system kernal (which is designed to protect the hardware from poor codeing or code that is designed to access older hardware) games on the PC will never run as well as they do on a console simply becuase most PC setups are different.



exactly! which is why i stopped gaming on the PC. that, and im tired of upgrading every 6 months.


----------



## DarkMatter (Dec 13, 2007)

Easy Rhino said:


> i dont know who told you that but the 8800gt on a quad core system will not come close to ps3 graphics and performance. id also like to add that you will be replacing the 8800 gt in a year when you realize all the games in late 2008 will cripple it and you will be playing it at barely 30 fps at 1024x768 and maybe 2x AA.  with consoles the game developers actually work on improving game coding rather than just rely on the consumer to shell out 300 bucks for a new gpu every 1.5 years.



I don't need anyone to tell me how powerful consoles are. I know a lot better than you it seems. I just need to look at their specs to know (because me and many here know something about hardware, something that is clear you don't) that the PS3 has a 7900M GTX as GPU with integrated northbridge in it and XB360's Xenos is nothing else than something similar to R600 with 48 SPs instead of 64 and running at 500Mhz instead of 743Mhz. A Core2 Duo 6400 is clearly more powerful than XB360 CPU (Xenon or it was the other way round? Can't remember who's who) and don't make me start to talk about Cell. 
The bottom line is: A quad core with 8800GT is like 2-3 times more powerfull than consoles. 

And what I will do on 2008 only the time will tell. Maybe upgrade, maybe not and play on lower (but still better than consoles) settings, maybe I don't care anymore about games (j/k). But I will have the chance to decide and 300 bucks left (500-200), instead being condemned to play on a crappy console that is miles away from what PCs can offer.


----------



## DarkMatter (Dec 13, 2007)

DarkMatter said:


> I don't need anyone to tell me how powerful consoles are. I know a lot better than you it seems. I just need to look at their specs to know (because me and many here know something about hardware, something that is clear you don't) that the PS3 has a 7900M GTX as GPU with integrated northbridge in it and XB360's Xenos is nothing else than something similar to R600 with 48 SPs instead of 64 and running at 500Mhz instead of 743Mhz. A Core2 Duo 6400 is clearly more powerful than XB360 CPU (Xenon or it was the other way round? Can't remember who's who) and don't make me start to talk about Cell.
> The bottom line is: A quad core with 8800GT is like 2-3 times more powerfull than consoles.
> 
> And what I will do on 2008 only the time will tell. Maybe upgrade, maybe not and play on lower (but still better than consoles) settings, maybe I don't care anymore about games (j/k). But I will have the chance to decide and 300 bucks left (500-200), instead being condemned to play on a crappy console that is miles away from what PCs can offer.



EDIT: I forgot about your last sentence. You don't need to upgrade every 1.5 years and by no means you need to spend 300 bucks. And as I said if you want PS3 level graphics you don't need nothing more than a HD3850. That card will ensure better graphics than "next gen" consoles, now and in 2011.

EDIT2: Ups! I clicked on quote instead of edit. Sorry


----------



## InitialG (Dec 13, 2007)

jydie said:


> I do not own a PS3 or XBOX 360, but I doubt they run games at a resolution above 1024 x  768 (1280 x 720 for widescreen).


both actually run 1080p at max, which is 1920x1080

they don't need near as much power since games are optimized for exactly the same hardware


----------



## DarkMatter (Dec 13, 2007)

InitialG said:


> both actually run 1080p at max, which is 1920x1080
> 
> they don't need near as much power since games are optimized for exactly the same hardware



Most games run at 720p. And most of the ones that run at 1080p are rendered at much lower resolutions and then upconverted to 1080p.

The second sentence was true back when consoles didn't use PC hardware and sofware to run games. Today most games on PC are as optimized as console ones, at least the good ones.


----------



## ktr (Dec 13, 2007)

http://www.gemaga.com/2007/12/12/over-1800-in-video-cards-to-run-crysis-on-very-high#more-286

(8800ultra x 3) + (Crysis @ max) = average of 35fps > 60fps = FAIL!


----------



## Easy Rhino (Dec 13, 2007)

DarkMatter said:


> I don't need anyone to tell me how powerful consoles are. I know a lot better than you it seems. I just need to look at their specs to know (because me and many here know something about hardware, something that is clear you don't) that the PS3 has a 7900M GTX as GPU with integrated northbridge in it and XB360's Xenos is nothing else than something similar to R600 with 48 SPs instead of 64 and running at 500Mhz instead of 743Mhz. A Core2 Duo 6400 is clearly more powerful than XB360 CPU (Xenon or it was the other way round? Can't remember who's who) and don't make me start to talk about Cell.
> The bottom line is: A quad core with 8800GT is like 2-3 times more powerfull than consoles.
> 
> And what I will do on 2008 only the time will tell. Maybe upgrade, maybe not and play on lower (but still better than consoles) settings, maybe I don't care anymore about games (j/k). But I will have the chance to decide and 300 bucks left (500-200), instead being condemned to play on a crappy console that is miles away from what PCs can offer.



you clearly do not know as much about hardware as you think you do. you simply can't compare a ps3 to a pc by comparing the hardware, silly.  you see, you need the windows operating system if you want to play your PC games. that in itself dramatically reduces the power of your components. then you have the games for PC that are generally terribly coded and make the cpu and gpu work extra hard to process information. these are 2 basic things. the console is designed for games. coders write specifically for the hardware. there is no bloated OS to cripple the processor.


