bugHere's another way to look at that: after 14 years in existence, less than 400 titles have added support for SLI. And that's when most of the work was being done in the video driver. Now that more of the burden has shifted onto the developers/game engine, you can figure out where that figure is going.

UpgrayeddThat is a game every two weeks..

UpgrayeddThat is a game every two weeks..

bugMake of it what you wish.

bugMake of it what you wish.

UpgrayeddVermintide 2 and FarCry5 are two recent SLI games and they aren't even on that list... stop trying to wish SLI away

FordGT90ConceptVermintide is surprising seeing how it uses a little known engine (owned by Autodesk). Dunia engine (all FarCry games use it) has supported SLI since the beginning so ongoing support isn't surprising.

efikkanNvidia will keep SLI alive as long as the professional market demands it. Why do you think their Linux drivers support SLI and "stereoscopic 3D"? Let me give you a hint, it's not because of gaming…

bugProfessional usage may be legit (maybe relegated to Quadros?). But still, for consumers this technology is as good as dead.

bugProfessional usage may be legit (maybe relegated to Quadros?). But still, for consumers this technology is as good as dead.

UpgrayeddWhy do you keep saying that. Its clearly not. I just gave you clear examples of how its not dying. Where are your examples besides just your gut?

bugBecause after all this times it's still around 1% adoption and clearly both Nvidia and AMD are scaling back support. But don't let that stand in your way, you have a list.

UpgrayeddAnd new games coming out don't forget that part, the part where the devs are still doing work on it....get real man...try not to let all the evidence smack you in the face too hard..

BlueberriesIf Micron's GDDR6 is packaged in 2GB as rumored then there's 24GB of VRAM on that board which is probably too costly to manufacture for a consumer video card. Maybe a Tesla V?

bugI guess SLi/Crossfire's death is not because they're completely useless, but because the ROI is not there. Too few people use that feature.

John NaylorUp thru the 900 series, well over half our gaming builds we did for users were SLI ... with 95% at least "SLI ready". SLIs problem had more to do with nVidia than customers .... and nVidia's problem was this ... two 970s were the same price as a 980. And it had no downside. For most games, yoiu say a 70% average increase in FPS, on the games that matters, many were over 95%. That 70% gave yu 40% more frames than the 980. In the few popular games that did not support it, you lost maybe 12% in fps... weighing one against the other it was an easy decision. The problem for nVidia was, they make more money selling one 980 than they do twin 970s... even more so when game bundles are involved. With the 700, 600 and 500 series, the dollars favored SLI even more.

With the 10xx series, nvida made it harder. For reasons never explained, SLI average scaling at 1080p was only 18% ... @ 1440p, about 30%. Yet for some reason, at 2160p it was well over 55% with some games scaling near 100%. Looking at the numbers, it does seem off that the proce equartion was no longer valid at 1080p and 1440p where the top tier card was now keeping ya well above 60 fps. But where it couldn't, SLI managed to make sense at 2160p. With thr 4k HDR panels about to drop at $1,999 or so... they will be too high priced for mainstream users and i don't see a chnage in the parigm until these things drop into the range of affordability. But as monitor technology improvements continue to bring us more pixels, I don't see nVidia abandoning a multi GPU option at the high end.

John NaylorUp thru the 900 series, well over half our gaming builds we did for users were SLI ... with 95% at least "SLI ready". SLIs problem had more to do with nVidia than customers .... and nVidia's problem was this ... two 970s were the same price as a 980. And it had no downside. For most games, yoiu say a 70% average increase in FPS, on the games that matters, many were over 95%. That 70% gave yu 40% more frames than the 980. In the few popular games that did not support it, you lost maybe 12% in fps... weighing one against the other it was an easy decision. The problem for nVidia was, they make more money selling one 980 than they do twin 970s... even more so when game bundles are involved. With the 700, 600 and 500 series, the dollars favored SLI even more.

With the 10xx series, nvida made it harder. For reasons never explained, SLI average scaling at 1080p was only 18% ... @ 1440p, about 30%.…

W1zzardDid you read my article? The memory part number is listed there and how to decode the part number to get the memory capacity is posted as picture. These chips are without any doubt 256 Mb x 32 = 8 Gb = 1 GB.

Unless there is more memory chips on the other side of the PCB, which seems unlikely.

UpgrayeddThat is a game every two weeks..

gamermannvidia is not amd.

and i mean massive TDP like vega56/64 and 64 watercool way. loosers choice amd.

vega64 power eat juice is close that 500W with oc's and its so high that that amd gpu should just banned and get penalty ticket for amd.

nvidia politics are faraway thouse 'we dont care' politics.

300W is limit for nvidia,and that only special gpus like titan.

turing 1060 beat vega 64.

gamermannvidia is not amd.

and i mean massive TDP like vega56/64 and 64 watercool way. loosers choice amd.

vega64 power eat juice is close that 500W with oc's and its so high that that amd gpu should just banned and get penalty ticket for amd.

nvidia politics are faraway thouse 'we dont care' politics.

300W is limit for nvidia,and that only special gpus like titan.

turing 1060 beat vega 64.