The Multi-Video Card Fallacy
by Chris Morley on Nov.07, 2008, under Industry Analysis
The days of needing multiple graphics cards in your PC are officially over. While game engines have become more complex, and Crysis still confounds most people’s PCs, the fact is that we have reached a pixel density plateau when it comes to monitor sizes and the GPU battle grounds are being fought at 1680×1050 resolutions or lower1. And the simple fact of the matter is that at that resolution nearly every game on the planet can be enjoyed by the mainstream gamer utilizing a single graphics card. The hardware side of the gaming industry has gotten that good.
But don’t tell that to AMD or NVIDIA or even Intel. Don’t tell that to the system builders, but would somebody please tell that to the tech journalists? The fact is that multi-card technology, not multiple GPUs on the same PCB, allows chipset manufacturers to stratify their offerings (read: charge more money), promising more performance and more “expandability” – but costing you more money. The fact is that these technologies are aimed squarely at the 5% uber-enthusiast market and system builders who need to win synthetic benchmarks by 3% in order to pay their salaries that month.
Expandability or upgradeability are the buzz words that these companies use to lure you to their higher end chipsets. They want you to think you need a second or third graphics card. But most effectively, they communicate to you that you are buying “future expandability” that will “future-proof” your PC. And they’ve effectively brainwashed the mainstream tech media into believing the same thing. It’s hard to find a review of a gaming system that doesn’t include the ability to add a second graphics card where the reviewer doesn’t “ding” the builder for it.
But nobody has ever really studied the usage patterns and buying behaviors of customers who purchase multi-video card capable motherboards and SLI or CrossFire capable graphics cards. It is that question that intrigues me, and it is simple logic that leads me to the conclusion I have written in the opening sentence of this post.
The main problem is, if you aren’t gaming at XHD resolutions that 24”+ monitors support, spending money on two high end graphics cards is a complete waste of money, and buying two mid-range graphics cards is pointless as a single high-end card that may feature two of the same GPU on one PCB can easily meet or beat it for around the same combined price. Factor in the total cost of ownership of forgoing a more expensive chipset designed for multi-video card support, and you really need to make sure you’re spending your money the right way.
Additionally, if you’ve spent your money on an XHD monitor, and only have a budget left over for a single high end graphics card, never mind the fact that you perhaps bought an unbalanced configuration, but the odds of a better single card solution being available by the time you can afford that second card are high. Why do you think EVGA offers a 90-day trade-up program? It’s essentially an insurance policy against the age-old truism that your system is obsolete the day you buy it.
Don’t take my word for it. Kyle and Brent at [H]ard|OCP have been shoving the term “real world benchmarks” in our faces for so many years now that every piss-ant rag on the internet and in print uses the terminology without really understanding what it means. But if you really look at what [H] video card reviews show, you’ll find that at 1680×1050 resolutions and lower, my premise holds. From there it’s a simple matter of adding up the total cost of ownership to reach the playable settings (meaning a smooth gaming experience.) So be sure that you aren’t blindly buying a dual or triple-graphics capable motherboard for $200-$300 when a significantly cheaper, and perhaps a bit more boring, solution will suffice, allowing you to spend more money on a powerful, single video card that will better serve your needs.
-
Source: Valve Steam Hardware survey, November 2008. 96% of players have resolutions set to 1680×1050 or lower. Sample size: ~1.7 million users.
Leave a Reply
-
Howdy!
On this blog you'll find news and insight into the system building industry from a veteran insider. Please feel free to leave comments, subscribe to updates and leave video responses. Thanks!
You can also subscribe by email by filling the field below:
The Wall
Latest on Mon, 12:09 pm: Watching [H] boutique fanboys is fascinating - these people get so wrapped up in bedroom boutiques...
: Would like your recommendation on a good laptop that won't fall apart in the $1k range. dm me on twitter @springnet
: Nice update to the site Chris, looks really good! We have recently launched http://www.allhtpc.com Come check us out, we would love to have you over there.
