Quad-SLI and Quad-CrossFireX Interest?

Quad-GPU Poll

  • Yes I want to see this

    Votes: 135 71.1%

  • Not really interested

    Votes: 49 25.8%

  • Other

    Votes: 6 3.2%
  • Total voters
    190
B

Brent_Justice

Moderator
Joined
Apr 17, 2000
Messages
17,755
Gauging the interest for us to put together a 2x 6990 vs. 2x 590 evaluation. Please voice your opinions if this would be an article you would like to see and how it might be relevant to you. Thanks for your freedback.
 
I'd love to see this. (Despite knowing how much work that entails for you.)
 
Yes, please do a 2 x 6990 and 2 x 590 evaluation. As much work as it does entail I believe the results would speak volumes to the simply curious and [H]ardCore Enthusiast alike.
 
shadow74205 said:
Oh hell yeah!!! Looks like Vega stirred up a hornet's nest.
Click to expand...

I don't see what ''Vega'' has to do with the subject of this review that is 2X6990 vs 2X590? :confused:

But back on topic. It would be an interesting review to read. Both are the top single cards on both side. And same price.

I would like to read that.
 
shadow74205 said:
Who the heck just voted that they weren't interested???
Click to expand...
Me. I don't go to the Cheetah (in Atlanta) because no matter how much I may wish it or how money I slide between the garters and shapely thighs of those incredibly hot dancers, none of them will have sex with me. I consider these monster graphics card showdown threads to be the [H] version of the Cheetah. Just sayin'...
 
I expressed interest, but I think what would be more interesting (and, unfortunately, entail a lot of work for you guys), is to determine what video card combination provides the best gameplay experience across a variety of games at 1080p (or 1920 x 1200), 2560 x 1600, and [insert commonly used three- screen config here.)

This would include sli and crossfire (results which you can probably largely recycle from previous tests), quad-fire and quad-sli of different flavors, tri-sli and tri-fire combos that you haven't yet shown us (like 3 x 6970s.) Include comments on noise, crashing, stuttering, or anything else that affects the overall gameplay experience.

In general I think these results would be of more practical use to people than a simple quad vs. quad showdown, which would still be interesting, no doubt.
 
Registered just now to say, "Hells yes!"

I always love to see the beasting highest of high ends duke it out. =3
 
DO EEET IN 640X480P!!!

SVGA res lolwut?!

[H] writers HEY! take a look at Steam Hardware report sometime. http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey SEE WHERE IT SAYS PRIMARY DISPLAY RESOLUTION?!?! 1080P IS THE PRIMARY DISPLAY RESOLUTION, KNOCK IT OFF WITH ALL THAT OTHER RES NONSENSE PLEASE!!

I agree!! But do it @ 1080p, and a Triple Monitor 1080p resolution. Most people do not have 2560x1600 and they don't have 640x480 or 800x640 or 1280x1024 for that matter anymore IT'S 2011!!!!! (PLUS it doesn't help inform the mainstream who do have 1080p when you guys do these ABSURD Graphics and CPU benchmarks at these resolutions almost no one games in!). Also do one @ 1080p with no Anti Aliasing and one with Max Aliasing. Then you might have increased web traffic here lol! :p Or just start using Win 95 as your O.S. of choice because it shows performance increase or sumthing, DOH!. :D
 
I am interested. But would rather see 3x6970 vs 3x570 at Eyefinity/Surround resolutions to quiet the critics from your previous 6990+6970 TriFire versus 580 SLI article. I don't think I've seen a review of 570 Tri-SLI at Surround resolutions.
 
teletran8 said:
DO EEET IN 640X480P!!!

SVGA res lolwut?!

*snip*
Click to expand...

I think you're missing the point of [H]...

On topic: Personally not interested, but I know a lot of people are. I'll admit, I'll probably still read through em though just like every other review :p
 
Would definitely like to see this. Especially at triple screen resolutions. Let's see how much SLI/Crossfire scaling has or hasn't improved since the last time i tried quadfire (two 5970s). This kind of video setup would seem a waste of horsepower on less than 3 screens. JMO. I wonder what setup is more common 1x30" monitor or 3x1080P monitors?
 
teletran8 said:
DO EEET IN 640X480P!!!

SVGA res lolwut?!

[H] writers HEY! take a look at Steam Hardware report sometime. http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey SEE WHERE IT SAYS PRIMARY DISPLAY RESOLUTION?!?! 1080P IS THE PRIMARY DISPLAY RESOLUTION, KNOCK IT OFF WITH ALL THAT OTHER RES NONSENSE PLEASE!!

