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
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?