SLI vs CrossFire

I have been looking into running dual vid cards for a while now. I have prefered ATI over NVIDIA for the most part in my previous vid card purchases. When i look into the differences between the SLI and CrossFire technologies it really makes no sense to me because i just don't understand the technical jargon. What i was wondering was if someone here could explain to me in lay-man's terms the pros and cons of CrossFire vs SLI, even if it is only your opinion i would still like to hear it, but please be sure to differentiate between yor opinions and facts.

Forever Lurking
Da Jew

you do understand the basics though ?

that you add TWO GPX cards to your system fitting them into neighbouring PCI slots and joined at the top with a bridging link
one card is responsible for the bottom 40% of the screen, where the vast majority of all the action happens, and the second one renders the remaining 60% ..........

as for the details, they are just that, details, as you have already set out your preference for ATI, then any discourse is basically pointless, as you are already 90% ready to purchase ATI comewhat may .........

most technology today, is bought on the basis of personal preference, whether it is justified or not.
this is not necessarily a bad thing, as products are very similar in capability and price.

base your purchase on what you can get hold of easiest
ie : if your local store stocks Nvidia, then get Nvidia
if you can source ATI easiest ...............................and so on :)

which ever brand you do finally buy, use it and enjoy it, as there is not much in this world worse than those who case perfection for perfections sake

Pax

Quote:

---

you do understand the basics though ?

---

Fortunatly i do 8-). What i was wondering was the physical aspects of the two. For instance, the differnt way that an AMD proc is wired vs an intel proc. The amd architecture allows it to run faster, but you also run hotter. I was just wondering if the different ways that the two companies went about creating thier dual vid card technology gave clear cut pros and cons for each side.

I would still choose Nvidia over ATI hands down... Especially since the new nvidia 7900 cards are around the corner... Besides the Unreal Engine has always run better on Nvidia, and that's the engine most games are going to use in the future... And don't forget they are about to release the Unreal Engine 3.0... Or something like that... the Nvidia cards (especially the 7900's) will most likely be able to run it better...

Quote:

---

Especially since the new nvidia 7900 cards are around the corner...

---

lets not forget the X1900 series from ATI which is also just around the corner. Aren't these two carsd basically the same tier from the two different companies? or is the 7900 a 'class' higher.

Well, from a diffenent slant:

I will not buy another ATI card until they sort out their crappy drivers and management software............hell's teeth, what's the point of buying a Ferrari with four wheel clamps already fitted :D

And ATI have a bad reputation over several years in this area ;)

They need to get their business and marketing model sorted IMO. Advertising only works on kiddies for so long.

:)

Nihil: So basically ATI is more pizazz than content at the moment where nvidia is tried and tested?

Personaly I would just take the money and buy one very good gfx card. Its been shown that the Overhead of SLi means that two generation A cards are outperformed by a single generation B card (as a general rule, exceptions probably exist).

Look at the history of the benchmark testing... Nvidia has out performed ATI for quite some time now, except in Counter Strike... But all the other good games play best on Nvidia, especially those run by the Unreal engines. That means Doom 3 and Quake 4 just to name a few... UT2007 will run best on Nvidia as well... And that game is going to be awesome, your not going to wanna miss out on that one, trust me :).

Well my main game of addiction is FInal Fantasy online, any idead what graphics engine that uses, or where i could look to find out myself?

I'm pretty sure it uses the unreal engine... I know the final fantasy for xbox 360 and PS3 uses the unreal engine 3... I'm sure the the newest final fantasy for PC will be the same... I never got into final fantasy though, RPG's tend to give me a headache. I'm more of an FPS and RTS gamer...


Most games in the future will be built around the Unreal engine 3... so I personally would go with Nvidia... The only exception is if your a hardcore CS player, and Nvidia cards still run CS just fine...

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by JewishIntent
Well my main game of addiction is FInal Fantasy online, any idead what graphics engine that uses, or where i could look to find out myself?

---

You get anything current gen and it'll run that max settings.

Hi JewishIntent

Quote:

---

Nihil: So basically ATI is more pizazz than content at the moment where nvidia is tried and tested?

---

Over the past 6 years I have used both ATI and Nvidia cards of various qualities (prices) in roughly equal quantities. From a hardware viewpoint they have both proved reliable and have had no performance issues in the environments into which I have deployed them (mostly home, SOHO, and small business) that really only needed mid-range performance.

At the higher end the two companies tend to leapfrog eachother, almost quarter on quarter.

My complaint about ATI is that their firmware/software has been less reliable than that of Nvidia. Unstable drivers and flaky management software.

With PCI cards there wasn't that much to chose between them, but as soon as AGP came in Nvidia seem to have gone ahead on the reliability and compatibility front.

Naturally I bitch about them, if I have to fix a machine that I built it is at my cost :( that is why I use Nvidia out of preference. If little Johnny has been impressed by marketing, his peer group or whatever, and insists on ATI, I make damn sure that mommy and daddy know that they will have to pay for my time if it needs fixing.

If it is an Nvidia card I don't bother, because I have never had those problems.

As I have mentioned, I mostly build home or business boxes not high end gaming machines. The high end graphics ones that I do build generally have the hardware specified by the software supplier, so I don't have to worry too much about it ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by The Duck
Look at the history of the benchmark testing... Nvidia has out performed ATI for quite some time now, except in Counter Strike... But all the other good games play best on Nvidia, especially those run by the Unreal engines. That means Doom 3 and Quake 4 just to name a few... UT2007 will run best on Nvidia as well... And that game is going to be awesome, your not going to wanna miss out on that one, trust me :).

---

D3 and Q4 don't use the Unreal engine, they use the Doom3 engine (Q4 uses a slight varient)

But yea, LOTS of developers are licencing the UE3 and history dictates that nVidia owners are generally happier with that engine.


ATI needs to get their heads out of their asses in terms of drivers and openGL support (although recently they've been getting better). There are few engines that ATI outperforms nVidia (the Source engine being one of them).

As of right now Crossfire isn't all that impressive since SLI has been around and people know it works (right now only to an extent since most games out aren't optimised to use both cards, sorta the same deal with the Dual-core processors).

Quote:

---

D3 and Q4 don't use the Unreal engine, they use the Doom3 engine (Q4 uses a slight varient)

---

Ah yes, I forgot :brickwall...

But still, the Doom 3 engine is still better on Nvidia...

Alot of game engines are optimised specifically for nvidia (doom3 engine is one of those).

Hell, Battlefield 2 wont give ATI users the two settings above high as options.

Half- Life 2 is optimized for Ati.

The Grunt, we established that already... And and Half life 2/CS are about the only good games optimized for ATI...