----------



## DarkMatter (Dec 13, 2007)

Easy Rhino said:


> you clearly do not know as much about hardware as you think you do. you simply can't compare a ps3 to a pc by comparing the hardware, silly.  you see, you need the windows operating system if you want to play your PC games. that in itself dramatically reduces the power of your components. then you have the games for PC that are generally terribly coded and make the cpu and gpu work extra hard to process information. these are 2 basic things. the console is designed for games. coders write specifically for the hardware. there is no bloated OS to cripple the processor.



It's clear that I know a LOT MORE than you. I'm not saying consoles are not better optimized, Isay that the performance loss that happens because of the software implementation is not as big as tha power difference. I say PCs have evolved that much since consoles came out, that now you can buy for 150$ a card which is more powerful than consoles, when the performance loss of software has been taken out. Let me put it simple. Look at my specs. My graphics card 7900GTX it's the same as the PS3 one, same core. The difference is that mine runs at 700MHz and in PS3 runs at 500Mhz. That's a 40% difference, that gets mitigated by the software, so they come closer. Still I play COD4, Bioshock, UT3, GOW, Jericho and many other new titles at max setting (that are higher than on consoles, specially textures) at 1280x960 8X aniso, and I get 30+ fps all the time. Not really bad for a 2 years old card, isn't it?


----------



## Easy Rhino (Dec 13, 2007)

DarkMatter said:


> It's clear that I know a LOT MORE than you. I'm not saying consoles are not better optimized, Isay that the performance loss that happens because of the software implementation is not as big as tha power difference. I say PCs have evolved that much since consoles came out, that now you can buy for 150$ a card which is more powerful than consoles, when the performance loss of software has been taken out. Let me put it simple. Look at my specs. My graphics card 7900GTX it's the same as the PS3 one, same core. The difference is that mine runs at 700MHz and in PS3 runs at 500Mhz. That's a 40% difference, that gets mitigated by the software, so they come closer. Still I play COD4, Bioshock, UT3, GOW, Jericho and many other new titles at max setting (that are higher than on consoles, specially textures) at 1280x960 8X aniso, and I get 30+ fps all the time. Not really bad for a 2 years old card, isn't it?



yea, but your pc isnt optimized to run games like the ps3. so i dont see your point. the ps3 simply is not comparable to a pc. the architecture of the cell processor, the board components and engineering of the circuits to pass info from the gpu. it is all built to work as one. the pc needs to load a bloated operating system and then it needs to use power to strip away useless code just to get a game running at 30 fps. again, stop trying to compare the 2.


----------



## DarkMatter (Dec 13, 2007)

Easy Rhino said:


> yea, but your pc isnt optimized to run games like the ps3. so i dont see your point. the ps3 simply is not comparable to a pc. the architecture of the cell processor, the board components and engineering of the circuits to pass info from the gpu. it is all built to work as one. the pc needs to load a bloated operating system and then it needs to use power to strip away useless code just to get a game running at 30 fps. again, stop trying to compare the 2.



I would say again. Look at my specs. If consoles are so much better runing on the same hardware level and PS3 is so better than my computer (you said that when you said it's better than Quads and 8800GT ---> Core2 Q6600 = 2X-3X my CPU, 8800GT = 2X my GPU), then why I am able to play the newer games at much higher settings than on consoles? The answer is simple, and since you know that much about software you should guess it. The "consoles are way better optimized than PCs" thing died with heavy use of Shaders that came with DX9.0c and last OpenGL. With SM 3.0 the requisites became more tight, so pretty much all the hardware does everything in the same way, it just does faster or slower. So you don't have to program for lots of different hardware, you just have to make it to scalable. All new game engines are scalable, and BTW multiplatform, which means that the same engine is used in PC, PS3 and XB360, and some are even making them run on Wii. So that has changed, the way you program games is the same, it's when applying details when you have to take into account the performance of the platform you are programing for. And with DX10, when well implemented, this is going to get even better.

EDIT: I have just read again your post above and noticed your first sentence. When I first read the post I didn't take that into account, but it's really funny, indeed. The Cell and PS3 by extension is really bad optimized or constructed to run games. It excels at streaming media or calculating molecules in Folding@Home, but is really crappy when it comes to games. In order to take some advantage of Cell a lot (and when I say alot I mean 10x normal CPUs) of resource management, code optimizations and tweaking and still the CPU is not as good as Quads for gaming. The reason is simple, the Cell's SPEs can't make conditional or branching instructions, they are only good at crunching numbers. That makes the Cell really weak, even 3x weaker than XB360 in AI programing and gameplay oriented physics (which is the same reason for game developers not widely supporting Ageia). If especifically programmed for that, Cell could run some shaders to simulate leaves on the trees move with the wind, for example. But you can't make those leaves interact with the player as in Crysis. For that you need branching power which Cell lacks bad.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Dec 13, 2007)

lets see. compare the ps2 when it came out 6 years ago with a pc that is 6 years old. you cant play todays low end games on 6 year old pc but they are still coding games for the ps2 which look way better than a 6 year old pc, hell a 2 year old pc. the same thing will happen with the ps3.


