Overclock.net banner

[Toms Hardware] matches Quad SLI vs. TRI-SLI

4K views 32 replies 19 participants last post by  Somenoob 
#1 ·
#4 ·
Its not just drivers its also Ultra is a much better card.
 
#5 ·
Your PSU will not handle it.

Is it worth it? On some games, the FPS gain is significant. Driver support should improve (especially given that the GTX260 and 280 both support TRI-SLI).

Once I see pricing on the GTX260, I will likely get a set for TRI-SLI (I just bought the Corsair 1000w in anticipation).
 
#6 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by porky View Post
hmmm....i can pickup anather 9800gtx for $250.....think its worth going tri-sli?...and will my psu handle it?
Nope its not that GX2 sucks becuase it drives it is not as good because Ultra its much better. 9800GTX nor close to Ultra in Tri Sli
 
#7 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by ZealotKi11er View Post
Nope its not that GX2 sucks becuase it drives it is not as good because Ultra its much better. 9800GTX nor close to Ultra in Tri Sli
I'm having trouble reading your statement.

So you are saying that 3 Ultra's in TRI SLI are "much better" than 3 9800GTX in TRI-SLI?

Can you provide links to demonstrate that?

Regarding your point about the GX2, the Tom's review I linked stated that the GX2 as a single card is superior to the Ultra in all tests (although the Ultra is very close with 4x AA enabled). The Ultra's in TRI-SLI are superior to the GX2 quad but of course thats the point of the article.
 
#8 ·
The systems are really not evenly matched- the tri sli has a faster processor and solid state drives.

The best part though is that my baby comes within 400 3dmarks of a $9000 professionally built custom gaming system... for 1/6 the price. I'm sure it would beat out the stock clocked machines that falcon northwest actually SELLS.

*hugs computer*
 
#9 ·
Wow they picked Tri SLI Ultras to compare to 9800GX2s......c'mon Tom's Hardware, you're not that much of a noob are you?
 
#10 ·
Quote:


Originally Posted by Robilar
View Post

I'm having trouble reading your statement.

So you are saying that 3 Ultra's in TRI SLI are "much better" than 3 9800GTX in TRI-SLI?

Can you provide links to demonstrate that?

Regarding your point about the GX2, the Tom's review I linked stated that the GX2 as a single card is superior to the Ultra in all tests (although the Ultra is very close with 4x AA enabled). The Ultra's in TRI-SLI are superior to the GX2 quad but of course thats the point of the article.

Thats what i am trying to say. Also in 3-sli Ultra should be better considering 2 GX2 which is same as 4 GTS which come very close to GTX means that 4cant beat 3 ultras so 3 GTX cant beat 3 ultra. Basic concepts thats all.
 
#11 ·
Well that was much clearer...
 
#12 ·
At least give Quad SLI 5mins to get itself settled, the 8800 Ultra has had more maturing time. It's still early days for the GX2 and things are bound to improve.
 
#13 ·
Does anyone really think NVIDIA's really going to keep updating drivers for a 9000 series that is just buying time untill the 200 series? THis isn't fact, it's opinion.
Hopefully they can manage to come out with a quad-sli setup that is noticeable better than tri. Those tests are pretty close. It even mentions in the end that it's not a huge drop off to go with the two 9800gx2's. It's actually cheaper.
 
#14 ·
Quote:


Originally Posted by binormalkilla
View Post

Wow they picked Tri SLI Ultras to compare to 9800GX2s......c'mon Tom's Hardware, you're not that much of a noob are you?

lol

btw I will be switching to tri sli IF the 280 are better, I can careless about price. (only if its true that they break 20k in vantage with a qx9650 at 4ghz my best so far is 18,600)
 
#15 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mhill2029 View Post
At least give Quad SLI 5mins to get itself settled, the 8800 Ultra has had more maturing time. It's still early days for the GX2 and things are bound to improve.
I don't think Nvidia will do anything about quad SLI, if their sticking with triple, that means they know their selves that the 4th videocard doesn't help with performance at all. And if it did work, they would have an excuse to jack up the price of mobos with 4x pci-express slots, like with the triple sli boards. GTX 280 should scale way better than 9800GX2 SLI anyway.
 
#16 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by ZealotKi11er View Post
Nope its not that GX2 sucks becuase it drives it is not as good because Ultra its much better. 9800GTX nor close to Ultra in Tri Sli
The 8800GTX / Ultra and 9800GTX are all pretty damn close. The two 8 series take the lead when you get to 1920 * 1600 with plenty of AA though. At lower resolutions that that, the 9800GTX wins because of its raw clock speed.

Also, the 4th GPU in QUAD SLI seems to be a drag on the other 3 and is doing basically nothing.
 
#17 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by darksideleader View Post
I don't think Nvidia will do anything about quad SLI, if their sticking with triple, that means they know their selves that the 4th videocard doesn't help with performance at all. And if it did work, they would have an excuse to jack up the price of mobos with 4x pci-express slots, like with the triple sli boards. GTX 280 should scale way better than 9800GX2 SLI anyway.
4th Video card?

You do realise that QUAD SLI is acheived by having two GPU's on one PCB and the using two of them cards in QUAD SLI. There is no need for 4 PCI-E slots.
 
#24 ·
Hey Rob the link doesn't seem to be working. "
Sorry!
The page you requested couldn't be found "
 
#25 ·
? works for me
 
#26 ·
Does anyone know of any similar links to QUAD-SLI (9800GX2) vs TRI-SLI (9800GTX) , cant even cache that link.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top