Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Gigabyte's 3D1 brings SLI to a single card

Posted by Hemos on from the good-coverage dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Gigabyte have implemented nVidia's SLI on a single graphics board, dubbed the "3D1." The card features two GeForce 6600GT cores (I would imagine two 6800 cores would draw too much power and create too much heat for a single PCB.) Hexus.net have a review of the board, which in various tests was able to compete with a 6800GT, but will it be marketed at a favourable price? You may also want to read Hexus' article - 'An Introduction to SLI' - for a look at how SLI technology works."

32 of 153 comments (clear)

  1. Too Much power? by Kjuib · · Score: 2, Funny

    "I would imagine two 6800 cores would draw too much power and create too much heat for a single PCB."
    I don't know whether it would or not, but I will be willing to test that for you. Send me one, and I will fill out all the forms and keep track of heating and power levels.

    --
    - Your stupidity got you into this mess, why can't it get you out? -Will Rogers
  2. PCBs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    There are PCBs available which have a thicker copper layer thus are able to be used for even higher current. You can make PCBs for some 100s of Amperes.

    1. Re:PCBs by GigsVT · · Score: 5, Informative

      The question is not moving the power around, it's dissipating that much power. Useless to have 100 amp traces if the load gets so hot the solder melts.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    2. Re:PCBs by ppanon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sure but the interface specs for AGP, PCI, et al. specify how much power a card can draw. If you try to draw too much power it may stress components on the motherboard and lead to failure. Perhaps the parent meant that putting two 6800 cores on a single board would draw power in excess of the maximum ratings for AGP or PCI-X?

      --
      Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
    3. Re:PCBs by hughk · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Having worked with dinosaurs, well at least later generations, I can assure you that modern PCs aren't that dense from a thermal viewpoint. The higher-end dinosaurs had the chips sitting in special modules that provided thermal coupling. Unfortunately, you are certainly going to break the ATX spec if you start to generate so much heat and get rid of it.

      Liquid cooling will do it easily, but it would be unusual and non-standard to require it,

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
    4. Re:PCBs by swv3752 · · Score: 2, Informative

      A regular 6800 sometimes requires 2 molex connectors. Now building a SLI 6800 would need 4 molex connectors and probably need a 400w+ Power Supply just to provide the needed amps. That is a lot of power going to a single pcb card. It would be difficult to dissipate that much heat. Plus you might need special bracing just to support the card from the weight of hefty heatsinks you will need.

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
  3. multicore GPU's by confusion · · Score: 3, Interesting
    This seems like a lot to pack onto a single board - heat and power for sure. With all the talk from AMD & Intel about multi-core CPUs, a multi-core GPU seems like the best plan. Otherwise, we're going to be back to the full length PCI cards soon.

    Jerry
    http://www.syslog.org/

    1. Re:multicore GPU's by pmjordan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, if you look at the specs of today's GPUs, they already feature 8-16 pixel processors and 2-8 vertex processors. (numbers somewhere in that order of magnitude) Therefore, they already have multiple cores in a sense. What ATI and nVidia are doing is increasing the complexity of each pixel/vertex pipelines to add features, and adding new pipelines, and widening the memory bus to increase speed. You'll notice that clock speeds are in the 300-500MHz range, presumably for the same reasons why dual-core CPUs (will) have lower clock speeds than their single-core counterparts.

      ~phil

  4. If I read the article right by stupidfoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's basically the a little less than performance of the 6800 at the cost of the 6800, but with more heat than the 6800. Didn't the multiple 6600s perform better than this at a lower cost?

    Am I missing something here?

    And what's this all about? Putting a video card on the carpet? Or a towel? Static electricity kills, people!

    1. Re:If I read the article right by Equinox11 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      By the way.. I never got the deal about static electricity destroying things since I've always lived and worked in Florida. On a trip to New York it was suddenly all clear... In pitch blackness I ruffled my bed sheets to see a trail of lightning bolts blue in the blackness... I was like WOAH! So that's why there are all those warnings and wrist straps and such! So the whole static thing is dependant on where you live to a large degree.