----------



## effmaster (Dec 13, 2007)

Easy Rhino said:


> with consoles the game developers actually work on improving game coding rather than just rely on the consumer to shell out 300 bucks for a new gpu every 1.5 years.



Couldnt have said it better myself


----------



## niko084 (Dec 13, 2007)

So curious now whats better.... 3x 8800 Ultra's for an insane price or 4x HD3870's for quite a bit cheaper?

Ati is winning this who "can" go faster game, but these designs are practically useless, most people don't even go with two cards, let alone three or four.

Lets get back to reality here graphics card manufacturer's and make something that works well, draws less power, and doesn't require 2-3-4 of them.


----------



## DarkMatter (Dec 13, 2007)

Easy Rhino said:


> lets see. compare the ps2 when it came out 6 years ago with a pc that is 6 years old. you cant play todays low end games on 6 year old pc but they are still coding games for the ps2 which look way better than a 6 year old pc, hell a 2 year old pc. the same thing will happen with the ps3.



6 years old PC can't, 4 years old can. 2 Years old PC is mine, and it can play everything at Max except Crysis. Back in 2004, almost 4 years ago, with a 6 years old PC (bought in May 2002 for 900€) I could run Farcry, Doom3 on medium/high and HalfLife2 at Max. Farcry/HalfLife2/Doom3 PC on medium >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any PS2 game. What's your point?

And you are right the same will happen with the PS3. 
2008 PC games will demostrate this. Crysis demostrates this now.

EDIT: Anyway, it's funny how you went from "console hardware is better" to developers optimize better on lesser hardware on consoles" to "they continue making games on legacy hardware" (even if they are not offering nothing new and are crap compared to next gen).


----------



## ktr (Dec 13, 2007)

Aren't CPUs meant for number crunching? Isn't AI and physic the result of numbers which yields a certain output depending on the software?


----------



## DarkMatter (Dec 13, 2007)

ktr said:


> Aren't CPUs meant for number crunching? Isn't AI and physic the result of numbers which yields a certain output depending on the software?



No. There's a lot more than number crunching in computing. I don't have the time (nor the will) to explain this further.

EDIT: Ok I have some spare time now (and some will I suppose). I'm assisting my father in remodeling my home.

Modern CPUs rely on SIMD instructions to output heavy crunching numbers. Simple Instruction Multiple Data, means you can give the instruction of Multiply and then give 20 numer pairs to multiply. Instead of MUL, numbers, MUL, numbers, MUL... you get it.
General purpose CPUs have also similar (in the way it works) branching capabilities. That means  that for one "if a < b" (hope you know some programing) many operations are made, but you only need to address one instruction. Cell SPEs lack this, so even if possible, given the fact that would need to address all the operations, you would saturate caches and  bandwidth, in addition to go into madness in the complexity of the program you would need to make.


----------



## tkpenalty (Dec 13, 2007)

Nvidia really need to fix up the ultra's cooler, the one in the middle will fry!


----------



## niko084 (Dec 13, 2007)

tkpenalty said:


> Nvidia really need to fix up the ultra's cooler, the one in the middle will fry!



Guess they will have to get water cooling or TEC..


----------



## effmaster (Dec 13, 2007)

niko084 said:


> Guess they will have to get water cooling or TEC..



Or how about they come up with  a Graphics card with the exact same specs but with a lower power requirement. An 800 watt PSU should be the max rerquirement for any dual graphics card setup no matter what. Anything further and they can count me out because then the electric bill gets too high for me.


----------



## newconroer (Dec 13, 2007)

It's not hard to imagine that releasing the GT and GTS at this time was as planned, to give us an idea of where the architecture of their GPUs is heading. At the same time, by doing so, they've degraded the value of the GTX/ULTRA. They then inform us that the TRI-SLI project will only be available through the GTX/ULTRA, which gives that product line a last foot hold in the market. 


That being said, it doesn't seem like TRI-SLI's glory will be achieved by the current 'flagship' GTX/ULTRA. Rather that they're introducing it to us now, to keep the GTX/ULTRA in rotation, and we'll see better examples of "TRI-SLI" when the newer cards are launched.


And yes, this kind of stuff might seem like overkill, but if you want the best money can buy...



Besides, without stuff like this, we wouldn't be able to keep making useless threads about Shamino and other L2N or nitrogen overclockers, because they wouldn't have the newest top end hardware!

Oh the horror....


----------



## ccleorina (Dec 13, 2007)

Wow... Nvidia did try to rocks games....


----------



## cdawall (Dec 14, 2007)

ok if NV is only doing tri-sli why do boards like the ASUS L1N64-SLI WS Dual L have 4xsli slots 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131146


----------



## Fitseries3 (Dec 14, 2007)

where do i sign up to get a tri-sli bridge for my 680i?


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Dec 14, 2007)

cdawall said:


> ok if NV is only doing tri-sli why do boards like the ASUS L1N64-SLI WS Dual L have 4xsli slots
> 
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131146



teh ppu?


