![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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. ![]() 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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
UAV's and TFR's along the Mexico boarder | John Doe | Piloting | 145 | March 31st 06 06:58 PM |
MSFS 2004 Video frame rate very slow | Greg Brown | Simulators | 1 | November 11th 05 07:24 PM |
Video Card problem | David Morley | Simulators | 3 | March 11th 04 06:47 AM |
Video and Memory Card upgrade? | Dave Schwartz | Simulators | 3 | January 3rd 04 12:14 PM |
Real World Specs for FS 2004 | Paul H. | Simulators | 16 | August 18th 03 09:25 AM |