  5. Re:So, by stupidfoo · · Score: 2, Informative

    This card requires 16 PCI-Express lanes. So, you would first need a motherboard that gives you 32 lanes. I don't believe one currently exists. Is there a limit in the PCI-Express spec?

  6. Re:So, by Peldor · · Score: 4, Informative

    You can already do that in terms of "having the power of 4 6600 chips". Just SLI two 6800 Ultras. Same number of total pipes. Probably faster memory too.

  7. Anandtech review by asliarun · · Score: 2, Informative

    Anandtech has a review on the same.
    Source: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2315

  8. Gigabyte's Designs by Hiigara · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I can't figure out what Gigabye's roadmap is. I mean, the dual 6600GTs on a single card came out of no where. Now there is the dual PCI express board coming out that allows any two Video Cards to run in parellel, it's not SLI. Now they come out with this.

    I dunno what they have in mind, but they sure are stiring things up a bit, but arn't they risking alienating nVidia with these "almost" SLI competetor alternatives?

  9. Anandtech not too impressed. by Deathlizard · · Score: 5, Informative

    Anandtech didn't seem to be too impressed by this solution.

    From Anandtech: Unfortunately, in light of the performance tests, there really isn't much remarkable to say about the 3D1. In fact, unless Gigabyte can become very price competitive, there isn't much reason to recommend the 3D1 over a 2-card SLI solution. Currently, buying all the parts separately would cost the same as what Gigabyte is planning to sell the bundle.

    The drawbacks to the 3D1 are its limited application (it will only run on the GA-K8NXP-SLI), the fact that it doesn't perform any better than 2-card SLI, and the fact that the user loses a DVI and an HD-15 display connection when compared to the 2-card solution.

    Something like this might be very cool for use in a SFF with a motherboard that has only one physical PCIe x16 connector with the NVIDIA SLI chipset. But until we see NVIDIA relax their driver restrictions, and unless Gigabyte can find a way to boot their card on non-Gigabyte boards, there aren't very many other "killer" apps for the 3D1

    They pretty much say Stick with true SLI unless size restraints force you into a single card solution

    --
    In Soviet Russia, Trojan exploits YOU!
  10. Why? by Apreche · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ok, I seriously don't get this SLI thing. I mean, sure there are nuts out there who simply must get 10,000 fps in their favorite games at full resolution. You know, because it make a difference. Just like those audiophiles who buy $5,000 power cables.

    Seriously, what modern PC game wont run well with just one card? I've got an FX 5900 non-ultra 128MB. Doom3 and Half-Life 2 are both my bitch. And if I recall there haven't been any other PC games this year worth mentioning. And if you're not using the extra power to play games, and you're doing some serious 3d work you should have some professional SGI style equipment. The only reason I can really see to have this is if you were developing a PC game that is going to come out in a year or two and you need to have hardware as fast as what we will probably have then.

    So um yeah. Who's wasting their moneys? In fact, with those moneys you can buy a better monitor. Which makes a much bigger difference if the monitor you have is not super awesome.

    --
    The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
    1. Re:Why? by Mindwarp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I've got an FX 5900 non-ultra 128MB. Doom3 and Half-Life 2 are both my bitch.

      Really? You can run both of those titles at maximum detail settings, at 1600x1200, with 16x oversampling and 8x full-screen anti-aliasing at 60fps+ on an FX5900? I've gotta get me one of those FX5900 cards, as my 6800GT basically turns into a thermonuclear device when I try those settings.

      The point is that there are plenty of people out there who DO want to run their games at the maximum possible resolutions and image quality, and quite a few of those people are willing to spend the $500 plus necessary to get the performance they desire.

      --
      The gift of death metal does not smile on the good looking.
    2. Re:Why? by Vaystrem · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is an interesting post because a year or so ago most people would have been saying the same thing about your FX 5900.