----------



## cdawall (Dec 14, 2007)

[I.R.A]_FBi said:


> teh ppu?



you are spending money on 3 god damn cards and you still have to get a PPU?!?!?! what a a waste of money that they cant incorp it into the cards!


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Dec 14, 2007)

Wow a whooping 1 PCI slot...  I use 2 so...  there goes that.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Dec 14, 2007)

I think he means Tri-SLI with an Ageia PhysX PCI-e based ppu.


----------



## craigwhiteside (Dec 14, 2007)

that sure is a scary looking motherboard


----------



## cdawall (Dec 14, 2007)

JrRacinFan said:


> I think he means Tri-SLI with an Ageia PhysX PCI-e based ppu.



i sitll dont see why they cant just add it to one of the NV cards? ATi cards can function as a PPU why cant NV do the same thing?


----------



## craigwhiteside (Dec 14, 2007)

maybe because nvidia is brewing something dark and sinister for physics processing


----------



## Fitseries3 (Dec 14, 2007)

if you water cool your 8800gtx/ultras the only take up one slot each if you use the right water block.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Dec 14, 2007)

fitseries3 said:


> if you water cool your 8800gtx/ultras the only take up one slot each if you use the right water block.



so in addition to buying 3 ultras, a PSU to power them, ill have to buy 3 water blocks and tubing and associated rads and pumps?

its for teh very rich.


----------



## surfsk8snow.jah (Dec 14, 2007)

Ok so far I completely agree with everything in this post, in that buying a new system with 3x GPU in Tri-SLI is ridiculous. HOWEVER, think of the possibility for potential upgrade in the future (if you're not one who buys a brand new GPU every 3-6mo). 
Say I start my build with  (1) 8800gtx. In a year, when the price for 8800gtx is down by 1/2-1/3 the current price, I buy a second, and put them in SLI. This brings my graphics up to 1.7x what it was before, for less than half the price of a new card. Then in 2 years, I buy a third 8800gtx for 1/4 of the original price or less, and have 2.8x my original graphics capability. 

That is, instead of buying a brand new video card for the same original price each year that gives me about 1.5x-2x my previous graphics. $875/3years vs $1500/3years; almost half the $.

I think people are missing the logical possibility for upgrade.

It's still stupid that it would take up all your PCI slots, and all the room in your Case. I had a hard enough time as it is fitting my firewire, usb, and audio header cables around my 8800gtx w/ Thermalright Hr-03+ =/

As far as cooling, very impractical. They should create an air cooler designed for cooling 3x cards. I'm sure Thermalright's thinking something up right now for it, and it'll have 20 heat pipes haha.

And as far as Nvidia goes, they're really smart in doing this, because what did it cost them: Creation, No MODification of an existing sli driver, and the production of a Triple Connector (vs the current double connector). This was SUPER cheap for them to do, took very little of their design/programming/marketing time, so why not for them? Gains>Cost.
Practicality for the consumer, little.


----------



## DarkMatter (Dec 14, 2007)

surfsk8snow.jah said:


> Ok so far I completely agree with everything in this post, in that buying a new system with 3x GPU in Tri-SLI is ridiculous. HOWEVER, think of the possibility for potential upgrade in the future (if you're not one who buys a brand new GPU every 3-6mo).
> Say I start my build with  (1) 8800gtx. In a year, when the price for 8800gtx is down by 1/2-1/3 the current price, I buy a second, and put them in SLI. This brings my graphics up to 1.7x what it was before, for less than half the price of a new card. Then in 2 years, I buy a third 8800gtx for 1/4 of the original price or less, and have 2.8x my original graphics capability.
> 
> That is, instead of buying a brand new video card for the same original price each year that gives me about 1.5x-2x my previous graphics. $875/3years vs $1500/3years; almost half the $.
> ...



You are right there. It's just that most of us count the money that we can get for the old one. So it's more like ---> 500+(500-250)+(500-250) so that would be 1000 for a 4x increase in total (following the trend lately, 2x increase each gen).
The others, just as me, have 3 PCs that are subsequentialy upgraded, when I upgrade the main PC the part replaced goes to the second one that is used to play older online games like CSS. The third one is at town where we go some weekends. The one replaced in this one is for non gamer friends or family, that pay me the gift with many things money can't buy.


----------



## Fitseries3 (Dec 14, 2007)

it just sucks they couldn't have released this a year ago when the 680i was still new. here we are less than 6 months away from the 9800gtx and they release TRI-SLI. it will be insane to see 3x 9800gtx's in tri-sli. are we gonna see 300+FPS in crysis by this time next year?


