CrossFireX Arrives: First Look at 3 and 4 GPUs in 2 Card Setups
by Derek Wilson on March 7, 2008 12:05 PM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
The Test
This time around, we had the opportunity to compare games of our choosing. We did check to see if there were any real performance improvements up from our preview, but we haven't seen any huge changes. Crysis still only shows a performance improvement with two GPUs, and adding a third or fourth can sometimes even degrade performance. That's unfortunate, considering Crysis remains one of the games best able to bring any current GPU setup to its knees.
We decided to tackle this article from the perspective of two-card performance that enables three or four GPUs. This means using the 3870X2 in combination with the 3870 or another 3870X2. There are quite a few permutations that AMD's CrossFireX makes possible. With the way the industry is moving, it seems we won't be able to avoid further investigation into more-than-two GPU configurations. We will definitely continue to investigate this and will report on any interesting findings, but for now we will use two-card setups in order to avoid any concerns about PCI-E slot bandwidth playing a part in our initial performance numbers.
Our goal is to do two things. First, as in our preview, we want to assess the additional benefit gained from going to three or four GPUs. This is obviously relevant, as we want our readers to know what they are getting for their investment. Second, we want to compare the performance of the 3870 in its multiple configurations to other competing solutions from NVIDIA. This will help us to put the performance in a context of relative value to other single and dual card options.
Our test system is Intel's Skulltrail, as it has been in the recent past for graphics articles. We have moved off the AMD Phenom system and will now be able to better compare relative performance values on the best platform to do so. Here is our test setup:
| Test Setup | |
| CPU | 2x Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775 @ 3.20GHz |
| Motherboard | Intel D5400XS (Skulltrail) |
| Video Cards | ATI Radeon HD 3870 x2 ATI Radeon HD 3870 NVIDIA GeForce 9600 GT 512MB NVIDIA GeForce 8800 Ultra |
| Video Drivers | Catalyst 8.3 ForceWare 169.28 ForceWare 174.12 (9600 GT only) |
| Hard Drive | Seagate 7200.9 120GB 8MB 7200RPM |
| RAM | 2xMicron 2GB FB-DIMM DDR2-8800 |
| Operating System | Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit |
Crysis Performance
As one of the most demanding titles currently available, Crysis seems like a great showcase for multi-GPU technologies. We did test performance, but with the current drivers we saw no improvement in performance. However, we also tested prior to the 1.2 patch that just came out on Thursday. We will look at Crysis performance in a future update once we have conducted additional testing.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
36 Comments
View All Comments
mmntech - Saturday, March 8, 2008 - link
I'm running an HD 3850 256mb and I get 40fps average in low density areas, 12.4fps in London. Ultra quality of course with no AA and in game AF at 1440x900. That's DirectX 9.0 performance, which is all I could test since I don't run Vista. Flight Simulator has always been very CPU dependent, particularly concerning autogen scenery, and AI traffic along with the complex physics engine. Since FSX with SP1 can take advantage of up to four CPU cores, it might be worth starting off there. I did my tests using an Athlon 64 X2 3800+, everything at stock speeds with 2gb PC3200. If I were you, I'd go with the single 3870 X2 card. Cheaper than buying two separate 3870s. For nVidia, maybe two 8800GTS 640mb cards in SLI or better if you want the best performance. I'd wait for nVidia to release the 9800GX2 first though to see what cards offer the best performance per dollar.As for the article, I really wonder if using more than two cards is really practical. You can get almost the same performance with two 9600GTs as with three or four HD 3750s but the two 9600GTs are far cheaper. This begs the question, is spending the extra $400 really worth it for such minimal gains? I know for some it is but then why buy mid-range cards when a couple 8800GTXs will cost the same in the end. Plus there's also the increased heat and power consumption from using four cards instead of two. I'd like to see more info on that.
Incisal flyer - Monday, March 10, 2008 - link
Thanks for the replies derek anm mmntech. Mmntech, yes my feelings exactly about quad (basically) crossfire. I'm no computer geek (more like a newbie really - I don't understand understand most of what I read in the forums and couldn't overclock a toaster if you held my mother hostage). Multiple crossfire sounds just too exotic at this point and would be more headache than it is worth. Thanks for your feedback and happy flying.The Flyer
DerekWilson - Saturday, March 8, 2008 - link
i'm looking at fsx acceleration for future graphics articles ...no promises, but i've been testing it internally.
Sundox - Saturday, March 8, 2008 - link
isn't multi GPU the cheap way to go?I'm asking this because I can't figure a car race won by two slower cars, against the faster car, or two knifes cutting my steak smoother.
to me, it looks like the problem is,... coping with the problem, the companies just want to have the most powerful GPU, not the most efficiant.
I might be totaly wrong.
coldpower27 - Saturday, March 8, 2008 - link
It's more like a delivery race rather then a car race, who can deliver the total shipment fastest?Two smaller trucks pulling half the load each, or a single truck pulling a larger load, the larger truck's engine is more complex, and hence more difficult to build, vs the smaller trucks which have smaller engines which are easier.
Griswold - Saturday, March 8, 2008 - link
Analogies like that do not always work just like that.Besides that, the car race example isnt that simple anyhow. Imagine a 24h race which could easily be won by even one slower car, as long as it is more reliable than the faster one. Remember, in order to finish first, one must first finish. This, of course, has little to nothing to do with video cards, hence, analogies dont always work.
legoman666 - Saturday, March 8, 2008 - link
analogies almost never work.DerekWilson - Saturday, March 8, 2008 - link
"Like a balloon, and... something bad happens!"Simon128D - Saturday, March 8, 2008 - link
I love the reviews and benchmarks here, I really do but I'm getting sick and tired of seeing the test system being only a super high end machine with hardware that the average person can't afford and I think benchmarking with skull trail on its own is silly. Tis applies to other site as well.Don't get me wrong, I enjoy seeing benchmarks from a high end system like skull trail but how many people actually have or can afford a system like that. I'd like to see more of a mid range setup inculded in graphics benchmarks - that will give a more realistic view point. A system say with a 780i or X38 chipset with a Q6600 and 4GB DDR2 800Mhz etc.
Just my thoughts.
DigitalFreak - Saturday, March 8, 2008 - link
It's really the only way to make sure the games they're testing with aren't CPU limited.