      The point is - most people do not have upper teir graphics cards. Just like most people do not run the absolute top of the line AMD & Intel processors. They are too expensive and all about marketing.

      Myself with a laptop currently only have a Radeon 7500 onboard. My previous desktop had a Radeon 8500. YOU do not need an SLI or next-gen top teir card because you already have a last gen top teir card.

      Those of us, and there are many, who don't do need an upgrade.

      Why the SLI thing?

      I buy one 6600GT for my motherboard. I'm happy, I like it. 2 years later my games start to suffer, I buy another one. Go look at the benchmarks comparing hte Single to Double... its a 50-100% boost in performance depending on the application. That is really significant and considering where the prices of those cards will be in a year or two - has a lot of bang for the buck.

      Your comment about buying a "Monitor" is ridiculous. If you have a 17" and a crappy graphics card and then go buy a 19" and still have that crappy graphics card - you won't be able to take advantage of the higher resolutions availble on that monitor. Yes some monitors just have better picture quality, Mitsubishi Diamondtron comes to mind, but again your argument doesn't make sense.

    3. Re:Why? by wernercd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I personally couldn't see someone dropping 4k to raise a truck or put NOS in a car to drop it's 0-60.

      Most people can't understand why I'm willing to drop $500 on a new graphics card and 1k on 1Terabyte of storage.

      It has less to do with 'a fool and his money' as it has more to do with 'different strokes for different fokes.'

      Someone dropping $500 on a graphics card just to play Solitare would be a waste of money. But most people who drop that much money aren't into it for that. The same way that pimping a car out if you ain't going to drive it is a waste in my opinion.

      Peace

    4. Re:Why? by swv3752 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I am not talking about max resolution, which varies from 1280x1024 up to 1600x1200, but the highest resolution that will display clearly.

      It is the rare 17" that can have a pixel density that is high enough to display 1280x1024 with no blurriness.

      I have a Relisys 17" monitor that has a max resolution of 1600x1200, but can only display withour blurriness up 1152x864.

      A lot of recent 17" monitors had only a max res of 1280x1024. Running at 1600x1200 is nice theory but only those with 21" displays are likely to do so.

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
    5. Re:Why? by master_p · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've bought an 6800 GT thinking that it just might be able to run Half Life 2 and Doom 3 on my Athlon 3400+. Guess what? the game runs at a very respectable frame rate, over 80 FPS, with all settings maxed out at 1280x1024, except for the anti-aliasing, which I tried it and I saw no real difference (x8 and x2 looks the same; you have to have a very trained eye to spot the difference; and in the heat of the action, it's not important). So I think the press overreacted a little for those two games...I think that they can be run nicely on a lower setting than mine, especially HL2 which scales very well to lower spec machines.

  11. Some numbers for you by Smilin · · Score: 5, Informative

    You should find this board outrunning the 6800Ultras. This is basically a $400 board outrunning a $500 board (that goes for as much as $600 depending on brand/features).

    The lowdown (using individual boards here but the dual is about the same):
    Doom3 1600x1200:
    6600GT SLI = 77.1fps, Cost = $376 (188x2)
    6800Ultra = 73.9fps, Cost = $489

    According to a great article on www.Anandtech.com it doesn't really outperform two individual boards though. It may be wiser to get a single 6600GT now and SLI later.

    This board somewhat defeats one of the great features of SLI: future upgrades. The idea is you can buy a "good" card today and at some point when it gets a little bit dated you can add more performance at a lower future cost.

    However, a single board SLI solution should help offset the nasty cost of an SLI motherboard right now. The NF4 SLI boards are running about $100-$150 over where they should be simply due to shortages (spanking new product overdemand).