I agree!! But do it @ 1080p, and a Triple Monitor 1080p resolution. Most people do not have 2560x1600 and they don't have 640x480 or 800x640 or 1280x1024 for that matter anymore IT'S 2011!!!!! (PLUS it doesn't help inform the mainstream who do have 1080p when you guys do these ABSURD Graphics and CPU benchmarks at these resolutions almost no one games in!). Also do one @ 1080p with no Anti Aliasing and one with Max Aliasing. Then you might have increased web traffic here lol! :p Or just start using Win 95 as your O.S. of choice because it shows performance increase or sumthing, DOH!. :D
Click to expand...

steam =/= the world.

hell, (IMO) steam =/= PC Gaming enthusiast. I don't think I have ever subbited the HW survey, nor do I have steam on anything but my laptop.... 1366x768, lol.
 
Yes.

But please also use 2560x1600 just to see how quad sli/crossfire work without running out of memory. Of course also Eyefinity/surround resolutions, but I find 2560x1600 would be important.
 
I know a lot of people clamor for extreme reviews, many of which likely aren't a good use of [H]'s resources. I think this one has merit, though:

* Sandy Bridge systems are mainstream (at least here), so a lot of readers would like to know what they can do with a maximum of two cards.

* The rise of triple monitor gaming makes this more relevant.

* When you spend $1000 on a couple of 580's, or a 6990 and 6970 combo, you wonder if you might as well spend a few hundred more and max the whole thing out, especially if you have a triple monitor setup. However, you don't want to do this if you're not sure you will get a real return for your money.

* Many of us have noticed from Vega's work that greater than 2 GPUs is scaling better these days than in the past. Maybe it's worth it now, as long as we can do it in a way that is practical.

BTW, I'm guessing the issue of what size PS you'll need will be a common question!
 
I've no intention of purchasing either and I'd still find such an article interesting for its own sake. Go for it.
 
vjcsmoke said:
I wonder what setup is more common 1x30" monitor or 3x1080P monitors?
Click to expand...

I have no way of knowing but I'm guessing 3x1080p as it can be had for as as little as half the price. If I didn't do photography work I'd most likely be on 3x24" but there is no sub for an IPS 30" panel for Lightroom.
 
teletran8 said:
[H] writers HEY! take a look at Steam Hardware report sometime. http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey SEE WHERE IT SAYS PRIMARY DISPLAY RESOLUTION?!?! 1080P IS THE PRIMARY DISPLAY RESOLUTION, KNOCK IT OFF WITH ALL THAT OTHER RES NONSENSE PLEASE!!

I agree!! But do it @ 1080p, and a Triple Monitor 1080p resolution. Most people do not have 2560x1600 and they don't have 640x480 or 800x640 or 1280x1024 for that matter anymore IT'S 2011!!!!! (PLUS it doesn't help inform the mainstream who do have 1080p when you guys do these ABSURD Graphics and CPU benchmarks at these resolutions almost no one games in!). Also do one @ 1080p with no Anti Aliasing and one with Max Aliasing. Then you might have increased web traffic here lol! :p Or just start using Win 95 as your O.S. of choice because it shows performance increase or sumthing, DOH!. :D
Click to expand...

They are well aware of this and have commented on it HUNDREDS OF TIMES BEFORE. The problem is the fact that the high end cards are overkill even for 1080p at the moment. Whats the fucking point of benchmarking them at that low of resolution? They might even be CPU bottlenecked with all the eye candy on at that resolution, thus all the cards will all hit THE SAME decently high frame rate. This is [H], we push hardware to the limit. Benching high end cards at 1080p isn't even a warmup for these cards.

If you can't extrapolate the results they get for 25x16 res down to your 1080p monitor, then you need your head examined. Dur... the cards max out the eyecandy on a 30" monitor at playable framerates...dur dur... I wonder if that means the card will be able to max out the eyecandy at playable framerates at a lower resolution... hurr durr...:rolleyes:
 
It wouldn't be anything I'd be able to afford, but it would be cool to see how the scaling is.
 
CaptNumbNutz said:
They are well aware of this and have commented on it HUNDREDS OF TIMES BEFORE. The problem is the fact that the high end cards are overkill even for 1080p at the moment. Whats the fucking point of benchmarking them at that low of resolution? They might even be CPU bottlenecked with all the eye candy on at that resolution, thus all the cards will all hit THE SAME decently high frame rate. This is [H], we push hardware to the limit. Benching high end cards at 1080p isn't even a warmup for these cards.

If you can't extrapolate the results they get for 25x16 res down to your 1080p monitor, then you need your head examined. Dur... the cards max out the eyecandy on a 30" monitor at playable framerates...dur dur... I wonder if that means the card will be able to max out the eyecandy at playable framerates at a lower resolution... hurr durr...:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Dude I don't want to extrapolate anything you try to say :p But here goes!!

You ever notice [H] reviews will do things like this for example from the latest Graphics Benchmarks of the ASUS 6950 on Lost Planet 2.

1920x1080p = Min = 19 MAX = 52 Avg = 37.5 @ 4X MSAA 16X AF
2560x1600p = Min = 19 MAX = 50 Avg = 38.0 @ 0X MSAA 16X AF

LOL SO ALL THEY DID was drop AA when gaming at a higher rez? And I learned you gain performance by dropping AA like FREAKING DUH DUH BROSKI.

