So you think two GF6800 Ultras in SLI mode would cut it?
- Vindicator
- DBB Benefactor
- Posts: 3166
- Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2002 3:01 am
- Location: southern IL, USA
- Contact:
3DFX's SLI was Scan Line Interleave, basically each card drawing every other line on the screen. NVIDIA's new SLI is Scalable Line Interleve, it will load balance across two cards to try and and get the best results. (ie: one card draws skybox and far away objects while the other performs closer, more detailed objects.)
- STRESSTEST
- DBB DemiGod
- Posts: 6574
- Joined: Sun Nov 21, 1999 3:01 am
That makes a lot more sense than every-other-line... in 3dfx's method, doesn't each card have to caluclate every polygon that's visible in the scanline it's currently rendering? And when was the last time you saw any 1-pixel-tall polygons? Essentially both processors were doing the same work twice, correct?
Then it load balances according to how long it took each one to draw, letting one draw more or less the screen.STRESSTEST wrote:no, not exactly. Each card draws half the screen.
One draws the top half, the other the botton half.
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardw ... sli/2.html
- STRESSTEST
- DBB DemiGod
- Posts: 6574
- Joined: Sun Nov 21, 1999 3:01 am
This is a PCI-X dual slot opperation vader
Mmm http://img.neoseeker.com/v_thumb.php?ar ... 64&image=9
Mmm http://img.neoseeker.com/v_thumb.php?ar ... 64&image=9
- STRESSTEST
- DBB DemiGod
- Posts: 6574
- Joined: Sun Nov 21, 1999 3:01 am
- STRESSTEST
- DBB DemiGod
- Posts: 6574
- Joined: Sun Nov 21, 1999 3:01 am
excerpt from CPU mag article
======paste=====
One card is set up as the master, rendering the top half of the screen, and the second one is set up to render the bottom half. The amount of rendering done by each card is not limited to 50% each. Using NVIDIAâ??s dynamic load balancing, the sharing can be optimized so that more complex scenes rendered by one card at the bottom of the screen where there are multiple objects, can be done by one card and less complex â??skyâ?
======paste=====
One card is set up as the master, rendering the top half of the screen, and the second one is set up to render the bottom half. The amount of rendering done by each card is not limited to 50% each. Using NVIDIAâ??s dynamic load balancing, the sharing can be optimized so that more complex scenes rendered by one card at the bottom of the screen where there are multiple objects, can be done by one card and less complex â??skyâ?
How does that work, though? I am thinking maybe the cards determine which part of the screen is a "complex" picture when it has a certain number of vertices/pixels.
So, basically, with two GF6800 Ultras in SLI mode, one should be able to sm0ke a z00b. ^_~
0wnage! ^_^
Seriously, though, would two GF6800 Ultras in SLI mode in two 16x PCI-X slots be a lot better than just one? Is it 2wice as nice? ^_~
Oh, by the way, I have a question: I've heard that setup called GeForce 6800 Ultra Extreme. Is that actually the name that nVIDIA gave it, is it just something that people call(ed) it, or is it just some name that some n00b (I'm not saying any names ^_~) called it?
So, basically, with two GF6800 Ultras in SLI mode, one should be able to sm0ke a z00b. ^_~
0wnage! ^_^
Seriously, though, would two GF6800 Ultras in SLI mode in two 16x PCI-X slots be a lot better than just one? Is it 2wice as nice? ^_~
Oh, by the way, I have a question: I've heard that setup called GeForce 6800 Ultra Extreme. Is that actually the name that nVIDIA gave it, is it just something that people call(ed) it, or is it just some name that some n00b (I'm not saying any names ^_~) called it?
The marketing people say that it is nearly double the speed since each card does roughly half of the work in a relatively smart manner. Of course that's talking about the video card itself; if you're CPU bound you'll still be CPU bound with a nicer video card, although you could get away with much higher AA and AAF with little performance hit.Neo wrote:Seriously, though, would two GF6800 Ultras in SLI mode in two 16x PCI-X slots be a lot better than just one?
And correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you even need two 16x pci-e slots.
...2wice as nice? ^_~
Okay, then I will. =PTetrad wrote:And correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you even need two 16x pci-e slots.
I'd rather have two 16x PCI-X slots than a 16x and an 8x slot. =PThen thereâ??s the fact that none of Intelâ??s PCI-Express chipsets support more than 24 PCI-Express lanes so even prototype dual-PCI-Express 16 interface motherboards act as 1x16 and 1x8 lanes.