GTX460 sli for $130 or a single card

[Knocky]

Using a GTX460 now.

Is there a better single card out there now or pay about $130 for another 460 and SLI?

[Goku]

For $130 that is the only way you are going to double your performance roughly is with SLI. Nothing else out right now will give you a bump under $200.

[Knocky]

For $130 that is the only way you are going to double your performance roughly is with SLI. Nothing else out right now will give you a bump under $200.

I thought SLI would only increase performance about 50%. It will double it?

[Goku]

The scaling can double performance quite often. These days I will say most games will net at least 75%. Back in the early days of SLI 50% would probably be about average.

[Knocky]

I suppose that it also depends on the Devs to support SLI in their games as well.

Ok, thanks for input.

:)

[Bags]

Yeah most new games seem to be 70 %+ at least.

[DayWalker]

Ya I use a GTX overclocked SLI and it measures up to the higher end cards on single

[Bags]

Newegg dropped like 90% of the 460's they had... ;_;

[CyclesMcHurtz]

The performance impact of a SLI configuration depends directly upon the CPU/GPU work ratio. You may or may NOT get a significant performance increase for any game if you keep the same resolution, but you often can increase the resolution "for free" when you upgrade to a SLI setup.

If you're running at, for example, 1440x900 (an intermediate wide screen res) at 45fps you probably won't get to 90fps going to SLI, but you probably can go to 1920x1080 without loosing any frame rate and potentially getting slightly better overall frame rate.

Most games don't really expose (directly) their GPU/CPU work load ratio but you can work it out using some tools out there in the interwebs.

The biggest change you will see is going from 1920x1080 (2 million pixels) to 2560x1600 (4 million pixels) - that's the sweet spot for multi GPU configurations - double the res and install SLI and your performance should not go down - but your cooling bill may go up. ;)

[basti]

Said tool is NV Inspector

http://blog.orbmu2k.de/


Get it. Check what your GFX does while you play.

And there are better cards. The 500 series got some neat cards. And there is also the 600 series coming out right now. :)

[kaffis]

I thought SLI would only increase performance about 50%. It will double it?
For raw GPU power, SLI frequently achieves around 85-95% efficiency now (with similar numbers for Crossfire).

The question is simply whether your CPU horsepower will bottleneck your actual performance before you hit that cap.

The higher your resolution, the less likely your CPU is to bottleneck performance before your GPU does. Thus, you'll see closer to the ideal performance boosts (percentage-wise) when you're already running at high resolutions.

Remember: you can tell you're CPU bottlenecked when increasing resolution doesn't slow down your framerate; this is because rendering more pixels is (occasionally "almost") purely a GPU operation.

Conversely, if you want to see how high a framerate your CPU can support (before bottlenecking your system), turn all your resolutions way down and see how fast it can push performance while your GPU has little or nothing of significance to do.

[Knocky]

My CPU is a 2500K....I don't expect it to bottleneck anything.

And thanks for the responses.

:)

[kaffis]

My CPU is a 2500K....I don't expect it to bottleneck anything.

And thanks for the responses.

:)
You might be surprised. I've got a 2600k, stock clockrate. I CPU bottleneck my dual 560's on lots of stuff at 1920x1200, especially if I turn Vsync on.

Of course, that just means I need a new monitor... :groovy:

[Goku]

Or overclock! You have a k edition for a reason.

[kaffis]

Or overclock! You have a k edition for a reason.
Meh. I will when I need to. ;)

As I said, I need a new monitor, anyways; mine's pushing 8 or 9 years old, now, and is still 60 Hz. Since I use vsync, even though I'm "technically" CPU bound on those games, the vsync is limiting my framerate to my monitor's refresh, anyways.

[Goku]

The 560s will probably start to choke at 2560x1600 if that is what you plan on doing. Their both ram starved and underpowered for that resolution in my opinion anyway.

[kaffis]

The 560s will probably start to choke at 2560x1600 if that is what you plan on doing. Their both ram starved and underpowered for that resolution in my opinion anyway.
Due to the particular model I've got, I've got 2 gigs on each card. I suspect the video RAM won't be holding me back. We'll see how the power holds up. I'm optimistic since 560's aren't *that* far behind 570's.

[Goku]

It will play games but it's still underpowered for that resolution IMO. Worse case a excuse to get a gtx 670 or 680.

[Hyncharas]

I would say SLI; however, any game at retail seems to only accommodate it after the first balance patch.

[MonsterBone]

All good FPS players run low res anyways so whats the point?

[Knocky]

I use a 32' 720p TV for my monitor.

I use a 1360 x 768 resolution.

I have taken it to 1920 x 1080.

The only real difference I see is that the UI is smaller.

Graphic wise I do not see any difference.

Perhaps if I were to take screen shots and look at em side by side I would.

But why would I want a 2560x1600 resolution?

[Goku]

You see more area with a higher resolution. Graphics don't get better. I prefer 1920x1080 verse something like 1280x720 due to seeing more.

[kaffis]

It's about maintaining a dot pitch (so the graphics don't look *worse*) while increasing viewable area, as Goku alluded to. I've got a 1920x1200 24" display, and that's a good enough dot pitch that I don't often get bothered by things like aliasing. But if I want to increase the screen size to 27" or 30" or whatever, I need to increase the resolution or else my dot pitch will be degrading and I run the risk of getting back in a bothersome range, image quality-wise.

As for "good FPS gamers run at low resolutions anyways"... I don't know what to say, man. If I run a good framerate, turning down the graphics so I can't see detail as well just to get a *better* framerate seems silly. You do know that even if my reflexes are awesome enough that framerates above 45, or 60, or 75, or wherever you want to draw that line matter... there isn't a display on the planet that will do anything with more than 120 frames a second. So turning down your resolution and graphics options to get that leet 240fps is, well... yeah.

And I can say, by the same token, then, that "good FPS players buy good rigs for themselves" and accomplish the same thing.

[CyclesMcHurtz]

I would say SLI; however, any game at retail seems to only accommodate it after the first balance patch.

It's a planning and timing issue. "Automatic" SLI support depends upon profiles that are included in the drivers. Since drivers need testing, there's a turn-around time. Some games optimize down to the wire and that can affect the profile in the driver.

[RNFB]

You see more area with a higher resolution. Graphics don't get better. I prefer 1920x1080 verse something like 1280x720 due to seeing more.

This is incorrect, and backwards. Higher resolutions do not provide more viewing area and increase picture quality.

[Knocky]

GAH!!!

I came close to getting screwed.

The new GTX460 has a memory interface of 192 bits.

My old one is 256 bits.

WTF?!?!?

They cant be SLI'ed.