CrossFireX and the Phenom II X4 940 – Competitive or Not?
by Gary Key on February 2, 2009 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
Fallout 3
We have played this game numerous times and still have not visited every location on the map or completed all seventy or so side-quests. It could be that the game’s ambiance does not seem to match its predecessors. Alternatively, maybe some of the bugs present that result in NPC characters disappearing have us longing to play Oblivion or KOTR again. Even so, we still love the game. We have moved on to playing the new content pack, Operation: Anchorage, until Dragon Age: Origins ships.
The game engine is based on the one utilized in Oblivion with a few updates, so performance is similar. We set the quality settings to Ultra, AA to 2x, and AF to 8x. Our test consists of following a path back to Megaton and in the process fighting off a couple of Raiders. We utilize FRAPS to capture our results.
Truthfully, this game does not benchmark well. The game’s level-of-detail mechanism makes constant changes as you cross the map. The LOD adjustments create a seesaw effect in the frame rates and it is difficult to tell if the sudden pause or shudder in frame rates is from the video card or the game engine. That said, the Intel i7 platform simply performs best in this game.
Once again, in our single card testing at 1680x1050 each setup is very close with the Intel Q9550 holding a 4% advantage in average frame rates over the Phenom II 940. The Phenom II posts slightly better minimum frame rates once again. In CrossFire testing the Q9550 holds a small 1% advantage, close to our error of margin. The Q9550 picks up some steam when overclocked and holds an 8% advantage over the Phenom II 940 in average frame rates and 13% in minimum frame rates with a 7% clock speed advantage. The i7 leads our two competitors in overclocked CrossFire performance by 6% and 13% respectfully.
Adding a second card for CrossFire operation improves average frame rates by 4% and minimum frame rates stay the same for the Phenom II. The Intel Q9550 has an improvement of 2% in average frame rates and 11% in minimum frame rates. The Core i7 average frame rates improve by 3% and minimum rates decrease by 7%. Overclocking our processors resulted in a 14%~19% improvement in average frame rates with the Q9550 benefiting the most.
The 1920x1200 results are similar with the Q9550 and Phenom II 940 scoring nearly the same in single card and CrossFire. We just do not see any real benefits in having CrossFire at stock speeds with the Q9550 or Phenom II 940. Once we overclocked each processor, we noticed an 11% increase in CrossFire performance on these two platforms. The Q9550 holds a slight advantage in minimum frame rates with CrossFire when overclocked while the Phenom II 940 leads at stock clock speeds.
Adding a second card for CrossFire operation improves average frame rates by 4% and minimum frame rates by 15% for the Phenom II. The Intel Q9550 has an improvement of less than 1% in average frame rates and no changes in minimum frame rates. The Core i7 average frame rates improve by 6% and minimum rates increase 5%. Overclocking our processors resulted in a 12%~17% improvement in average frame rates with the Core i7 benefiting the most.
Our Core i7 scores better with a single card setup than the other two platforms with CrossFire. The same holds true with the stock i7 CrossFire results scoring higher than our two overclocked competitors do. Overclocking the i7 CrossFire setup results in a 17% increase in average frame rates that required a 50% increase in core clock speeds.
As far as game play experiences, we noted no differences between the Intel Q9550 and Phenom II 940 platforms. Each one offered a very good experience with minimum frame rates on each platform being acceptable. The amount of LOD adjustments in the game was disconcerting at times . When we experienced them, the game stutter was minimized on the i7 setup compared to the other two platforms with CrossFire enabled. All three platforms responded in the same manner with a single card setup. Overall, we would not recommend CrossFire for this game at present; even overclocking the processors resulted in a minimum improvement in frame rates.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
68 Comments
View All Comments
JarredWalton - Tuesday, February 3, 2009 - link
You might want to read the article a bit more carefully. From the test setup page: "Our decision to go with a 790FX/SB750 combination on the AMD side is strictly based upon performance. The 790FX is about 3%~5% faster on average than comparable 790GX products. AMD continues to recommend the 790GX/SB750 as the platform of choice for the AM2+ and upcoming AM3 products. We disagree from a performance viewpoint; the 790FX/SB750 combination is simply the best choice in our opinion. Of course you will typically pay about $35~$40 or greater for the 790FX boards, but if you intend on running CrossFireX, we think it is worth the additional cost."You *can* find less expensive motherboards, but what will the *overall* experience with those board be? I for one would take a better motherboard with a less expensive processor every time over a faster default CPU clock and a cheaper motherboard. The motherboard is just too critical a component to ever warrant skimping in my book. YMMV, naturally.