On the next page all I see is F1 2010 @ 2560x1600p which I don't game at that res I game @ 1080p so it make me less interested in reading beyond this point, because I won't know when I run that game what I'm really likely to see at my rez. All I can extrapolate is slightly more than 40 fps, which is at a point where some games are playable and some are slightly not, especially in more intense spots of a game so will it be playable for me and thousands of others that game @ 1080p? Who the heck knows lol! Is it that hard to change the res in options and give us sum numbers? lolwutlazy! They did it on the previous page...guess not they must be to to tired they gave up doing 1080p on the first page lol.

Next page Civ 5 same thing 2560 res and they gettin mins of 25 fps but peaks of 100fps what does this tell me? half the time the game runs choppy and other half the time it runs smooth or something? If I run it at 1080p do I get 30 or 40 fps or what for Minimums? Let me know sometime Mr. Numbnuts? What can you extrapolate from that review how CIv 5 will run @ 1080p for me? :p

Next Benchmark BC2. That game will run fine on any current Hardware. So that's unnecessary to review unless your in the 2 percentile that have 2560x1600 lmao!

I get all my Graphics reviews from Tech Power Up, I love the way they do reviews. @ all resolutions, but [H] does do a nice job of recommended playable settings, but I think they should stick to 1080p. Civ 5 25 fps min and 100 fps max what does that really tell anyone that doesn't game on a 2560x1600 it tells us SQUAT! Like you tell me here everyday :D
 
It would sure be an awesome article to read, so I voted yes. There's no way I would ever buy a quad SLI/Crossfire setup, but it would still make for a good article. It's just like reading about the latest Ferrari that just came out on an auto review website.
 
I'm torn, it'd be pretty [H] to see some benchmarks on this setup, however I'd rather see some thing reviewed that I would reasonable buy.
 
can you include a folding / HPC component in the review, please? we're currently evaluating different systems and would like to see what kind of results programs on the market are getting ATM (obviously, ours will have different requirements, but it can't hurt to have another data point :D)
 
Definitely would be interested to see it, although I think it is overkill for all but the craziest eye-finity setups or for running benchmarks for boints.
 
The article would be the same old same old. Anyone who would be using 4x GPU in any combination would not be playing on anything less than a single 2560x1600 monitor. The POS 590s will run out of VRAM in any surround tests, get crippled and AMD crowned winner.

A much more interesting article would be to test 3GB 580s as they are now widely available. Removing any VRAM limit bottlenecks is the only way to truly test who has the best architecture and drivers/scaling.
 
Vega said:
The article would be the same old same old. Anyone who would be using 4x GPU in any combination would not be playing on anything less than a single 2560x1600 monitor. The POS 590s will run out of VRAM in any surround tests, get crippled and AMD crowned winner.

A much more interesting article would be to test 3GB 580s as they are now widely available. Removing any VRAM limit bottlenecks is the only way to truly test who has the best architecture and drivers/scaling.
Click to expand...

You should really let the professionnals do their job. I'm sure HardOCP reviewers are well aware of those culprits and will write a proper review, taking care of those limitations. Their apples-to-apples comparison is unique on the internet, and is there for exactly that reason.

THEY know how to write a review professionnally. ;)
 
I went other.

Would it be cool to see, sure. I'd read through the entire thing, but its just not practical for 99% of the reader base.

While I game with 3 monitors, most of the people I help pick out hardware does not. Maybe the resources would be better spent on finding the sweet spot for 1080p monitors. test the 4xx, 5xx, 5xxx, and 6xxx cards and see where I should be telling them to spend their money.
 
Balthazor said:
I expressed interest, but I think what would be more interesting (and, unfortunately, entail a lot of work for you guys), is to determine what video card combination provides the best gameplay experience across a variety of games at 1080p (or 1920 x 1200), 2560 x 1600, and [insert commonly used three- screen config here.)

This would include sli and crossfire (results which you can probably largely recycle from previous tests), quad-fire and quad-sli of different flavors, tri-sli and tri-fire combos that you haven't yet shown us (like 3 x 6970s.) Include comments on noise, crashing, stuttering, or anything else that affects the overall gameplay experience.

In general I think these results would be of more practical use to people than a simple quad vs. quad showdown, which would still be interesting, no doubt.
Click to expand...

Well said. I totally agree here. :cool:
 
rUmX said:
I am interested. But would rather see 3x6970 vs 3x570 at Eyefinity/Surround resolutions to quiet the critics from your previous 6990+6970 TriFire versus 580 SLI article. I don't think I've seen a review of 570 Tri-SLI at Surround resolutions.
Click to expand...

Would there really be a point though, the limited mem on the 580's holds it back in some games at surround and 570's would be even more limited.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top