----------



## AsRock (Dec 14, 2007)

I'll beleave it works as good they say it does when i see some hard facts that it does.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Dec 14, 2007)

DarkMatter said:


> 6 years old PC can't, 4 years old can. 2 Years old PC is mine, and it can play everything at Max except Crysis. Back in 2004, almost 4 years ago, with a 6 years old PC (bought in May 2002 for 900€) I could run Farcry, Doom3 on medium/high and HalfLife2 at Max. Farcry/HalfLife2/Doom3 PC on medium >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any PS2 game. What's your point?
> 
> And you are right the same will happen with the PS3.
> 2008 PC games will demostrate this. Crysis demostrates this now.
> ...




i dont know how we got down this road  i think that for games consoles are the better choice because that is what they are made for and you dont have to shell out money to upgrade every year to keep up with the best graphics. with the ps3 you get great graphics at 60 fps for the next 5 years AND ps3 games will continue to improve as more developers become familiar with the cell processor. i dont necessarily think console hardware is better, but i do think that it has an advantage because of how it is engineered. the ps2 was and still is an amazing console for the money. you dont need tri sli to play fun games. most games for the PC are coded terribly and hamper the ability of the PC. that doesnt happen nearly as much with consoles. the ps3, from what ive heard developers say, is very hard to code for because of the cell processor but at this point the possibilities are limitless. and i dont think you can fairly compare a PC that has the same gpu as the ps3. obviously there are far more to it than that. and i still dont think a PC from 4 years ago competes on the level of ps2 games from 2003. just no chance. look at metal gear solid 3 and tell me a 4 year old pc can play that on high settings. anyway, i digress. in my eyes id rather pay 500 bucks for a system that does HD gaming and not have to upgrade for the next 5 years than pay 2000 for a top end system that will not be able to play top end games above 30 fps next year.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Dec 14, 2007)

but then after x amount of years you'd have 3 outdated heatpumps in ur pc ...


----------



## DarkMatter (Dec 14, 2007)

Easy Rhino said:


> i dont know how we got down this road  i think that for games consoles are the better choice because that is what they are made for and you dont have to shell out money to upgrade every year to keep up with the best graphics. with the ps3 you get great graphics at 60 fps for the next 5 years AND ps3 games will continue to improve as more developers become familiar with the cell processor. i dont necessarily think console hardware is better, but i do think that it has an advantage because of how it is engineered. the ps2 was and still is an amazing console for the money. you dont need tri sli to play fun games. most games for the PC are coded terribly and hamper the ability of the PC. that doesnt happen nearly as much with consoles. the ps3, from what ive heard developers say, is very hard to code for because of the cell processor but at this point the possibilities are limitless. and i dont think you can fairly compare a PC that has the same gpu as the ps3. obviously there are far more to it than that. and i still dont think a PC from 4 years ago competes on the level of ps2 games from 2003. just no chance. look at metal gear solid 3 and tell me a 4 year old pc can play that on high settings. anyway, i digress. in my eyes id rather pay 500 bucks for a system that does HD gaming and not have to upgrade for the next 5 years than pay 2000 for a top end system that will not be able to play top end games above 30 fps next year.



Man you are worrying me. 
You must be totally blind if you tell me Metal Gear Solid 3 has better graphics than DOOM3, Farcry, HL2 or FEAR for example. I played those at mostly everything high with the PC purchased in 2002 for 900€:
P4 2.5Ghz, GF4800, 1024MB DDR. Hell even RTCWolfenstein or No One Lives Forever >>>>>>>>>>MGS3. And played them on Athlon TBird 1Ghz, Voodoo3, 512MB ddr.
That and the fact that PS2 games didn't improve to my eyes in the last 4 years.

Another one, consoles at 60FPS?????  Look them ROFLing. 
And bad coding on PC vs superb in consoles? In which world do you live my friend? Last time I checked most next gen console games have needed a patch to work propperly, just as PC ones. 

And if you tell me PS3 and XB360 do HD... Well, I suppose I've been doing HD gaming since 1997 on PC.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Dec 14, 2007)

DarkMatter said:


> Man you are worrying me.
> You must be totally blind if you tell me Metal Gear Solid 3 has better graphics than DOOM3, Farcry, HL2 or FEAR for example. I played those at mostly everything high with the PC purchased in 2002 for 900€:
> P4 2.5Ghz, GF4800, 1024MB DDR. Hell even RTCWolfenstein or No One Lives Forever >>>>>>>>>>MGS3. And played them on Athlon TBird 1Ghz, Voodoo3, 512MB ddr.
> That and the fact that PS2 games didn't improve to my eyes in the last 4 years.



metal gear solid 3 looks just as good and today people are still making games for the ps2. your athlon tbird is not playing games made for today is it?



> Another one, consoles at 60FPS?????  Look them ROFLing.



yes...60 fps...atleast the ps3 does... i thought that was common knowledge...



> And bad coding on PC vs superb in consoles? In which world do you live my friend? Last time I checked most next gen console games have needed a patch to work propperly, just as PC ones.



the coding to PC games is inferior because of all the ridiculous things they have to code for. so you hamper your $2000 machine just by playing games. and you run games on windows. how sad.



> And if you tell me PS3 and XB360 do HD... Well, I suppose I've been doing HD gaming since 1997 on PC.



next gen consoles do HD gaming, ie at 720p-1080p. that is important because people play their consoles generally on televisions, not pc monitors.  why is that funny?


----------



## hat (Dec 14, 2007)

No, that board is either gonna be 3 video cards or 2 with a PPU. It is a wasted PCI-E slot.

If you had 3, the cooler would cover up the last PCI slot.


----------



## DarkMatter (Dec 14, 2007)

> metal gear solid 3 looks just as good and today people are still making games for the ps2.



It doesn't look as good, it doesn't come close, not even in your wettest dream PS fanboy.



> your athlon tbird is not playing games made for today is it?



