iBUYPOWER: 4.0GHz QX9650 and 3-way SLI 8800 Ultras
by Matt Campbell on April 10, 2008 9:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Systems
Gaming/3D Performance
We tested the following applications with both a single 8800 Ultra and 8800 Ultra 3-way SLI configuration.
3DMark 2006
As usual, we warm things up with the classic synthetic 3D benchmark, run with default demo options only.
Two additional 8800 Ultras provide the leap past 21,000 3DMarks. The single Ultra configuration alone is solidly ahead of the Ion.
Crysis
Crysis is punishing to even the most recent PC hardware. This demo also has two built-in benchmarks in the "bin32" folder, one "CPU" and the other "GPU". We ran several configurations to show the scalability of this game. We ran all benchmarks three times, discarding the first result and averaging the other two. We ran all tests at "High" quality unless otherwise specified. Per Derek's recent findings, Crysis benchmarks are run with VSync at default settings (i.e. not forced off in the driver).
The CPU benchmark clearly shows we've got something more powerful under the hood than with the Shuttle, but once we venture up to higher resolutions with the GPU benchmark, we see it makes little difference (with a single 8800 Ultra, anyway). At 1680x1050, there is a mere 2 FPS separating a Q6700/8800GT from a 4.0GHz QX9650/8800 Ultra. Crysis has a seemingly endless thirst for GPU power. Let's see what kind of difference triple-SLI will make.
At 1680x1050, with 4xAA enabled, 3-way SLI provides a comfortably playable 46 FPS average (or it should - see the "Problems" section). Stepping down to 2xAA only buys another 2 FPS; this is a good indicator that the system is no longer GPU limited.
World in Conflict
World in Conflict is a strategy game where the Cold War has erupted into a full-scale conflict between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. The demo has a built-in benchmark under Options: Graphics. Quality settings in the game also modify anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering; however, we controlled these independently while leaving all other settings at the default for that quality.
Jumping from one 8800 Ultra to three buys approximately 6 FPS at 4xAA. Minimum frame rates with a high number of explosions still hover around 23 FPS, however.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
18 Comments
View All Comments
m2super - Thursday, April 10, 2008 - link
I bet if you pull 2gb of ram from the system with all the cards in you wont get this error message!Do a google search of this annoying issue quite a few people with vista 64, 4gb of ram and an sli config. The fact nvidia/ms havent done anything to resolve it is bs imo.
kuraegomon - Thursday, April 10, 2008 - link
I run SLI-ed GTX's, with RAID and overclocked Q6600. The only reason for a setup like this is to game at 1920x1200 or above. I have a 30' monitor, and like to game at 2560x1600 whenever possible. I believe that triple-SLI only makes sense with 2560x1600 resolutions, and you'll need the extra GPU-to-GPU bandwidth/lower latency that the 790i will provide, to really examine this. Sorry to say for anyone who bought one, but the 780i is already obsolete. (Of course, my 680i Striker Extreme is even moreso).Matt Campbell - Thursday, April 10, 2008 - link
Higher resolutions are in the queue for our next high end rig.Maffer - Thursday, April 10, 2008 - link
You just run into very annoying problem which has been with 780i quite quite a long time now. Please see this thread:http://www.evga.com/forums/tm.asp?m=256404&mpa...">http://www.evga.com/forums/tm.asp?m=256404&mpa...
You can find lots of people with the same problems right there. Nvidia is doing nothing to solve this crap. Some folks have switched to 790i system and problems vanished. This cannot be the solution though. Please Anandtech, if you have any powers to do something about this...at least poke nVidia around with a large trout or something :/
67STANG - Thursday, April 10, 2008 - link
I think people that build these "uber" machines forget their target audience: "the enthusiast". What enthusiast buys a machine like this rather than building it themself?I don't know about anyone else, but part of the fun of a high end computer is building it (at least for me). I wouldn't want to spend $5k+ on a system that I probably could have built myself for much less...
Granted it gets very high scores on benchmarks, but it would be hard not to with what is in it... I believe something could be built that could beat this for hundreds less. Pass.
abhaxus - Sunday, April 13, 2008 - link
There are most definitely people out there that buy the fastest computer available but have no clue how they are built.To use a car analogy... you are arguing that everyone who buys an Impreza WRX is stupid because you could buy the RS and put a turbo on it and go just as fast. The WRX is pre-tuned, has a warranty, and has a badge that says it's fast. These are the same people that buy a Dell XPS or Alienware rig.
To a semi-knowledgeable but not guru-level person, saying "i have an alienware pc" is a lot easier than "I have an overclocked 3.2ghz quad core pc with 2 8800GTS's in SLI"
Noya - Thursday, April 10, 2008 - link
Exactly...you don't buy a review article on a hardware tech site.HOOfan 1 - Thursday, April 10, 2008 - link
If these are the problems that are going to crop up and you will have to troubleshoot them yourself (which seems the case from reading the reviews on resellerrating.com) then you may as well just build it yourself and save even more money.