    $255, Gigabyte NF4 SLI mobo
    $188, 6600GT today
    $59, 6600GT 2 years from now (Based on the cost today of a $200 graphics card two years ago, the GF4 4200)

    Total: $502

    Or you can opt for 6600GT performance today and tomorrow without SLI in the picture:
    $149, Gigabyte NF4 non-SLI mobo
    $188, 6600GT today
    $269, 6800Ultra 2 years from now (Based on the cost today of a $500 graphics card two years ago, the GF 5900 Ultra)

    Total: $606

    As you can see even with the badly overpriced SLI motherboards it's still a better deal in the long run. If SLI motherboards get back to reality you could see the savings increase from $104 to ~$200 as well but that's just speculation.

    References:
    All new prices are from www.newegg.com. For the older boards (4200 & 5900U) that are not available at Newegg I used pricegrabber. Anandtech was used for the benchmark and 2 year old reference articles.

    1. Re:Some numbers for you by stratjakt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It may be wiser to get a single 6600GT now and SLI later

      No! No! If you plan to SLI, buy two matching cards now. You'll pull your hair out trying to find the exact same model and revision to match the one you already have.

      Same goes for multiple CPUs or dual channel RAM. Buy a matching set now, or you're in for a headache down the road.

      PC Video cards have reached the point where, unless you're an "enthusiast" who likes to spend money, you don't need to spend more than 150-200 bucks.

      Nowadays the race is who can run Doom 3 at 1600x1200 at 70 vs 72 FPS. If you consider the average home PC with a 17" monitor that can't even display 1600x1200, and most gaming is done at 1024x768 or 800x600, it seems kind of pointless.

      I generally play at 1024x768, and all these new uber-cards really offer me nothing new over my Radeon 9800, and don't seem to be planning anything new for the next while. They're just ramping up the speed, but I haven't seen any landmark gee-whiz features (true steps forward like hardware T&L, programmable pixel shaders) being added.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    2. Re:Some numbers for you by crazy_pikachu · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wonder what the performance would be if you put 2 of these cards on the SLI board. that would be #$%@ing NUTS

  12. Re:Hello by stratjakt · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You fully recommend a product you don't have yet. Who needs a marketing department when you've got an army of fanboys?

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
  13. Good coverage by JDevers · · Score: 2, Funny

    Man, talk about good coverage. A single board getting TWO Slashdot posts when new GPUs often don't merit one.

    http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/16/1916 24 7&tid=152&tid=137

  14. No Video Standards by Gates82 · · Score: 2
    I hope that this does not mark the beginning of a trend to make video cards only work with specific motherboards. This card will only run with a Giga-Byte MB with the appropriate BIOS.

    Changing from the 3 or 4 versions of AGP to PCI express is going to create a large enough ripple when it comes to upgrading and purchasing new motherboards and video cards, do we really need to have PCI-X that work on one MB and not another?

    --
    So who is hotter? Ali or Ali's sister?

  15. Re:So, by Gaima · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The current SLI solutions, from what little (admitidly) I've seen, actually split the 16 lanes between the 2 PCIe x16 slots.
    Giving 8 lanes per slot, which is still more than enough bandwidth.

  16. Re:Something bugging me about SLI... by iainl · · Score: 2, Funny

    No, it really is version 2.

    Unfortunately, it won't become actually useable until version 3, and only stops being an almighty kludge at version 4. Presumably, they'll make it multi-user at 3.11, too.

    --
    "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
  17. Re:Something bugging me about SLI... by NerveGas · · Score: 2, Informative


    You don't need a full x16 slot. Tests have shown that you don't see any performance drop with a single card until you're in an x4 slot - two x8 slots are much more than enough for current-generation video cards.

    steve

    --
    Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
  18. A Much Better Review Here by Hack+Jandy · · Score: 3, Informative

    A much better review is to be had here:
    http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2315

  19. Review by Hanners, same as the site crashing. :) by digitalwanderer · · Score: 2, Informative

    And just for the record, this is Hanners (Andy Hanley) first time breaking the new site he works at Hexus. :)

    He used to love crashing Elite Bastards all the time, but this is his first official time crashing Hexus.

    I'm so proud of him I could cheer, he's one of the good guys. :D

    --
    - "When I say dance, you'd best DANCE motherf*cker!" -Violent Femmes