Nor it is the PS2. The ones that come out today for the PS2, I wouldn't call them games of today. I don't care about those crappy games, I left caring back in 2003.



> yes...60 fps...atleast the ps3 does... i thought that was common knowledge...



Say 30 FPS with serious slowdowns to 15 better, in the actual games, wich is what we are talking about, and not Sony PR BS. We both have played the games...



> the coding to PC games is inferior because of all the ridiculous things they have to code for. so you hamper your $2000 machine just by playing games. and you run games on windows. how sad.



Keep saying that again and again, maybe someday it will end up being true nowadays. Wich is sad is that today consoles DO use OS that are on par with windows, in crappiness that is. Also games on next gen consoles are programed on DX9 and OpenGL with heavy use of shaders (preprogramed functions) wich are the same for PC and consoles. Game engines are the same, there isn't any difference RIGHT NOW. Forget about what was true in year 2000, it's almost 2008. No one gives a shit about PS2.  And there's also the saddest thing, the PS3 has been desingn as a media center and not a gaming machine. If you were suporting a real console at least...
And the last thing about $2000 PC, as I said like 100 times. I have been playing games at max with PCs a lot less pricey. Indeed in my whole gaming history 1993-2007 I have spent ~$4000
and that's because I wanted to play at much better games than consoles. If had go mainstream instead of performance, it have been ~$2000.



> next gen consoles do HD gaming, ie at 720p-1080p. that is important because people play their consoles generally on televisions, not pc monitors. why is that funny?



I've been playing 1024x768 --> 768p since 1997. 1280x960 --> 960p since 2002. As I said most games on consoles run at 720p, most of the ones at 1080p are upconverted from a lower res. So it's been needed 10 years for consoles to catch up in here. That's funny.

Give up. You are not convincing anyone on this forum. PCs are way superior 90% of the time, being the console somehow superior the first 6 months, when the PC components that are better than the ones on the consoles are still expensive. The rest of the lifetime PCs are waaaaaay superior. They are more expensive? Of course dude, Ferraris are better, so they are priced acordingly. But unless Ferraris, Pc components get really cheap in a year. Any PC today is superior to PS3 if you put in it a HD3850 or better graphics card. That is the truth, live with it.


----------



## Fitseries3 (Dec 14, 2007)

at least i can fix my pc when something goes wrong. i dont have to wait 6 weeks to send in my computer because it has a stupid red light on the front and wont work. i also dont have to put in a dvd/blueray disc everytime i want to play a different game. i can also do A LOT more with my computer than some POS console that cant even be upgraded.


----------



## Scrizz (Dec 14, 2007)

fitseries3 said:


> at least i can fix my pc when something goes wrong. i dont have to wait 6 weeks to send in my computer because it has a stupid red light on the front and wont work. i also dont have to put in a dvd/blueray disc everytime i want to play a different game. i can also do A LOT more with my computer than some POS console that cant even be upgraded.



amen


----------



## btarunr (Dec 14, 2007)

3x 8800 GT > 4x HD3870.  You'll see this happen pretty soon.

But by Q1 2008, this will be confirmed for sure:

3x 8800 GTX >> 4x HD3870


----------



## cdawall (Dec 14, 2007)

DarkMatter said:


> Man you are worrying me.
> You must be totally blind if you tell me Metal Gear Solid 3 has better graphics than DOOM3, Farcry, HL2 or FEAR for example. I played those at mostly everything high with the PC purchased in 2002 for 900€:
> P4 2.5Ghz, GF4800, 1024MB DDR. Hell even RTCWolfenstein or No One Lives Forever >>>>>>>>>>MGS3. And played them on Athlon TBird 1Ghz, Voodoo3, 512MB ddr.
> That and the fact that PS2 games didn't improve to my eyes in the last 4 years.
> ...



i didnt want to get into this but my ti4200/axp setup played a lot of todays games just fine 

my current rig not that much later on in tech terms but it plays ALL of todays games!


----------



## niko084 (Dec 14, 2007)

This is for nothing short of bragging rights.... A complete waste of time/money/power....

This is one of those things, 1 guy from 1 group will do to set a record, or to show off 100fps maxed in crysis.... Whoopty do you can dump $5000 worth of parts into a computer and make it useful to play games and in reality overkill to play games...

Lets be realistic here, I'm already considering dumping my 2nd 3870, sick of the heat and everything runs so great on one...


----------



## btarunr (Dec 14, 2007)

cdawall said:


> ok if NV is only doing tri-sli why do boards like the ASUS L1N64-SLI WS Dual L have 4xsli slots
> 
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131146



That was part of NVidia's ambitious Quad-SLI plans. Unfortunately, they're shelved as of now. We'll have to see how the ATi Crossfire X performs. If it's able to assert superiority as a competent multi-GPU platform, then we can expect Quad SLI to rise from its grave.


----------



## Scrizz (Dec 14, 2007)

niko084 said:


> This is for nothing short of bragging rights.... A complete waste of time/money/power....
> 
> This is one of those things, 1 guy from 1 group will do to set a record, or to show off 100fps maxed in crysis.... Whoopty do you can dump $5000 worth of parts into a computer and make it useful to play games and in reality overkill to play games...
> 
> Lets be realistic here, I'm already considering dumping my 2nd 3870, sick of the heat and everything runs so great on one...



did you up the fan speeds?


