CrossFireX and the Phenom II X4 940 – Competitive or Not?
by Gary Key on February 2, 2009 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
Far Cry 2
This is another highly awaited title from last year that has beautiful graphics, an open ended environment, and is fun to play... but the traveling between missions tends to get repetitive. If you dial up the graphics options, the game rewards with you some fantastic visuals courtesy of the Dunia Engine. The game also features the most impressive benchmark tool we have seen in a PC game. We set the performance feature set to Very High, graphics to High, and enable DX10 with AA set to 2x. The in-game benchmark tool is utilized with the Ranch Small level.
We learned two things about this game. It favors the Intel platforms, and once you provide enough GPU horsepower, the i7 is untouchable. This is especially true once the i7 is overclocked. Although not shown, our single card results with the i7 at 4.00GHz resulted in an average frame rate of 68.8 with the minimum at 54.2 and maximum at 106.2. Single card results with the Q9550 and Phenom II 940 overclocked only increased frame rates by 1fps. If you wanted to pick a single benchmark and show a large disparity in gaming performance between the Intel and AMD platforms, this is the one to use. We would highly suggest to AMD that they send an engineer to UbiSoft for game engine optimizations.
In the 1680x1050 single card tests, the Intel platforms are slightly ahead of the AMD setup; even minimum frame rates favor Intel in this game. Enable CrossFire and we see the Q9550 leading the Phenom II 940 by 7% with minimum frame rates being equal. The i7 CrossFire results are impressive with a 31% frame rate increase over the Q9550 and 41% over the Phenom II 940. Once we overclock our processors, scores improve for the Q9550 and Phenom II 940 with frame rates increasing 22% and 20% over stock CF numbers respectively. The i7 shows a similar 19% increase when overclocked. Even though the Q9550 has a 7% clock speed advantage over the Phenom II 940, frame rates improve by 17% in the overclocked CrossFire results.
Adding a second card for CrossFire operation improves average frame rates by 5% and minimum frame rates less than 1% for the Phenom II. The Intel Q9550 has an improvement of 12% in average frame rates and minimum frame rates actually decrease by 5%. The Core i7 average frame rates improve by 42% and minimum rates increase 15%. Overclocking our processors resulted in an 19%~22% average improvement in average frame rates with the Q9550 benefiting the most.
At 1920x1200, the benchmarks reveal nothing new between the platforms. The Phenom II 940 is competitive with a single card, trails the Q9550 by 8% in CrossFire and 9% when overclocked, even though we start to become CPU/GPU limited on these two platforms. The Q9550 does hold a 17% advantage in minimum frame rates in the overclocked tests. The i7 is just stupid fast compared to our other two platforms with its standard CrossFire results being 8% and 18% faster than the overclocked Q9550 and Phenom II 940 processors respectively. Overclocking the i7 puts it in another league altogether.
Adding a second card for CrossFire operation improves average frame rates by 12% and minimum frame rates decrease by 8% for the Phenom II. The Intel Q9550 has an improvement of 18% in average frame rates and minimum frame rates do not change. The Core i7 average frame rates improve by 53% and minimum rates increase 26%. Overclocking our processors resulted in a 22%~26% average improvement in average frame rates with the Q9550 benefiting the greatest.
When it comes to game play experience and not benchmark tests, all three platforms responded the same at our specified settings. We did not notice any advantages with the improved frame rates that the i7 offers over the other two platforms. However, with the i7 we could change the graphic settings to Very High and increase AA to 4x and still experience very good game play. It was as if nothing changed except now we were looking at the savannahs of Africa in a much better way. These same settings were not always a pleasant experience on the other two platforms during heavy action scenes, but the game remained playable for the most part.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
68 Comments
View All Comments
balancedthinking - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
If these Settings were used for the Phenom II 940, at least it is not as bad as I first thought:http://www.anandtech.com/weblog/showpost.aspx?i=55...">http://www.anandtech.com/weblog/showpost.aspx?i=55...
That would mean an NB frequency around 2450. That is quite okay though it can be tweaked a bit further.
