At what resolution is multiple GPUs a MUST?

At what Resolution is multiple GPUs a MUST?

  • 1440 x 900

    Votes: 1 0.5%

  • 1680 x 1050

    Votes: 6 3.3%

  • 1920 x 1200

    Votes: 45 24.5%

  • 2560 x 1024

    Votes: 21 11.4%

  • 2560 x 1600

    Votes: 111 60.3%
  • Total voters
    184
R

Rev.

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 12, 2005
Messages
401
This is a question for fun. I have had SLI in the past. I prefer a single GPU solution.

I recently upgraded to a XFX GTX 285 "Black Edition" after getting a bad GTX 295.

I have to say, I love this card.

My specs are:
Q6600 @ 3.2 Ghz
4 GB of RAM
and the GTX 285
My moniter is a 24" widescreen (1920 x 1200)

The card plays everything I play quite nicely.

On another forum (to be unnammed) there are those that insist that multiple GPUs are a MUST for cranked gaming 1680 x 1050 and above.

I disagree, feeling this XFX card is fine for 1920 x 1200.

Any higher than my present resolution (namely 1256 x 1024 and greater) multiple GPUs would be necessary.

Anyway, for fun. At what res would you say multiple GPUs is a must?
 
Crap, looks like I messed up the poll some how o_O

The choices were supposed to be:
1440 x 900
1680 x 1050
1920 x 1200
2560 x 1024
2560 x 1600

:eek:

--hahahahah don't mind me I am going crazy--

Poll is as I wanted it :eek:
 
I say past 1920, 1920 a single card can run fine im pretty sure with some if not all bells and whistles on.
 
Anything over Big X Huge multi cards are a must..:)

J/K..I would also say past 1920..but then again, it could depend on other factors no?
 
Crosshairs said:
Anything over Big X Huge multi cards are a must..:)

J/K..I would also say past 1920..but then again, it could depend on other factors no?
Click to expand...


Yes it would, lets say a Q6600 OCed and 2 GBs of RAM minimum for arguments sake.
 
I want to say never is a plausible option, since I'd personally rather turn down other settings than spend an extra lump of money just for gaming. Another GPU would help definitely, but off-hand I can't think of any games other than Crysis where's it mandatory just to produce playable framerates compared to a single top-end GPU, even if it does mean dropping other quality settings.
 
2560 res is a bit too much for single card but with SLI you may also hit other limiting factors.

Running dual GPU's uses more CPU so you may need to clock it more for some games.
Dont get 512MB memory cards, as the higher the res, the more memory is required for AA, screen buffers and the display file itself.
Highest res setting for game textures can use a huge amount of memory too which is what you will prefer to use.
Ideally we need more than 1GB on a single card now <looks peevishly at GTA IV>.
Make sure your PSU can handle the extra load.
 
Yes the poll is just to show what is needed GPU wise in games at what resolution. I gave the minimum CPU/RAM for reference.

I am assuming that if one went SLI/tri-SLI/X-Fire (whatever flavor GPUs) they would have the proper power covered etc. If they went Tri-SLI they wouldnt be using a Q6600 :)

I just can't stand people that come off like they "know it all" and tell people trying to build a decent gaming machine on a budget (like most of the wordl) that they MUST go SLI especially at the rediculous 1680 x 1050 resolution.

Just curious, you that voted 1920 x 1200 is that your present resolution, and what card(s) are you using. My 285 seriously kicks butt at that res.
 
:D HAHAHAAHHAHAHAHA I see the guy voted....

There is one vote for 1680 x 1050....

I jest...but it would be halarious if he was an [H] member and voted in the pole.

Trombe said:
I want to say never is a plausible option, since I'd personally rather turn down other settings than spend an extra lump of money just for gaming. Another GPU would help definitely, but off-hand I can't think of any games other than Crysis where's it mandatory just to produce playable framerates compared to a single top-end GPU, even if it does mean dropping other quality settings.
Click to expand...

BTW trombe, I don't disagree. But the idea is not sacrificing quality.
 
