MultiGPU Update: Two-GPU Options in Depth
by Derek Wilson on February 23, 2009 7:30 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
FarCry 2 Analysis
FarCry 2 is a good looking game with a well rounded graphics engine. We use the benchmark tool and a custom demo to test with ultra high graphics options while we try to minimize CPU impact.
1680x1050 1920x1200 2560x1600
Relative performance stays very consistent from 1680x1050 to 1920x1200 but looking at 2560x1600 tells a different story. Anything with 512MB of RAM just tanks in performance at the highest resolution. CrossFire and SLI can't help these lower memory parts keep up either. Even at lower resolutions it seems like the G9x based NVIDIA hardware just can't handle FarCry 2 very well at all. This make the 4850 a much better option than the 9800 GTX+.
1680x1050 1920x1200 2560x1600
As for scaling, SLI does really well with GT200 based cards and not so well with the 9800 GTX+. CrossFire scaling is very consistent between 1680x1050 and 1920x1200. Everything drops in scaling at 2560x1600 though. We expect that this is because of the increased memory and bandwidth requirements from the higher res.
1680x1050 1920x1200 2560x1600
Performance per dollar reveals the GTX 260 and GTX 260 SLI as the only NVIDIA options with value that competes with AMD solutions below 2560x1600. At the highest resolution, because of the memory limited performance issues, the value of our 512MB ATI cards drop to near the bottom of the heap. The Radeon HD 4850 X2 2GB is consistently high in value here and remains playable across all resolutions.
The settings we chose leave the G9x based parts (even in SLI) and the Radeon HD 4850 unplayable even at 1680x1050. Radeon HD 4870 level hardware and above can achieve the highest visual quality at the lowest res we tested. Pushing up, the 512MB 4870 drops a bit too much in performance to recommend at 1920x1200. The 1GB version of the 4870 holds on to playability and leads the GTX 260 core 216. At 2560x1600, the only single GPU option that barely gets by is the GTX 285. CrossFire and SLI (as long as the cards have more than 512MB of RAM) seem to have enough under the hood to run at the highest settings and resolution.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
95 Comments
View All Comments
Hauk - Monday, February 23, 2009 - link
To you grammer police... get a life will ya?!?Who gives a rats ass! It's the data!
Your smug comments are of ZERO value here. You want to critique, go to a scholarly forum and do so.
Your whining is more of a distraction! How's that for gramaticly correct?
Slappi - Tuesday, February 24, 2009 - link
It should be grammar not grammer.
SiliconDoc - Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - link
Grammatically was also spelled incorrectly.lol
The0ne - Monday, February 23, 2009 - link
"In general, more than one GPU isn't that necessary for 1920x1200 with the highest quality settings,..."I see many computer setups with 22" LCDs and lower that have high end graphic cards. It just doesn't make sense to have a high end card when you're not utilizing the whole potential. Might as well save some money up front and if you do need more power, for higher resolutions later, you can always purchase an upgrade at a lower cost. Heck, most of the time there will be new models out :)
Then again, I have a qaud-core CPU that I don't utilize too but... :D
7Enigma - Monday, February 23, 2009 - link
Everyone's situation is unique. In my case I just built a nice C2D system (OC'd to 3.8GHz with a lot of breathing room up top). I have a 4870 512meg that is definitely overkill with my massive 19" LCD (1280X1024). But within the year I plan on giving my dad or wife my 19" and going to a 22-24". Using your logic I should have purchased a 4850 (or even 4830) since I don't NEED the power. But I did plan ahead to future proof my system for when I can benefit from the 4870.I think many people also don't upgrade their systems near as frequently as some of the enthusiasts do. So we spend a bit more than we would need to at that particular time to futureproof a year or two ahead.
Different strokes and all that...
strikeback03 - Monday, February 23, 2009 - link
The other side of the coin is that most likely for similar money, you could have bought something now that more closely matches your needs, and a 4870 in a year once it has been replaced by a new card if it still meets your needs.7Enigma - Tuesday, February 24, 2009 - link
Of course. Or I could spend $60 now, another $60 in 3 months, and you see the point. It's all dependant on your actual need, your perceived need, and your desire to not have to upgrade frequently.I think the 4870 is one of those cards like the ATI 9800pro that has a perfect combination of price and performance to be a very good performer for the long haul (similarly to how the 8800GTS was probably the best part from a price/performance/longevity standpoint if you were to buy it the day it first came out).
Also important is looking at both companies and seeing what they are releasing in the next 3-6 months for your/my particular price range. Everything coming out seems to be focused either on the super high end, or the low end. I don't see any significant mid-range pieces coming out in the next 3-6 months that would have made me regret my purchase. If it was late summer or fall and I knew the next round of cards were coming out I *may* have opted for a 9600GT or other lower-midrange card to hold over until the next big thing but as it stands I'll get easily a year out of my card before I even feel the need to upgrade.
Frankly the difference between 70fps and 100fps at the resolutions I would be playing (my upgrade would be either to a 22 or 24") is pretty moot.
armandbr - Monday, February 23, 2009 - link
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/rad...">http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/rad...here you go
Denithor - Monday, February 23, 2009 - link
Second paragraph, closing comments:Fourth paragraph, closing comments:
Please remove the apostrophe from the first sentence (where it should read its) and instead move it to the second (which should be we're).
Otherwise excellent article. This is the kind of work I remember from years past that originally brought me to the site.
One thing - would it be too difficult to create a performance/watt chart based on a composite performance score for each single/pair of cards?
I do think you really pushed the 4850X2 a bit too much. The 9800GTX+ provides about the same level of performance (better in some cases, worse in others) and the SLI version manages to kick the crap out of the GTX 280/285 nearly across the board (with the exception of a couple of 2560x1600 memory-constricted cases) at a lower price point. That's actually in my mind one of the best performance values available today.
SiliconDoc - Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - link
Forget about Derek removing the apostrophe, how about removing the raging red fanboy ati drooling ?When the GTX260 SLI scores the 20 games runs of 21, and the 4850 DOESN'T, Derek is sure to mention not the GTX260, and on the very same page blab the 4850 sapphire "ran every test"...
This is just another red raging fanboy blab - so screw the apostrophe !
Nvidiai DISSED 'em because they can see the articles Derek posts here bleeding red all over the place.
DUH.