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
S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Performance
Version: 1.0005
Settings: full dynamic lighting, everything maxed without AA and no grass shadows.
For this test, we walk in a straight line for about 30 seconds and use FRAPS to measure performance. We use the same save game every time and the path doesn't change. Our performance measurements are very consistent between runs. We do two runs and take the second.
S.T.A.L.K.E.R. is a strange one when it comes to performance. At some resolutions, quad-GPUs helps somewhat, but generally speaking the sweet spot is three GPUs. What's really perplexing is that we see quad help more at 1280x1024 than at 1600x1200 and 1920x1200. The performance benefits of three GPUs is also a bit erratic; though clearly at 2560x1600 the difference is noticeable, that resolution also demonstrates better scaling from two to three cards than from one to two cards - not something we would normally expect to see.
What we can say for certain is that the latest version of STALKER is not performing as well as we would expect in a variety of ways. It's not unusual to see multi-GPU technologies run into CPU limitations at lower resolutions and offer better scaling at higher resolutions, but that's not what we're seeing. Instead, we have our lowest and highest resolutions benefiting more from CrossFire (and CrossFireX) than our middle resolutions. We are looking into the matter more to see if we can determine what is actually happening; this could be something caused by the Skulltrail platform, the 1.0005 patch, the AMD drivers… or more likely than not all of these things working together.
CrossFireX has the potential to add value at all resolutions in S.T.A.L.K.E.R., but at present there are some anomalies (Ed: the kind they pay good money for around Chernobyl, we hear). Due to the nature of performance, gameplay and location in the game could make for huge variations in performance. Looking at the sky will push frame rate way up into the hundreds, so keeping more sky in your view than ground will improve your framerate. Thus, people who normally look higher while running around will experience better performance than those who look lower.
It's very hard with data like this to accurately assess the value of CrossFireX for this particular game. Based on the data we do have, it again seems that three GPUs is the sweet spot rather than four, in spite of the fact that four GPUs can help at both higher and lower resolutions.
| S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Performance | ||||
| 1280x1024 | 1600x1200 | 1920x1200 | 2560x1600 | |
| NVIDIA GeForce 9600 GT SLI | 94.3 | 72.8 | 62.6 | 39.9 |
| NVIDIA GeForce 8800 Ultra SLI | 110.3 | 94 | 85.2 | 61.6 |
| NVIDIA GeForce 8800 Ultra | 62.3 | 53.5 | 48.8 | 33.3 |
| NVIDIA GeForce 9600 GT | 51 | 38.7 | 33.3 | 21 |
| AMD Radeon HD 3870X2 (x 2) | 111 | 84.3 | 67.3 | 39.2 |
| AMD Radeon HD 3870X2 + 3870 | 103.5 | 83.4 | 68.2 | 36.9 |
| AMD Radeon HD 3870X2 | 86.3 | 68.5 | 59.6 | 24.1 |
| AMD Radeon HD 3870 | 43.7 | 34.3 | 29.5 | 17.5 |
Performance makes sense in general, but it is important to note the sharp relative drop of the 3870X2 at 2560x1600. This is a case where the 3870X2 doesn't appear to have the power to reach the next performance plateau, and adding in another graphics card really made the difference. That, or it's just another driver glitch that needs some ironing.
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.