Slashdot Mirror
Dual GeForce 7800 GT SLI Single Card Performance
Maximus writes "Asus is this first board partner out of the block with a single board, dual
GPU design based on NVIDIA's
GeForce 7800 GT graphics chip. The
Asus Extreme N7800 GT DUAL essentially takes a dual board SLI setup and
packs it all into a single PCI Express based card.
HotHardware has a performance preview posted that shows this card can even
compete in some cases with an GeForce 7800 GTX SLI setup, due to improved
latency characteristics with respect to inter-GPU transactions, that are
inherent to a single board design . This board is a bit pricey though for
sure so only gaming speed freaks need apply."
"This board is a bit pricey though for sure so only gaming speed freaks need apply."
I'm really, really curious about the high-end sales for ATI and nVidia. What kind of people honestly go out and spend almost 1,000$ USD on a card every year? What benefits are there? Despite the fact that these hot, sexy cards come out, I don't see any real push to get software out that uses them. Windows Vista isn't out. Linux still doesn't have X rendering done via OpenGL. Mac OS X is the only OS that uses 3D everywhere.
Beyond that, what games push the card? WoW? Doom 3? Half-life 2? Add in Far Cry and UT, and that's pretty much it for 3D games. If you spend that same amount of money on any console, you can buy more than double those number of games.
What niche does this represent? I'm really curious as to the people that buy this kind of stuff.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Looking at the price , I believe a Small cottage in Siberia is included , Early orders also receive a free flight .
Which should amply handle the cooling
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
Now they need to figure out how to get two of these things working together in SLI.. or what about *four* of them in gigabyte's crazy quad mb:
i ndex.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/motherboard/20051004/
sweeeeeeet.
This card doesn't need external power! It runs a fusion reactor off its own heat!
The Radeon 9200 in the Mac Mini should be anough for anybody.
Not looking to create a flamewar between ATI and Nvidia folks here. I am currently putting together my parts list for a new PC and am down to deciding what to do about a VGA card. The two options on the table at the moment, are: - Nvidia 7800 GT (probably going with Albatron as it is the best price) - ATI X1800XL (would most likely be Sapphire) My question is with regard to.... 2D quality...SUPRISE! Back around 3 or so years ago when I was upgrading my PC it was a toss between a Geforce 4400Ti and a Radeon 9700 Pro. I initially bought the Geforce and was horrified by the 2D quality. The store was kind enough to allow me to switch over to the Radeon 9700 Pro which has been serving me well ever since. I know ATI has always had superior 2D quality in the past but is this still the case? Has Nvidia improved in this area? Thanks and I look forward to your objective and knowledgeable opinions!
as much as you guys hate microsoft, they are going to be driving higher performance graphic cards with the release of Vista.
has anyone else noticed that this ships with an external power supply? This might then be a decent card for systems with only a 350/400 watt SMPS.
A single Dual 7800 GT Card costs MORE than TWICE a true TWO-Card 7800 GT SLI Setup.
So your 4 GPU setup would end up costing alot more than "the price of two!"
Besides, you can't run these cards in "SLI" mode again. This card is it, you can't add another.
Wake up from your fantacy!
Modesty is one of life's greatest attributes
I tend to only build a new box every 2-3 years. I go bleeding edge on most every component, and my system can run every new title at high settings damn near until the time I usually end up building a new one 2-3 years later. The bonus is that I don't usually have to open my system up for anything but cleaning the whole time.
I build quiet PC's with fanless video cards. One of mine has a Matrox G550, another has an nVidia Quadro4 550XGL. I run these at 1600x1200 analog to a Samsung 213t LCD display, and Samsung includes an "auto pattern" program that displays a black/white checkerboard pattern that is optimal for tuning the LCD a/d clock to the card.
The nVidia display for this is dead sharp and visually quiet, indistinguishable from DVI. The Matrox isn't generally bad, but this kind of display shows a lot of scanning flicker, which I surmise is indicative of clock jitter or less crisp D/A's. There's just no comparison of the analog video quality, nVidia is way superior.
Maybe quadro4's (which are intended for engineers and CAD) have better DACs and clocks than their consumer cards, who knows? And you could argue that this isn't a fair test, but IMO it's fair enough; they were both nearly the last generation of mainstream fanless cards from these manufacturers, and the nVidias are cheaper on eBay. Besides video quality, the nVidia smokes the Matrox on 2D and 3D speed, and the Matrox can't even do DVI at 1600x1200.
