FIRST LOOK: Gigabyte K8NXP-SLI
by Wesley Fink on November 24, 2004 9:00 PM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
Performance Tests
DirectX 9 Gaming
To clarify graph data, all Reference values run with the nVidia 6800 Ultra are in Blue, and Light Blue used for Intel test results with the 6800 Ultra. Single/SLI results with the 6600GT are yellow/gold. Single/SLI results with the 6800GT are orange/red. The range of colors from yellow to red indicate increasing graphics power.
Even at 1024x768 without the eye candy, we see that SLI improves performance in the latest DirectX 9 games. The sole exception is UT2004, which uses DX9 for output and is not really a true DX9 game.
At 1024x768, the improvements with SLI are not as dramatic as we see with full AA and/or higher graphics resolutions, but they are still significant. In Doom 3, the 2nd 6800GT boosts performance only about 12%, but a second 6600GT kicks performance up to a much more significant 28%. In fact, a pair of $200 6600GT cards in SLI manage to outperform the $500 6800 Ultra in Doom 3.
Aquamark 3 is almost the perfect set of benchmarks to demonstrate the impact of SLI on performance. While the single 6600GT and 6800GT are at the bottom of the chart, 6600GT in SLI again tops the more expensive 6800 Ultra, and the pair of 6800GT cards are the top performer. The same is true of Halo, where the two SLI setups top the charts, even though a pair of 6600GTs is about $400 total.
Far Cry shows the more expected range of SLI performance, where a 6600GT SLI boosts performance 24% to near 6800 Ultra performance levels. The 6800GT shows a much smaller performance increase of 7% going to SLI,since it is a much more powerful card to start with than the 6600 GT and cost about double the 6600GT cost.
At 1024x768, SLI definitely improves performance in the newest and most demanding games, but the biggest SLI improvement is with two of the cheaper 6600GT cards, which see a significant performance boost to 6800 Ultra levels or above in many of our benchmarks.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
58 Comments
View All Comments
bob661 - Thursday, November 25, 2004 - link
Actually, there were quite a few people that asked for resolutions higher than 16x12. I think for SLI benches, high res testing is probably the best. People that didn't read the initial article would get the wrong impression of SLI.Omega215D - Thursday, November 25, 2004 - link
what i'd like to know is when are they going to start phasing out those useless serial ports and maybe the LPT printer ports? I figure if your going to spend money on performance parts might as well get USB printers and game controllers.Also, any idea on when USB will be fully bootable that way PS2 ports can be phased out? Just wanna save on IRQs and make room for more USB's or Firewires so I don't have to rely on slot taking expansions.
Wesley Fink - Thursday, November 25, 2004 - link
#2 - Read on in the review. I did test at 1280 x1024 also because 1024x768 was limiting in some benches - but not as much as you might expect. The 1024x768 was provided mostly to allow comparison to past motherboard reviews.I believe most will run 1280x1024 which is doable with most 19" flat panels. The cheapest flat panel I know of that runs 1600x1200 resolution is the 20.1" Dell at about $750. That's 16x12 entry level.
Most any decent 19" CRT can support 1600x1200 as you stated, but have you ever tried to play a game at 1600x1200 on a 19" CRT. I tried it just to see for this review and it was pretty ugly. However 16x12 was OK on the 22" Diamondtron, though I prefer 1280x1024 on the 19" flat panels for most gaming.
Anand got criticized for gearing everything in his SLI launch review to 1600x1200, so it figures I would get criticized for 1280x1024 which was suggested in the comments on his review. Guess we will never please everybody.
AnnoyedGrunt - Thursday, November 25, 2004 - link
Well, this was a Mobo review, so that's one reason why it would make sense to run in resolutions that were CPU limited instead of video card limited. I doubt there would be much of a difference in SLI performance between the ASUS and Gigabyte solutions (although it certainly wouldn't hurt to have more data).-D'oh!
Decoder - Thursday, November 25, 2004 - link
#2 . I agree with you 100%. I run my Dell 2001FP at 1600x1200 and i will going SLI so that i can play games at 1600x1200 only.Decoder - Thursday, November 25, 2004 - link
cnq - Thursday, November 25, 2004 - link
"Since 1600x1200 normally requires a 20" or larger flat panel monitor, we did not report 1600x1200 results, since most readers will not run at that resolution."Wesley, with all due respect, there is not a single reader who is waiting to buy SLI who says to himself, "Boy I'd really like to see how fast SLI does at middling resolutions. Yeah, that's why I'm splurging thousands for an SLI rig. 1024x768 all the way baby!"
*ALL* SLI buyers will be running EVERYTHING at 16x12 or even 20x15, since current single card solutions can keep up at 10x7 and 12x10. No one would be dumb enough to pair up a couple of 68GT's or 68U's and then limit themselves to resolutions that a single 66GT could handle.
People who buy SLI are going to have money to spend, so don't worry, their monitors WILL be able to handle 16x12. An ordinary $250 19" CRT can do that, much less the kind of monitors that SLI fanatics will have.
Any SLI prospective purchasers out there planning to run their games at 1024x768? Didn't think so.
C'mon Wesley, really. You're doing quite a disservice benchmarking SLI at resolutions that aren't even graphics card limited in the first place.
HiroProt - Wednesday, November 24, 2004 - link
Great review, Wesley!Looks like Gigabyte has done it this time around. The question is: when can we buy these boards? I assume that the non-SLI version will be available first, since it already hit 1.0.
Do you have any more availability info, Wesley?