Which is better - 2 7800 GTX KO 256MB (for SLI) or 7800 GTX 512mb

kickbak1 · January 13th, 2006, 04:05 AM

So which is better:

1) 2 7800 GTX KO 256MB cards run in SLI

or

2) 1 7800 GTX 512MB

I never ran a SLI system before so I don't quite know what to expect. Anyone know which is better and if so, by how much? Which would be more worthwhile?

My current system:

- AMD Athlon 64 FX-55
- Asus A8N32 Sli Deluxe m/b
- 4 GB Corsair RAM (I believe Windows XP only uses 3 gigs)
- Currently running 1 7800 GTX KO 256MB card (PCI-E)
- 2 21" Samsung SyncMaster 213T LCD Monitors
- 2 Maxtor 200GB SATA hard drives striped (RAID 0 is it?), 400 GB total
- Asys 640w Power Supply (thinking to switch to Seasonic S12-600, 600w
because the 640w PSU I have now is a little too loud for my taste and I heard the Seasonic PSU is really quiet)

ThaBomb · January 13th, 2006, 01:03 PM

if i were you, i would take the 512MB.. because you can buy a second card of that one later..

Friedchicken100 · January 13th, 2006, 01:11 PM

2 7800GTXs would be much better than the single 512MB one. VERY few games (Everquest II and Doom 3) can take full advantage of a 512MB frame buffer. Not really worth it IMO.

vikeor · January 13th, 2006, 01:12 PM

if u already have 1 7800GTX go for the SLI... but imo its a waste of money... id leave the system as it is

**phenious** · January 13th, 2006, 01:16 PM

Currently the SLIs seem to be faster when looking in our 3DMark scores but not by a whole lot so I would opt for the single 512MB card and go SLI when you want later on.

kickbak1 · January 13th, 2006, 01:47 PM

thx for the feedback so far. varying opinions i see...

i do already have one 7800 gtx ko 256mb already so i may just go for another for the sli..

but is running SLI really almost twice as fast? Right now, it just sorta bugs me that I can't run games in the best mode with all the details and options on. Like for instance, I can run FEAR in 1600 x1200 but I have to turn off or turn down a lot of stuff to make the game smooth (not sure what the frame rate is). And when I let the game auto-detect it, it runs it in 1024 x something with half the stuff on.

Do you think if I got a second 7800 GTX KO 256mb for SLI, that I could run FEAR with all the settings maxed out at 1600 x 1200 and have the game be smooth/playable framerate? Or back to the original question, would one 7800 GTX 512mb be better suited for this example?

desiredfaith · January 13th, 2006, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kickbak1

thx for the feedback so far. varying opinions i see...

i do already have one 7800 gtx ko 256mb already so i may just go for another for the sli..

but is running SLI really almost twice as fast? Right now, it just sorta bugs me that I can't run games in the best mode with all the details and options on. Like for instance, I can run FEAR in 1600 x1200 but I have to turn off or turn down a lot of stuff to make the game smooth (not sure what the frame rate is). And when I let the game auto-detect it, it runs it in 1024 x something with half the stuff on.

Do you think if I got a second 7800 GTX KO 256mb for SLI, that I could run FEAR with all the settings maxed out at 1600 x 1200 and have the game be smooth/playable framerate? Or back to the original question, would one 7800 GTX 512mb be better suited for this example?

i would not say "Twice" as fast but in some cases its faster and in some its slower. Look on tomshardware.com to check out some ratings of cards. But really you wont see a HUGE fps difference, maybe 20 fps or less difference depending on the game. But it will be better for games that come out in the future.

**phenious** · January 13th, 2006, 02:07 PM

All the reviews said that a single card at the lower resultions keeps up fairly close to the SLIs but when you jacked up the resultion and FF and such the SLIs kept going. I guess I should try it out and see the differences for my self. Should be fun.

Canadian · January 13th, 2006, 05:11 PM

Just check out what anandtech had to say here. the benchmarks show the advantages to each in realworld applications. http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2607 IMO, i would leave the system and wait, but if you've got money to burn, go with the 512 version.

Edit: i was looking around at tom's hardware and came across this which should give some answers as the the benefits of the 256 in sli (doesn't have the 512) http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/12/...ii/page20.html

vikeor · January 13th, 2006, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kickbak1

thx for the feedback so far. varying opinions i see...

i do already have one 7800 gtx ko 256mb already so i may just go for another for the sli..

but is running SLI really almost twice as fast? Right now, it just sorta bugs me that I can't run games in the best mode with all the details and options on. Like for instance, I can run FEAR in 1600 x1200 but I have to turn off or turn down a lot of stuff to make the game smooth (not sure what the frame rate is). And when I let the game auto-detect it, it runs it in 1024 x something with half the stuff on.

Do you think if I got a second 7800 GTX KO 256mb for SLI, that I could run FEAR with all the settings maxed out at 1600 x 1200 and have the game be smooth/playable framerate? Or back to the original question, would one 7800 GTX 512mb be better suited for this example?

SLI IS NOT 2x as FAST! it only gives a slight improvement in performance, its also really CPU dependant cuz so much gfx power requires ALOT of computing power...

i personally go with the 512 and sell ur current KO... ur system will be chugging so much power if u get SLI and really... imo... not worth it