Still, it would be nice to know which settings were actually used for the Phenom II.
hooflung - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
That is a very, very well done article. Keep it up guys. Can't wait til' income tax and I am going to get a e8500 and a pII 940 to upgrade my P35 and 790GX, respectively.7Enigma - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
Thank you for finally including this information in the charts!This has been a HUGE peev of mine for a while now and it really helps to see which card (or in this case system) is actually better than the other at a particular game where the average frame rate may not tell the whole story.
Please make sure the rest of the Anandtech crew starts using this format for future testing.
CPUGuy - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
Although I understand the intent of using the highest OC possible I do believe the results can lead to another conclusion. A few of us discussing the CPU OC, CF results. It appears (so far) that the reason why the Q9550 came out ahead in CF results was a direct result of it's overclock. Some believe that if the PII 940 was OC'd that high (yes we read the other article about this) or the Q9550 was OC'd down, results would be different.The reason for this point of view is that most are not able to get Q9550 at 4.25GHz on air.
jusme - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
I found this article very informative. It now puts into perspective where the PII 940 stands in the gaming arena. Thanks Anandtech for taking the time to do it. I myself have 3 computers, 2 capable of of either the quad 9550(P45) or PII 940 Deneb(780g). It is very good to know that which ever solution I choose, xfire on P45 or single on 780g, I know the performance capabilities of both, and I like both. Hell, you got that Q9550 up to 4.05 oc for these tests? Wow! I knew they were capable, but to run these games that well under the load is alone impressive. You sure it was'nt the Q9650? I alone was going to shoot for a modest 3.8 for gaming, stability and temp management. In closing, it is also good to know that those who jumped on the I7 bandwagon real fast are sitting pretty, I know it was'nt cheap, but alot of those builders skimped on graphics.zenguy - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
In your review, it you stated that your testing did not reveal any difference between the P45 and P48 for CrossFire Limits so a P45 board was chosen.However, based on a few other reviews I have read, the 4850 can be noticably limited by the P45 board and ergo I presume the limits on a 4870 1GB card would be much much higher.
An example of one such review is below...........
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1472/10/intel_p4...">http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1472/...s_x48_cr...
Could this explain the "Unusual Drop" in performance or unexpected low framerates for the Intel Platform that you noted?
AtenRa - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
I am 100% sure that the results of the Core 2 Quad 9550 wild be much higher with an Intel X48 chipset than with the P45 in Cross Fire.Never the les, the article DOES show that Phenom II 940 is competitive in real life gaming at High resolutions.
zenguy - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
Yes the PII is a valid solution.AMD Finally re-entered the game in my Mind with the release.
SLI - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
Hammonds famous line in Jurrasic Park.Indeed, for 95% of folks, these ultra high benchmarks are useless. But for those of us in the 5%, thesy serve as a reminder on the ridiculous amounts of money we spend to squeeze just tha extra few FPS out. But then again the other 95% just dont get it...why?
Here is a paragraph I have kept near and dear for some years and it explains it eloquently.
"To upgrade or not to upgrade, that is the question that crosses many enthusiasts' lips on a daily basis. The upgrade bug is a high infectious, wallet-stripping disease that spreads fast once it gets a hold of you. Hardware manufacturers propagate this infection by offering you, the consumer, faster, more desirable hardware each month. Almost every facet of the hardware world begs you to get the next model up, or to break open the piggy bank and buy an 'upgraded version' of what you already have. Speak to a number of enthusiasts and they'll tell you that upgrading is more addictive than gambling (Biz387, 2003)."
So, you see, it's not our fault. Were simply sick. I type this as I play crysis at DX10 Very High spec everything at maximum @ 1900x1200@ 40fps average. Pulling about 830watts at the outlet, lol.
CPUGuy - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
If I were to use your number, the inclusion of more mainstream benchmark results pulls in nearly 95% more hits to this website then it would be beneficial for both anandtech and it's viewer base. Puts things into prospective doesn't it? LOL