MultiGPU Update: Two-GPU Options in Depth
by Derek Wilson on February 23, 2009 7:30 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Race Driver GRID Analysis
This game can really hammer graphics memory at high resolution, but in general performance is very good with GRID across the board. This is a short FRAPS test on a straight section of track at the beginning of a race from the back of the pack.
1680x1050 1920x1200 2560x1600
All cards are playable below 2560x1600 with ultra quality settings in GRID. Moving up in resolution really benefits from more than 512MB of RAM, especially with multiGPU options. 9800 GTX+ SLI, the 9800 GX2, 4870 512MB CrossFire and 4850 CrossFire really tank in performance with the two ATI solutions even providing a negative "improvement." We'd love to see ATI and NVIDIA detect negative performance impact from multiGPU systems and automatically revert to a single GPU, but it's clear from today's tests that neither NVIDIA nor ATI have anything like that going on.
At 2560x1600, any single GPU except for the 9800 GTX+ can handle 2560x1600. We strongly recommend cards with more than 512MB of memory for running at this resolution though, as navigating the menu suffers quite dramatically inspite of playable performance on the track.
1680x1050 1920x1200 2560x1600
We see really good performance scaling in this game, especially from NVIDIA hardware. From 77% to 100% scaling at 1680x1050 and mid to high 80% scaling for 1920x1200 is very imprssive. The best AMD can muster under 2560x1600 is 69% scaling with the 4850. Of course, AMD single GPU options do provide higher performance than their competition from NVIDIA, but the scaling advantage does help the case for SLI here. Looking at 2560x1600, the two 512MB CrossFire options tank completely and 4870 1GB scaling increases to over 73%. SLI still looks better here with 82% to 90% scaling on GT200 based parts. The 9800 GTX+ still scales, but it's low memory and already low single card performance at 2560x1600 make it not a viable solution.
1680x1050 1920x1200 2560x1600
All this translates to our value data as well. Single GPU AMD solutions live up near the top of the chart at all resolutions, while SLI doesn't drop off in value as much as CrossFire (though CrossFire, because of the higher baseline performance and lower cost, tends to accumulate more value than SLI). The 9800 GTX+, because of it's low cost and high scaling, is the exception posting good value numbers for NVIDIA until we hit 2560x1600 (at which point it drops way off).
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
95 Comments
View All Comments
DerekWilson - Monday, February 23, 2009 - link
It really is a great looking game for an MMO. It's not the most played MMO around, but it is definitely the easiest to test. There is an area near the beginning where the player is alone in the environment and it's always the same time of day and all that stuff ... It takes out some of the factors that make getting consistent data out of other MMOs incredibly difficult.I've never had any real "issues" with it or with the results either. It's been very consistent as well. It does add value, and it's clear that games can be coded in a way that looks really good and perform like this one, so we feel it's important to getting a better feeling for what's out there and what's possible.
IKeelU - Monday, February 23, 2009 - link
Not really a big deal, but could you cut out the offhand game review comments when introducing benchmarks? I.e.: "Crysis Warhead, while not the best game around..." It feels out of place in a hardware analysis.SiliconDoc - Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - link
And Derek disses Far Cry 2 and Oblivioin where nvidia slaughters ati - then derek praises Bioshock where ati has an edge.Derek CAN'T HELP HIMSELF.
SiliconDoc - Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - link
Oh yes, and below don't forget the age of conan that favors the ati card - Derek can't stop drooling all over the place.Then come to COD, where nvidia once again slaughters - red blood everywhere - Derek says "do we really need another war game~" or the like.
Derek is red fan central and cannot stop himself.
The0ne - Monday, February 23, 2009 - link
This game is poorly programmed in the first place, does it deserve to even be included in the benchmark tests? Yes, it has the programming necessary to for the test but they're poorly programmed.IKeelU - Monday, February 23, 2009 - link
The fact that CryEngine 2 is taxing on today's hardware (and that Crytek will no doubt use derivatives of it in future games), makes it very useful in benchmarks. I hope reviewers keep using it. But by all means, feel free to disassemble Crytek's binaries and point out their code's weaknesses.Yeah, I thought not.
poohbear - Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - link
what do u mean they shouldnt include crysis warhead??? its the seminal game to see how graphics performance is to get an idea of how a particular video card will perfrom in the future. Cryengine2 is the most advanced graphics engine on the market. If a video card can provide 30 fps on a cryengine @ your resolution, then its good to last u for atleast 2 years.Razorbladehaze - Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - link
Yeah.... NO.I totally disagree with it being the most advanced. It is a decent game engine especially for benchmarking, but....
In all reality the STALKER Clear Sky revamped xray engine is far and away more advanced and superior in almost every way. It is about the same or better in regards to taxing the system (low frame rates does not necessarily translate to the game is taxing the system.). Being that these are also used in similar FPS titles they would make a interesting comparrison.
I would really like to see Anand include or swap a clear sky bench (there is a premade one available), for the Crysis or Crysis warhead. Either way no big deal many other sites post results with a CS bench that view all the time.
DerekWilson - Monday, February 23, 2009 - link
i'll take care of it.Stillglade - Monday, February 23, 2009 - link
I would love to see more info about the 4850 X2 1GB version. For over $50 cheaper, is the 1GB memory enough to compete? Is it worth paying 24% more for the 2GB version that you reviewed here?