ATI's Crossfire - are you impressed?

CDsDontBurn · Sep 28, 2005, 01:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsdsdk

CDsdontburn, try looking through the review again, and this time compare single 7800gtx vs X850 CF.

i wonder if they even changed SFR/AFR mode when in SLI for the different games..

after looking at the review again. it actually impressed me a little better this time

. two crossfire cards can compete with and in some cases beat 1 7800GTX. still though, the real deal will be comparing 2 G70s vs. 2 R520s

bug77 · Sep 28, 2005, 04:03 AM

Let's see:

Limitation at 1600x1200@60Hz - probably gonna hurt any enthusiast w/o TFT (not serious otherwise)
(Sort of) works with different cards - (sort of) impressive. It would be nice if you could pair cards from different generations, but I don't think that's the case.
Works with all applications - definitely impressive, even if it needs fiddling around a little.
Needs an ATI mobo - I don't think I can buy one where I live; severe limitation.
Super AA - having a second high-end card to do just AA/AF looks pretty useless to me, but can be nice if a single card can handle your app by itself.
ATI keeping all limitations from the public - biggest dissappointment (IMHO, but I'm sure they had their reasons/tried to overcome them).

Overall, I voted unimpressed (but I would never consider paying 300USD for a video card, so I'm not the target audience for Crossfire anyway).

***Veridian3*** · Sep 28, 2005, 04:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Son_of_Thunder

?

One thing I didn't like about the DH benchy was that the systems weren't identical, so that throws some things off.

Nothing was thrown off at all.

There were two sections of that review.

1) the mothoerboard section where the systems were identical other than the motherboard used. (i used a 3800+ X2 because its a better CPU for desktop use and so you see the best performance from each motherboard rather than be bottlenecked by the FX55)

2) the graphics card sections where the systems were identical where possible so a FX 55 was used on all tests, same memory HD etc also used. The only difference was a NF4 was used for the SLI systems. All other tests were on the CF board. (FX55 was used for the game tests as it is the better gaming CPU and so you can see the best performance of the GFX cards being tested. The 3800+ X2 would have put more of a CPU bottleneck on those tests.

bug77 · Sep 28, 2005, 05:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Veridian3

1) the mothoerboard section where the systems were identical other than the motherboard used. (i used a 3800+ X2 because its a better CPU for desktop use and so you see the best performance from each motherboard rather than be bottlenecked by the FX55)

So, an FX55@2.6GHz is a bottleneck, but a X2 3800+, clocked 30% less is not. Do you know something we don't? Has ATi included multi-threading support in their drivers (or smth) so that games would take advantage of the second core? Or am I just plain missing something? Just curious...

***Zardon*** · Sep 28, 2005, 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bug77

So, an FX55@2.6GHz is a bottleneck, but a X2 3800+, clocked 30% less is not. Do you know something we don't? Has ATi included multi-threading support in their drivers (or smth) so that games would take advantage of the second core? Or am I just plain missing something? Just curious...

There were two sections to the review, The synthetic testing of the motherboard section with tests such pcmark and sandra used the dual core processor as it is a better test of a motherboard setup rather than a single cored processor.

All gaming tests used the same processor - FX55.

bug77 · Sep 28, 2005, 05:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zardon

There were two sections to the review, The synthetic testing of the motherboard section with tests such pcmark and sandra used the dual core processor as it is a better test of a motherboard setup rather than a single cored processor.

All gaming tests used the same processor - FX55.

Aha! So I WAS missing something.

***Zardon*** · Sep 28, 2005, 05:53 AM

Perhaps it is a little difficult to follow but we did try to lay it out in an easy manner so everyone could see exactly the hardware used.

On this page it states:

Motherboard Tests:
AMD X2 3800+
ATI X850XT 256mb
2x512mb DDR 3200 (2-2-2-5)
Samsung 80Gb 7200rpm 8mb Cache Sata Drive
Sony DWD22a DVDRW drive
Ultra Xconnect 500w PSU
ATI Reference Crossfire Motherboard
DFI Lanparty NF4 Motherboard

Graphics Card Tests - Crossfire/X850 single/7800GTX:
AMD Athlon64 FX55 CPU
2x512mb DDR 3200 (2-2-2-5)
Samsung 80Gb 7200rpm 8mb Cache Sata Drive
Sony DWD22a DVDRW drive
Ultra Xconnect 500w PSU
ATI Reference Crossfire Motherboard
X850 XT 256 master and slave cards
Geforce 7800GTX 256mb

Graphics Card Tests - 7800GT SLI/ 6800Ultra SLI:
AMD Athlon64 FX55 CPU
2x512mb DDR 3200 (2-2-2-5)
Samsung 80Gb 7200rpm 8mb Cache Sata Drive
Sony DWD22a DVDRW drive
Ultra Xconnect 500w PSU
DFI Lanparty NF4 Motherboard
2xGeforce 6800Ultra 256mb

So as you can see we have kept everything as close as technically possible, the only changes with the graphics card tests (last two configurations above) between platforms are the motherboard which obviously is unavoidable.

