MultiGPU Update: Two-GPU Options in Depth
by Derek Wilson on February 23, 2009 7:30 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Final Words
There is quite a bit of data here today, and it can be a little bit daunting to sort through. In every test but one, GeForce GTX 285 SLI leads the way in performance. Often the GTX 280 SLI pops up next. That's surprising considering the fact that AMD doesn't have as heavy hitting a single GPU part. And it also doesn't take into account the fact that these two solutions often come in very low in the "value" lineup and not that much higher in performance than something like the Radeon HD 4870 multiGPU options or even the GeForce GTX 295.
The cheaper Radeon HD 4870 X2 often does better than the GTX 295, and often multiGPU AMD options have better value than the highest end single GPU options from NVIDIA. But the real stand out has to be the Sapphire Radeon HD 4850 X2 2GB. This unique card really shined and held it's own all the way up to 2560x1600. While a 1GB 4850 might not make much sense (the extra RAM only really helps at resolutions where the 4850 can't keep up in terms of processing power), the 1GB of RAM per GPU on the 4850 X2 2GB really helps make this single card multiGPU option high end.
The Sapphire 4850 X2 costs less than a single NVIDIA GTX 280 or 285, and performs better than these as well. While the Radeon HD 4870 X2 is viable as high end single card multiGPU option, it competes at a price point beyond NVIDIA's high end. the 4850 X2 really puts pressure on anything that costs between $300 and $400 from the competition. It's very surprising to us that AMD hasn't pushed this configuration and that Sapphire are the only manufacturer to have put one of these out there.
In general, more than one GPU isn't that necessary for 1920x1200 with the highest quality settings, and the Radeon 4870 1GB or an overclocked GeForce GTX 260 core 216 are good options there. Slower single cards are fine for the high quality at 1680x1050 and multiGPU options are basically wasted at this resolution and lower except in Crysis. As we've seen in past tests, only those with 30" monitors will really benefit from multiple GPUs in their system for now. Of course, there are value-add technologies like PhysX and hopefully sooner rather than later OpenCL will attract more developers to GPU computing. But when were talking multiple graphics cards for rendering it's really not worth it without the highest resolution around.
If you want to break it down, the only NVIDIA single GPU solutions we really recommend as an option are the GeForce GTX 260 variants and/or SLI which are on par with the Radeon 4870 512MB and 1GB depending on the games we chose to test. Really the decision comes down to which games you prefer to play and what features you want. Buying a single GPU solution for more than $300 doesn't make sense with the efficiency of the 4850 X2, and the prices on higher performance multiGPU solutions make them a tough sell really. The GTX 285 SLI is the performance leader, but the cost is just huge.
As we mentioned, this is the first of a series of articles that will explore multiGPU performance. The next article will tackle 3-way SLI and 3-way CrossFireX options. The goal is to extend this look into the 3-way realm, looking at scaling from 1 to 3 and from 2 to 3 cards in a system along side pure performance and value. While this will use much of the same data we've looked at today, the focus will be on 3-way and whether or not it has any real practical use.
While we've already seen 2 GPU performance data, we hope that this more in-depth look than usual helps to illustrate the playing field a bit better. AMD (with the help of Sapphire) really has succeeded at their goal of making single card high end options that compete well with NVIDIA's high end single cards. While the Radeon HD 4870 X2 does compete well with the GeForce GTX 295, the 4850 X2 2GB does a great job of offering higher performance than NVIDIA single GPU options and much more bang for your buck at a price point right below the GTX 280.
Our one caveat with AMD remains driver issues. We are happy with Catalyst 9.2 as it competes with the 8.12 hotfix in terms of stability and performance (and it offers more multiGPU support for recently released games). NVIDIA's GeForce GTX 260 core 216 offers good competition for AMD, and driver support issues don't do AMD any favors. Drivers are even more important when it comes to SLI and CrossFire. SLI enjoys much better support from NVIDIA than CrossFire does from AMD. Because of AMD's driver issues, we often have to wait when new games come out to enjoy proper CrossFire scaling with them. And when hotfixes come out it takes more than a month (usually more like two) to fully integrate changes into a WHQL driver. This is quite disappointing and is really the only strike against the Radeon HD 4850 X2 2GB which is in every other way terrific competition for NVIDIA's lineup.
Sometimes you don't get what you pay for, and with less than linear scaling we do see a reduced value from multiple card solutions. Sometimes getting playability at a higher resolution makes this reduced "value" worth it. Sometimes, CPU and system limits can also reduce value for more than one GPU. And sometimes, like in the case of the Sapphire 4850 X2 2GB, we see a single card that costs the same as two separate lower spec'd (in this case lower memory) parts and can therefore offer great scaling and incredible value.
Stay tuned to see how three cards changes the landscape.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
95 Comments
View All Comments
DerekWilson - Tuesday, February 24, 2009 - link
actually, you can't get CRTs that go that high afaik -- the highest res CRTs I've seen go to 2048x1536 ...30" LCD monitors support this resolution such as the Dell I use. Apple among others also make 30" LCDs with 2560x1600 resolution.
The barrier to entry with 30" LCD monitors that do 2560x1600 is about $1000 ...
Finally - Tuesday, February 24, 2009 - link
As usual, this isn't an article, meant for the proles, but for the aforementioned 1%.I wouldn't read it if they used 8 GPUs and quadrupled that resolution...
Really, what do you wanna prove, Anandtech?
That you can test things, that don't matter to anyone?
