2 XT's or 1 GS?

I'm building a "budget" game rig to replace my current aging rig, trying to squeeze the most bang for the buck. I've budgeted my money to each component with an eye to having a future upgrade path. With the money I've allotted to video I've settled on either of the following combos:

2 - GeForce 6800 XT 256 MB DDR3in SLI

or

1 - GeForce 6800GS 512 MB DDR3

The price is nearly identical for both combos. I'm leaning towards the SLI combo thinking the dual power will rock, I'll later jump to something better when I need the boost and prices on better cards come down. The two processors will be better then one for a longer time and my upgrade will be newer tech rather then bumping up to a dual 6800GS setup which would be the most cost effective path if I go that route. I think this logic also would hold true with going a little over budget reaching for the next level.

Is my reasoning sound? If not why and which way would you go? I'm looking for the most bang for my current buck.

What are the specs on both sets of cards?

Generally 2 cards in SLI are 1.8 ~ 1.9 times better then a single card of the same sort. What you do get gains in are number of pipes and other assorted things. At the moment it does seem that dollar for dollar SLI is better, however a look at the actual specs of the cards may reveal a bit more info...

doublepost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

What are the specs on both sets of cards?

Generally 2 cards in SLI are 1.8 ~ 1.9 times better then a single card of the same sort...

---

80-90% better? Thats waay off.
More like 1.1-1.5x better at playable resolutions.

Get the 7600gt. Building a new agp rig or is unsound. SLI for budget rig is unsound.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by orangat

Get the 7600gt. Building a new agp rig or is unsound. SLI for budget rig is unsound.

---

I'd already decided to go the 7600 GT route after much further research. Thank you for your advice though.

I agree about the AGP. But my thinking on the SLI was I thought I could put the two cards in for roughly the same money, but with better performance then it made sense. My deal fell thru and it all became a mute discussion.

Why you need two graphics cards. Next year one card will be drasticlly better than one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by orangat

80-90% better? Thats waay off.
More like 1.1-1.5x better at playable resolutions.

Get the 7600gt. Building a new agp rig or is unsound. SLI for budget rig is unsound.

---

No that is just the minimum overhead of the SLI config, it takes up about 10 to 20% of the resources.

To make the graphics that are displayed faster, more colour, better definition and larger would require far more.

For instance just running graphics at twice the height and breadth of pixels requires 4x as much pixels. Then you have to multiply the amount of pixels used times their colour depth. Then there is AA and other effects so on.

Having 80 to 90% more graphics power never translates to 80 to 90% better playable resolutions.

When you posted "Generally 2 cards in SLI are 1.8 ~ 1.9 times better then a single card of the same sort" - it can only be assumed you meant an sli setup is 1.8/1.9x faster not the theoretical max.

And you're wrong about sli being faster dollar for dollar as well. A faster single card should be cheaper and faster than 2 slower cards in sli.

Should and is are two different things and it is a bit more complex then saying a single card will always out do SLI dollar for dollar. It depends on where the bottleneck is occuring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Should and is are two different things and it is a bit more complex then saying a single card will always out do SLI dollar for dollar. It depends on where the bottleneck is occuring.

---

I don't know why you keep digging a hole which you are already in.
A single card is generally faster and cheaper than an equivalent SLI setup and so a single card gives more value dollar for dollar.