Introduction

Four months ago, ATI officially announced their first multi-GPU solution called CrossFire.

Two months ago, we previewed and benchmarked it.

And today, ATI lifted their NDA on CrossFire performance with the Radeon X850 XT.

Contrary to what we were all led to believe, CrossFire cards are still not available, so today, we have little more than what we had two months ago when we previewed the platform.

Obviously, drivers have improved tremendously since we first benchmarked CrossFire, but as you will soon see, the platform still isn't entirely perfect. You will also find that CrossFire performance is decent, however plagued by an unfortunate GPU limitation limiting current CrossFire setups to a 1600 x 1200 maximum resolution.

The timing of today's NDA lift is curious at best, given that ATI's next-generation GPUs are literally just around the corner. In fact, given things such as the current 1600 x 1200 resolution, we honestly wonder why this performance introduction wasn't delayed until ATI's R520 launch.

Meanwhile, NVIDIA has steadily been improving the quality and availability of their SLI platform, which was announced over a year ago. Across the vast majority of their product lines, ATI is playing a seemingly never-ending game of catch-up. From the delayed release of the R520 to CrossFire, things haven't been looking up for ATI. Let's see if the trend continues here today.

The Details of the Resolution Limit
Comments Locked

76 Comments

View All Comments

  • Pete - Monday, September 26, 2005 - link

    Dangher, you won't find an article to support your claims. It was speculated (in many a forum and possibly by Josh at Penstarsys) that AFR could double XF's single-link TDMS' refresh rate or resolution by interleaving frames, but that's been ruled out, as apparently the RAMDAC must run at the TDMS engine's rate, and the CE doesn't have buffer enough to support RAMDAC refresh rates indpendent of the TDMS engine.

    So, I'd be surprised if you do.

    And Derek won't be sued for libel unless he intentionally published false info. I'm sure much of his info came from ATI themselves, as well as hands-on experience (which shows a 16x12@60Hz limit across the review-site board).
  • JarredWalton - Monday, September 26, 2005 - link

    I think there has been speculation about what could be done with additional low-level hardware and driver tweaks. For now, X8xx Crossfire does not appear to have any support for anything beyond 1600x1200@60 Hz. That's terrible, in my opinion. I have a 9 year old 21" CRT that can run 1600x1200@75Hz. Anyone that has the money to buy Crossfire is highly likely to have a better monitor than that. Meanwhile, my 2405FPW may only run at 60Hz, but lack of 1920x1200 output makes X850 Crossfire a definite no.

    My only hope is that ATI has spent more effort on R520 Crossfire and will manage to support at least 2048x1536@85 Hz. That's about where top quality CRTs max out, and there are far more 22" CRT owners than Apple 30" Cinema Display owners. :|
  • Fluppeteer - Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - link

    I'm surprised that any single-link resolution isn't possible (so a digitally driven
    2405FPW ought to work), but it's clear that there's a problem with CRTs. The R520's
    dual-link outputs would appear to solve the problem with reasonable headroom, coincidentally supporting dual link monitors.

    Dangher's post *could* make sense - by interleaving pixels one could, in theory, take
    two single-link images and produce a dual-link one. But the chips aren't really set
    up to render like that - it's certainly not one of the announced Crossfire modes.
    It would probably also be slower than the existing modes.

    AFAIK there's very little intelligence in the CE (or in the SLi combiner) - the
    chip not producing output for the relevant bit of screen just outputs black, and
    the CE/SLi combiner just ORs the values from the two heads together. There's a bit
    of genlock involved and the DVI receiver and transmitter, but the amount of actual
    logic is tiny. Unless I'm wrong about how it works, but I don't see the need for
    more (except for the multi-card antialiasing, which presumably needs some blending
    support - I was a bit surprised that nVidia could retrofit this for that reason).

    You could do all kinds of clever things if the SLi bridge/Crossfire connection
    was actually a general-purpose high bandwidth link between the two cards, but to
    the best of my knowledge, it's not: it's video only, so you're limited to what
    the cards can drive on their digital video outputs when it comes to displaying
    the result, and uneven splitting won't help you - it's the peak rate of output
    which matters, not the average throughput.

    On the plus side, with enough supersampling 1280x1024 on a CRT might not look
    much worse than 1600x1200 with less...
  • Fluppeteer - Thursday, September 29, 2005 - link

    I've belatedly picked up on something. Sorry if I'm being slow, but to confirm:

    The multi-card supersampling mode... is the frame from the secondary card sent
    over the PCI-e bus, rather than over the Crossfire link? If so, this would
    explain a large performance drop as it's implemented, but also explain how
    nVidia could implement the equivalent mode without having built blending
    directly into their SLi combiner in the first place (and also suggest that
    the Crossfire combiner doesn't need to be clever enough to blend). It might
    alse explain why nVidia's implementation coincided with a bridgeless SLi
    capability (once you've done the work in the driver...)

    If they *do* this, there's no reason for it to be limited to 1600x1200 (or
    single-link bandwidth), other than that the PCI-e bus will be limiting the
    refresh at some point.

    Just wondering, and curious whether I'm imagining it.

    --
    Fluppeteer
  • DerekWilson - Monday, September 26, 2005 - link

    :-)

    I don't get offended easily. I'm certainly the first person who wants to know if I got something wrong. At the same time, it is my responsibility to get across the clearest way possible, so I'm also concerned when it doesn't seem that I have communicated the facts clearly enough.

    Derek Wilson
  • erinlegault - Monday, September 26, 2005 - link

    All of the reviews I've been reading today on Crossfire have been saying the same thing. Can you tell us how they are all wrong?
  • Leper Messiah - Monday, September 26, 2005 - link

    The last table on the last page is missing, there's just a [table] tag.
  • DerekWilson - Monday, September 26, 2005 - link

    sorry again ... I'll drop in in a second.
  • Leper Messiah - Monday, September 26, 2005 - link

    If this had been released 6 months ago, it would be good. Right now with one 7800GTX beating it in some benchies, and SLi GTs and GTX raping it, this just doesn't cut it. Hopefully ATi has something amazing with the R520, otherwise they are heading back to the days of pre-R300.
  • sxr7171 - Monday, September 26, 2005 - link

    Okay, I don't get this. I'm running a 24" widescreen monitor at 1920x1200@60HZ using single link DVI. The limit for single-link DVI at 60HZ is said to be 2.6 megapixels which is quite a bit higher than 1600x1200.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now