----------



## Easy Rhino (Dec 14, 2007)

DarkMatter said:


> It doesn't look as good, it doesn't come close, not even in your wettest dream PS fanboy.



it does come close, im looking right at it. and im not a PS fanboy and i dont have wet dreams because im an adult. grow up. 





> Nor it is the PS2. The ones that come out today for the PS2, I wouldn't call them games of today. I don't care about those crappy games, I left caring back in 2003.



you dont care, but i do.





> Say 30 FPS with serious slowdowns to 15 better, in the actual games, wich is what we are talking about, and not Sony PR BS. We both have played the games...



it plays at 60 FPS. im playing the gt5 demo at 1920x1080 at 60 fps....




> Keep saying that again and again, maybe someday it will end up being true nowadays. Wich is sad is that today consoles DO use OS that are on par with windows, in crappiness that is.



no they dont...



> Also games on next gen consoles are programed on DX9 and OpenGL with heavy use of shaders (preprogramed functions) wich are the same for PC and consoles. Game engines are the same, there isn't any difference RIGHT NOW. Forget about what was true in year 2000, it's almost 2008.



i care. that is the entire reason i started my first post on this thread.  




> No one gives a shit about PS2.  And there's also the saddest thing, the PS3 has been desingn as a media center and not a gaming machine. If you were suporting a real console at least...



it wasnt designed to be any one thing. it has multiple uses. does that make it less of a console? maybe to someone who is immature. 



> And the last thing about $2000 PC, as I said like 100 times. I have been playing games at max with PCs a lot less pricey. Indeed in my whole gaming history 1993-2007 I have spent ~$4000
> and that's because I wanted to play at much better games than consoles. If had go mainstream instead of performance, it have been ~$2000.



how can you be playing games at max with a PC less than $2000 ?? look at crysis. a quad core cpu and 8800gtx cannot play that game at 30fps at high res. the same goes for past years and past high end games. this isnt some sort of console versus pc battle. as i stated in my very first post, you can spend 500 bucks and play games at 60 fps at 1920x1080 for the next 5 years and not have to worry about upgrading. you cant say that about the PC. 



> I've been playing 1024x768 --> 768p since 1997. 1280x960 --> 960p since 2002. As I said most games on consoles run at 720p, most of the ones at 1080p are upconverted from a lower res. So it's been needed 10 years for consoles to catch up in here. That's funny.



it has nothing to do with the consoles "catching up." its that people up until the past year have been playing games on a standard definition television. 



> Give up. You are not convincing anyone on this forum. PCs are way superior 90% of the time, being the console somehow superior the first 6 months, when the PC components that are better than the ones on the consoles are still expensive. The rest of the lifetime PCs are waaaaaay superior. They are more expensive? Of course dude, Ferraris are better, so they are priced acordingly. But unless Ferraris, Pc components get really cheap in a year. Any PC today is superior to PS3 if you put in it a HD3850 or better graphics card. That is the truth, live with it.



give up what? i dont understand what your point is. why do you have a problem with my initial post of saying that you can spend 500 bucks and play at 1920x1080 at 60 fps? of course if you wanna spend 2000 on a pc every 3 years go right ahead, but i dont see the point when you can spend 500 and not upgrade for the next 5 years, especially when the games for consoles only get better graphically AND the coding for games on the PC is less than optimal. you need to give up thinking this is some battle. if you like upgrading every year to play the best games on max go right ahead. meanwhile, ill be playing my ps3.


----------



## erocker (Dec 14, 2007)

Mwahaha!  My income is despensible!  PC FTW!!!   PS3 does rock btw.


----------



## Scrizz (Dec 14, 2007)

crysis ftw!!!


----------



## Scrizz (Dec 14, 2007)

who said we can't have the best of both worlds, pc and console.


----------



## niko084 (Dec 15, 2007)

Scrizz said:


> did you up the fan speeds?



Yes I did exactly what I told him to do unplug it from the board and wire it directly.

Its more of an ambient heat an then my psu get warmer etc.... I very honestly don't find the performance increase worth it anymore, simply gets ridiculous.

Considering selling my machine complete to someone right now and maybe even stepping down to a HD3850, but I don't need the newest game running the absolutely best on my machine either.


----------



## Fitseries3 (Dec 15, 2007)

so if i put my third 8800 in my 680i, will tri-sli be able to work? obviously it would be more effective with the bridge in place, but who has one of those? not me.


----------



## Fitseries3 (Dec 15, 2007)

how do i save my ultra's bios and flash it to a gtx? PM me ASAP. as soon as i figure it out i can give you guys some benches on my tri-sli.


----------



## DarkMatter (Dec 15, 2007)

Rhino it's easy, I have a problem anytime when lies are said, being them intentional or not. And you are spreading lots of BS. The PS3 doesn't run most games at 1920x1080, it does at lower resolutions and then it upconverts (PS, PS2 did the same BTW, that was so obvious when comparing PS2 vs. Xbox at 480p standard resolution, and I'm not supporting neither of those, when Xbox launched was already crap). And by no means does it run at 60fps. It does at 60 Hz which is not the same. As I said, remember that I play on consoles too. I know when a game is running below 30fps on my PC (specially because I can check with fraps) and I know when it runs below on consoles too. I don't know about GT5, but I know about Oblivion, COD4, Bioshock and UT3. Also do you really believe that windows or any OS accounts for a 500% performance penalty? Grow up.



