MultiGPU Update: Does 3-way Make Sense?
by Derek Wilson on February 25, 2009 2:45 PM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Race Driver GRID Analysis
Keep in mind that we had an issue with FRAPS here that didn't allow us to capture framerate at 2560x1600 with 3-way NVIDIA solutions. We decided to include the game because we've still got all the data for 1680x1050 and 1920x1200 and AMD data at 2560x1600. The problems we had didn't affect playing the game at all, and we only had an issue when we tried to record framerate data.
1680x1050 1920x1200 2560x1600
NVIDIA 3-way solutions lead at the lower resolutions with the 2-way GTX 285 SLI at the top of the heap. From the look of the framerate data, though we couldn't capture it, 3-way NVIDIA hardware performed between the GTX 285 SLI and 4870 1GB 3-way CrossFire. The 512MB hardware once again has trouble performing at high resolution in 3-way configurations. GRID is tough on memory, and performance in the menu screens on 512MB hardware at 2560x1600 is incredibly painful.
1680x1050 1920x1200 2560x1600
NVIDIA hardware shows good scaling form 1 to 3 GPUs in the tests from which we could collect data. AMD hardware scales better as resolution increases, until performance tanks with 512MB cards at 2560x1600.
1680x1050 1920x1200 2560x1600
Scaling up from 2 to 3 GPUs is more of a mixed bag. At lower resolution, some options are system limited. While the lower end NVIDIA options have more room to improve in performance, both the 4850 and 4870 1GB scale pretty well at 1920x1200. Only the 4870 1GB scales well at 2560x1600 though.
1680x1050 1920x1200 2560x1600
The 9800 GTX+ 3-way shows good value at lower resolutions. Though the 4870 1GB 3-way rises up the list at 2560x1600, there are some options that loose all value because they don't make 25fps.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
46 Comments
View All Comments
Snarks - Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - link
hmm, i find my self questioning these articles more and more..but anyway carry on.
DerekWilson - Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - link
what's the question ... seriously, any criticism is helpful. this is the first time we've really done a series like this, and it's a complicated situation with lots of data and lots of analysis ... there's no one way to look at it, and all the feedback i get will help me down the road.i don't see the need for this type of article or series very frequently, but we'll have to do it every once in a while just in case something changes. knowing what you guys think is important and what you guys want to read about is key to us getting things done right.
Flyboy27 - Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - link
Sell you an extra card that you don't really need.Flyboy27 - Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - link
oh yeah... and a more expensive motherboard, power supply, and case.Burrich - Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - link
Would the recently release Catalyst 9.2 drivers improve any compatibility or fps issues? Their release date was 2/20.7Enigma - Thursday, February 26, 2009 - link
Check out xbitlabs' review of the 9.2 drivers. If you have a 4870 X2 then yes it appears to be a nice upgrade for several games with minimal losses in the games it doesn't benefit. But if you are sporting a single 4870 1gig it actually degrades performance more than it improves!On the flipside they claim stability is better with the 9.2's so it depends on what you want/need. If you are comfortable with the framerates in the games you currently play then jump on the 9.2's for stability reasons. If you are on the edge of playable performance I would stick with the previous drivers...
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/cat...">http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/cat...
DerekWilson - Thursday, February 26, 2009 - link
That article compares 9.2 to 9.1 ... the 8.12 hotfix would show similar performance improvements over the 9.1 drivers. 9.2 does benefit more games, but these are games that have been more recently released than the ones we tested.if they compared the 8.12 hotfix to 9.2, we would expect to see more parity, especially with the games we tested in this article.
DerekWilson - Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - link
The recently released 9.2 catalyst drivers are basically the 8.12 hotfix drivers with some additions to support performance and scaling in recently released titles. So not really.smartalco - Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - link
I don't like that you use 0 for those that score under 25 FPS, specifically because that is under 25 at the res/settings you use. If a card scores 24 FPS at 1680*1050 with maxed settings, what that really tells you is that if you were to drop to half the AA, or turn down some other setting, is that you could still have a perfectly playable game. It seems to me, that giving them a value rating of 0 is acting like everyone has to play on max settings, and if it doesn't meet the standard, its useless.IDK, just me talking, I'm going to be happy with my 4850 for quite some time.
Still an excellent article.
DerekWilson - Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - link
i've actually got the graphs without the 0 scores in the article front to back -- just commented out at the moment ... i wasn't sure which one to go with until the last minute, and i thought about putting both in (but that wouldbe really redundant for games that no card had trouble with)i could do some more complex web programming, but i'm not a web developer and i hate javascript ...
thanks for the feedback. i'll be taking it into account in the final article on 4-way.
also, if you wanna see the value numbers for the single and dual cards that scored less than 25 fps, you can still look at the first article and see them.