cM :: MORLEY|DIGITAL

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. 

1. Source: Valve Steam Hardware survey, November 2008. 96% of players have resolutions set to 1680×1050 or lower. Sample size: ~1.7 million users.