: Branding only works on cattle. If your "branding activities" only increase awareness and fail to prompt consumer action, you win a big bag of [...]
: Leave a message!
PWNING 9-5- Theo's Bright Side Of IT
November 7th, 2008 on 3:39 pm
Your editorial makes it sound as if ATI and Nvidia are doing something sneaky and underhanded by offering high-performance graphics.
Fact is there are over twenty million consumers asking for these board, and another five million using them in workstations. And, there are about ten million more consumers buying the next grade lower graphics card who are wannbes – they want the bigger one, just can’t afford it – so demand is high, and has been growing – and that’s just desktops, you’ve no doubt read about the new class of gaming laptops with two GPUs in them.
As for screen size, too much is not enough, and a 30-inch 2580 x 1600 is the dream of most gamers – when coupled with a media center PC it also makes a fine HD 1080p TV/DVD player.
Suggesting good enough is, isn’t true. If it was we wouldn’t have Ferraris, Mercedes and Jaguars, and there wouldn’t be fine wine, and $250 running shoes.
Also, I think you miss the point that beside the great entertainment value games give, there is the DIY hobbyists aspect of the industry.
So I take issue with your conclusion that these graphics boards are a waste of money. They may not represent value to you, but to 30 million others they are very desirable.
Jon Peddie
November 7th, 2008 on 11:04 pm
I think you are confusing the issue, Jon.. It’s your definition of “high-performance graphics” that I would take issue with. What your 30 million buyers are actually after? You’re implying they want the hardware for the hardware’s sake. They don’t and that’s a fact. You don’t have 30 million PC hardware enthusiasts. You’ve got 30 million people who are interested in great graphics.
Chris is saying you’ve got what you need for “high-performance graphics” with one graphics card at the native res that the vast majority of people are running at. Your 30 million would be very interested to know that.
This is an important message for the PC as a gaming platform. SLI/Crossfire isn’t going to win us console gamers — in fact, it’s doing the opposite.
http://www.edbordenblog.com/2008/11/how-many-video-cards-do-you-really-need.html
November 9th, 2008 on 11:09 am
Hi Jon, thanks for taking the time to reply to this. You’ve completely missed the point.
Many, if not most, gamers may dream of a 30″ monitor, but I don’t sell dreams, I sell real-world computers for real-world budgets. And the fact is that most gamers are gaming on smaller monitors of 1680×1050 resolution or lower. These resolutions do not require multiple video cards.
You talk about 20 million gamers asking for “these boards.”
That’s a pretty vague statement. Is that 20 million gamers actively purchasing the highest-end graphics solutions, the Radeon HD 4870 X2 and the GeForce GTX 280? That number in no way invalidates my argument because you fail to mention how many of those gamers have TWO of those cards.
But that’s beside the point. My point was, and it was very clear at the bigging on this post: a SINGLE Radeon HD 4870 X2 or GeForce GTX 280 would suffice for 95% of the population. And that goes for most generation’s high end offerings. And following that logic, the need for $300 SLI or CrossFireX capable motherboards are relegated to the enthusiast or DYI as you suggest.
But, again, as stated in my first paragraph, we’re talking about the mainstream gamer who most likely are running resolutions of 1680×1050. And not buying an expensive motherboard solution will allow them to step up to that more expensive single graphics solution that will drive that resolution and give them the best, REAL WORLD gaming experience.
November 13th, 2008 on 11:25 am
I totally agree with you, Chris. Buying a single graphics solution motherboard can cost quite a bit less than the multi card solution boards, and there are definitely cards out now (GTX280, Radeon 4870×2, even a step down from both overclocked) as you said that will suffice in graphics quality and smooth gameplay on 1680×1050 and lower resolution monitors which is what the mainstream users have. What you explained especially holds true with today’s economic situation, not many people want to be throwing their hard earned dollars for un-noticable differences.
November 19th, 2008 on 12:52 pm
[...] multiple x16 slots. But like I’ve said, the value of multiple graphics cards these days are dubious at [...]