MultiGPU Update: Two-GPU Options in Depth
by Derek Wilson on February 23, 2009 7:30 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Power Consumption
All these results are taken at the wall (total system power) running the 3dmark Vantage POM (parallax occlusion mapping) shader test. This test uses very little other system resources and focuses on the GPU. This means that the numbers you see here are LOWER than total system power while playing a game -- often by more than 50W and sometimes 100W, depending on the game, benchmark and system. These numbers show clearer differences between GPU power draw, which is why we stick with them. These numbers should NOT be used to determine a proper PSU for a certain graphics card solution unless you consider a couple hundred watts of headroom in your calculation.
For idle power, NVIDIA's 55nm GT200 parts take the cake. We don't have a 55nm GTX 260 in house, but we would expect it's idle power to come in on par or lower than our GTX 285. AMD's 4850 hangs with the lower power NVIDIA options, but both the 512MB and 1GB 4870 variants pull more power than any of our other single GPU solutions.
For multiGPU options, SLI definitely draws the most power. The X2 single card multiGPU options are better than the two card solutions, and this carries over to NVIDIA as well with the GTX 295 coming in at lower power than 2x GTX 260s. If we had tested two 1GB 4870 cards, we would expect to see more than 285W power draw at idle, which is quite high indeed.
Things change up a bit when we explore load power draw. The lowest idle power parts end up drawing the most power under load. The additional draw of the GTX 280 and GTX 285 are not unexpected as they offer a typically higher level of performance for their power. All our multiGPU options do draw more power than all of our single GPU configurations, so, though we didn't calculate them, you can expect performance per watt advantages where ever a single GPU leads any multiGPU option in performance.
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?