side09 - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
Should the fusion program that runs faster maybe be put into the calculations for AMD?CPUGuy - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
Wow, I nearly forgot about that. I didn't see that mentioned as well. Fusion 1.0 is out and should be used in any and all AMD based benchmark reviews IMO.kuyaglen - Sunday, February 1, 2009 - link
2XAA ?Finally - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
Seriously, who cares for Crossfire (or SLI)?Please. Stop making those useless enthusiast's enthusiast reviews and come back to the ground, AnandTech.
Please, go ahead, check the Steam survey hardware list.
Then tell me: How many people out of 100 do have SLI/Crossfire.
Then laugh.
Then stop testing this shit like it was important.
And here my suggestions for constructive improvement:
Test the new generation of HDDs with 500GB platters (e.g. Seagate 7200.12 series)
THAT would be interesting, because EVERYONE needs a good HDD, but no one needs Crossfire.
Finally - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
lies buried in the single-GPU results included in these benchmarks.No difference. No difference at all! (and I count 1-2 fps as no difference).
But those aren't usually shown, because CPUs get tested under highly artificial conditions... to show their advantage... IN THEORY.
In real life gaming performance it makes no difference, if you just intend to play with your quad-core... this is the real interesting result that could justify this article, nothing else.
Finally - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
...that CF/SLI sucks. Anytime. Big time.It never made sense, it will never make sense.
The time, you come back and drop in another card of the same class, there is a new generation available that easily tops your grandmother-CF/SLI and furthermore adds even DirectX 11 support and a plethora of other features into the deal...
2 GPUs+ is a failed strategy - unless you are some scientist... working on a super computer... actually trying to achieve something... other than that it's highly efficient money-burning 2.0
darkvader75 - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
It seems you are abit confused. The "Steam" hardware survey runs when Steam launches. SLI and Crossfire are not active on the desktop so Steam says "no crossfire or SLI detected." More people have SLI or Crossfire by a longshot then what you are seeing by a detection program that is failing miserably. Go pull Futuremarks independant ID results list if you would like to see SLI and Crossfire #'s. Also tons of people playing counterstrike source years later don't exactly count as the bulk of the comunity. This is a high tech cutting edge website for new data and information about computer electronics. If you want babyville information about basic garbage then you need to visit Znet.SirKronan - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
"Seriosly, who cares for Crossfire (or SLI)?Holy smokes, man. Get out of here. You can get a P45 board for $100, overclock the crap out of a Core 2 duo/quad, a couple of 4850's for $300 and you've got a SERIOUS amount of gaming power. I was an early adopter of the Asus P5Q Pro with a 4850 to go with it. I've since switched, but while I had it, a second 4850 would've been a fantastic upgrade path. You can take two 4850's and an economical P45 motherboard and give the more expensive GTX 280/285 a run for the money, even winning in many games. 2x4850 is the "common man's" multi-GPU setup, and many many have been very successful with such a platform, without paying through the nose. When the 8800GT came out, and nVidia substantially improved SLI, the consumer was in a similar situation.
And look at all the moderately-priced, AMD boards that will take AMD's new cost effective X2's and X3's?? I think this review applies to A LOT OF customers. How many people out there have a P45 board? How many people out there have a crossfire capable AMD board?? And out of those, how many have a 4850?
Well, now you know what you'll get for an upgrade path. Now you have a realistic preview of performance gains if you add a second 4850 some day. In some games, the benefits are great, and it will be worth your while. Now you know how the new Phenoms compare if you have a compatible AMD motherboard, or were considering one.
Thanks, Anand for giving such consumers the heads up. Very useful article.
Gazz - Wednesday, February 4, 2009 - link
I agree that was a great reviewI am running a 3.2ghz x2 duel core on a MSI K9A2 platinum with 4gb of ocz 1055 and I have just installed my second His 4850 1gb of mem
graphics card
eventualy I hope to up my ram to 8 gb install vista or the win 7
and go to a 4 core cpu and a new pcu
my motherboard can hold 4 graphics cards
I still have not seen any tests with all AMD/ATI products on a vista win with that OC tool and with 4x 4850 1 gbmem
oh well all fun and games great article thankyou