Originally Posted by binormalkilla
If you think that only one game justifies a dual GPU solution, then you clearly haven't played any games at 1920x1XXX and up resolutions.
True and true. I have not played anything higher than 1680*1050. However, what percentage of people game at those resolutions? I suppose I should have put "in most cases" in my original post. Also, do the games that justify 2 seperate cards not run well at those resolutions with a single, dual GPU card? I understand that there will always be the few people out there that have monster LCD's to game on, but that doesn't mean there is a market for dual GFX cards. Using that as justification of SLI/X-Fire is as silly as building a PC just to max out Crysis.
Basically, what I am trying to say is that, as soon as something needs more than one card (or more than 2 GPU's) the next generation of GFX cards are out and make them obsolete. I know there is always room for more and what is needed is not what we are about (enthusiasts), but it always seemed to be overkill to me. I suppose if I have a larger monitor, I may feel differently.
edit: Also, I would like to point out that I consider dual GPUs and SLI/X-Fire 2 different things. If they can get 2 GPU's on one card, that changes the whole argument. My biggest point against SLI etc. is the fact that the chipset and mobo (and, sometimes PSU) are different. When you have a single slot, but can run dual GPU's, whats the point of needing all the extra hardware for SLI? If they were still producing single GPU cards, I would think differently. Once they gave you the performance of 2 on the format of one, it killed the market.Edited by dralb - 6/5/08 at 12:12pm