That you can test things, because you can test things?
Come on!
Get something with a BIT more information value for the general crowd out here.
For example:
A big lot of us has still old GPUs in use. But if any piece of hardware is older than 2 months, you erase it from the benchmarking process, effectively annihilating any comparisons that could have been made.
SiliconDoc - Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - link
So 66% are 1650 and below, and we know people like to exagerrate on the internet, so the numbers are actually HIGHER in the lower end.So let's round up to 75% at 1650 1280 and 1024.
They didn't offer the 1440x900 monitor rez all over wal mart - not to mention 1280 800 laptops (who await $ tran$fer to a game rig) - .
Yes, perhaps not 1% but 3% isn't much different - this site would COLLAPSE INSTANTLY without the 75%- not true the other way around.
Frankjly I'd like to see the list of cards from both companies that do sli or xfire - I want to see just how big that list is - and I want everyone else to see it.
DerekWilson - Tuesday, February 24, 2009 - link
Actually, from a recent poll we did, 2560x1600 usage is around 3% among AnandTech readers.http://anandtech.com/weblog/showpost.aspx?i=547">http://anandtech.com/weblog/showpost.aspx?i=547
1920x1200 and 1680x1050 are definitely in more use, but this article is also useful for those users.
This article demonstrates the lack of necessity and value in multiGPU solutions at resolutions below 2560x1600 in most cases. This is important information for gamers to consider.
Jamer - Monday, February 23, 2009 - link
What a great article! Absolutely brilliant. This helps so much, bringing simplicity to all those possible GPU choices. Thank you!SirKronan - Monday, February 23, 2009 - link
Any chance we could get some figures on average performance per dollar from the whole suite you through at it? And performance per power consumption figures would be awesome, too.Just some suggestions that would benefit your readers.
I have a hard time not seeing the value in the 295. It's much closer performance-wise to 2x280/285 than one 280/285, yet costs much less, doesn't require an SLI motherboard, and consumes much less power at load and at idle.
It seems that you get a considerably larger performance boost for your money with the 295 than is traditional with the fastest graphics card available. Remember the 8800 Ultra? How much faster was it than the GTX, and how much price difference was there? The 9800GX2 was much worse. $600 for the same performance as two $200 8800GTS, and not much better power consumption numbers either, a very bad buy.
And just because most games out now run fine on a 260 at 1920x1200 and don't need anymore power, some of the value in buying the higher end is longevity. On of my friends actually bought an Ultra nearly two years ago. He's still using it and hasn't need an upgrade near as often as I have, as I usually go the midrange route. I'm always more tempted to upgrade as new things come out because of how much better they usually are than my older midrange hardware.
croc - Monday, February 23, 2009 - link
Overall, an excellent article. But I found it a bit 'cluttered' with all of the bar graphs in three different formats. Perhaps a line graph with all formats might be just as cluttered... Hmm. Maybe one button to change the default resolution for the article instead of the one selection / graph might help? And possibly another button to look at bar or line graphs? Food for thought... My thought. Could I get a CSV file of the raw data?mhouck - Monday, February 23, 2009 - link
Great article Derek. I've been waiting for an update on the state of the multi gpu tech. Thank you for taking the time to include the 3 different resolutions and range of cards. Can't wait to see Tri and Quad gpu setups. Please keep the 1920x1200 resolutions in your upcoming article!sabrewolfy - Monday, February 23, 2009 - link
Great read. The single GPU/multiple GPU option is always a tough decision.On paper the 4850x2 2gb is awesome. Amazon was selling these for $260 AR awhile back. Although I was in the market for a new GPU, I didn't buy one. If you read the newegg reviews, 20% of buyers give it 1 or 2 stars. Issues include heat, noise, and poor driver support. The card is also 11.5" long. I'd have to mangle my hard drive cage to make it fit. At the end of the day, I'd rather spend another $50 (GTX 280) and get a card that runs quiet, cool, and just works without headaches.
dubyadubya - Monday, February 23, 2009 - link
Nvidia cards do not perform AA correctly or at all. This has been a problem since the 1xx.xx version drivers were released right up through the latest 182.06 drivers. 9x.xx drivers and prior do not have this problem. This can easily be reproduced by using a 6,7 or early 8 series card and swapping between a 9x.xx driver and any 1xx.xx driver. This test cant be done on newer cards because 9x.xx drivers do not support the hardware.Best case AA is only acting on objects close to your in game view point. Anything farther away gets no AA at all. Worst case AA does not function at all. This happens using the AA settings in game or through the driver it self. I find this problem most noticeable in racing games as there are lots of straight objects at a distance. ATI cards do not have this problem in my testing.
Nvidia forums has had several threads over the years about this problem. Here is 40 plus page thread about the problem. This thread was closed because someone said a bad word "ATI".
http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=58863...">http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=58863...
Nvidia has known about this problem near forever. I would guess its by design. Doing full screen AA takes horse power so if they limit or eliminate AA their cards will bench faster.
What really sucks is review sites seem not to care about image quality only FPS. While I'm on the subject what about 2d image quality and performance. Some of the newer cards just plain suck as far as 2d performance goes.
Now you may think I'm anti Nvidia well I'm not I'm running a 8800 GT in the box I'm typing this from. I tend to buy what I get the most bang for the buck from though the next card I buy will have working AA if you get the idea.
So Anandtech please start comparing 3d image quality in all reviews. While your at it test basic 2d image quality and 2d performance. Performance Test would be a good measure of 2d performance BTW.