what is the good 2 8600 gt or 1 8800 ultra in 1 motherboard?

Question

what do you think is the best please give me some good answer thanks!

Answer 1

John S is flat out wrong in saying that 2 8600GTs will beat an 8800 Ultra. The 8800Ultra will win, and it won't even be particularly close. His whole 2 is better than 1 argument is flawed, since 1) SLI does not double performance, it is only a percentage increase that varies widely depending on how well a particular game can take advantage of SLI, it can be anywhere from as little as 5% to around 75%, it just depends on the game. 2) The 8800 Ultra is about 3x as fast as the 8600GT, meaning even if SLI doubled performance, it still wouldn't make up the gap. In fact, the 8800GTX and the 8800GTS are both better options than two 8600GT in SLI.

Now as for running two 7950GT in SLI as he mentioned, that is a different story. Looking at the benchmark numbers, the 7950GT in SLI will fall right in between the 8800GTX and the 8800GTS, with of course the 8800Ultra being ahead of all three. The gap depends on well a game uses SLI, in some games the 7950GT SLI will approach and maybe even slightly surpass the 8800Ultra, but in others it will lag fairly far behind. These results shouldn't surprise you when you look at the costs of the cards, the basic rule is the more you pay the more performance you get. But don't forget that SLI has some hidden costs, in that you will need a more expensive motherboard and a more expensive power supply to run it.

Answer 2

Ok, I always see a lot of people here who think SLI is great. Too much time looking at advertising, too little looking at data. Does anyone look at the benchmarks? You get almost nothing from having an extra card in SLI. It's nifty and all to split it across 2 processors and all but all you get is maybe 15% extra frame rates for the extra card. There's just too much overhead. The 8800 ultra is more than twice as fast as an 8600 gt in pretty much every real world gaming benchmark. It will still be close to twice as fast if you have 2 of them in SLI.

SLI makes sense for exactly one thing. Squeezing a little more horsepower out of the highest end cards available, such as 2 8800 Ultra cards. Sure you'll still only get a 15% boost in power but at the moment there just isn't any other way to get it.

Answer 3

While alot of people are going to say that the 8800 ultra is better because the processor cores and most probably the graphics memory used are a higher grade and speed rating than that of the 8600GT. If you motherboard supports SLI consider that where the 8800 ultra only has a single graphics processor to handle all you feed it, using a pair of identical 8600 Gt's in SLI mode allows you to have 2 graphical processors to split the load being sent for output between two cards, two processors, and 2 separate packs of dedicated graphics memory which in turn will respond quicker than a single card.

Now having said that, if you had selected something in the low 7000 series for the SLI and compared it to the 8800 ulta, I would have said go with the ultra because of the greater differences in the processing cores. I assume that you are using or going to use Vista in some form as the operating system with these cards as they are geared for optimal effect when used with Vista and Directx10. There is also at the moment a problem with Vista and SLI / Crossfire support, so if Vista is your operating system, you won't be able to engage the SLI configuration til microsoft gets the bugs worked out, hopefully in the near future.

Now, if you are using Windows XP Professional or Media Center with SP2, why not use a pair of these cards, I have them installed in SLI format with this computer I am using now, and have built several other machines with them as well, everyone has expressed their complete happiness with them. Windows XP Pro and MC with SP2 fully supports SLI / Crossfire configurations at this time. Here are the cards I use: http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=3241598&CatId=1826 . You will notice that they are the top end cards of the 7900 series on the market, they each have 512mgs of ddr3 video graphics memory, high core clock speeds, they use heat dispersion technology for cooling, and they are made by XFX. Heat dispersion technology is more efficient for video processor cooling when compared to fans, XFX backs all their cards with a dual lifetime warranty covering parts and labor. Now you may say, what is a dual lifetime guarrantee, it means you get a lifetime guarrantee covering parts and labor on their cards, and later should you decide to upgrade and sell off these cards, the person that buys these cards from you also gets a lifetime warranty covering parts and labor just like you did which makes them worth more on the resale market than any other video card.

Answer 4

1 8800 GTX as its cheaper than the ultra and roughly the same (ultra is just an overpriced over clocked GTX)

Answer 5

the doubles will kill the unmarried and C & C generals rocks. i had the 0 hour expnasion. it became marvelous C&C 3 wasn't as reliable in my opion. i for my section dislike the construction technique and the superweapons look to totaly annialate you the place in C &C generals you should stay to tell the story a nuke or scud typhoon. your base could be broken yet you may't be completely annialated. additionally air planes in C&C3 are too over powering. you cant end them untill as quickly as they hit by using fact their stealth and the only factor that kills them is missles, there are not gattleing cannons. additionally source series became thank you to sluggish. i as quickly as did a journey have been you initiate with ten thousand and it took me quarter-hour to get a first rate base going. ohhh wow did i bypass offtopic besides get the 8600's or possibly get 2 8800 for optimum killing skill.

Answer 6

If I was to choose right now, i'd go with a pair of these

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150227

Answer 7

the ultra will be better, but so would a cheaper 8800GTX.