Hey folks. I'm going to be going for a new computer system in the very near future.

The basics as follows:

AMD Athlong 64 X2 6000+
2 gigs DD2 memory
320gb 7200rpm 16mb cache
600 watt sli ready power supply.
Vista Home Premium (direct X 10 gaming, that's why)

Now what I'm not really sure of is the following.

Right now I've been debating whether or not I should use a single powerful graphics card or if a sli set up would be more efficient.

I'm eyeing the Geforce 8800GTX as a single card canidate. What I'm torn of is how would it match up to 8600GTS' with a Sli setup. I can't seem to find many good debates on Sli or not. Many people theorize that it is going to be the future of graphics cards(just like processors now). Some folks cite game compatibility issues.

Mind you, these cards aren't set in stone. I am open to opinion.

Thoughts guys and gals?

Incredible machine. About as powerful as mine but your magnificient hardware is controlled by a lobotomised 3 month old chimp on acid. Ditch Vista, seriously. It's too resource hungry and bug filled to be of any use.

I would say single card. Vista still doesn't run SLI smoothly. I've not had too many issues with it, other than the initial drivers that were available when it was first released. However my Vista machine is not my gaming machine. I can play quite a bit on the Vista if I want, but right now, my SLI is on XP. If you had XP, I'd always recommend SLI, except the 8800's are power hungry bitches. One might be enough. I haven't had the pleasure to play with them yet.

SLI really doesn't make to much difference yet. Most games don't support it so there is absolutely no difference. I would get a physX chip before I went with a SLI/Crossfire set-up.

On my other board I've had a few guys tell me to get a sli mobo but go with a single card. That seems to be the general consensus here.

The main reason I'm going for Vista (which I run right now and have been happy with) is for Direct X 10 and the many games in the months to come that are going to be released just for the OS.

Thanks for the input. I will keep checking here for more data and such over the course of the next few weeks.

I'd go with the single, but that's just my opinion.

And the only reason for Vista to be on a computer is to play the games. Even then I'd be waiting at least 5 more years till they fix it...Vista has a lot of baaaaad whispers behind it's name...

As I said, I've been running it since it was officially released on January. It does take a hit to your system resources but one quick fix is removing that annoying sidebar. As for gaming, the only quarrel I've had involves my graphics card and nVIDIA's lack of work on a certain nvlddmkm error.

What I have read is that the direct x 10 cards don't suffer from this problem. That has been my only issue with Vista and I'm inclined to feel it is nVIDIA's fault more than anything. After all, in one of their press releases, they admitted that before Vista came out, they did not forsee the possible problems with non-8000 series and thus didn't put the sufficient time and attention in.

Granted, I think they just want people to buy new cards like Vista is making people buy new computers.