It really just depends on how you like your games. If you want high quality textures, high levels of anti-aliasing and high levels of filtering, you might need SLI for 1680X1050 - for some games. However - I have been playing lots of games on a 24in 1920X1200 - with a 9800GX2 - OFTEN WITH SLI DISABLED!! and I think the framerate / quality is just fine.

Really, it's a matter of opinion. Sure, more GPUS will produce higher frame rates, and allow for a higher quality image - but does that really matter? How much do you notice?

The jump from 1920X1200 to a 30in display at 2560 x 1600 is a very large one -

1920X1200 = 2,304,000 pixels

2560X1600 = 4,096,000 pixels

In that case, I would say SLI'ed 285s are a good choice - but if you've purchased a 30in display for gaming, you wanted SLI'ed cards anyway.
 
Would the results change if every single detail/AA/AF setting were cranked to max? Just a scholarship/curiosity question as well.
 
Trombe said:
I want to say never is a plausible option, since I'd personally rather turn down other settings than spend an extra lump of money just for gaming. Another GPU would help definitely, but off-hand I can't think of any games other than Crysis where's it mandatory just to produce playable framerates compared to a single top-end GPU, even if it does mean dropping other quality settings.
Click to expand...


Well to give an idea, the guy asking advice played WoW, LotrO, and wanted to play D3 (?) in the future on a 22" moniter...

It was in that conext he was told that he "needed SLI"
 
Rev. said:
Well to give an idea, the guy asking advice played WoW, LotrO, and wanted to play D3 (?) in the future on a 22" moniter...

It was in that conext he was told that he "needed SLI"
Click to expand...

That's just plain ridiculous...
 
styx0r said:
It really just depends on how you like your games. If you want high quality textures, high levels of anti-aliasing and high levels of filtering, you might need SLI for 1680X1050 - for some games.
Click to expand...


What games need multiple GPUs at 1680 x 1050?

Especially considering the single GPU solutions that are in existance.

Keep in mind, we are not talking about adding to your old rig with and SLI board...we are talking about building a PC new.

I believe the guy had already ordered a GTX 280 for his machine when he was advised "SLI" making it even MORE rediculous.
 
ruu said:
Would the results change if every single detail/AA/AF setting were cranked to max? Just a scholarship/curiosity question as well.
Click to expand...

I assumed already that you will have max detail on everything.
 
You can game decently on a 1920x1200 monitor with a single card. I agree that the pixel jump up to the 30" monitors is a big one, and that's the only one that I would say you'd need multiple video cards.
 
nissanztt90 said:
I tried SLI at 1680x1050 with 8800GTs. What a spectacular waste that was.
Click to expand...

Most of the benches I've seen on SLI/Crossfire doesn't seem to be that incredible to begin with, usually offering a %20 improvement on average, which is kind of insane considering what you're paying.

Then again this could be completely different for dual 22" displays. Thoughts?
 
But that's Crysis. I can run most games on High or their highest settings at 1920x1200 with my GTX 260.
 
GJSNeptune said:
But that's Crysis. I can run most games on High or their highest settings at 1920x1200 with my GTX 260.
Click to expand...

Thats the problem with a poll like this. If crysis is your MUST then YES even 1440x900 could use multiple gpu's. I am running two gtx 280's at 1680x1050 and i can barely max everythign while staying around 30ish fps. If I went up to 1920x1200 I would be hosered.

But if all you play is warcraft 3, even an older card would handle a 30" monitor.

But generally, especially with games being so memory dependant recently, 1900x1200 is a good starting point for multigpu's. But I still love mine lol
 
stainremover said:
you're kidding right? what about after your 12 hours in Crysis are over? the poll is about absolute MUST, not for one single game
Click to expand...

no one MUST play games, so therefore the correct answer is none of the above. Any single graphics card can run office at 2560x1600

A better question would be at which resolution do the most demanding games require multi GPU? In which case the answer is 1440x900
 
I'd say even at 2560x1600 most games are playable med-high to high settings on a single GTX 280. I had to play with a single for a couple weeks while I waited for Core i7 to come out and I managed to play most of my games just fine.

