Two video cards or one?

[One4yu2c]

Originally Posted by Jokerswild

I agree, the difference isn't much.

Not only that, it's just not accurate to take those results and make a blanket statement. According to that single graph, 2x7600GTs slap the sh*t out a single x1800XT, but here's a link that shows the x1800XT outpacing 2x7600GTs in the majority of gaming benchmarks, though it still manages to edge by in the synthetic 3dMark06 ----> LINK

EDIT: Quote added for clarity. :P

[One4yu2c]

Originally Posted by Miazga82

:? You'r right
The other thing is, that you want see any difference between ffor example 130 and 180 fps

That's always the truth when looking at $400+ purchases. At that price level, it almost becomes moot IMO. Nevertheless, for argument's sake, let's be fair and point out that there are demanding games out there where the a 30fps difference can make the difference between playable and non-playable at certain visual quality settings, and developers continue to push the edge when it comes to big name titles.

And of course there's the argument of tapping out your SLI options right off the bat, as opposed to popping in another higher end card down the line when pricing and needs would make more sense, though I'm not big on SLI to begin with.

Originally Posted by Miazga82

teh difference is the amount of money in your pocket ;)

See above...

[Capper]

I guess, my point is that there comes a point where your eyes....and brain, can't see a noticeable difference.
MNo one is going to be able to tell the difference between 100 and 120 FPS during gaming.
I truly believe its just a benchmarking gimmick

[Tyreal]

There was a long discussion at OCF about that particular topic. Is there really a point at running a game over 60 FPS? Or even at 30?

My brain can tell if a game is running at 30, it seems to be a bit slow. But anything over 60 or even 50, and its really hard to tell.

Taking a note of all your arguements, I would go wtih the single faster card. I don't even know why I chose the SLI setup in the first place, I used to advocate the use of a single card setup. It's probably this 7800GT of mine, it's making me think that SLI is the greatest.

[One4yu2c]

Originally Posted by Tyreal

There was a long discussion at OCF about that particular topic. Is there really a point at running a game over 60 FPS? Or even at 30?

My brain can tell if a game is running at 30, it seems to be a bit slow. But anything over 60 or even 50, and its really hard to tell.

It depends on where you draw the cutoff point. If a card is pulling, say, 35-40fps on average, it's going to dip when a scene becomes more intense/demanding, which will result in a temporary choppiness. This will be even more pronounced when the next big game debuts that is even more demanding than the previous.

That's not an argument in favor of SLI (as I mentioned, I'm not big on the concept), but rather a comment on an apparent side discussion about how many frames is enough. FWIW, I still get occassional stuttering in Oblivion with all the settings cranked up on my 7800GTX.

[Jokerswild]

You ought to see my 9800xt strain with Oblivion even set at medium settings and 1024 x 768 but it's playable.

[RangerXLT8]

Unless you are into benchmarking, go with a single X1900XT.

I ran X1800 Crossfire for some months. Crossfire(or SLI for your matter) will play any game maxed out, no questions, and it also will score the highest in benchmarks. A dual card setup, 7900 or X1900 is going to cost you a grand plus a motherboard plus a PSU that can run it. Having 2 graphics cards also generates alot of heat, it will warm your case up so fast you won't know what to do.
Having 2 midrange cards in sli or crossfire is not a good choice, the heat 2 cards generates is too much. One X1900XTX or GTX is going to outpreform dual midrange cards in games any day of the week, while generating alot less heat and noise.

My X1900XTX playes GR:AW maxed out, framerate may dip down to 35FPS once in a while, but averages 60+.

[gvblake22]

All very good points. A single card is usually always the route I recommend taking, but I still want to know what resolution the original poster is running. THIS review shows that F.E.A.R. shows a 17 fps increase with the 7900GT SLI setup over the single X1900XT at 1600x1200 with only 4xAA. The X1900XT was still getting about 41 FPS average, but like One4 mentioned, average FPS is very different than minimum FPS. A card that gets 40 FPS average can easily dip below 30 FPS sometimes, and that is lag that can make someone very unhappy because they spent hundreds of dollars on a video card that won't keep framerates at a playable level 100% of the time.

If you have enough $$, the SLI 7900GT's will undoubtedly perform better than the single X1900XT, but I have to ask if/why you are limited to only those two options. If you have the money for 7900GT SLI setup, I would suggest following the advice of most of the other people here and getting a single nice card, like a X1900XTX or 7900GTX. Your computer will run cooler, quieter, and use less power. But again, if you are running an extremely high resolution (over 1600x1200) then a dual graphics setup isn't too bad of an option.

[Jokerswild]

How about 1 7900gtx and you can add another later if your not happy with 1.