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
World in Conflict Performance
Version: 1.005
Settings: Medium quality plus Heat Haze, Debris Physics, and DX10
We tested this game using the built-in benchmark feature of the game. In our experience, this does a good job of testing the different graphical scenarios that can be encountered in the game.
World in Conflict, from the data, really looks like we had Vsync enabled, the system was severely CPU limited, or the framerate cap was on. However, this was not the case. These data points had minimum and maximum framerates extending from ~30 to ~160 fps, and there appears to be another factor in the resulting data looking so flat between resolutions.
The 9600 GT SLI was able to break past this barrier and post average framerates higher than 60fps. The only major difference is that that we had to use a different driver just for the 9600. Given what we experienced in our recent Dell XPS M1730 article, the 170 series drivers help significantly in World in Conflict and Crysis; unfortunately, no official beta or other driver with 8800 Ultra support is available. We are investigating further and waiting for driver updates from NVIDIA.
It seems clear that if there is some limit on performance scaling here with our test platform. We expect future driver updates to significantly help both SLI and CrossFireX.
Pushing resolution higher is the way to get more value out of multi-GPU here. Increasing settings may help, and we will go back and look at higher settings with these configurations in the future. Running at Very High is still not a viable option, but there is room for customization to end up with a workable stress test for current high-end systems.
| World in Conflict Performance | ||||
| 1280x1024 | 1600x1200 | 1920x1200 | 2560x1600 | |
| NVIDIA GeForce 9600 GT SLI | 73 | 68 | 63 | 51 |
| NVIDIA GeForce 8800 Ultra SLI | 58 | 56 | 54 | 52 |
| NVIDIA GeForce 8800 Ultra | 58 | 56 | 53 | 44 |
| NVIDIA GeForce 9600 GT | 60 | 50 | 44 | 30 |
| AMD Radeon HD 3870X2 (x 2) | 63 | 60 | 60 | 58 |
| AMD Radeon HD 3870X2 + 3870 | 63 | 60 | 60 | 57 |
| AMD Radeon HD 3870X2 | 63 | 60 | 59 | 52 |
| AMD Radeon HD 3870 | 57 | 51 | 47 | 34 |
With all the data compressed under 60fps, it is hard to get a clear understanding of what's going on. In the interest of reporting what we actually saw, the above chart shows our results.
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.