EDIT: But it does DEFINITELY help with gaming at that res by leveling out framerates (I.E no huge drops) and helps with newer games such as Crysis, Stalker Clear Sky and my ridiculously modded oblivion.
 
i say it depends on ur upgrade plans and budget. as new games come out a single vs dual solution for resolution will get lower and lower. since i build for longevity i went ahead and put 2 4850's in my box because i have another 3 years b4 i build again.

 
I gave up on the convo in the other forum.

It is a company that builds custom PCs. Seems like a decent company.

There is a "guru" on thier forums the has 5,000 more posts than the company's own administrator advising a person that plays LotrO and Wow that SLI is a must to play at high res on his 1680 x 1050 LCD that was coming with his "Pre-build system" that has an i7 920 @ 3.33Ghz, 3 GB of RAM, and a GTX 285 (I just looked up the prebuilt specs).

His last comment was that a 9800GX2 would play all games at high settings because it was a dual GPU card....

Once someone says that, I know it is time to move on. Who knows, maybe he is doing that company a favor convincing people to buy what they don't need. As far as I can tell he doesn't work for the company, but hey...who knows LOL!
 
I'd say either 1920x1200 or 2560x1600 depending on the level of eye candy is important to you.
 
It's never a must if you get a high end card.

But if your going to spend 1000 bucks on a 30" you should be able to fork over at least 400 in video power...which is why I didn't buy a 30" couldn't afford the high end cards to go with it.
 
After switching to 2560x1600, I found it absolutely necessary to switch to multi-GPU :eek:
 
It isnt. ever. I'm playing Left4Dead at 1900x1200 with a single 9600GSO at the moment. runing anywhere between 60-200 fps. with FSAA and AA on 2x -4x Im sure it will go down some but I dont see any real difference. so I imagine a GTX280 will handle most anything you throw at it.
 
I'd say that it depends. I wouldn't even consider it at anything less than 1920x1200. And if you play at 19x12 without the bells and whistles turned to the max, you'll be fine with a single fast card. However, on games like Crysis, FC2, etc, with everything cranked to the max, you'll start taking a serious hit without a 2nd card (and with Crysis even 2 cards can't keep you at 60 with everything maxed). And above 19x12, I'd say that if you want to run at 60fps even with minimal settings, you'll want 2 cards.
 
piscian18 said:
It isnt. ever. I'm playing Left4Dead at 1900x1200 with a single 9600GSO at the moment. runing anywhere between 60-200 fps. with FSAA and AA on 2x -4x Im sure it will go down some but I dont see any real difference. so I imagine a GTX280 will handle most anything you throw at it.
Click to expand...

Thanks I had a good chuckle.
 
1920x1200.

This really all depends on what you consider to be acceptable. I want to game at my native (1920) with everything cranked. Games like Stalker: Clear Sky and Crysis Warhead require dual GPUs to achieve that. Of course, the common retort is that those kinds of titles are rare, and most of what we're getting at the moment is console port trash and that thoroughbred PC games are a thing of the past.

This is a true albeit nearsighted sentiment. The current generation of consoles is aging very rapidly. Everything I see coming out for the Xbox just looks awful to me and I know that developers are straining to work with hardware that renders it increasingly difficult to advance the image quality of games. Titles like GTA4 illustrate that that developers have all but given up in the struggle to maintain reasonable framerate and push the IQ envelope. Instead, they're slashing FR in hopes of convincing people that a) image quality of games is still progressing and b) the hardware they bought still has life left in it.

Both of these are false. UE3 and Source no longer impress me, nor anyone I know, because we've been spoiled by CryEngine, Dunia, etc. The (console) consumer needs new hardware, and PC gamers need that to happen in order to attain PC titles that will challenge the current GPUs. Guess this turned into a little bit more than a simple answer, but it's my take on the situation regardless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top