Rasta Monsta · Sep 28, 2005, 12:42 PM

People that lay out the bucks for two high end video cards will be bumming when Dual-VPU cards start becoming available. . .

rasta

CDsDontBurn · Sep 28, 2005, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rasta Monsta

People that lay out the bucks for two high end video cards will be bumming when Dual-VPU cards start becoming available. . .

rasta

those cards are already available

....

oh wait, you said VPU not GPU

nm

Rasta Monsta · Sep 28, 2005, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDsDontBurn

those cards are already available

....

Erm, shoulda said WIDELY available, with better compatibility than that Gigabyte setup...only works on ONE motherboard.

HawgsHead · Sep 29, 2005, 01:51 PM

Too little.Too late.

SFOSOK · Sep 29, 2005, 02:01 PM

I think from the poll the overall reaction was, where is the shock and awe we waited for?

Pluvious · Sep 29, 2005, 03:21 PM

I don't understand the reasoning with the Crossfire.. when we all know the R520 and beyond is just around the corner. Why would anyone spend $400-500 when the next "next gen" is so close??

They should scrap it and just release the R520. iMHO.

SFOSOK · Sep 29, 2005, 10:30 PM

I spent 500 on my 7800 GTX because it is Next Gen and with an SLI board I am future proof for a while.

Maybe the reason Crossfire was made is because the r520 may not be everything everyone asumes it is.

The only real reason for ATI to continue Crossfire is because r520 and r580 are probably about as revolutionary as the 7800GTX.

BWX · Sep 30, 2005, 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFOSOK

The only real reason for ATI to continue Crossfire is because r520 and r580 are probably about as revolutionary as the 7800GTX.

Maybe, or maybe they are late because they re-designed them to be 30% to 50% faster? Hope so for ATI's sake.

nohbody · Sep 30, 2005, 04:41 AM

I see potential to be better than NV's SLI ... Its just not quite there yet

Son_of_Thunder · Sep 30, 2005, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Veridian3

Nothing was thrown off at all.

There were two sections of that review.

1) the mothoerboard section where the systems were identical other than the motherboard used. (i used a 3800+ X2 because its a better CPU for desktop use and so you see the best performance from each motherboard rather than be bottlenecked by the FX55)

2) the graphics card sections where the systems were identical where possible so a FX 55 was used on all tests, same memory HD etc also used. The only difference was a NF4 was used for the SLI systems. All other tests were on the CF board. (FX55 was used for the game tests as it is the better gaming CPU and so you can see the best performance of the GFX cards being tested. The 3800+ X2 would have put more of a CPU bottleneck on those tests.

IIII see, sorry, my mistake. I looked at the test setups then went straight to the 3D gaming benchies. Sorry about the mix up.

SFOSOK · Sep 30, 2005, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWX

Maybe, or maybe they are late because they re-designed them to be 30% to 50% faster? Hope so for ATI's sake.

Truthfully I do also, competition only helps the consumers

edperks · Oct 4, 2005, 05:09 PM

Im sure the next Gen ATI will be better in performance and also change th 60 htz limitation. Also you have to remember Nvidia bought out 3dfx (The first to use SLI on a PCI bus) so they had a jump from the getgo!! I dont see ATI disapointing us.

bug77 · Oct 5, 2005, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by edperks

Im sure the next Gen ATI will be better in performance and also change th 60 htz limitation. Also you have to remember Nvidia bought out 3dfx (The first to use SLI on a PCI bus) so they had a jump from the getgo!! I dont see ATI disapointing us.

Well, disappointment is based on one's expectations I'd say.
I wasn't expecting 2x the performance of a SLI setup, so I'm not disappointed by any means. Just doesn't impress me much, that's all.

g35x · Nov 22, 2005, 07:59 AM

not impressed (yet) im waiting