GeForce 9800 GX2 in Quad SLI Tested

[Comment Bot]

Please feel free to comment about our story entitled "GeForce 9800 GX2 in Quad SLI Tested"

[SpinachEater]

Nice article. The performance of the GX2 in quad configuration isn't that surprising.

I think it is good that you guys threw in a 9600GT SLI test. That is one of the most overlooked setups when testing the dual cards. Personally, I want to know if getting two individual cards would / would not be better than getting the dual card.


Are you guys going to do any more comparisons like 8800GT SLI or are you leaving it at that?

[Mr.Tweak]

Originally Posted by SpinachEater

Are you guys going to do any more comparisons like 8800GT SLI or are you leaving it at that?

Yes - we will be focusing more and more on SLI now.

[sh0es]

The 174.53 driver "supports" QuadSLI to the extent that it allows you to enable it, but it is not one that NVIDIA says produces the kind of performance gain expected from the technology. I don't know who told you otherwise... but to me this article is saying, "hey, look how much QuadSLI sucks with this driver that doesn't really make it work".

Correct me if I am wrong (and on who's authority if possible).

[Grims]

Originally Posted by sh0es

The 174.53 driver "supports" QuadSLI to the extent that it allows you to enable it, but it is not one that NVIDIA says produces the kind of performance gain expected from the technology. I don't know who told you otherwise... but to me this article is saying, "hey, look how much QuadSLI sucks with this driver that doesn't really make it work".

Correct me if I am wrong (and on who's authority if possible).

I disagree, the article shows that for the first time it is possible to play Crysis on high at 60fps.

[SpinachEater]

Originally Posted by Mr.Tweak

Yes - we will be focusing more and more on SLI now.

Nice...can't wait! And xfirex right? ;)

Originally Posted by sh0es

The 174.53 driver "supports" QuadSLI to the extent that it allows you to enable it, but it is not one that NVIDIA says produces the kind of performance gain expected from the technology. I don't know who told you otherwise... but to me this article is saying, "hey, look how much QuadSLI sucks
with this driver that doesn't really make it work".

Correct me if I am wrong (and on who's authority if possible).

Yes, valid point, but still, someone needs to be held accountable for it. There is no point to having quad GPU setup if the drivers don't allow quad GPU to perform. Sure your system won't crash when you put the 2nd card in but if it you can't use it then why bother?

I have a problem with companies releasing drivers that are official when they should actually be Beta drivers. Consumers are getting their hats pulled over their eyes on this and to an extent, it is just accepted these days that the first drivers won't work, or to your definition, will support the GPU but won't allow maximum performance.

I understand that people want to defend NV, but they can do better than that. As consumers we should be asking for more by pushing for better quality. Poor driver support can turn a gem of a card into junk so it is important to address the quality of the drivers in a review.

[jpradonc]

How was the game "feel". Did it grab you and make you want to continue playing? In my opinion, the numbers don't always tell the entire story.

Was the quad sli set up more fun?

[SpinachEater]

Originally Posted by jpradonc

How was the game "feel". Did it grab you and make you want to continue playing? In my opinion, the numbers don't always tell the entire story.

Was the quad sli set up more fun?

To be honest, I forget about the graphics when I am in the heat of battle to a certain degree. As long as things aren't blurry and choppy I have fun. Only during breaks in the action I actually look around and note the graphics quality. I will admit, there are certain cut off points to where things look pretty lame.

The thing that cracks me up is that Crysis on Med settings is still one of the best looking games out there but people are so fixated on the fact that there are still settings above that which they cannot obtain.

[sh0es]

Originally Posted by SpinachEater

Nice...can't wait! And xfirex right? ;)





Yes, valid point, but still, someone needs to be held accountable for it. There is no point to having quad GPU setup if the drivers don't allow quad GPU to perform. Sure your system won't crash when you put the 2nd card in but if it you can't use it then why bother?

I have a problem with companies releasing drivers that are official when they should actually be Beta drivers. Consumers are getting their hats pulled over their eyes on this and to an extent, it is just accepted these days that the first drivers won't work, or to your definition, will support the GPU but won't allow maximum performance.

I understand that people want to defend NV, but they can do better than that. As consumers we should be asking for more by pushing for better quality. Poor driver support can turn a gem of a card into junk so it is important to address the quality of the drivers in a review.

Err... NVIDIA has already said that the Quad driver would be released on March 25th. So when somebody gets their hands on a driver that nobody ever claimed was supposed to make QuadSLI work correctly before the official launch date, tests two graphics cards with it and finds out there is not a good performance gain, someone "needs to be held accountable"?

How do you figure?

I have no reason to defend NVIDIA, but why in the hell should they "be held accountable" for the poor performance of a graphics driver that was never supposed to generate good performance (for this application) in the first place?

[IceWing]

Originally Posted by sh0es

Err... NVIDIA has already said that the Quad driver would be released on March 25th. So when somebody gets their hands on a driver that nobody ever claimed was supposed to make QuadSLI work correctly before the official launch date, tests two graphics cards with it and finds out there is not a good performance gain, someone "needs to be held accountable"?

How do you figure?

I have no reason to defend NVIDIA, but why in the hell should they "be held accountable" for the poor performance of a graphics driver that was never supposed to generate good performance (for this application) in the first place?

I have not been following the developments here at TweakTown on a daily basis, even though I check out the site every now and then. Is there a particular reason why you post these early reviews based on an "incomplete" ForceWare driver?

The news value is good, no doubt about it, but if you recall your recent 9800GX2 preview, the information contained in it was close to useless - seeing how the reviews actually turned out in a general sense. There is a reason why you sign an NDA (if you do so), and that is very closely related to driver development.

I must admit I am growing tired of these frivolous reviews/previews, especially because I see a lack of manufacturer respect at the same time.

It would be nice with an answer as to why this is happening here at TweakTown. Obviously, you must have your reasons since you posted the article. But how come?

/IceWing