MultiGPU Update: Two-GPU Options in Depth
by Derek Wilson on February 23, 2009 7:30 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Fallout 3 Analysis
Try as we might, Fallout 3 performance is very limited by LOD optimizations. We tweaked the .ini files as much as we could to make performance GPU limited, but we just shifted maximum performance down across the board. This is similar to how Oblivion behaved with single card solutions, but this time even multiGPU solutions are affected. It's not a failing of the game, as we do recommend turning on vsync and (if possible) triple buffering when gaming; it just makes testing "goodness" of a graphics card more difficult.
1680x1050 1920x1200 2560x1600
None of our single GPU options hits the frame limit, which does help. Everything runs fine at 1680x1050 and all the multiGPU options are essentially equivalent in performance at this resolution. Moving up to 1920x1200, we see a similar situation, but the 9800 GX2 starts to fall off a bit. Luckily 2560x1600 offers us a better look at what cards stand up when really pushed by Bethesda's modified Gamebryo engine.
Graphics memory becomes a factor at high resolution, and the multiGPU options with only 512MB per card tank in performance. Both 9800 series options and the 4870 512MB / 4850 CrossFire options drop off sharply in performance. This leaves the 4870 X2 and 4850 X2 solutions in competition with the latest and greatest from NVIDIA at the top of the heap. It's clear that the highest end NVIDIA parts have more headroom still, but unfortunately this test won't reveal everything they can do. The 4850 X2 2GB and GTX 260 SLI do drop a little off the frame limit, but the drop isn't hugely consequential.
1680x1050 1920x1200 2560x1600
Scaling data is horrible here because of the limited framerate. Basically, rather than looking at how much better two cards perform, the metric is how slow the single card is. Thus the best scaling we see in this game comes from the 9800 GTX+ and the 4850 until we hit 2560x1600. When we start to finally get a glimpse of real scaling in Fallout 3, the GT200 based NVIDIA cards definitely take the cake.
1680x1050 1920x1200 2560x1600
In terms of value, the frame limit also hurts multiGPU solutions because despite the increased cost, you can only squeeze so much performance out of the hardware. Once again, we note though that the 4850 X2 has very good value and good performance especially compared to the single GTX 280 and 285.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
95 Comments
View All Comments
nubie - Sunday, March 1, 2009 - link
Have you ever used a tool or edited the game profile yourself?I had an 8800GTS 320MB that I used with AA extensively (Also with 3D stereoscopic), and I was told on a forum to use nHancer to modify the profile into a specific mode of Anti-Aliasing, I am pretty sure it worked. It was the beta 162.50 Quadro drivers I believe, you can just put your card's id into the inf and they install and work great.
It is possible the drivers work great and the control panel/GUI is piss-poor (a theory that may hold water).
I wish that nVidia would open up the drivers a little so that control freaks like myself could really tweak the settings to where I want them.
Razorbladehaze - Monday, February 23, 2009 - link
Yeah In my main rig right now i have a i7 920 with two 1gb 4850's i recently bought a third 4850 and installed it. There was some funky flickering, that i think was driver related in BF2 and HoI2 in 3-way mode, but most games seemed okay. Funny thing is... same thing happened when i tried a 3870x2 & 3870 in 3 way on my older x38 core2. I am really hoping these next articles will come with some additional commentary on image quality.To the person who stated that the 9800gtx+ was comparable to the 4850x2. What R U thinking???
I have never really had a problem with any crossfire setups before except with 3-way and i wonder if it is the odd gpu count and if 4 would eliminate some issues. Looking forward the the upcoming articles, this is mostly a teaser with information many already knew.
I agree that the new format for graphs looks good line graphs are crap visually, but i think the default should be the 1920x1080/1200 that most people are interested in based on your survey data : )
See I pay attention.
SiliconDoc - Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - link
THANK YOU !" Yeah In my main rig right now i have a i7 920 with two 1gb 4850's i recently bought a third 4850 and installed it. There was some funky flickering, that i think was driver related in BF2 and HoI2 in 3-way mode, but most games seemed okay. Funny thing is... same thing happened when i tried a 3870x2 & 3870 in 3 way on my older x38 core2. I am really hoping these next articles will come with some additional commentary on image quality. "
________
Another PERFECT REASON to not mention "image quality" - the red fan boy wins again - assist +7 by Derek !
Amazing.
Thank you.
MagicPants - Monday, February 23, 2009 - link
Have you tried forcing on transparency super-sampling? If you don't edges defined by transparency in the texture won't AA. By default Nvidia (ATI?) only AA edges defined by depth difference.SiliconDoc - Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - link
I've seen one review on that, with the blown up edged images, and the ati cards don't smooth and blurr as well - they have more jaggies - so they HAVE to leave that out here - cause you know Derek loves that red 4850 and all the red cards -Elfear - Monday, February 23, 2009 - link
Derrick (or anyone else for that matter) can you comment on why the 4870 512MB Crossfire solution generally performed better than the 4870X2?SiliconDoc - Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - link
Or WHY the GTX260 isn't praised to the stars for running 20 of 21 tests successfully - taking THE WIN !I guess it doesn;t matter when a gamer spends hundreds and hundreds on their dual gpu setup then it epic fails at games... gosh that wouldn't be irritating, would it ?
Amazing red bias...chizo pointed out the sapphire 4850 / other 4850 driver issues thankfully, while Derek has a special place in his heart for the bluebacked red card, and says so in the article - then translates that to ALL 4850's.
DREAM ON if you think that would happen with ANY GREEN card Derek has ever tested!
MagicPants - Monday, February 23, 2009 - link
I'd like to see an article that rates overall systems in price to performance. Try to get as high as fps for the least amount of money spent.As one reader mentioned frame rate below 15 fps doesn't count because it's unplayable, so just pick a number between 10 and 15 and subtract it from the fps. Maybe vary it by game. Frame rates over 60fps shouldn't count either because most monitors can't even show that.
This would be interesting because even small tweaks would make a difference e.g. adding a $60 sound card might get you 4 or 5 fps in a few games and might pay for itself.
marsbound2024 - Monday, February 23, 2009 - link
It doesn't look like the GTX 260 Core 216 provides much, if any, tangible benefit over the GTX 260 according to these tests. Sure it had some wins, but they weren't very big ones and it also had some loses--albeit not very big ones either. One would be tempted to just get a GTX 260 or 4850 and wait to upgrade until the next generation of cards come out this summer. The time is getting close, anyways.SiliconDoc - Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - link
Good call.Even the 4830 or the 9800GT twice either, or the 9800gtx gts250 or 9600gt or 9600gso twice each - or the ati the ati - uhh... uh... do the reds have their "midrange" filled up ? Uh.. the 4670 ?
LOL
Yeah, nvidia needs more midrange - right ?
LOL
THE RED LIARS ARE SOMETHING ELSE!