> how can you be playing games at max with a PC less than $2000 ?? look at crysis. a quad core cpu and 8800gtx cannot play that game at 30fps at high res. the same goes for past years and past high end games. this isnt some sort of console versus pc battle. as i stated in my very first post, you can spend 500 bucks and play games at 60 fps at 1920x1080 for the next 5 years and not have to worry about upgrading. you cant say that about the PC.



How can I do? I don't know, maybe I'm a sort of wizard or maybe I'm intelligent enough to make good decisions when upgrading. Just as an example, look for my post about my recently  reserved 8800GT. Then look at my specs. I purchased that PC for 1200€ almost 2 years ago. Indeed the PC had another 7900GTX in with Zalman VF900 in SLI that I sold for 250€. Are you trying to tell me what can I play or not? Look at this article.

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6183967/index.html
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6183499/index.html

Look specially at settings with everything disabled on COD4 you get a 50% boost and you don't loose too many eye candy. The same happens on UT3. I did some image comparisons and PS3 looks like PC with those disabled, plus textures on Medium. And remember that on graphics cards benchmarks they always use maximum settings. I'm sure that if you can't tell the hugh difference between MGS3 and Doom3, all the comparisons there are going to look the same to you, but nevermind.

Until now I have played any game at max settings, except Crysis that I play on medium with shaders, textures and objects on high. With those settings the game looks pretty close to everything on high, but runs a lot faster. With this settings Crysis looks better than COD4 at max, but yeah, let's say I can't play all games. 
-But wait! 
-Oh! You can't play Crysis on PS3 or any console! 
-Why dude?
-I don't know, buddy. Let's ask Crytek about this. 
-Humm... They said consoles don't have the power to run the game... 
-OMG 

And as a proof that this is not an isolated game, every game on PS3 are equiparable to MED settings in the PC version and never to High. Cry about this all you want, it's true, it's not our fault if you can't see the difference between MGS3 and the much better (graphicaly, this thread is about graphics) HL2, Doom3 or Farcry. Those games on low, with the propper settings on medium looked better, and run well on a Radeon 7500.  Even the Splinter Cell series looked way better on PC. You don't need a $2000 PC to compete with consoles, you need a $2000 PC to compete with a... $2000 PC!!
You are really confused by the people in forums like this, that spend lot's of cash on hardware, but dude, be sure as hell they don't play at 720p 0X AA, 2X/4X AF. They pay the premium to play at much higher settings than most of people. Just as the countless people who paid +$10000 for a PS3, that is a fair comparison.

For me this discussion has finished. It's obvious you don't have the ability to catch graphical differences, nor you have any knowledge about hardware. At least you are not demostrating any. You just keep on repeating the BS Sony spreads. The PS3 was designed to win the HD format war, that's all, and at the same time they filled the gaps with some console parts. I just can't continue argueing with such a tool. 
If you are happy with such low IQ, play on a PS2 or play on a PS3 in 2009, when we PC gamers are going to be playing real games. But don't say they are the same, because it's not. I'm a PC gamer. That compares to: I'm a McLaren F1 owner and this is a race. I don't say your Honda is useless, but when it comes to racing, it's crap. Don't try to compare them.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Dec 15, 2007)

niko084 said:


> Yes I did exactly what I told him to do unplug it from the board and wire it directly.
> 
> Its more of an ambient heat an then my psu get warmer etc.... I very honestly don't find the performance increase worth it anymore, simply gets ridiculous.
> 
> Considering selling my machine complete to someone right now and maybe even stepping down to a HD3850, but I don't need the newest game running the absolutely best on my machine either.



if ur selling on of teh 3870's holler.

thanks.


----------



## btarunr (Dec 15, 2007)

@ DarkMatter

Well said, lad. I'm going to sucker-punch a neighbour on this point who seems to daze of the X360 being a smarter choice than a gaming PC, just because most PC games are ported to the X360 and vice-versa.


----------



## DarkMatter (Dec 15, 2007)

I must apologize to everybody for maintaining an offtopic discusion in this thread. I can't promise I won't continue with it (who knows what could be his next BS), but I will try to.

It's that I can't bear liars or those trying to distort reality. I don't say (well I said, but I was altered ) nextgen consoles are crap today, they are just not as powerful as PCs today and this gap will only grow with years. You won't see me saying my PC is better than consoles, it's on the same level, but you can buy a PC twice as powerful today. Indeed I'm doubling its gaming performance soon (8800GT). Recomending someone with a decent PC to buy a $500 console over a $200 graphics card is just silly. And then there's the MSG3 thing. 

As I said sorry, I will try to do my best. 

EDIT: Hmm... Indeed I have thought it better, and what most bothers me is that he is insulting almost 100% of game developers by saying they don't optimize on PCs, when they spend countless hours and days without any kind of life (you can't call that life) when they enter crunch mode trying to give us players the best experience they can. What a cock!! Damn it!


----------

