"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
Actually, the first iteration of my system had two video cards (which,
I presume, is what you mean by "SLI"?) -- but for the same money the
owner looked at the specs and decided to go with a better single video
card instead. Dunno why.

SLI (Scalable Link Interface) is nVidia's means for using two video cards in
parallel to display a single screen's worth of image. Each video card works
on roughly half of the video image, allowing a single frame to be rendered
in half the time, thus doubling the frame rate. It's pretty much the
opposite of what you're considering (a non-SLI, two-output video card will
be sharing the video processor between the two monitors, halving
performance).

Still, SLI is the way to go for maximum frame rate performance. Given that
you're displaying through a DLP projector (which will lock your frame rate
at 60fps max), it may be overkill, but it still doesn't qualify as a "God
Gaming System" without it.

You can get a single video card with two SLI video processors built
in...that is, an SLI solution that doesn't require a motherboard that
supports SLI (most SLI cards only work with specific motherboards). You
could use a couple of those to get a two-monitor, SLI-rendered output. Now
*that* would cook. I hear there is even some quad-SLI stuff available
now.

And at his cost, with a budget of $1500, not only should SLI be part of
the
package, it seems to me that your other components aren't as high-end as
they could be either.

Everything is relative. I paid $3800 for a Compaq 386SX in 1989, so is
$1500 in 2006 money "expensive" for a computer that's 10,000 times more
powerful? He says this system will make FSX sing, and I'm gonna
believe him until I see otherwise.

Well, my point isn't that $1500 is too much to pay for a PC, nor is it that
the configuration you've posted won't be a good one. The fact is, most
people would never notice the difference between a good value system (best
performance per dollar) and the highest performing system (best performance,
period).

I just feel that for what you've posted, it should cost less. I suspect
that you could build that system using parts bought retail for $1500. So if
you're supposed to be paying his cost, either he's essentially buying his
parts retail, or he's got some profit built into the price.

Not that I think there's necessarily anything wrong with that. If you feel
that you are getting a good computer for the money you're spending and
you're comfortable with the dealer, that's what's important. I think some
people spend a lot more time worrying about that last nickle than they
should. But one should at least know whether they are giving the nickle
away or not.

Pete