ATI's X8xx CrossFire Graphics Arrive
by Derek Wilson on September 26, 2005 1:00 PM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
The Details of the Resolution Limit
The foremost issue we want to address in this section is that of the 1600x1200 resolution limit and the Single Link TMDS receiver on the CrossFire master cards. Much speculation has been passed around on the subject, and we wanted to get to the bottom of the issue. It is true that digital operation of the vast majority of ATI X8xx series parts are limited to single-link DVI speeds per display. ATI's position is that since most current X8xx series cards do not support dual-link output, a single-link receiver is all that is needed. This is a fine solution. The problem is that ATI is currently fixing maximum CrossFire resolution to 1600x1200@60Hz. While they have stated that it is technically possible for them to run resolutions at a similar pixel clock, they will not allow asymmetric timings between the TMDS receiver and the final output. In general, this means that any resolution larger than 1600x1200 will require a lower refresh rate than 60Hz. While this may be ok at HDTV resolutions or on a digital flat panel, CRT owners may elect to drop resolution even lower than 1600x1200 in order to play their games with a decent refresh rate. For an expensive, high end solution, a 1600x1200 60Hz limit is simply unacceptable.We asked ATI why the capabilities of the TMDS receiver on the master card must limit the resolution of CrossFire output to 1600x1200@60Hz. The answer is that scaling would diminish at higher resolutions due to the limited ability of the slave card to contribute in a balanced way. Granted, AFR (alternate frame rendering) modes could not be run and SuperTiling would have to be tweaked or dropped, but ATI does support 60/40 and 70/30 split frame load balancing as well. Enabling high resolutions only under their scissor mode should give some additional performance along with the ability to run at higher resolutions. To us, including the option for a customer to choose how the hardware he or she owns will work is absolutely a good thing. In our minds, a lower performing 2048x1536 is definitely better than not having the option at all. We would strongly urge ATI to consider adding such options in future driver releases if it is at all possible.
On top of that, multiple other options spring to mind on how resolutions could be increased. PCIe bandwidth could be used heavily to transfer screen data. NVIDIA has multi card configurations working with no direct physical link. In addition, it shouldn't be impossible for ATI to use both outputs on the slave card to send data to the master. Two single-link connections are the building blocks of a dual-link connection after all. But in the end, ATI stands behind their decision to implement CrossFire with a single-link resolution limit.
With maximum resolution limited, we must rely on features and quality to drive the decision to purchase a CrossFire setup. And the feature that ATI hopes will push CrossFire is their Super AA.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
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 driven2405FPW 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.