If you would argue that a better choice would be a Parahelia, I might agree (though it's way more $$) but then you should probably compare to a modern nVidia and Matrox loses badly again on performance and doesn't play nice with Linux.
IMO Matrox hasn't been competitive for years and the reputed superiority of Matrox analog quality is just an outdated myth.
In my personal experience with NVIDIA cards from GeForce 2 Pro to GeForce 4 Ti4200 and ATI Radeon 9800 Pro AIW (128 MB), I would have to pick NVIDIA cards.
1. Linux support. ATI's driver in Linux = horrible and harder to set up compared to NVIDIA's.
2. In Windows, NVIDIA's drivers and software seems to be less buggy than ATI. I use the All-In-Wonder software (MMC), and it is VERY buggy. Sometimes driver don't work like video out to my TV. I have to reboot to make it work. I know NVIDIA doesn't make TV tuner software and stuff, but the bugs bother me.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
The card offers an humongous amount of horsepower, yet the vast majority of people have monitors that can do 1280x1024 (most mid-sized LCDs out there) or 1600x1200 (most CRT's). So most of the power your card can produce above what a mid-range last-generation card (or high-range 2-gen-old card) can produce is largely unused.
... 40% FROM THE LEFT EDGE AND 60% FROM THE RIGHT (OR OTHERWISE ADJUSTABLE) OF THE DISPLAY. IT'S OUTRIGHT A NEUCANSE! TIA.
All of these new cards will give more than playable rates at either of these resolutions on most modern games without breaking a sweat, the heavier game engines requiring you to drop a notch or two on the FSAA or AF.
In fact, even my trusty OEM Radeon 9700 Pro bought December 2002 for 270$ does that just fine.
But where is all that horsepower needed? The answer is obvious, and yet promptly ignored. All these cards have two outputs (at least). Which can very well work simultaneously in a game, thank you very much. If one LCD can't go over 1280x1024, why not have two?
I run a two-monitor setup on my Rad (Dual Samsung 172X's). Both nVidia and ATI drivers support spanning (turning all outputs into one virtual very large screen). Three problems arise that require attention for this to work in gaming:
1. The game must support using SPAN. Many games (UT2k4, NWN, Fable, etc.) support this reasonably.
2. Unrelated to Issue #1 above, the game must support *weird* aspect ratios. Contrary to popular belief, unlike 640x480, 800x600 and 1024x768 - the 1280x1024 res, what our modern LCD's do best is not 4x3. It is 5x4. Do the math. The next 4x3 notch is 1280x960. The 5x4 aspect ratio aside, dual monitors give some very new AR's altogether - 8x3 for two 4x3 monitors, or 10x4 AR for two 1280's side by side. Fable, for example, while putting the rendered picture within my virtual 10x4 display area neatly, promptly puts the (quite essential) dialog subs and game choices outside the viewable area because it is unfamiliar with this aspect raito.
3. Not a showstopper, but very easy to work around if only the game devs would give it one ounce of thought:
Most action in almost any type of game (bar, perhaps, RTS's) happens dead in the center of your display. Which is good if you're playing with three displays, all important stuff happening flat in the center of your middle one, but with the simple solution 90% of people can affort and implement - purchase an additional monitor and hook it up to their existing dual-head-supporting graphics card - all the action happens right on top of the split between the two monitors. Things like your character in NWN (which properly gets split by 2cm (if you're lucky and chose your monitors wisely - 5cm if you're not) of space in the middle, looking somewhat 'fat') to that little pixel marking the business end of my sniper rifle in UT. VERY annoying (though I got used to it, to an extent, and it's very much worth the wider viewport).
GAME DEVELOPERS, PLEASE, PRETTY PRETTY PLEASE, PUT AN OPTION IN THE CONFIG TO OFFCENTER THE GAME HAPPENINGS SO THE CENTER OF THE GAME IS
Those issues aside (and with some, at least the former two issues definitely are), two monitors and a 2560x1024 resolution would give even the newest GPU (with FSAA, AF and shadow rendering cranked up to max of course) a very decent workout, and put all that unuseable horsepower on the fringes of the useable realm.
My two cents.
-