CrossFireX and the Phenom II X4 940 – Competitive or Not?
by Gary Key on February 2, 2009 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
Race Driver: GRID
The more serious racing fans on the staff tend to end up at iRacing.com or playing a modified version of Grand Prix Legends for our racing simulation fix. However, there comes a time to throw out physics and just have some fun. In that case, GRID is the game we play. We turn up all the options, set AA to 2x, and let the rubber burn in a Race Day event. Our results are captured via FRAPS.
At 1680x1050 in single card mode, we are GPU limited. All three platforms have close scores, but the Phenom II 940 does get a win here. The Phenom II leads the Q9550 by 4% in CrossFire average frame rates and 7% in minimum frame rates. The tables are reversed once we overclock the processors as the Q9550 has a 5% advantage in average frame rates and 6% in minimum frame rates, both close to the 7% clock speed advantage for the Q9550. The i7 runs like a Ferrari once we introduce CrossFire and overclocking into the benchmarks as it easily surpasses the other two platforms.
Adding a second card for CrossFire operation improves average frame rates by 21% and minimum frame rates by 25% for the Phenom II. The Intel Q9550 has an improvement of 19% in average frame rates and 25% in minimum frame rates. The Core i7 average frame rates improve by 42% and minimum rates increase 44%. Overclocking our processors resulted in an 18%~30% average improvement in average frame rates with the Q9550 benefiting the most.
Turning the resolution up to 1920x1200 has us playing the same old record. The results follow the pattern set at 1680x1050. The Phenom II scores another win here in single card and CrossFire mode over the Q9550. The Core i7 continues to dominate the benchmarks although the Phenom II continues to make a very good showing in minimum frame rates.
Adding a second card for CrossFire operation improves average frame rates by 9% and minimum frame rates by 14% for the Phenom II. The Intel Q9550 has an improvement of 5% in average frame rates and 5% in minimum frame rates. The Core i7 average frame rates improve by 30% and minimum rates increase 33%. Overclocking our processors resulted in an 18%~32% average improvement in frame rates for our collective group with the Q9550 benefiting the most.
Once again, our game play experience indicates there is no difference between the three platforms at our settings. Although frame rates were higher with the i7 in CrossFire mode, there was no appreciable difference in game play quality.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
68 Comments
View All Comments
FingerMeElmo87 - 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."
--Whats down to earth? Intel Celeries and IGPs'? They did both average use benches with single GPU and enthusiast class benches with dual GPUs and overclocking. how could you get your panties in a bunch like so easily. did you even bother to read the article?
"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."
--Once again, same worthless comment. they didnt just test crossfire
"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."
--ugh. saying eveyone needs the latest and greatest type of harddrive is like saying everyone needs crossfire and SLI.
going as far as breaking down your entire retarded post was a complete waste of time just to call you a douche bag but i guess it had to be done
CPUGuy - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
The user "Finally" is right (although a tad abrasive). You don't need CF or SLI to run any of those games at an acceptable frame rate. Furthermore, the mainstream crowd does outnumber the enthusiast crowd using CF/SLI by many fold. So it would have made more beneficial to show both CPU stock and overclock results using just a 4870.Heck, they could have added a PII 920 at stock and overclock and a 4850 just to make it interesting. Maybe one day we will see such a setup tested.
scottb75 - Wednesday, February 4, 2009 - link
With SLI/CF the CPU becomes more of the bottleneck then it would be with just one GPU. So, testing with SLI/CF shows more of a difference between the CPUs then it would with just a single card.Gary Key - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
This is not a GPU comparison per say, it is a platform comparison. We set the game options to a blended mixture of quality and performance in order to keep the GPU setup from becoming the limiting factor when possible. This is explained in further detail in page two.CPUGuy - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
Although I understand your reasoning and to a degree it make sense. However, many are using or attempting to use 4xAA max settings at 1680 (at the very least). Therefore, it would be very informative to many of use what we could expect.This is with the expectation that we are no longer worried about just CPU scores but platform scores. IMO, reviewers should start looking at the platform as whole in reviews like this as many are looking at it that way. If it were true that one motherboard performed exceedingly better then another a CPU only benchmark would make sense.
CPUGuy - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
us not use...sorryv1001 - Sunday, February 1, 2009 - link
Page 10 - Final Words is missingGary Key - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
The article went live before it was completed. Page 10 is in and I will update it late tomorrow with power consumption numbers. Just finishing the power tests on the i7 with the same power supply we use on the other setups.